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]
The Great Marriage Debate

By undermyne in Op-Ed
Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 04:17:02 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

With all of the noise in the press recently about gay marriage, I decided that perhaps a non conventional, religious-based viewpoint might be of interest. Being tired of hearing statements like "The Sanctity of Marriage", I could no longer abide the sanctimony of it all.


A roar went up from the crowd recently when the Supremes sang a song that basically said "your room, your business". Of course, the crowd was the "religious right", and the roar was more of a scream. The fact that the ruling was a victory for personal privacy, regardless of sexual preference, was lost on the sheeple that now bleat for "the sanctity of marriage".

Recent studies show that almost 1 million people a year are getting divorced and another 2.3 mil will get an annulment, usually after a weekend in Vegas. I have seen studies that say as many as 50% of all marriages will end in divorce, so why is it that people are getting all bent out of shape about gay marriage? Well, besides the fact that most activist Christians are being led by a few select individuals, many believe that allowing gay marriage will lead to further "corruption" of the marital institution (or their perception of such). If you look at it from a strictly religious point of view, most married Christians/Catholics/Et.Al. surrendered their right to complain about marital sanctity the moment they signed a marriage certificate and made the state a third party in their two party union. For the most part, the types of people that spend time getting all worked up about these types of issues are too busy to read what their bible has to say about the topic; they simply follow the mouthpiece for that cause. No level of government has any business being in the marriage business to begin with. Since many have taken the step of including the government, they must now be subject to the decisions made in that venue. A government of the people has a responsibility to all of those people to provide equality in all areas of responsibility.

To say that recognizing gay marriage would be a blight on the institution is to assume that the institution is unblemeshed. High divorce rates, people not wanting to get married for fear of getting divorced, and Drew Barrymore marrying Tom Green are all signs that marriage "ain't what it used to be". Currently, many of the EU member states recognize some form of civil union; however, the only western nations that recognize gay marriages are the Netherlands and Belgium. "Married" gay people in the Netherlands have the same rights as their hetero counterparts, including custody of children, inheritance of property and hospital visitation rights. Why not let the sodomites (and hot lesbian action types) get married, have a tax break, and get a divorce like everyone else. At the end of the day there are more important things for the religious right to worry about.

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
What do you think of gay marriage?
o There is nothing as hot as two women kissing, I'm all for it! 50%
o I am against it. 11%
o What do I care, marriage is a joke. 21%
o Only if it's defined as a civil union 3%
o I'm more into animal husbandry 0%
o My cat's breath smells like cat food. 12%

Votes: 180
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Recent studies
o few select individuals
o sodomites
o tax break
o more important things
o worry about
o Also by undermyne


Display: Sort:
The Great Marriage Debate | 223 comments (184 topical, 39 editorial, 4 hidden)
gay marriage is a threat?! (2.76 / 25) (#2)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 04:17:07 PM EST

gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage like the belief in mythological creatures like leprechauns is a threat to the catholic church
what do i mean?

if you think marriage is a weak, fragile institution, then you view gay marriage as a threat

if you believe heterosexual marriage to be what it is: a union between two people, strong for some couples, weak for others, regardless of other factors, then you come to the easy and obvious conclusion that what bob and frank do in apartment 10g has no bearing on what sally and fred do in apartment 7d

fact: if you think gay marriage is a threat the sanctity of marriage, then you see the institution of marriage as weak

if you think gay marriage is no threat to heterosexual marriage, then you see the institution of marriage is strong

see?

what message are we sending to society about permissiveness by allowing gay marriage you ask? well, dumbasses, what message are we sending to society by seeing gay marriage as some horrible threat? man the turrets! those damn gay wedding cakes are going to forever cast a spectre across heterosexual couples shacking up! ;-P

so all you who think gay marriage is a threat to hetero's tying the knot, you better get worried asbout them leprechauns, because clearly, the pagan belief in little green men with pots of gold at the end of rainbows is a clear and present danger to the strength of the catholic church in ireland

not! ;-P

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

Agreed, but... (none / 1) (#3)
by PowerPimp on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 04:34:35 PM EST

The issue isn't whether or not Frank and Bob's actions effect Fred and Sally, because they may very well have repecussions that might make them feel all sorts of grief. The issue is whether or not the effect that the existence and government endorsement of their union will have on society and on Sally and Fred's marriage is worth legislating on...




(The answer is no, btw)



You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
of course it's worth legislating on (none / 2) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 05:08:57 PM EST

you seem to think that the judgment as to whether or not it is legislated on is decided by logic and thought

you apparently missed the uproar over "in god we trust" in the pledge of allegiance and the 10 commandments in the alabama
state capitol

it's worth legislating on as decided by histrionic drama queen politics (pun intended), not logic

dude: we're talking about the losing their little head hysteria and the panties in a knot hissy fits of the religious right here (snicker), not the cold, reasonable logic of your philosophy class final essay

so is it worth legislating on? of course not!

but you are asking the wrong people... ask the religious right if it's worth legislating on

and so as long as they are in uproar, we have to wait and calm the light headed sissy fundamentalists down (chortle)

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

[ Parent ]

heh (none / 1) (#4)
by ShadowNode on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 04:35:55 PM EST

The sort of people who get worked up about gay marriage are the same ones who get worked up about all those pagans worshiping satan.

[ Parent ]
Even worse (none / 1) (#52)
by abracadada on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:33:53 AM EST

The people that get all worked up about gay marriage must have at least some overlap with the people who freak out about their kids reading Harry Potter.

Get over it!  You've raised your kids in the environment you believed was right.  If their belief is so fragile as to be completely shattered by a storybook, this is a failing of you, your religious institution of choice, or both.

I mean, I read The Hobbit when I still was not This Tall To Ride This Ride.  Did I suddenly decide that the Protestants were wrong?  Of course not.
WMBC online freeform/independent radio.
[ Parent ]

Sadly, that's not entirely true... (none / 0) (#86)
by skeptic on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:34:28 PM EST

I know many agnostics that think gay marriage is wrong. If you ask them why it's wrong, they don't know why. "It just doesn't seem right" is the most common response (in my opinion, it doesn't seem right to hold an opinion without any basis or reasoning). Right now the radical religious right is out in protest, but the average joe is still fairly upset about the idea of gay marriage even if they don't march against it.

[ Parent ]
Holy crap! (none / 2) (#17)
by BadDoggie on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:39:09 PM EST

I don't think you ever got six 3-ratings even when we had the 5-point system!

Oh, and you saved me writing my response, so here comes number seven.

woof.

"Eppur si muove." -- Galileo Galilei
"Nevertheless, it moves."
[ Parent ]

The real threat is (none / 3) (#62)
by trimethyl on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:38:08 PM EST

not that homosexuals will live together (they already do), but that once society loses the ability to differentiate between selfless unions (traditional marriage) and selfish unions (gay marriage, cohabitating couples, etc..), marriages will lose their protected status.

The problem is that if Adam and Steve's relationship is seen in the same terms that Bob and Sally's, then Legislator Joe sees no reason to confer special benefits on married people. After all, why should we give special benefits to two people just because they love each other? Isn't the love shared between them enough?

Sadly, it isn't. The traditional marriage serves as a foundation for tomorrow's society, and because of such, deserves recognition separate from gay unions. The traditional marriage both produces and raises children; the nature of the relationship and challenges the couple will face are much different from those of Adam and Steve. Traditional marriage requires committment and self-sacrifice; it requires learning to live with someone who thinks in a fundamentally different manner; it requires service to the community in raising children (if the couple is able). Homosexual relationships can never posses these qualities to the degree that a marriage can. And because of this, and the hardship involved in raising children, we as a society should recognize and support the traditional marriage.

Discrimination should not be base on immutable - that is, unchangeable, characteristics. In general, the State has a right to recognize and extend special benefits to individuals based on the choices they have made. There is nothing wrong with the State paying National Guardsmen who have voluntarily enlisted, even though it has the authority to make military service compulsory. In a similar vein, the State may choose to recognize marriages in light of the committment and sacrifices of the married couple; the State has the right to confer special benefits on the couple in much the same manner as it does the soldier. In both cases, the benefits are the result of the chosen behavior of the parties involved.

Furthermore, someone unwilling to undertake the committment and sacrifice required for a traditional marriage simply doesn't deserve the credit for having done so. It's a matter of merit - Gays simply choose against marriage; the State has no obligation to recognize their relationship as a marriage if it lacks any of the fundamental parts of a marriage. If one desires the societal benefits afforded to married couples, one should at least make the same committment that married couples make. Otherwise, the State has no obligation to provide, nor does the couple deserve, any special benefits or protected status.



[ Parent ]
you have a simplistic view of the world (none / 3) (#65)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:27:16 PM EST

gay marriage is a fraction of straight marriage, always will be

there are lots of childless "selfish" marriages, gay marriag eis and always will be a fractin of that

gay marriages adopt children, lots of them, lots of hetero children, lots of hetero children who get lots of love they wouldn't normally get

i will wager you that would gay marriage be legalized, more children would get loving homes than they do now

as if those "selfish" gay marriages aren't already happening, with or without what society publicly permits

you're a toadstool dude, with your "selfish" propaganda verbiage that you smack onto gay marriage, with your reasonable thinking tone in what you say and the way you say it, but at the same time, complete and utter disavowal of the facts i've outlined above that are plain as day obvious to anyone

you're just twisitng facts to push an agenda, you ar enot analyzing the way things as they already are, no hypothetizing even necessary on my part

fucking toadstool

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

[ Parent ]

Fatal Flaw (3.00 / 6) (#68)
by virg on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:46:48 PM EST

> The traditional marriage both produces and raises children;

Therefore, produce any argument that childless heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry, or remain married when it becomes unlikely that they'll sire any children. Make sure that your argument meshes with your argument against gay marriage.

This is a fatal flaw. Drop your argument, or lobby for an amendment that defines marriage as being a couple raising one or more children of their own procreation. Your definition is biased, because it views childless heterosexual couples and childless homosexual couples differently. Unless you can present some reason why that's so that matches the argument you already presented, you will need to abandon your point.

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 ]
thank you (none / 2) (#70)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:04:13 PM EST

you represent the victory of obvious logic over fucktwit propaganda


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

[ Parent ]
Not really... (none / 1) (#131)
by trimethyl on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:38:57 PM EST

In the first place, some couples may not have the financial resources to raise children when they first marry. If these are denied tax benefits for their married status, they may never be able to save enough money to start a family, or may delay such until much later. Because a woman's fertile years are finite, any delay reduces the number of children a couple is able to have.

Secondly, the marriage which does not produce children is really the exception rather than the rule. I simply have never met a married couple over 40 (whom married young) without children. I'm sure they exist, but we are talking about a truly exceptional condition.

But let's for a moment consider the childless homosexual and heterosexual couples. Clearly, they don't contribute to society by raising their own children. But heterosexual couples still contribute to society in ways which homosexual couples can't:

  • An adopted child raised in a heterosexual household will have both male and female role models. From one, they child will learn how they themselves should act; from the other, they will learn how to treat members of the opposite sex.
  • The difference between the sexes produces a situation in which each must learn to love and live with someone who is inherently different from themselves. They have to learn to think of the interests of others, rather than just their own. This development of character in turn benefits the rest of society.
Even in the worst case scenario (no children, natural or otherwise), a heterosexual couple contributes more to society than a homosexual couple.

The worst case scenario for heterosexual couples is truly a rarity. However, the best case scenario for heterosexual marriages offers for more than a homosexual marriage ever could. A heterosexual couple having children gains:

  • The joy and fulfillment of raising children that are the result of the sexual act between them and their spouse.
  • The maturity of character and peace that come from learning to love someone inherently different from one's self.
  • The assurance that their spouse truly loves them. A woman who has a man love her through pregnancy is assured that her husband did not marry her solely for her sexual appeal. A man who sees a woman raising his children (who share his traits, yet don't contribute financially) can be assured that his wife does not love him merely for his money.
  • The ability to shape the future of society.
  • The ability to give back to the community by raising children.
  • An increase in love gained not by just loving each other, but their children as well.



[ Parent ]
Measured Response (none / 0) (#145)
by virg on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 04:22:20 PM EST

I almost decided against replying, because your view of what a marriage is and why it is are so badly skewed, but I feel I must, if only so your arguments don't take on the sheen of respectability.

> In the first place, some couples may not have the financial resources to raise children when they first marry. If these are denied tax benefits for their married status, they may never be able to save enough money to start a family, or may delay such until much later. Because a woman's fertile years are finite, any delay reduces the number of children a couple is able to have.

This is irrelevant because it applies equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and because I never argued that married people should lose their tax benefits.

> Secondly, the marriage which does not produce children is really the exception rather than the rule.

This is irrelevant for the same reason that mentioning interracial marriages is irrelevant. What difference does it make if it's relatively rare? Does that somehow make a childless couple less married?

> But let's for a moment consider the childless homosexual and heterosexual couples. Clearly, they don't contribute to society by raising their own children. But heterosexual couples still contribute to society in ways which homosexual couples can't...

This is the part that I want to highlight, because it shows how truly limited your scope is. Your simple implication is that because (in your opinion, which I do not share) homosexual couples can't contribute in ways that heterosexual couples can, that they don't contribute at all. If you do not mean to imply that they don't contribute, then do you propose to limit marriage solely on the basis of some minimum level of contribution to society? If you don't propose that, then why limit gay marriage based on contribution but not straight marriage the same way?

Now, your bullet points:

> An adopted child raised in a heterosexual household will have both male and female role models. From one, they child will learn how they themselves should act; from the other, they will learn how to treat members of the opposite sex.

Do you seriously wish to imply that a child raised in any household has only his or her parents as role models?

> The difference between the sexes produces a situation in which each must learn to love and live with someone who is inherently different from themselves. They have to learn to think of the interests of others, rather than just their own. This development of character in turn benefits the rest of society.

Do you really want to posit that the only difference between any two given people is their gender, and that one cannot by nature learn to think of someone else's interests if that person happens to be the same gender? You can't be this dense.

> Even in the worst case scenario (no children, natural or otherwise), a heterosexual couple contributes more to society than a homosexual couple.

Oh, so it seems after all that you DO want to limit marriage based on the level of contribution to society at large. Whether two people love each other is apparently irrelevant, unless that lack of love interferes with contributing to society. If you detect hyperbole here, you're doing well. Firstly, worst case scenario? Who do you think you are to decide that not having children is somhow worse for a married couple than having them? Second, even if a heterosexual couple contributes more to society (again, I strongly disagree with this concept), why forbid the homosexual couple from marrying and contributing whatever they can? Your argument returns again and again to the idea that if you can't have an ideal marriage (by your very damaged definition of ideal) that you shouldn't have a marriage at all.

> A heterosexual couple having children gains...

This is irrelevant, because I could spend all day listing the gains a childless couple draws from marriage, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. Why you would deny someone the joy they can draw from marriage because it falls short of your own ideal of marriage is beyond me, unless you are so afraid of the frailty of marriage that you think it couldn't possibly stand up to less-than-ideal circumstances. I personally have much more faith in the institution, and I would seek to allow anyone to partake of it who wants to, so that they can find happiness in whatever way they see fit.

To put it shortly, you seem to think that the ideal and sole reason for marriage is having children, and you're hideously mistaken about that. Marriage is about love. To say that someone should be forbidden to marry unless their love fits in your little shoebox world is lunacy.

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 ]
Love and all that (none / 0) (#174)
by mwood on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 09:33:57 AM EST

Indeed.  "Even if I speak God's Word and know every kind of hidden truth and have every kind of knowledge, even if I have all the faith to move mountains but don't have any love, I'm nothing."

A marriage made solely to produce children would be miserable, a hideous travesty of the relationship that God seems to have intended.

[ Parent ]

BASTARD! (none / 0) (#183)
by CodeWright on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 06:10:02 PM EST

You have done nothing to address the issues of marriage between an elevator and a taxicab.

I am cancelling my subscription to your newsletter.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Ummm (none / 0) (#74)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 05:09:26 PM EST

At some point were you going to get to the threat? You seemed to veer off into some wierd claim that gays can't commit or sacrifice as well as straights can.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
In case you missed it... (none / 0) (#124)
by trimethyl on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:39:36 AM EST

Legislators would reduce the benefits to married couples because they no longer perceived the benefit of doing so. IOW, a man and woman who married could end up worse off in terms of taxes and legal rights than had they stayed single.



[ Parent ]
I didn't miss that. (none / 0) (#154)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:07:01 PM EST

That's pretty tenuous. People may be complaining now that gays would "devalue marriage", but I expect that once gays were married, people would be just as pro- or anti-marriage as they were before.

In addition, there are many more heterosexuals than homosexuals, and most of them are married. What makes you think that your hypothetical Legislator Joe could get away with removing legal rights from married couples? Do you think that a heterosexual married couple would be willing to give up their rights just because gays have them?

I suspect that you are flailing about to find a rational reason to oppose gay marriage because you have an emotional aversion to it. If there is a rational reason, I haven't heard it, and I've read a fair bit on the subject. If you find one, let me know.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Dimwit religious nut. (none / 3) (#95)
by ekj on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:01:51 AM EST

Your so called "argument" is fundamentally flawed for something like half a dozen reasons. Here are a few.
  • The logical way to support child-raising would be to give tax-breaks, not for marriage, but for *child-raising*. (DUH!) That way you'd also help all those who raise a child alone. (unless you're living with head-in-sand you're aware of this reality.)
  • The logical consequence of your thinking is that sterile people should be forbidden form marrying. For exactly the same reasons you want to prevent gays from marrying. Marriages where no child is produces within a "reasonable time" should also be invalidated. That is, if you where really showing a coherent argument rather than trying to wrap your prejudices in plausible-sounding gobbelydok.
  • You should be in favour of artificial insemination for lesbian woman, and those that go trough it, or let a man make one of them pregnant, should be allowed to marry. Probably they should get double benefits since a lesbian couple can get twice as many kids as a hetero couple if they choose to.
  • Gays should also be allowed to marry, if they adopt a kid. Strange thing is, you religious fuckwits typically figth with tooth and claw to *restrict* them from doing exactly that. Go figure.
  • Many countries on earth have way *too* many kids, and choose to reward those who have few children (example: china), your "argument" falls even more flat on its nose in those countries. (unless you really do mean that *hetero* couples should be forbidden from marrying in china...)


[ Parent ]
Point by point (none / 1) (#133)
by trimethyl on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:03:09 PM EST

My argument does not lead to any of the conclusions you stated because:
  • Tax benefits are already given based on the number of children one supports. So this one is a moot point.
  • Sterile marriages still contribute to the society by improving the character of the spouses. (Mentioned in another post, so I won't repeat it here.)
  • Studies have shown that children raised in households without both a father and mother have a much greater likelihood of becoming criminals. Furthermore, I would argue that every child has a right to be raised by their biological parents, and lacking this, by both a man and a woman. A child learns how to act from one sex, and how to treat the opposite sex from the other. A lesbian or gay couple would specifically deny a child this fundamental right.
  • Again, it is not in the best interest of either the child or society at large to let gays or lesbians raise children, because of the examples stated previously.
  • A country never has "way too many children". Countries such as China remain locked in poverty because they simply don't have enough children. What happens is that zero population growth results in children bearing a disproportionately larger burden of caring for their parents when compared to societies with large population growth. China's problem is that they see children as more of a drain on finite resources than the potential to create wealth. In a society with no population growth, economics is always a zero-sum equation. You simply cannot give to one without taking from someone else. But in populations with growth, this is not so; the children become producers and consumers and the overall volume of trade increases. Thus, one can get rich without depriving another of wealth. Communist China seems not to understand this.


[ Parent ]
A study on homosexual couples? (none / 0) (#137)
by MBH on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:29:45 PM EST

Studies have shown that children raised in households without both a father and mother have a much greater likelihood of becoming criminals.

Really? You have a study which compares children raised by heterosexual parents vs. those raised by homosexual parents? The only studies I've seen that shows increased criminal tendency have come from comparing married households to SINGLE households. And these are usually explained by a reduction in income and reduced supervision of the child.

If you have such a study, can you please provide the cite?

[ Parent ]

point by point again (none / 2) (#138)
by Baldrson Neutralizer on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 02:42:28 PM EST

  • Tax benefits are already given...

    It's not a moot point. Married couples with no children still get benefits not given to single people or people living in sin.

  • Sterile marriages still contribute...

    Prove this, and prove that homosexual marriages couldn't also function in the same way. You are just making shit up. People can still love each other without having children come into the picture.

  • Studies have shown that children raised in households without both a father and mother...

    There are many dysfunctional and single parent heterosexual families. Perhaps you are advocating that divorce be illegal. Fortunately most of the western world disagrees with you on that one, too.

  • Again, it is not in the best interest...

    This is your only somewhat valid point because we don't really know what would happen to our society.

  • A country never has "way too many children".

    Tell that to the people in Bangladesh or India. Seriously, the solution to the worlds problems is to have more children? wow.



Modern life, in EVERY ASPECT, is a cult of mediocrity.-trhurler
[ Parent ]
Well, for starters... (none / 0) (#175)
by trimethyl on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:01:31 AM EST

prove that homosexual marriages couldn't also function in the same way.

Actually, I think the burden is on homosexual couples to show that what they feel for each other is indeed love, rather than abject lust. Why would homosexuals "marry" for any reason other than lust? It's not as if a man could ever complete another man, or a woman complete another woman; after all, what would be gained if a man gave another man what he already had? Instead, in marriage, a woman gives herself to a man and a man gives himself to a woman, and both are complete. In a homosexual relationship, neither is made complete because they will always lack the complementarity of the opposite sex.

But again, this is still pointless because it is impossible for a homosexual couple to get "married" with the intent of having children with their partner. While one may question the motives for some heterosexual couples as well, homosexual "marriage" is an outright and explicit rejection of what true marriage is all about: family. A homosexual marriage explicitly denies bringing forth children. In a way, a homosexual marriage is antagonist to the future of society, because its union cannot bring forth children naturally.

You might be tempted to apply this to sterile couples, but they are a different case entirely. In the case of sterile couples, sexual fertility is not wasted, but rather, never available in the first place. There is a large difference between someone unable to provide society with future generations and someone able but unwilling. While there are those married couples who choose not to have children, the implicit assumption is that as the couple matures, at some point they will desire to have children. OTOH, homosexual couples "marrying" are in effect making a promise to the state that their union will not contribute children to the future society. They may contribute children individually, but not as a union.



[ Parent ]
Ah, okay... (none / 0) (#178)
by MBH on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:26:43 PM EST

So you WOULD approve of homosexual marriage if it could produce children, then? Like, say, taking the genetic material of two women, combining them, and implanting the newly fertilized egg in one of the women's womb? This way, a child is "brought forth", and a family is created.

[ Parent ]
you don't get married because of lust (none / 0) (#181)
by Baldrson Neutralizer on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:15:18 PM EST

you get married because:
a) you knock her up and it's the right thing to do
b) you love the person and want to make a lifelong commitment to love

And regarding this completing each other paradigm you mention, why should you be able to dictate what love is to other people? You don't love somebody because of the body parts they may or may not have. You love them because of many different reasons. Sexual feelings can add to this feeling of love (I think sex is just a relic of our evolutionary past anyways, but ignore that for now). Some people are sexually attracted to the same sex (homosexuals!) and, what do you know, this feeling is directed towards people who have similar parts that they have. So they can't love a member of the opposite sex in the same way as you can. It's reality. It might be wrong, it might be selfish, it might be the beginning of ragnarok, but it's reality. You can accept what actually is, or you can try to enforce your preconceptions on the rest of the world that doesn't necessarily hold the same beliefs as you. You could be wrong, has that ever occurred to you?

Marriage is about the family, ok I get that. Call it "legalized unions" for everybody, who cares.


Modern life, in EVERY ASPECT, is a cult of mediocrity.-trhurler
[ Parent ]

Well yes, but... (none / 0) (#200)
by trimethyl on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 11:50:42 AM EST

You don't love somebody because of the body parts they may or may not have. You love them because of many different reasons.

Marriage isn't the only outlet for love. Love is shared among friends, family members, and lovers. And not being married doesn't mean two people don't love each other; being married means that two people have decided to share a certain kind of love between each other. It is this kind of love which homosexuals explicitly deny.

The crux of the issue is that gays want the rest of the world to recognize their unions as marriages when they explicitly deny the fundamental elements thereof. It's almost like that time when the Kansas legislature drafted legislation to change the value of pi to 3. I suppose you could legally declare the Earth to be flat, but that wouldn't change the reality thereof. The same is true with marriage - if two people won't make the same committment that I did, I don't see why I should recognize it as such, especially when it is completely different.

I guess what it really comes down to is telling the truth. Gays are afraid that if the public is allowed to distinguish between marriages and civil unions, then people will start to consider just why the two are different. And I think that gays understand that if most people thought about the issue, they'd come to a different conclusion about their lifestyle than gays would like.

Call it "legalized unions" for everybody, who cares.

Um, that's what Massachussetts tried, but gay activists weren't satisfied, so they sued.



[ Parent ]
Please explain. (none / 0) (#209)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:07:38 AM EST

The same is true with marriage - if two people won't make the same committment that I did

Which commitment is that?

[ Parent ]

Committment. (none / 0) (#216)
by trimethyl on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 01:38:48 PM EST

In a nutshell:

  1. To love my wife until "death do us part", and:
  2. To be open to having and raising children with my wife.
This isn't the full version of the marriage vows, but it's the part crucial to the argument. The union was between a man and a woman open to fertility.

The second promise cannot be made by homosexual couples. The act of homosexual sex explicitly excludes children as a result of the sexual love between two people.



[ Parent ]
Breeding (none / 0) (#217)
by Shadowfoot on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 11:36:50 PM EST

So you see your only purpose on earth is to breed?

[ Parent ]
Marriage: Lust or Love? (none / 0) (#199)
by Shadowfoot on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 05:53:27 AM EST

Actually, I think the burden is on homosexual couples to show that what they feel for each other is indeed love, rather than abject lust.
Perhaps something like the first gay couple to marry in San Francisco, or is 51 years together not long enough for you to be sure it's lust?
It's not as if a man could ever complete another man, or a woman complete another woman; after all, what would be gained if a man gave another man what he already had?
My partner made me complete. He brought me down to earth while I showed him the skies. He was handy, I'm not. He was spontaneous, I plan. He was impatient, I was very patient with him. He made me happy. No woman has ever done all that for me, and I have a lot of women friends.

[ Parent ]
So... (none / 0) (#201)
by trimethyl on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 12:12:54 PM EST

How exactly would this differ from two people being close friends - aside from the sex?

By choosing a homosexual lifestyle, you've committed to either 1.) not producing any children, or 2.) raising children without their natural mother.

It isn't marriage. It isn't worth the respect given to marriage.

The gay community would do well to take a lesson from their promiscuous heterosexual counterparts. Heterosexuals have engaged in loving sexual relationships without getting married for quite some time now. These couples aren't pushing to have their relationships called marriages because they rightfully recognize that they are not marriages. They recognize that marriage is a big step, and for whatever reason, they choose not to do it. They aren't trying to force their version of "marriage" on us; they aren't trying to force us to accept their lifestyle. And the interesting thing is that even though society at large disapproves of this lifestyle, they've learned to tolerate it because the participants are at least honest and truthful about what they're doing. They don't put up any pretenses about their relationships being anything more than they actually are.



[ Parent ]
Choosing? (none / 0) (#204)
by Shadowfoot on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:12:48 AM EST

Are you suggesting that to have children I have to pretend to be heterosexual and marry a woman?

[ Parent ]
No, (none / 0) (#211)
by trimethyl on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:39:01 PM EST

Just stop trying to convince the world that "gay marriage" is really a marriage.

Perhaps I'm bordering on being offensive, but I see no good reason for someone who lacks sexual feelings for the opposite sex to be involved in a sexual relationship at all. The greatest aspects of heterosexual sex are not physical - they are emotional. The bonds formed between husband and wife and (biological) parents and children can never form in a homosexual relationship. The sexual release is a grace provided to thwart adultery, not an end in itself.

So the only possible reason why one might engage in homosexual sex is to release sexual tension, or release another's. The first is entirely selfish. The second may be undertaken for "good motives" but it is not without damage; by giving into to the other partner's lust, the other partner becomes more enslaved, more controlled by their own carnal desires. Instead of assisting someone in the freeing of their will, it instead makes a person a greater slave of their passions.

The key problem is that people have this belief that sexual satisfaction is the ultimate ideal of human existence. It isn't. Loving and being loved by God is mankind's ideal state. The first viewpoint leaves no room for homosexuals*, but not the second. The second sees homosexuality as a "disordered condition", a plausible defense for not serving God through the vocation of marriage. IOW, gays simply serve God by remaining celibate, where heterosexuals do by marrying and procreating.

But even from a secular position, it is easy to see why non-marrieds vs marrieds should receive different treatment. Married couples shape the society of the future through children; non-marrieds shape society today. The civic roles are different; they demand different consideration.

* - One might be very tempted to argue, "if sexual satisfaction is the ideal, why not let gays have sex?" What happens is that homosexuality and stable "unions" are inherently at odds with each other. If sexual satisfaction is the ultimate ideal, a homosexual must face the decision of persuing this "ideal" or remaining committed to his partner as his sexual interest wanders elsewhere. The only manner in which a homosexual union can remain permanent for life is one in which the needs of the other are valued above one's own needs. If this was indeed the case, the relationship would simply be a friendship - for no one seeking the good of another would willingly exploit them as a sex object. However, I doubt that this is the case, because someone seeking the good of another tacitly affirms the value of selfless service. Such a person would also recognize that traditional marriage involves a greater sacrifice, and giving person that they are, would not want to take anything away from those who choose to marry.



[ Parent ]
Convince? (none / 0) (#218)
by Shadowfoot on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 12:06:21 AM EST

Just stop trying to convince the world that "gay marriage" is really a marriage.
Sure, when you stop trying to convince the world that all marriages exist in christian churches.
Perhaps I'm bordering on being offensive, but I see no good reason for someone who lacks sexual feelings for the opposite sex to be involved in a sexual relationship at all.
Perhaps? Yes, you are definately being offensive in your bigotted way.
The greatest aspects of heterosexual sex are not physical - they are emotional.
That applies to homosexual sex also.
The bonds formed between husband and wife and (biological) parents and children can never form in a homosexual relationship.
Never? You seem so sure of yourself. Are you saying adoptive parents cannot form bonds with their children?
The sexual release is a grace provided to thwart adultery, not an end in itself.
No, it's an evolutionary process designed to make a species produce offspring. Are you saying that animals do not experience "sexual release"?
So the only possible reason why one might engage in homosexual sex is to release sexual tension, or release another's.
Here's where your logic fails. You have made a jump to get to this point by looking at a single source of reference
The first is entirely selfish. The second may be undertaken for "good motives" but it is not without damage; by giving into to the other partner's lust, the other partner becomes more enslaved, more controlled by their own carnal desires. Instead of assisting someone in the freeing of their will, it instead makes a person a greater slave of their passions.
This is getting weird.
The key problem is that people have this belief that sexual satisfaction is the ultimate ideal of human existence.
Where do you get this idea?
It isn't. Loving and being loved by God is mankind's ideal state.
Which god?
The first viewpoint leaves no room for homosexuals*, but not the second. The second sees homosexuality as a "disordered condition", a plausible defense for not serving God through the vocation of marriage. IOW, gays simply serve God by remaining celibate, where heterosexuals do by marrying and procreating.
Are you aware that people can have children without marrying? Your logic doesn't seem to indicate this?
But even from a secular position, it is easy to see why non-marrieds vs marrieds should receive different treatment. Married couples shape the society of the future through children; non-marrieds shape society today. The civic roles are different; they demand different consideration.
It seems that you are saying here that parents should receive different treatment. If you look at the laws of most countries you will see that they do.
* - One might be very tempted to argue, "if sexual satisfaction is the ideal, why not let gays have sex?" What happens is that homosexuality and stable "unions" are inherently at odds with each other.
So you are advocating that the stability of a Britney marriage or a "who wants to marry a millionaire" marriage is better that the relationship of the first gay couple to marry in San Francisco? After all, in your eyes a gay relationship lasting 51 years is one that is all about lust.
If sexual satisfaction is the ultimate ideal, a homosexual must face the decision of persuing this "ideal" or remaining committed to his partner as his sexual interest wanders elsewhere. The only manner in which a homosexual union can remain permanent for life is one in which the needs of the other are valued above one's own needs.
Do you think that heterosexual marriage is the only way straights get to have sex? And that a wife should endure beatings because her husband "needs" to express his frustration?
If this was indeed the case, the relationship would simply be a friendship - for no one seeking the good of another would willingly exploit them as a sex object.
I have friends with whom I have no interest in having sex with. Do you desire having sex with all your friends of the opposite sex? Do you have friends of the opposite sex?
However, I doubt that this is the case, because someone seeking the good of another tacitly affirms the value of selfless service.
Ah, now I understand. A good abused wife should be selfless and let herself be beaten.
Such a person would also recognize that traditional marriage involves a greater sacrifice, and giving person that they are, would not want to take anything away from those who choose to marry.
From your writing you are not someone who seeks the good of others, otherwise you would realise that marriage can occur and you would not want to take anything awau from those who want to marry.

[ Parent ]
traditional marriage? (none / 0) (#219)
by Shadowfoot on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 12:10:17 AM EST

Such a person would also recognize that traditional marriage involves a greater sacrifice
This "traditional marriage" you talk about. Is it the one where the wife and children are property of the husband/father, and the husband can rape the wife without comeback?

[ Parent ]
Its not a right... (none / 0) (#142)
by gte910h on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 03:47:29 PM EST

# Studies have shown that children raised in households without both a father and mother have a much greater likelihood of becoming criminals. Furthermore, I would argue that every child has a right to be raised by their biological parents, and lacking this, by both a man and a woman. A child learns how to act from one sex, and how to treat the opposite sex from the other. A lesbian or gay couple would specifically deny a child this fundamental right.

...and its only in households without a strong male role model. The presence or lack thereof had no statistical effect on future criminal actions.


[ Parent ]

doh! (none / 0) (#143)
by gte910h on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 03:48:20 PM EST

The presence or lack thereof of a woman had no statistical effect on future criminal actions.


[ Parent ]
One point (none / 0) (#198)
by Shadowfoot on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 05:43:26 AM EST

Studies have shown that children raised in households without both a father and mother have a much greater likelihood of becoming criminals. Furthermore, I would argue that every child has a right to be raised by their biological parents, and lacking this, by both a man and a woman. A child learns how to act from one sex, and how to treat the opposite sex from the other. A lesbian or gay couple would specifically deny a child this fundamental right.
Lets ban divorce then. Kids will grow up better with both parents there, even if the kids dio see Dad kick sh!t out of Mom each night </sarcasm> Studies have also shown that kids growing up in a gay household are no more screwed up than their counterparts.

[ Parent ]
You're partly right... (none / 1) (#153)
by curunir on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:03:34 PM EST

Why should the state afford any benefits to couples? What good do they produce? Your (incorrect) answer:

The traditional marriage both produces and raises children.

Riiiiight...cause we all know there's a shortage of those. The world population is over 6b and growing rapidly. Countries like China penalize couples for being selfish enough to have more than one child.

Add to that, there are plenty children that grow up without parents because there's not enough families to adopt. Gay couples are more than capable of raising those children, or co-operating with other gay couples of the opposite gender in order to pro-create.

The "marriage produces children" argument is no longer appropriate in today's society. But the issued that you raised that should be addressed is, "Why is the state offering advantages to married couples, straight or otherwise." What benefit is a married couple to the state?

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#208)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:05:01 AM EST

If one desires the societal benefits afforded to married couples, one should at least make the same committment that married couples make

I'd be perfectly happy to make the same commitment to my boyfriend that members of married couples make to each other. The state of California still won't recognize the commitment and grant me the societal benefits.

[ Parent ]

Not a threat. An excuse. (none / 1) (#110)
by 87C751 on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 09:41:31 AM EST

An excuse to make more laws. See, the problem is that we have people who list their job title as "lawmaker". That's the product of their industry. If they don't make laws, they're not being productive members of governmentia. The problem occurs when you realize that there are only so many good laws to be made, and the production quota is higher than that.

My ranting place.
[ Parent ]

What is marriage? (2.90 / 10) (#8)
by cronian on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 05:00:30 PM EST

Should you be allowed to be married to more than one person at the same time? Should a gay marriage count the same as straight marriage, or should you be able to marry a man and a women? Should you be able to have a civil union, and a marriage? If gay marriages are only allowed in some places, then technically would that allow you to legally have an additional heterosexual marriage which is licensed in a different jurisdiction?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
Marriage Is ... (2.00 / 6) (#33)
by Peahippo on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 11:14:01 PM EST

... where you become an assprone nutcocker, by giving the church and state some measure of authority over your union with somebody else.

Marriage was a great idea until the church got involved, and then became a certified drop-dead loser of an idea once the state got involved. Now, if you tell me:
  • "I want to get married."
... then all I hear is:
  • "I am tired of having control of my life, and want to turn over my very ass to two institutions that have taxed, imprisoned and killed people with no remorse, so that they can flay me alive when my wife decides she no longer likes how my face looks in the morning."


[ Parent ]
Ironically... (none / 1) (#129)
by cpt kangarooski on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:21:54 PM EST

That is possible under the DOMA.

Let's imagine that we have two men from Texas*, Adam and Baker. They go to MA and get a same-sex marriage. Unless other states are okay with it, it isn't recognized elsewhere.

Adam then goes back to Texas, where he isn't considered married, and marries Carol. He's now married to two different people in two different states, but he's only in trouble for bigamy in MA and other states that recognize same-sex marriages. If he still has assets in both states, he'll have a hell of a time trying to straighten them out -- particularly if he dies and it goes to probate.

This is basically the reason that the Full Faith and Credit clause shouldn't be fucked around with. It leads to bizarre results when state lines are crossed, and the lack of it was one of the reasons for the downfall of the government under the Articles of Confederacy.

* My understanding is that only two things come from Texas anyway, and these guys are one of them. ;)


--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]

Can we marry children yet? (1.72 / 18) (#11)
by Michael Jackson on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 05:20:13 PM EST


#kuro5hin.org -- irc.slashnet.org -- On the fucking spoke.
drdink -- gimpy pedo-fag felching drwiii off in the weeds

Only in Utah [nt] (1.40 / 5) (#13)
by Tyler Durden on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 05:45:45 PM EST


Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Unfair slur [n/t] (none / 0) (#87)
by eldonsmith on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:04:17 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Personal opinion.. (2.77 / 9) (#16)
by Kwil on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 05:59:59 PM EST

..I wouldn't cry terribly if the civil concept of marriage (as opposed to the religious one) was abolished completely. Why is it that because two people tell the state that they will be committed to one another for a time (and not even for any guarunteed period) be given greater benefits than anybody else? And I say this being married, myself.

Now, as to the religious concept of marriage? I tend to think that's a matter of choice for the religion. Just as a religion might choose to worship a monkey's head on a stick, so too should it be able to choose what it assumes is a marriage.

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


Because (none / 2) (#94)
by drsmithy on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:50:55 AM EST

..I wouldn't cry terribly if the civil concept of marriage (as opposed to the religious one) was abolished completely. Why is it that because two people tell the state that they will be committed to one another for a time (and not even for any guarunteed period) be given greater benefits than anybody else? And I say this being married, myself.

Because in doing so they (theoretically) lower their combined "load" on state resources (ie: two separate individuals use more state resources than two married individuals).

[ Parent ]

Bad reasoning.. (none / 0) (#193)
by Kwil on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 04:00:43 AM EST

..for if this were true, polygamy would be more accepted by the state than simple marriage.

And again, this falls into the fallacy that marriage is a causation of unions, rather than the far more likely alternative of unions between people being the cause of marriages.

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


[ Parent ]
Stable families benefit society, so are rewarded (none / 0) (#173)
by mwood on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 09:11:02 AM EST

The public-health benefits alone are worth a lot.  If lifelong monogamy were universal (not likely, I know) STDs would be wiped out in a generation.  Discouraging monogamous relationships in one segment of society is contrary to the interests of that society.

There are subtle economic benefits as well, not just for married couples but for their society.  A lifelong commitment encourages people to take a longer view of their spending, and ought to result in the creation of more wealth, which eventually benefits all.

Finally, it seems to me that it's hard to build a stable society if it's made up of unstable, temporary liaisons.

It's not *only* about The Children.

[ Parent ]

Given the nature of people.. (none / 0) (#192)
by Kwil on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 03:58:24 AM EST

..I find it difficult to believe that marriage is what creates union between people, but rather that people who would be in a union anyway decide to get married for the benefit of themselves.

In other words, what difference does offering the institution of marriage at a civil level actually make?  If it in fact does encourage people to stay together who otherwise wouldn't simply for the economic benefits, then we have a problem in that these people are in an unhealthy relationship and will likely wind up costing the system money later in legal wranglins as they attempt to extract themselves.  If it does not encourage people to stay together (which the divorce rate seems to provide evidence of) then why bother with it in the first place?

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


[ Parent ]
Gay Marriage isn't Marriage (1.61 / 13) (#28)
by OldCoder on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:12:30 PM EST

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates:
Lincoln: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have".
Douglas: "Five, of course".
Lincoln: "No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one".

Marriage is an institution that defines our civilization, and it is older than the US Constitution. It is older than any of the nation-states that today exist.

Marriage is older than any existing religion.

Any knowledge of history will lead one to suspect very strongly that the current popularity of Gay culture is a fad that will not last.

Some recognition of gay unions may be warranted, perhaps the "Civil unions" that have been proposed.

Most importantly, Marriage and its definition is part of the morality of society. And if indeed the morality of society is genuinely changing, it is the people or their elected representatives who should have the power to make the change. I could respect a law or referendum that permitted gay Marriage, but I have no respect for judges to suddenly discover gay rights in hundred year old documents that clearly were not intended to create gay rights. It is provable, for example, that the 14th amendment to the US Constitution was not passed with the intent to create gay rights. If it had been, the lawmakers of the time would never have passed it.

As a practical matter, we simply cannot know the overall effects of altering society to the extent that gay Marriage and civil unions are a part of the woof and warp of society. Embedding gay culture into the structure of society and the psyche of its members will have some effects, it's just that we don't know what they are.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2003 OldCoder

Still trying that? (3.00 / 4) (#38)
by cburke on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:20:02 AM EST

 It is provable, for example, that the 14th amendment to the US Constitution was not passed with the intent to create gay rights. If it had been, the lawmakers of the time would never have passed it.

Wrong.  What is provable is that the 14th Ammendment provides homosexuals with equal protection under the law.  Here's the proof:

  1. 14th Ammendment states  "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  2. Homosexuals are persons.
  3. Homosexuals shall not be denied equal protection of the laws by the states.  Q.E.D.
The reason why your proof was wrong was the fallacy that the 14th could not have passed if it granted such protection.  If lawmakers had believed that the 14th Ammendment would be used to defend the rights of gays, they would not have passed it.  The veracity of such belief is irrelevent, obviously.

Why did they believe this?  Nothing in the language of the Ammendment precluded this.  Indeed the language of the document should have suggested the possibility to any lawmaker of the dayhttp://jinxhackwear.com/.  Or it should have, given that the idea occured to them in the first place, and that they accepted the notion that homosexuals count as part of the "persons" who shall be granted equal protection under the laws.

Most likely the idea simply never occured to them, wouldn't you agree?  If it had occured to them, and they were as violently opposed to the idea as you say, then surely they would have wanted to include language that prevented it.  Regardless they didn't, which is too bad for them and you.

[ Parent ]

Right on. (none / 1) (#40)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:06:02 AM EST

I was all set to rant about the parent poster's nonsense until I read your simple and straightforward reply.  Exactly right.  The prejudices and bigotries of our ancestors have no inherent moral authority simply because they're old; the beauty and power of the 14th Amendment is that it transcends, at least in this way, the limitations and failures of its drafters.

As a legal argument, it's not as solid as it might be.  There's too much invested in the judicial interpretation of the Constitution to take it as a solid foundation for equality and liberty.  But it's a hell of a good place to start, and a solid bulwark against the cries of bigots that we are bound by the prejudices of the past.

[ Parent ]

Interesting argument... (none / 0) (#43)
by bigchris on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:04:43 AM EST

... but why the link to jinxhackwear?

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
I have no idea. (none / 0) (#46)
by cburke on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:40:55 AM EST

Seriously.  Following the link myself, I seem to remeber visiting the site once in the past, since the logo is pretty distinctive.   Not yesterday for sure.  But there it is, put there by an errant "paste" most likely.  But how did it get copied in the first place?  Maybe I highlighted a link from /. or something on accident?

It is a mystery.

[ Parent ]

the unintended consequences (none / 0) (#71)
by mami on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:48:52 PM EST

is there any law that has no unintended consequences? It is not relevant today if the 14th amendment would have passed, if the legislators of the past had known that it would be used to protect the rights of homosexuals to have their own gay marriages.

There is not a law,  which hasn't been used to defend cases for which the law was not intended for. In cases of that much controversy as the right to of gay marriages, it simply indicates that the intentions of the original law were not intended for and are misused for issues it was not designed for. It shows that new additional legislation is needed to take care of the case in question.

You shouldn't use the 14th amendment to justify the right of a person to a gay marriage. There are homosexuals as long as there has been the 14th amendment.

Why would it take 136 years to discover that an equal right of a person to a gay marriage has been violated despite the 14th amendment? Why is it needed today and not 136 hears ago?

Because it's the latest "in thing" to insist that homosexuals have been denied an equal, human right? If it would have been such an essential violation of a human right, then I simply ask, why did it take them centuries to discover it?

If you want to declare it a right of each person to engage in a homosexual marriage, then one should just write such a specific law that says so and pass it through Congress.

-----------

[ Parent ]

Discover? (3.00 / 4) (#78)
by cburke on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:15:47 PM EST

There is not a law,  which hasn't been used to defend cases for which the law was not intended for.

That's right.  And like in all cases, the blame for this lies with the legislator.  Democratic Representatives claim to be shocked and dismayed when PATRIOT is used on non-terrorism cases?  Well, maybe they should have a) READ the fucking thing before voting for it so they could b) SEE that there was absolutely nothing in the act that ensured that it would be used solely for terrorism cases.  Because as all lawyers, lawmakers, and non-idiots know:  it's what the law says that matters, not what the shyster who placed it in front of you claimed it said.

Much like the hypothetical homophobic House would be just as responsible if they mistakenly thought the "Give everyone equal protection" ammendment was the "Give everyone equal protection, except of course for those who we will never give equal protection because we hate them" ammendment.  

You shouldn't use the 14th amendment to justify the right of a person to a gay marriage. There are homosexuals as long as there has been the 14th amendment.

Yeah, and their 14th Ammendment Rights have been ignored for just as long.  What exactly is your point?  Surely you aren't suggesting that violating or ignoring someone's rights means they have lost them, or never had them?  One hundred and thirty six years later, the 14th Ammendment still says "person" and not "person who isn't gay".

Why would it take 136 years to discover that an equal right of a person to a gay marriage has been violated despite the 14th amendment? Why is it needed today and not 136 hears ago?

It didn't take 136 years to discover them, it took 136 years for our society to catch up with our Constitution and finally admit that homosexuals are people.

Because it's the latest "in thing" to insist that homosexuals have been denied an equal, human right? If it would have been such an essential violation of a human right, then I simply ask, why did it take them centuries to discover it?

Same question, same answer:  It didn't take centuries to discover, it took centuries for the oppression of homosexuals to relax enough to give them a shot at actually asserting the rights they should have had recognized all along.

Let me turn this around:  Why did it take 136 years for us to decide that homosexuals were people?  Or is it just that we still don't think that the 14th Ammendment really meant "person" when it says "person"?  

You know, you're right... It is a good question.  Why the fuck did it take 136 years for enough people to begrudgingly admit that "person" pretty much has to include homos, so maybe we should stop with the discriminatory laws?

If you want to declare it a right of each person to engage in a homosexual marriage, then one should just write such a specific law that says so and pass it through Congress.

For the same reason I don't declare it the right of blacks to freedom of the press.  I don't have to; it's already in the Constitution.  Similarly, there's already the 14th Ammendment, so that should just as naturally take care of any laws that would bar them from marrying.

[ Parent ]

easy, easy ... (none / 3) (#85)
by mami on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 10:34:14 PM EST

So, you say you don't have to declare the right of blacks to freedom of press? Fine, but apparently you needed to declare the right of blacks to vote and right specific laws for that?  Shouldn't their protection of equal rights to vote have been covered in the 14th amendment as well? Why wasn't it?  

You want to make me believe that it took people 136 years to catch up with the constitution and it took them that long to understand that "a person" should include homosexuals and blacks?

Then why was there a hundred year-long fight to accomplish the equal rights part for the black and why was it necessary to write more specific laws (like voting rights act, labor laws that included anti-discrimination clauses on the basis of race etc.) to make sure that the overall intent of the 14th and fifteenth amendment was actually followed through for cases, where people constantly sabotaged the equal rights of other people?

I said above that you need new laws that specify equal rights for homosexuals, the same way as you needed more specific laws to protect blacks from not getting equal rights in voting and other areas.

The point I wanted to make is that for 136 years people didn't seem to think that the fact that homosexuals couldn't engage in a marriage was a
violation of their equal human rights.

My question is why today homosexuals "must have the right to a marriage", whereas they didn't seem to need that right only a couple of years ago.

Wouldn't that indicate that this right to a gay marriage is NOT a basic human right, but merely the wishes of an interest group to get some financial benefits? Or that it is just a blown out proportion fight of an exhibitionist interest group?

I mean, why couldn't I say I want the right to 'no marriage" protected and still have the same benefits as married people? Where are my equal rights and interests protected as a non married person? Gimme me the same rights as the married ones?

Whine, whine, where is the money, what do I get out of it ... sigh, poor me, my rights are sooo violated. OK, just to make a point, if it's for me you can get all the money and rights you want. It won't solve any problems. In the end you will have more problems, but I think that was already debated ad nauseam on K5 and I don't feel going back to it.

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

[ Parent ]

Walking the edge.... (none / 1) (#135)
by cburke on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:10:48 PM EST

Then why was there a hundred year-long fight to accomplish the equal rights part for the black and why was it necessary to write more specific laws (like voting rights act, labor laws that included anti-discrimination clauses on the basis of race etc.) to make sure that the overall intent of the 14th and fifteenth amendment was actually followed through for cases, where people constantly sabotaged the equal rights of other people?

You touch upon the answer to your own question.  Do you realize what a devastating issue race was at the time?  Do you realize that in the south they were doing everything from poll taxes to outright murder to prevent blacks from voting?  The rift was too huge.  The idea that "but of course equal rights don't extend to niggers!" was too deeply held.  Almost a century later it still took the National Guard to enforce Brown vs. Board.

It is quite possible that the idea that "but of course equal rights don't extend to faggots!" is so deeply entrenched that it may take another Ammendment to give the "no, you idiot, homosexuals are persons" idea enough weight.  Recent SCOTUS decisions make me hopeful that this isn't the case.

The mention of an Ammendment barring gay marriage makes me hopeful, in that it shows that political inertia is on the side of equality and those who would discriminate feel they need an ammendment to do so.  On the other hand, serious talk of an ammendment that would enshrine discrimination in the Constitution instead of enshrining equality like all the other ammendments scares the bejeebus out of me.

The point I wanted to make is that for 136 years people didn't seem to think that the fact that homosexuals couldn't engage in a marriage was a violation of their equal human rights.

You're absolutely right.  For hundreds of years people didn't think enslaving people was a violation of their rights.  Well, guess what, society sometimes makes some progress after all, in spite of itself.

My question is why today homosexuals "must have the right to a marriage", whereas they didn't seem to need that right only a couple of years ago.

Um...  It's not that they didn't need the right, it's that they didn't think there was a hope in hell of them actually getting it acknowleged -- and they were right.  Do you think that homosexuals just now started to want to get married?  They've wanted that for a long time, but it wasn't a long time ago that just coming out was a daring, possibly dangerous move.  They could barely say "Yes, I'm gay!", much less "I'm gay, and I want to marry this other gay person!"  That's why these things are called civil righs movements, because they take time and cover distance from massive discrimination to less.

Do you think Rosa Parks was the first black woman who wanted to sit in the front of the bus?

Wouldn't that indicate that this right to a gay marriage is NOT a basic human right, but merely the wishes of an interest group to get some financial benefits? Or that it is just a blown out proportion fight of an exhibitionist interest group?

No.  Entrenched discrimination that only now appears to be weakening enough to allow substantial change is not an indication that the rights that were being withheld don't exist.

I mean, why couldn't I say I want the right to 'no marriage" protected and still have the same benefits as married people? Where are my equal rights and interests protected as a non married person? Gimme me the same rights as the married ones?

If you find a law that is discriminating against you due to your single status, then sure, raise your voice.  I don't think you'll be able to argue that you should get the same benefits -- you, a single person, are not the same as two people, much like you are not a corporation or a non-profit group.  By choosing not to incorporate, you lose various organizational benefits.  And much like those situations, marriage is mostly just an agreement on how the two people are able to manage and control their mutual properties.  It's a social arrangement, so saying you, the individual, need the same benefits as the pair of married people is somewhat orthoganal.  But if you ever find yourself being turned down for a loan because you're single, then we should talk.

Whine, whine, where is the money, what do I get out of it ... sigh, poor me, my rights are sooo violated. OK, just to make a point, if it's for me you can get all the money and rights you want. It won't solve any problems. In the end you will have more problems, but I think that was already debated ad nauseam on K5 and I don't feel going back to it.

If you were in love with someone, and wanted to get married, but were barred because people were saying that "there's no way the 14th Ammendment could apply to someone like you", I'd be more sympathetic.

You're walking the edge...  You're reasonable, and make rational arguments by and large, but you're teetering on the brink of being OldCoder, whose arguments sound somewhat reasonable at first but are quickly reduced to "but I don't like gay people".

You've talked about how the 14th wasn't applied to gays for so long.  You've talked about how homosexuals weren't demanding the 14th be applied to them until recently.  Now I'd appreciate it if you could answer a question:  Why shouldn't the 14th Ammendment apply to homosexuals?  What is your basis for denying them equal protection today?

[ Parent ]

well, then let's be honest here ... (none / 1) (#149)
by mami on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:20:42 PM EST

If the 14th is aimed to guarantee equal protection, you would also need to know what it should protect you against. It should protect you against a threat, I assume, and it should protect everybody equally.

What's the threat in this issue? Is the livelyhood of a homosexual couple threatened if they don't marry? How many people live together without being married? Millions, happily and not feeling discriminated at all. What's wrong with homosexual people living together without being married? Nothing I can think of.

Most heterosexual people, who marry, do it for two reasons, first, to make a public committment based on their cultural or religious understanding in what a marriage means to them, and second, to legally come under the protection of marriage laws that are given to a couple and their children in case they divorce or in case they come in severe troubles that would endanger the welfare of the children born out of that marital union.

Both these reasons don't exist for homosexual couples. First, there is no cultural or religious understanding so far what a homosexual marriage is supposed to mean, second there are no children born out of such marriage per bloodline, to which a heterosexual couple is bound for a lifetime and from which they can't escape. For heterosexual couples it's their off-spring, if they want it or not.

A lesbian or homosexual couple has children by choice and they can drop them off any time. There is no biological tie and they can escape their responsibilities to raise the children anytime without feeling guilt.

Of course I hear thousands of lesbian couples roar against me, telling me how they lovingly raise healthy and happy children. That may be true, but it's always a choice and for that reason different to raise your biological child.

BTW, I do see differences between the interests of a lesbian couple and a homosexual couple. I believe it's pretty obvious that most homosexual couples are very little interested in raising children the same way as men have less interest to deal with children than women.

I mean it sounds so simple (and therefore people think it's not true, both don't exclude each other). Don't you think that we were meant to be heterosexual for the purpose of making sure that mankind continues to exist? Can you argue against that?

In chosing to be homosexual you discriminate against the intentions, which nature had in mind for us. And as you may well know, nature did its level best to make very sure it's successful in the mission to make people WANT to produce off-spring.

I believe that 90 % if not more people chose to be homosexual or lesbian, it's not nature, which defined them to their sexual behavior.

In the case of women who declare themselves lesbian, I would assume the choice is more one AGAINST a man than FOR a woman. I believe it's a conscious choice for very many.

Why then is that choice of a lesbian woman or a homosexual man less a discrimination against the opposite sex than the choice of a heterosexual person against a homosexual man or lesbian woman?

What would you say if I would say I feel discriminated against me and my gender by a homosexual man, because I know he would never chose to live with me based on my sex? Can I claim that my rights of equal "access" to the opposite sex is severly "diminished" by the homosexual population, which choses to deny me access to them as partners?

I assume further, if you would threaten most homosexual or lesbian and demand of them to behave heterosexual, they could and would do it, if they had to. I don't say they would want to or would have to, but they could behave heterosexual any time they wanted to? If that is true, why would homosexuality be an unchangeable category defined by nature like race or gender?

What about those sexual trolls? They might play it hetero one day and homo the next? I heard that's done a lot in certain circles these days. What about being married to a woman in a heterosexual relationship and being married to a man in a gay marriage? Would that constitute something illegal?

So, contrary to any true discrimination on the basis of a race or sex (which you can't chose) any discrimination against homosexuals or lesbians would be on the basis of their behavioral choice. Of course, one shouldn't discriminate against people, but people discriminate against people because of their behavioral choices all the time.

Can yout tell me why I wouldn't have the right to voice my opinion and say "I don't like your behavior, you have the right to do what you want as long as you don't bother me, don't harm others and don't infringe on my freedoms and rights, but I don't have to like what you do, don't I?"

That is not discrimination. I don't like a lot of behavioral choices in a lot of people and I can voice my opinion about it as a matter of freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

I can say I don't like pornography and it doesn't mean that I have violated the right to freedom of expreesion of those people who want to use or engage in or produce pornography.

So, to make it short. If you ask, why Why shouldn't the 14th Ammendment apply to homosexuals? What is your basis for denying them equal protection today? I would answer I don't know against what. Public sexual behavior, heterosexual one, is regulated by laws. I think the same laws should apply to homosexuals as well. Marriage laws don't regulate heterosexual behavior - nobody cares what a couple does in their bedroom, as long as they don't kill or hurt each other - they regulate your responsibilities for your children and your partner within the framework of a marital union.

The laws developed, because children were for the most time an "unavoidable" consequence or an "intended" consequence of a marital union. In a gay marriage those consequences of always avoidable and mostly not intended, so I don't see why they would need those laws.

----------

[ Parent ]

I know I'm a little late to the party, but... (none / 0) (#205)
by Handyman on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:03:31 PM EST

Most heterosexual people [marry] to legally come under the protection of marriage laws that are given to a couple and their children in case they divorce or in case they come in severe troubles that would endanger the welfare of the children born out of that marital union.

I am under the impression that there are many laws, statutes, and conventions which apply to married people only. Although laws regarding the health and welfare of a married couple's child(ren) are significant, the laws and conventions surrounding income taxes, medical insurance, hospital visitation rights, and several other things are certainly enough for homosexual people to consider themselves discriminated against.

The rest of your argument alternately sickens and amuses me, especially the part about homosexuals being able to abandon their adopted children without guilt, but this is really all I can take the time to refute at the moment.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]

Well, it's not fashionable in these times (none / 0) (#210)
by mami on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:28:52 AM EST

to not go with the bandwagon. Personally, looking at what happens in San Francisco, I wouldn't mind to let all of the people, who want to marry and need this piece of paper so desperately to make a point, marry for Christ's sake.

But, I still consider this way of looking at it a pretty shortsighted viewpoint.

If gay married people want to fall under all the laws, which pertain to heterosexual married people with children, then they should have the same responsibility for "their" children, as biological parents must have to their's by nature. Quite frankly, I doubt that this will and can ever be the case.

If the part about homosexual parents having a different relationship to their children than heterosexual parents to their own biological children amuses or sickens you, I would simply say, you haven't seen nothing yet and it's just a matter of time til you will feel truly sickened.

Nor do you seem to have the imagination in what kind of legal quagmire those children are getting into, who will have to suffer through the upcoming divorce prodecures of their gay parents. It's already bad enough to go through this for heterosexual couples and their children, but it will be much worse for gay couples. I also do believe their will be differences in lesbian couples with children versus homosexual couples with children, logically as I don't consider man and woman to relate to children in the same way. Oh, what a bad discriminatory person I am, right?

Let's talk again then, when it has become boring to view homosexual marriages as discrimination cases and people will just have to dwell into the nitty-gritty of legal disputes of in adaequate or bad parenting skills of homosexual couples.

How many gay married couples have we experienced yet, who have raised their children from toddler to adulthood and have enjoyed the grandchildren of their children?

Wait with your "being amused" or your "being sickened" til we have a statistically large enough sample to make a fair judgement about gay marriages and their appropriateness to raise children.

Just because you are a gay parent, doesn't make you a better one than a heterosexual parent.

And just because I happen to believe that to be true, and have the nerves to even mentioning it in places like k5, doesn't mean I discriminate against gay people.

I won't allow myself to get manipulated by some wishful thinking of a group of people, who want to be respected, loved and acknowledged. I have absolutely nothing against homosexual unions, even not marriages, if you insist on that term.

I still don't believe that they are eqal to heterosexual unions when it comes to relate to their children.

[ Parent ]

Married... with children (none / 0) (#212)
by Handyman on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 05:16:16 PM EST

If gay married people want to fall under all the laws, which pertain to heterosexual married people with children, then they should have the same responsibility for "their" children, as biological parents must have to their's by nature. Quite frankly, I doubt that this will and can ever be the case.

I imagine that most gay people who acquire children will do so either through some form of surrogacy or through formal adoption.

In the first case, since at least one of the parents will have a biological stake in the child, it's reasonable to assume that that parent will care for it as if it were "theirs" (since it is).

In the second case, adoption procedures are very rigorous, specifically to ensure that the adopting parents will accept the responsibility of raising a child that they have no biological ties to. If heterosexual people can be given a child that is not "theirs", and be expected not to abandon it on a whim, what makes you think that homosexuals cannot accept the same responsibility?

If the part about homosexual parents having a different relationship to their children than heterosexual parents to their own biological children amuses or sickens you, I would simply say, you haven't seen nothing yet and it's just a matter of time til you will feel truly sickened.

The part of your comment that sickened me was your assumption that most or all homosexuals are completely amoral people, who would abandon their children without a qualm. If anything, I could imagine a homosexual couple to have a better relationship with their children than a heterosexual couple. After all, if a homosexual couple has to go through so much work to acquire a child, it's much less likely that they will abandon it. I can almost guarantee that no homosexual will ever give birth to a child and then toss it in a dumpster.

Let's talk again then, when it has become boring to view homosexual marriages as discrimination cases and people will just have to dwell into the nitty-gritty of legal disputes of in adaequate or bad parenting skills of homosexual couples.

And heterosexual couples are magically such excellent parents? I've been truly blessed, in that my parents provided me with a stable home and all the love I needed, but many are not so lucky. One of my friends took up martial arts at a young age specifically to learn to defend himself against his father's drunken rampages.

Just because you are a gay parent, doesn't make you a better one than a heterosexual parent.

Just because you are a straight parent, doesn't make you a better one than a homosexual parent.
I believe that being a good parent is orthagonal to one's sexuality.

And just because I happen to believe that to be true, and have the nerves to even mentioning it in places like k5, doesn't mean I discriminate against gay people.

I don't mean to imply that you do discriminate against gay people. All I'm trying to say is that most of your arguments are a priori, and that we should give them a chance. Hell, given how badly I've seen some heterosexual couples parent, they couldn't do much worse.

And, I also don't mean to imply that gay people will automatically be awesome parents. I'm sure there will be bad homosexual parents, just as there are bad heterosexual ones. All I want is for the homosexual ones to have a chance to prove themselves, without people pre-judging them and assuming the worst.

--
Never be afraid to be the first one on the dance floor.
[ Parent ]

married or unmarried ... but with children (none / 0) (#213)
by mami on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 07:04:51 PM EST

If heterosexual people can be given a child that is not "theirs", and be expected not to abandon it on a whim, what makes you think that homosexuals cannot accept the same responsibility?

They can and might want to prove that they are as responsible if not more than heterosexual couples. I just don't think that should be the issue. You don't get children to prove anything to yourself, you get them and once you have them they are there. They grow up with you, on you, despite of you, no matter how bad or good a parent you are (trust me on that one).

If they are your own, you will and do feel responsible for how they turn out. If they are not your own, you "console" yourself saying, they were not your blood and all the bad stuff must have come "from somewhere else". Of course, if you can't handle them at all, you can drop them off with less pain, when they are not your own.

Now take a case of two homosexual married men, who really would decide to adopt an almost newborn baby. Then let's say their relationship goes sour after a couple of years and they want a divorce. Can you tell me how you would decide which parent of the two is better suited to get custody of the child and why?

Take the example of two lesbian married women and one of them brings in her own biological child. This woman left her prior marriage with a man, who is the biological father and lost custody. Let's say this woman lives a while in a lesbian marriage, then rethinks her sexual orientation one day or just plain wants to divorce from her lesbian spouse.

I can guarantee you that there will be a bitter fight over the custody of that child. The father, who hates his wife, because she left him for a lesbian lover, the lesbian spouse, because she feels betrayed by the biological mother of the child, because her wishes for a divorce out of the lesbian marriage indicates that she was not a good enough lesbian parent to that other woman's child.

The lesbian woman, who is left behind in that broken lesbian marriage, will fight for custody of the child, that the other woman brought into the marriage, not because she is such a great mother, but because she feels that her attempt to prove herself to be a good lesbian mother and spouse failed.

I guarantee you it can become a complete mess and there are no data to support that this mess will be a better mess than the one heterosexual couples leave behind, when they divorce and fight over their children.

Finally, I think the whole issue of giving the gay married people the same "benefits and rights" as heterosexual married people, just proves that the issue is over money management and not over "the goodness of your heart and your parental love to children".

Right now homosexual couples don't mind the government getting involved, when it is for their advantage in a marraige. They seem to forget that government get usually really involved, when you want a divorce and have children. I foresee that gay married people with children will have to undergo a much more complicated and painful mess with the government, when they divorce, than heterosexual couples.

Therefore, I don't think it's worth at all to fight for all the "divorce laws", which gay couples will definitely fall under as well once they get married. I know a lot of heterosexual couples, who do chose to have children of their own and do chose NOT to marry, because they don't see the marriage and divorce laws any advantage.

So, I have no idea, why one is so wildly interested to get married at all. If you are in a union and you do care for your child, why do you need the government get involved in it at all cost?

The part of your comment that sickened me was your assumption that most or all homosexuals are completely amoral people, who would abandon their children without a qualm. If anything, I could imagine a homosexual couple to have a better relationship with their children than a heterosexual couple. After all, if a homosexual couple has to go through so much work to acquire a child, it's much less likely that they will abandon it. I can almost guarantee that no homosexual will ever give birth to a child and then toss it in a dumpster.

I wished you were right on this, but I doubt it very much. There a tons of heterosexual couples, who did go through a lot of pain to get a child, because they couldn't get it naturally for example. You might not believe it, but just because you have gone through a lot of troubles and pain to get your child through whatever methods, doesn't mean that you will be a better parent or stick with your children in more loving or responsible way than parents, who just get their off-spring so easily that they don't even know how they got their children. :-) Simply spoken, what you assume to be the case, isn't supported by what actually happens.

And heterosexual couples are magically such excellent parents?

You know, that you start comparing the two sorts of couples and parents and try to extract an answer, who is the better one of the two, is alreay so divisive that it's a threat to any child. What is little Johnny supposed to think, when he sees his two fathers or mothers competing against heterosexual couples to make a point? It certainly will not help him to get a balanced, unmanipulated, unimposed viewpoint about the pros and cons of different sexual orientations and their unions.

All I want is for the homosexual ones to have a chance to prove themselves, without people pre-judging them and assuming the worst.

I don't have anything against homosexual couples wanting to prove themselves as being good parents, but I don't think that your attempt of self-approval engagements should be taken out on the back of children. I don't assume the worst, but I don't think wishful thinking is helpful either.

I mean sue me for it, I discriminatet between a man and a woman and for me they are as different as an apple and an orange. I want each child to have the access to live with and understand the differences between the genders and how to relate to each of them separately. It's easiest done for a child by chosing or having a woman and a man in their life. For some darn reason, I think nature or God had that in mind as well, but that's not really the issue here, I guess.



[ Parent ]

"for the children" (none / 0) (#220)
by Shadowfoot on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 12:51:47 AM EST

They can and might want to prove that they are as responsible if not more than heterosexual couples. I just don't think that should be the issue.
I doubt it is the issue. Given that gays cannot "just have" children, and that a lot of planning goes into it, you will find that "to prove they are as responsible" is not one of the reasons.
If they are your own, you will and do feel responsible for how they turn out. If they are not your own, you "console" yourself saying, they were not your blood and all the bad stuff must have come "from somewhere else". Of course, if you can't handle them at all, you can drop them off with less pain, when they are not your own.
With this attitude I hope you never adopt, and never become a godparent.
Now take a case of two homosexual married men, who really would decide to adopt an almost newborn baby. Then let's say their relationship goes sour after a couple of years and they want a divorce. Can you tell me how you would decide which parent of the two is better suited to get custody of the child and why?
It the case of a heterosexual couple doing this the court should not assume that the mother should have full custody, and should evaluate both parents, then in your example the same thing should happen. Hopefully all children would receive what is in the child's best interest, which may include joint custody.
Take the example of two lesbian married women and one of them brings in her own biological child. This woman left her prior marriage with a man, who is the biological father and lost custody. Let's say this woman lives a while in a lesbian marriage, then rethinks her sexual orientation one day or just plain wants to divorce from her lesbian spouse. I can guarantee you that there will be a bitter fight over the custody of that child. The father, who hates his wife, because she left him for a lesbian lover, the lesbian spouse, because she feels betrayed by the biological mother of the child, because her wishes for a divorce out of the lesbian marriage indicates that she was not a good enough lesbian parent to that other woman's child.
Take the example of a women who left the biological father of her child. Let's say she marries another man. Let's say she divorces this second man. My example will be treated the same as yours in the courts. It would be rare for the courts to grant the step-parent custody, whatever their orientation. What's this where you say "then rethinks her sexual orientation one day"? Do you think sexual orientation is something you can rethink? Perhaps your example would be better worded as a bisexual woman having a lesbian relationship?
I guarantee you it can become a complete mess and there are no data to support that this mess will be a better mess than the one heterosexual couples leave behind, when they divorce and fight over their children.
By opposing it there will never be any data. Why not spend your efforts to prevent divorce?
Finally, I think the whole issue of giving the gay married people the same "benefits and rights" as heterosexual married people, just proves that the issue is over money management and not over "the goodness of your heart and your parental love to children".
Are you saying that heterosexual marriage is all about children?
I foresee that gay married people with children will have to undergo a much more complicated and painful mess with the government, when they divorce, than heterosexual couples.
Why? I can't see it being any different from straight couples.
Therefore, I don't think it's worth at all to fight for all the "divorce laws", which gay couples will definitely fall under as well once they get married. I know a lot of heterosexual couples, who do chose to have children of their own and do chose NOT to marry, because they don't see the marriage and divorce laws any advantage. So, I have no idea, why one is so wildly interested to get married at all. If you are in a union and you do care for your child, why do you need the government get involved in it at all cost?
That's good for the ones you know. Some homosexual couples will fall into this group too. If you are opposing gay marriage because of divorce and problems for the kids, then why not spend your efforts opposing all marriage and stop singling out gays?
You know, that you start comparing the two sorts of couples and parents and try to extract an answer, who is the better one of the two, is alreay so divisive that it's a threat to any child. What is little Johnny supposed to think, when he sees his two fathers or mothers competing against heterosexual couples to make a point?
Competing? You mean in the egg and spoon race at the school fair? He's supposed to think that his parents love him, just as Susie's parents love her.
I don't have anything against homosexual couples wanting to prove themselves as being good parents, but I don't think that your attempt of self-approval engagements should be taken out on the back of children. I don't assume the worst, but I don't think wishful thinking is helpful either.
Are you aware than many gays already have custody of their own children, whether it's through a previous relationship, or artificial insemination by donor, or surgorracy? These children grow up with two mothers or two fathers, but if something happens to the biological parent the child has no legal connection to the only surviving parent they know? Marriage would give the child protection.
I want each child to have the access to live with and understand the differences between the genders and how to relate to each of them separately. It's easiest done for a child by chosing or having a woman and a man in their life.
Are you advocating that widows and widowers must get remarried as soon as possible for the children's sake? And that couples should not divorece "for the sake of the children" It looks it. All the gay couples I know make sure their children get to see and spend time with adults of both sexes. You seem to be arguing against marriage because of the effects to children. Marriage isn't just for that reason.

[ Parent ]
yes - for the children - and not - for the parents (none / 0) (#221)
by mami on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 03:09:17 PM EST

1. With this attitude I hope you never adopt, and never become a godparent.

Not my attitude. I just talk about observation I made watching adopting and foster care parents and BTW Godparents.

2. Hopefully all children would receive what is in the child's best interest, which may include joint custody.

As soon as parents fight for the custody there is usually nothing much left which might be in the child's "best interest". Have you ever heard a child telling you: "Everything is fine with my parents, they both split custody over me and we all live happy ever after?"

3. What's this where you say "then rethinks her sexual orientation one day"? Do you think sexual orientation is something you can rethink? Perhaps your example would be better worded as a bisexual woman having a lesbian relationship?

Oh really? Are you playing with words for the sake of obfuscation? If someone is bisexual, I would call it "rethinking of one's sexual orientation whenever it's convenient, advantageous and presents the way of least resistance". Matter of factly, if you live a bisexual life-style, may be you have no sexual orientation at all, or do you think you have an orientation, if you are jo-jo-ing between the genders?

4. By opposing it there will never be any data. Why not spend your efforts to prevent divorce?

I don't oppose anything, I let people do their own things as long as they don't interfere with my personal life. From what do you deduct I wouldn't try to prevent divorce? Where does this question come from?

5. Are you saying that heterosexual marriage is all about children?

Why not? Why is there any need to marry, if you decide not to have children? Why do you want some darn marriage laws, and by the way especially darn laws in the US, interfere with your personal life?

Need to marry for tax purposes? Poor you. Need to marry for love? What has your marriage license to do with love? Need to marry to make a pledge? Go to your church and have a big, fat wedding and a lot of Godly blessings. Marriage license not needed. God doesn't care. He loves you anyway - if you believe in it. :-)

Want children? You might need the help of "some caring governmental service" one day, yeah, you might consider getting a marriage license.

The funny thing is that the US social system is one of the worsts in modern Western developed democracies, most people in the US just distrust and distest their government, most people just call any person, who might want some social services for their kids and education from the government a freeloading liberal socialist or marxist.

But on the other hand, MARRYing we MUST, because we need government in our lives. How contradictory.

6. Why? I can't see it being any different from straight couples

I know and there's the little difference between you and me. Everyone looks through his own glasses and some people see things other's don't.

7. If you are opposing gay marriage because of divorce and problems for the kids, then why not spend your efforts opposing all marriage and stop singling out gays?

Because I think children should get a male father and a female mother to grow up with or live with. That's why I don't oppose marriage for heterosexual couples. But they don't HAVE to marry. If they just live together without a license marriage and just live by their personal committment to each other and their children, it's fine by me.

Mind you, a couple of decades ago I guess more than 50 percent of the world population didn't have a marriage license, but lived a "married life" and raised their kids. These kids all turned out badly? Nope. Kids out of divorced relationships turn out especially well? Nope.

8. Competing? You mean in the egg and spoon race at the school fair? He's supposed to think that his parents love him, just as Susie's parents love her.

I am not sure I understand this answer. You seem to think that kids are stupid. What you think they are supposed to think, is seldom what they DO think. Of course you can always manipulate them to tell you what you want to hear, at least for a while. So, is this supposed to mean that children or teens never ask themselves WHY their parents have chosen a partner of the same sex and not of the opposite one? ... Oh, well, of course not, how could a child ever think about that ...

9. Are you aware than many gays already have custody of their own children, whether it's through a previous relationship, or artificial insemination by donor, or surgorracy? These children grow up with two mothers or two fathers, but if something happens to the biological parent the child has no legal connection to the only surviving parent they know? Marriage would give the child protection.

Oh, that just proves another point, namely that sexual orientation is simply a choice of behavior and not some "biologically driven and exclusive sexual desire for one gender only". Well, if homosexuality is simply a choice and nothing more, I would say it's a discriminatory choice AGAINST one gender and a choice FOR another one.

As heterosexual persons can't chose their gender, I would say then that they are discriminated against by homosexuals on the basis of their gender, because homosexuals or lesbians CAN CHOSE their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, if they want to, but heterosexuals CAN'T CHOSE chose their GENDER.

With regard to the legal protection a child that lives in a lesbian or gay marriage, if the biological parent dies, is accepted. But why wouldn't the gay/lesbian parent of that child be able to just adopt that child, as they have already taken care of the child already beforehand?

10. Are you advocating that widows and widowers must get remarried as soon as possible for the children's sake?

No, again children are not as stupid as you seem to think. If you study children, who grew up without a father (or mother), because their fathers (or mothers) died in a war or for other reasons (we had a lot of those in my generation) and you compare them to those children, who grow up without father or mother, because of a divorce (we had a lot of divorces between couples after WWII - after the men returned from the war and were supposedly to be happy to find their wives and kids life and well), you will find huge differences in the way children handle the fact that there is one gender missing. It's not just a question of one gender missing, it's a matter of WHY one gender is missing.

What effect a "new parent", which is supposed to replaces the missing one, has on the child is dependent on age of the child, reason why the first parent went missing, how good the "new parent" relates to the child etc.

11. All the gay couples I know make sure their children get to see and spend time with adults of both sexes.

Oh, I would say, even if they wouldn't "make sure" that a child spends time adults of both genders, the children "will go out on their own" to do just that when they grow older.

12. You seem to be arguing against marriage because of the effects to children. Marriage isn't just for that reason. No? I think for millenia of years, marriage-like unions with certain rules and regulation about each parent's male and female role have been formed, and exactly pretty much just for that very reason.

I just wonder who is more narrow minded in their views about it, you or me? -----



[ Parent ]

too many variables to judge (none / 0) (#215)
by phred on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 10:44:25 AM EST

there is a wide range of parenting skills irregardless of straight or gay marriage. Children are damaged by straight divorces. Using historical stats for hetero marriages has to acknowledge mormon multi-wife families in trends which may tend to downrate hetero marriages in their effectiveness (unless multiple moms are indeed a good thing, which is yet another debate). Child abuse occurs most in hetero marriages simply by greater representation.

So there are simply no statistical reasons to outlaw gay marriages in regards to child custody, and therefore the only reason for this is yet again another morality call by the government. While I can happily offer no opinion on whether gay marriages are ok or not, I can offer my opinion on whether to legislate morality, and I don't like it because governments have few skills and should limit their efforts to the simple and obvious tasks commonly delegated by the people.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#187)
by cam on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 07:14:46 PM EST

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. The issue is whether a government is allowed to institutionalize the discrimination against an unpopular minority. The answer of course is they are not.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

No "Equal Protection" (none / 0) (#222)
by OldCoder on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 12:15:25 AM EST

The Kennedy Decision in the Lawrence case explicitly rejected the "Equal Protection" clause as the basis for its decision. It's actually much easier to find fault with the Kennedy decision (on the Lawrence case) than it is to analyze the other parts of the Gay Rights issues.

Pedophiles and consensual drug users are people too, yet the idea of "equal protection" has never been used to take away the power of the State to regulate and/or forbid their behavior. Like it or not, the idea that moral values are embedded in US law is a very robust part of precedent and philosophy of law in the US and other western countries.

The only thing that has recently changed is the popularity of Gays. This popularity is being used as an excuse to discover imaginary rights and carve them in stone. Not everything is a right. The people and their elected representatives have the power to forbid certain activities for moral or for practical reasons.

If you believe US Constitution gives the State the power to forbid heroin use, you must also grant that the Constitution gives the State the power to forbid homosexual activity. And if using heroin were legal, using it would be safer than promiscuous homosexuality, so it's not an issue of public safety. All the arguments you might wish to muster in favor of legalizing heroin would not mean that the State did not have the power to regulate or forbid its use, merely that such laws would be unwise. Likewise with homosexuality.

However unpopular or unwise it may be, the Consitution gives the State the right to forbid adultery, and to jail the perpetrators, even though these laws have all been repealed. And married people are also people.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2003 OldCoder
[ Parent ]

As long as one doesn't forget (none / 0) (#223)
by mami on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 09:52:13 AM EST

that the people, who wrote the constitution, were people too and could have made mistakes, I can follow the argument.

It's just too bad that  people argue as if the constitution is a God given holy document. For that matter it's completely irrelevant, if it's a State constitution or the Federal one. Both constitutions can have abusive elements written into law within their text.

I have no idea, why the fact that there are two, sometimes competing or conflicting constitutional state and federal laws, should result in a check and balance system of each of them for the other.

Why is it not possible to have two constitutions, both Federal and State one, and both be dead unjust and unfair on certain human rights issues?

The Constitution gives the State or nation those rights that people decide to write into the constitution.

The only question that matters to me is, how do you prevent some people to write into constitutional law, what other people don't want to have in there, because they think a certain law is abusive?
-------

[ Parent ]

Also faggotry (2.33 / 9) (#47)
by LilDebbie on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 09:55:33 AM EST

GAY ANAL SEX is older than civilization itself. Surprisingly, heterosexual marriage has coexisted with faggotry, off and on, for millenia. For example, the ancient Greeks LOVED THE COCK but still got married. Granted, the wife was their solely to pump kids out, but she was still the wife. Of course, they viewed porkin' the wife as something of a chore rather than something pleasing in itself, which was usually CHOKING DOWN ATHENIAN BONERS.

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

[ Parent ]
Don't forget the Romans. (2.75 / 4) (#50)
by fn0rd on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:28:15 AM EST

Oh, and the Arabs, before Muhammed rained on their gay pride parade.

It's funny, many of our civiliztions institutions can be traced back to Plato's Symposium, which reads like soft-core gay porn in sections.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

The romans were wiped out (2.50 / 4) (#90)
by Stick on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:55:35 AM EST

Yet the Jews who didn't accept homosexuality one bit can't be destroyed. Homobuggeriality destroys people, families, and nations.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
And your evidence is? (none / 0) (#100)
by Nursie on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:12:36 AM EST

The roman empire lasted hundreds of years, and was brought down by force of arms and christianity. One might even say that the sudden revulsion of homosexuality that came with christianity broke down their system.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Christian Roman Empire survived for Centuries (none / 0) (#125)
by kirkjobsluder on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:48:46 AM EST

Actually, the Roman Empire both survived a long time after Chistianity was formally adopted, and was quite a bit more sexually conservative than we see right now.  By the time the Western Roman Empire collapsed conscripts were forced to convert to Chistianity.  The Eastern Roman Empire survived quite a bit longer as an officially Chistian entity until it was ironically weakened by "Roman Catholic" crusaders before it was toppled by the Islamic expansion.

[ Parent ]
Oh well..... (none / 0) (#171)
by Nursie on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 06:54:25 AM EST

Looks like I was just as wrong as the post I replied to.....

Maybe I should have stuck to talking about the greeks.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
The Romans weren't wiped out (none / 0) (#111)
by davidmb on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:11:01 AM EST

The Empire crumbled. The people themselves have many live descendants walking around today. The jews however, have not been very lucky in the "getting almost wiped out" stakes.

Hang on, that was probably the point you were trying to make with your post. Very clever!
־‮־
[ Parent ]

I just countered that claim... (none / 1) (#130)
by Chronos Tachyon on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:37:40 PM EST

...not a week ago. You can read my post here on iSONEWS (yeah, I know, unlikely forum for such a topic, but the level of discourse wasn't as low as you might expect).

[ Parent ]
Yes. (none / 1) (#53)
by abracadada on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:46:01 AM EST

And not every religion defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.  So if you're really interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage, you will of course be opposed to a constitutional ammendment defining it as such.

Also, leaving aside the somewhat overexuberant nature of LilDebbie's post, it is correct.  In many cultures, sex between men was a popular form of entertainment.
WMBC online freeform/independent radio.
[ Parent ]

aha, which religion would that be? (nt) (none / 0) (#66)
by mami on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:40:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Re: aha, which religion would that be? (none / 1) (#105)
by clarkcox3 on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 09:02:39 AM EST

Islam. Under Islamic law, a man is allowed to take as many wives as he can take care of.

[ Parent ]
I thought the limit was 4. (none / 0) (#107)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 09:14:13 AM EST

Though why any man would want more than one bitch nagging at him all the time is beyond me.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

Duh (none / 0) (#151)
by JahToasted on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:41:20 PM EST

If one bitch is nagging you, go see one of your other bitches.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but under Islam you wouldn't be allowed (none / 0) (#166)
by mami on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 12:33:49 AM EST

to marry four men, would you?

We are talking about homosexual marriages and not about polygamy, or have we already progressed to defend the right to gay polygamy?

-----------

[ Parent ]

"Gay rights" (none / 2) (#93)
by drsmithy on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:45:43 AM EST

I could respect a law or referendum that permitted gay Marriage, but I have no respect for judges to suddenly discover gay rights in hundred year old documents that clearly were not intended to create gay rights.

I'm not an American, and thus don't really know the constitution back to front, but unless it's got something in it specifically mentioning gender, they're not "suddenly discovering gay rights", they're "suddenly discovering *everyone's* rights" and that gays have been discriminated against until now.

AFAIK I know, the constitution dictates rights of the *people*. Homsexuals are a _subset_ of "the people", not the other way around.

[ Parent ]

usians don't know the constitution... (none / 0) (#141)
by IsaacW on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 03:04:06 PM EST

I'm not an American, and thus don't really know the constitution back to front...

most usian's don't know the constitution that well either...

to keep this somewhat on-topic, i'll give my opinion on this matter:

the government concept of "marriage" should be abolished, and replaced with "civil unions" for all couples, hetero- and homo-sexual. there is far too much religious baggage associated with the term "marriage." whether a particular religion allows gays to marry or not is their business, and the state cannot force them to allow such marriages. however, the state should recognize all stable and committed relationships with appropriate benefits.

[ Parent ]
What Is A Leg? (none / 0) (#96)
by freestylefiend on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 07:09:12 AM EST

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates:
Lincoln: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have".
Douglas: "Five, of course".
Lincoln: "No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one".

If you call a tail a 'leg,' then there are at least two meanings of 'leg.' Of course, calling a tail a 'leg' does not change the sheep, but it does change the language. When Lincoln says, "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one," he is reverting to the first definition of 'leg.' Calling a tail a 'leg' does make 'leg' mean tail.

To make this relevant to marriage: the semantic argument does not tell us which sorts of agreements should get government protection. It does not matter what it is called, but instead it matters whether the law should give the same protection to homosexual partnerships that it currently gives to permitted marriages. Only religious organisations, if anything, can grant marriages of religious significance. The US is not a religious organisation, so religions need not be concerned, unless the government forces them to grant homosexual 'marriages.' Anti-homosexual 'marriage' legislation would be the kind of religious-partisanship-enshrined-in-law that made Taliban lead Afghanistan undesirable. What about hypothetical religions, or even secular movements, that advocate homosexual partnerships? They would suffer discrimmination at the hands of the government.

[ Parent ]

A Fad? (none / 2) (#106)
by chuhwi on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 09:08:59 AM EST

Yes, the movement for gay rights is a fad, just like the movement for black rights was a fad and the movement for women's rights was a fad. After all, its not like black people or women are still interested in having rights. Yep, history certainly agrees with you.

[ Parent ]
So What? (none / 2) (#112)
by Lagged2Death on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:11:23 AM EST

Marriage is... older than the US Constitution. It is older than any of the nation-states that today exist. Marriage is older than any existing religion.

I don't understand why this constitutes an argument. Belief in Ra, the Egyptian god of the Sun, is older than Christianity - does that make Christianity definitively wrong? Of what relevance is the age of a belief or custom? Things change. Spousal abuse also has a long and storied tradition - does that make it something to be proud of? To defend? To institutionalize? Does its age make it "part of the morality of society?"

And besides, we could do a little word-substitution on this part of your argument, and we'd have something that was equally true, though equally irrelevant:

Homosexuality is... older than the US Constitution. It is older than any of the nation-states that today exist. Homosexuality is older than any existing religion.

You conclude that:

As a practical matter, we simply cannot know the overall effects of altering society to the extent that gay Marriage and civil unions [will]. Embedding gay culture into the structure of society and the psyche of its members will have some effects, it's just that we don't know what they are.

The same could be said of the abolition of slavery, women's sufferage, or, for that matter, the invention of fire. Or about a million other things. Now where would we be if every discoverer of fire-through-friction had held off on sharing the idea because he/she wasn't sure what the long-term social consequences might be?

I'm not really even trying to stand up for gay marriage here, I'm just trying to point out that this argument against it - and this is basically the only argument against it I've ever heard - is worthless.

Starfish automatically creates colorful abstract art for your PC desktop!
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0) (#117)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:29:01 AM EST

salvery is older than the constitution. i'll leave it at that

[ Parent ]
Your Room, Your Business (2.16 / 6) (#29)
by OldCoder on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:30:09 PM EST

This idea is the weakest part of the Lawrence majority decision by Justice Kennedy. It lacks precedent and common sense. Both precedent and common sense rage against the Kennedy decision in Lawrence.

Personal behavior behind closed doors is regulated by law in the case of drug use, sex between adults and children, sometimes between adults (where there were laws against adultery), and indeed such very personal behavior as murdering your family, and so on. Most things are just as legal (or just as illegal) whether done in the privacy of the home or in public. The exceptions are that public nudity and drunkenness are generally forbidden where private nudity and drunkenness are legal. There may be other execeptions that have not come to mind.

The idea of greater license behind closed doors is certainly not in the US Constitution and there is precious little precedent in law.

The Kennedy decision did refer to the Griswald case for the issue of privacy. But reading the Griswald decision reveals that the "Private" act under discussion was the purchase of contraceptives by a married woman. This is an act that takes place in public, in a pharmacy. The Griswald decision makes much of the fact that the woman in question was married, that marriage is an essential institution to our society, and that the Constitution should not lightly tread on such a sacred institution. The word private in Griswald refers to the arena of individual liberty, and has absolutely no relevance to the concept of secret-activity versus public-activity that it the word "Privacy" has in the Kennedy decision. Justice Kennedy was making a pun. And the two men convicted of anal sex were certainly not married.

Even suicide in private is illegal, although like other crimes, is harder to detect when committed behind closed doors. Indeed, performing an act in secret may sometimes be taken as knowledge of guilt in a court of law. Secrecy is more likely to indicate criminality than additional license.

--
By reading this signature, you have agreed.
Copyright © 2003 OldCoder

You miss the point (2.77 / 9) (#32)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 11:13:12 PM EST

Plenty of people have compared gay marriage to things like bestiality and pedophilia. I'm pretty sure you know that this argument is crap, and you were just hoping nobody would call you on it - surprise.

Sex with animals or children is nonconsensual, and has nothing do with the issue of anything that goes on between consenting adults, such as gay sex. Privately murdering your family is presumably done without their consent. And I can only say that if drug laws are the only thing pushing us down a slippery slope of losing our privacy, we're much better off losing the drug laws than the privacy.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

You miss the bigger picture (none / 0) (#102)
by armonica on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:38:40 AM EST

They compare it to pedophilia because that was just taken out of the psychosis defintion book last November. This is similar to homosexuality being taken out in 1986 (both times with no scientific proof that it should be taken out). Back then they said that they would "never" try to be able to marry. Behind closed doors was said a lot - it is private. So it isn't crap. It is a valid comparison. Thought nobody would call YOU on it - surprise!

Privacy was used to bash the police in the Jeffry Dahmer case. They even took his "gay lover" back to him to be further tortured and killed. What was consentual about that? If the victum in that case were female they would have taken her to a shelter.

The main point is that the supreme court looked at what other countries are doing and decided based on that and not what is in the Constitution. They even admitted it. THAT is a dangerous slippery slope.

[ Parent ]

Hoo boy (none / 0) (#167)
by kmcrober on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 12:47:29 AM EST

As I've said before, you seem to be what mental health professionals call "full on nuts."  I believe that's a technical term.  I'm not a psychiatrist myself, but my brother is, so I believe I can speak from a position of overwhelming authority.  Also, I read an article once about the reclassification of pedophelia.  I refer you to the Google IFL link for a basic grounder.

Here's the skinny - the APA doesn't need scientific evidence to REMOVE a classification as a mental illness.  They need scientific evidence to CLASSIFY something as a mental illness.  Pedophelia and other culturally and ethically forbidden sexual orientations are called "paraphelias".  I believe the term is fairly broad in application.  The APA decided there was insufficient evidence that paraphelias in general are a psychiatric condition; you can't administer a test and say, "This person is low on L-Dopa, and registers biochemical traits that along with their observed personality traits indicate a diagnosis of pedophelia."

In other words, it's a psychological rather than psychiatric issue.  There's no good reason for it to be in the DSM - just because something is immoral or unethical doesn't make it a priori a mental illness, and the APA's position (as I understand it) was that there is insufficient scientific evidence to call paraphelias in general an illness per se.

The psychiatric profession is very, very sensitive about this sort of thing.  There was a time when mental disorders were diagnosed willy-nilly, and any trait disliked enough by society could be called a disease and harshly "treated."  You know, like calling gay people mentally ill and administering harmful medical treatments.  

As a result, they're now very careful to keep their hands off value judgments.  The APA's position as outlined (as far as I understand the issue) was, 1.  Pedophelia is absolutely wrong and immoral, but 2. Doesn't appear to be a disease of the brain or nervous system, so 3. Doctors shouldn't be treating it like one, because 4. Doctors don't get to decide something feels like or should be a mental illness without really, really strong proof, because we've abused that power in the past.

I'm reading that last point in, obviously.

I could be way off base; I'm about as much a lay person as it's possible to be in this area.  But I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and buddy, you seem awfully antsy.  Perhaps you should see a professional and express your concern over the contents of the DSM?  You should also definately tell them your concerns about feminists circumcising boys in order to make cosmetics.  Maybe they can reassure you, or prescribe you something.

[ Parent ]

What can I say? (none / 0) (#185)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 06:45:03 PM EST

OK, learn to argue coherently. It's not the "psychosis definition book," it's the DSM. I looked this up, and you're either ignorant or lying - pedophilia was not "taken out," it was just defined more narrowly.

Also, please let me know: Exactly which part of the constitution contains a definition of marriage?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

+1 lesbian marriage, -1 gay marriage. -nt- (1.16 / 6) (#31)
by Suppafly on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 10:00:26 PM EST


---
Playstation Sucks.
Well, (2.81 / 11) (#36)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:13:03 AM EST

let me take this oppurtunity to use one of the largest words in the English lexicon:- your fight is not against the Religious Right or the Conservatives, but is more accurately against the Anti-Disestablishmentarians.

Marriage, methinks, is one of the last areas in our lives where the Church (or your favourite religous body) and the State co-exist with each other. So, any discussion on gay marriage is inevitably linked with the question of just how much state, and how much religion, should be involved in marriage. How about if we create a new super-class of cohabitation contracts and then define religious marriage to be a special case of that? I'm guessing the Religious Right in the US doesn't want that to happen, because that would mean the death-knell for their power-hold on this tradition. The problem for gay-rights activists, though is that mainstream American opinion, methinks, while probably open to this concept of letting gays live their lives, would nevertheless find it uncomfortable to address the bigger issue of removing the Church from marriage, and instead, convert it into a mostly state-sanctioned act.

Might as well mention this here, but to consider a completely opposite situation exists for Hinduism in India. You see, ancient Hindu marriage rites prescribe at least seven forms of marriages; one of them, the gandharva vivaaham, apparently allows for same-sex cohabitation (there's at least one lesbian couple in Bhopal who have exchanged rites in this fashion). Unfortunately, this is a historical reality not reflected in the (colonial era) Hindu Marriage Act of 1936, nor in the marriage laws for the other religions. And neither does Article 110 (?) help, which calls for imprisonment for people engaged in "unnatural" sex. Now, this is a catch-all law that the government has used to prosecute everyone from paedophiles to sodomists, so it's a tad difficult if we were to statuatorily remove that Article just like that. The way out there, IMHO, is for the Supreme Court to declare that same-gender sex between two consenting adults of sound mental health is indeed natural, given that you can find instances of homosexuality among lesser animals as well.

---
The Big F Word.

unh-uh. (none / 0) (#122)
by xfrosch on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:32:10 AM EST

> your fight is not against the Religious Right or
> the Conservatives, but is more accurately against
> the Anti-Disestablishmentarians.

No. Clearly, from the beginning, there has never been an established church in the US.

To the negligible extent that there arguably has ever been an established church in the USA (i.e., where does the President go to church? who owns the National Cathedral?), that would be the Episcopal Church, which is clearly not coming down on the side of the homophobes on this issue.

[ Parent ]

-1 (none / 3) (#49)
by rachsumat on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:13:20 AM EST

and Drew Barrymore marrying Tom Green

that is SO 2001...
--
"Be the wire. Shhhh. Wires don't talk..."
My take on this.. (3.00 / 4) (#51)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:30:21 AM EST

The complicated factor is that the term "marriage" has meaning in many different contexts.

Firstly there is a legal context. Marriage, after all, involves a contract and confers certain legal status and rights to the individuals involved in regards to each other.

Secondly there is a personal context. Marriage has a very special and unique meaning to the individuals involved. Obviously this meaning varies considerably from one couple to the next.

Thirdly there is a social context. The institution of Marriage is a social institution and has meaning for the relationship between the individuals and the greater society of which they are a part. The context will vary depending upon the culture of that greater society.

Finally there is a religous context. Marriage exists as a recognized status in most religions and helps define the relationship of the individuals with thier accepted faith (if any).

Almost all except the most extreme opponents recognize that gay people should have a right to marriage in the first context, the legal one. It's pretty much covered by the 14th Ammendment... and is part of the value system that all americans hold dear...equal protection under the law for ALL people.

However that is where many people (myself included) draw the line. We see some of the proponents of gay marriage trying to use such legislation as a springboard to codify into law acceptance of thier interpretation of the other 3 contexts in which marriage has meaning. That is why you are seeing such a big debate over symantics. The terms "civil union" and "marriage" have the exact same meaning as far as the legal context goes. They confer all the same rights and legal privalages. However, they have very different meanings as far as the other contexts go.

Gay people should have all the same rights, privilages and legal protections that any other person has. However they have no right to force other individuals to accept thier lifestyle on a personal, social or religous context. No one has the right to attempt to impose such beliefs upon other.

It is my belief that certain gay activists want to use this legislation to put the official government stamp of approval on the social, religous and personal aspects of thier lifestyle. In other words to show that thier interpretation of those aspects of thier lifestyle have official sanction. That is something which government should never get involved in. I have absolutely no opposition to legislation which secures them equal access to the institution in a legal context. When such legislation attempts to cross that line and lend its official imperator to social, religous and personal contexts of the institution is where I start to have a problem. Which is why (IMO) you hear so much flak about what term used.

To what extent (none / 1) (#54)
by antizeus on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:46:16 AM EST

First of all, I enjoyed your description of the various contexts (legal, personal, social).

It is my belief that certain gay activists want to use this legislation to put the official government stamp of approval on the social, religous and personal aspects of thier lifestyle.

Here are my questions:

  • To what extent would this stamp of approval on same-sex marriages affect the personal and social spheres of other people?
  • To what extent does the current stamp of approval on different-sex marriages affect the personal and social spheres of other people?

-- $SIGNATURE
[ Parent ]
Good Questions (none / 1) (#55)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:56:31 PM EST

To the answer the first part, I could envision people using such legislation as support for civil litigation against a church for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple or a private social institution for refusing to extend a "married" gay couple the same benefits as a straight married couple.

It wouldn't really be such a big deal if there wasn't such an ominious tendency in the legal system of this country (particulary the civil court system) of conflating public rights with private privilages..... and using laws designed to protect public rights as a hammer to force private institutions to extend privilages which conflict with thier own value systems.

Even still, I don't think government should be in the business of lending it's imperator to specific social, religous or personal viewponts. Attempting to use the force of law to enact social change is an abuse of governmental authority (IMO).

Which brings me to your second point. I can see some validity to the arguement that having government grant a license to be "married" to straight couples but having the license it granted to gay couple be called a "civil union" is itself an act of lending imperator to a particular viewpoint. I'm not a hypocrite (at least in this regard). I wouldn't object to having the legal status that government confers upon 2 people be called a "civil union" whether they are straight or gay. Let's take government out of the "marriage" business altogether and allow Religous and Social Institutions as well as private individuals to define the institution according to thier subjective values. Meanwhile government can restrict itself to enforcing the legal rights and public privalages of individuals who want to enter into a legaly binding partnership.

This seems to me like a solution that most people (except the extremists on both sides) will be willing to accept.

[ Parent ]

No no no. (none / 1) (#72)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 04:54:32 PM EST

To the answer the first part, I could envision people using such legislation as support for civil litigation against a church for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple or a private social institution for refusing to extend a "married" gay couple the same benefits as a straight married couple.

You can envision anyone suing anyone for anything, but the first case would certainly lose, and the second would almost certainly lose, depending on how private the institution really was. ALL CHURCHES MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES. A church is not required to marry anyone they don't want to. They are free to refuse to officiate if one party is a different religion, divorced, disliked by the priest, or even the wrong race. The same is true for private institutions - just look at the KKK.

Again, there is no chance that churches will be required by law to perform gay marriages. If they are ever forced to, it will be through public pressure, as it was with interracial marriage. As for the acceptable solution - it is indeed acceptable, but silly. The word "marriage" would continue to be used for civil unions, and eventually the term "civil union" would disappear. If it is necessary to go through that step, fine. But it shouldn't be.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Well (none / 1) (#81)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 08:23:19 PM EST

The Boy Scouts are an entirely private institution and how many suits have been filled against them for refusing membership to gays or athiests?

I'm sorry but I've seen too many attempts to warp our laws into covering situations which should be completely beyond thier jurisdiction..... and I've seen far too many "advocate" judges to have the degree of faith that you seem to that this wouldn't happen

[ Parent ]

And (none / 1) (#98)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 07:26:37 AM EST

they've won those suits. What's your point? As I said, anyone can sue anyone for anything, regardless of the law. But if the law isn't on their side, they will lose.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Boy Scouts (none / 0) (#180)
by Cheetah on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:59:08 PM EST

I believe that the basis of the suits against the Boy Scouts was that they very often receive considerable public funding, and organizations that receive funding from the government are required, at some level, to follow the restrictions placed on that government.

[ Parent ]
My Understanding (none / 0) (#182)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 04:38:13 PM EST

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that individual troops are sponsored by organizations in the same way that a local little league team might by sponsored by your local car wash.

These organizations are usualy private but sometimes can be local or county government departments, etc. The organization as a whole doesn't recieve any sort of public finding (in the manner that say, National Public Radio, does)... and the local or county governments that sponsor individual troops do so on an entirely voluntary basis.

I could see a suit being brought against the local or county government departments to drop thier sponsorship.... but filing suit against the entire Boy Scouts of America organization because a couple of troops are sponsored by thier local highway dept is pretty damn spurious (IMO)

[ Parent ]

I accept your first three contexts (none / 1) (#58)
by hatshepsut on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:31:21 PM EST

Having no religion myself, and not having been married in a church, I really have no opinion on the 4th.

Since churches are essentially private clubs (you must believe X in order to belong), shouldn't the religious interpretation of marriage be the special case, while the civil/personal/social implications exemplify the general case?

[ Parent ]

Bullet Wound in the Foot (none / 1) (#64)
by virg on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:03:31 PM EST

> However they have no right to force other individuals to accept thier lifestyle on a personal, social or religous context. No one has the right to attempt to impose such beliefs upon other.

So the forcing of individuals to accept their lifestyle is not right, but the forcing of the belief in a particular social context of marriage is a right? This statement is hypocritical in the extreme. If I don't have the right to define marriage for you, how can you possibly claim the right to define marriage for me?

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 ]
Reading Comprehension (none / 2) (#80)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 08:14:45 PM EST

Prehaps you are missing my entire arguement. NEITHER of us have the right to force our definitions or beliefs upon one another.

Which is why the term "Marriage" should be left entirely out of the equation. Because it has meaning in so many different contexts. Yet the only context the government should legitimately concern itself with is the legal, contractual one.

To put it more simply when two people go to the government for a license, it should be for a "civil union" whether the couple is gay or straight.

Getting "Married" should be something that happens in Church or a private swapping of rings or whatever ritual has personal, social and religious signifigance for the two people involved. That should be an entirely seperate and unrelated condition from the "civil union".

Thus everyone enjoys equal protection under the law an NO ONE is foisting thier beliefs on anyone else. Do I make my position clear?

[ Parent ]

Cultural Comprehension (none / 0) (#109)
by virg on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 09:33:14 AM EST

> Thus everyone enjoys equal protection under the law an NO ONE is foisting thier beliefs on anyone else. Do I make my position clear?

Your point is perfectly clear, and well taken. I agree with it entirely. The problem is that the current word used by the government when conferring rights on someone in a legal sense is "marriage" and saying that government should drop it does not address the fact that they won't. When all marriage licenses say "civil union" and being a part of a civil union lets you check the same box on your tax return as a couple who are "married", then I will agree with your ideal. The problem is that it is only an ideal at this point, and the reality is that to get the full benefits of marriage in a legal sense, you need to be married, not just joined in a civil union. The opponents of gay marriage have already forced the hand of the gays who want equal rights, by being unwilling to share the term "marriage" and yet being unwilling to divest the term from its legal ramifications. They don't care about equal rights, they want a "straights only" club, and they want that club to possess special rights reserved only for them.

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 ]
Re: your drawing of the line (none / 0) (#134)
by Chronos Tachyon on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:07:16 PM EST

You're quite right about the multiple meanings of "marriage" giving rise to the slippery, squirming mess of a battle going on. However, re: the separation of legal and social aspects, I would suggest that (in any civil rights battle) the introduction of legal change necessarily hastens the social change. Could Brown v. BOE or Loving v. Virginia have possibly NOT helped push forward the (incomplete but continuing) social change w.r.t. blacks in the last 50 years, after 100 years of stagnation? The stigma of illegality feeds back on existing prejudices, and removing the legal pressure will inevitably trigger the lowering of the social pressure.

Re: religious aspects of our "lifestyle"1, there are already quite a few religions that bless gay marriages, so the current civil-marriage battle doesn't really enter into that.

1. Which one? Is my aunt living the Lesbian Spinster Atkins Dieter LifestyleTM? If her current girlfriend/manipulator ends her up on Maury Povich (very possible -- they met because my aunt saw her on it), does that qualify as a new lifestyle involving White Trash? Do I get my own Blue Collar Homo Geek Who Can't Get A Real Job Much Less A Boyfriend/Partner/Whatever LifestyleTM?



[ Parent ]
Perceptions of Marriage (none / 1) (#136)
by bwcbwc on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 01:22:32 PM EST

Your analysis of the different semantics and contexts of "marriage" is a great first step at sorting out the BS coming from both sides of the issue.

However, things go downhill from there. I'm willing to agree to disagree about the motives of the gay community in trying to legalize gay marriage in the government context. I don't see that as their primary motive, but I'm not one to interfere with anyone's conspiracy theories. One could similarly argue that the religious conservatives are currently imposing their religious and social views in the governmental context, which is clearly unconstitutional.

The point that you make that doesn't have basis in fact is that civil unions confer all of the same legal rights as marriage. In a word: NOT! You don't get the income tax deduction, you don't get next of kin rights if your significant other is comatose, and there are other critical areas where people in civil unions have jump through extra legal hoops (like signing Power of Attorney papers) that married people just get by default.

As you mentioned, the concept of "marriage" has serious religious overtones for many (perhaps a majority of) people, to the extent that gay marriage, like abortion, would be an issue that can go on forever because people are not going to change their assumptions. Here are some proposed points that echo some earlier comments, but should add some value:

  • The government has no business licensing or defining "marriage". Marriage should be limited to its religious and social definitions. If we attempt to maintain a dual-standard of "marriage" and "civil union" we are falling into the same "separate but equal" trap that the segregationists led us into in the 20th century.
  • The government should define "civil unions" for all citizens. Much like current state marriages, patents or trademarks, registration of a civil union would confer a set of pre-defined privileges and obligations that the participants of the civil union would be assigned when the union was finalized.
  • The obligations of the civil union must be designed to protect the rights of all involved. If the civil union can be regarded as a contract, then a "divorce" (or whatever the civil union equivalent would be called) would be similar to a suit for contract violations, or be allowed only under penalty terms predefined in the definition of the civil union (for example, payment of a penalty fee). This provision is particularly needed to protect the members of a civil union in cases where more than two people are involved.
  • While we're at it: civil unions should not restrict participants as to the number or gender of participants. If a group of legally competent adult people wants to enjoy the rewards and responsibilities of a civil union, they should be allowed to organize their relationship accordingly. This is consistent with current perceptions of the right to privacy as established by the Supremes. Note that for large groups, some of the benefits of the civil union (like the income tax deduction) could be diluted to the point where they are no longer useful.  
The reason I mention this last item is that I see a possibility to use group civil unions to address some of the social issues that are raised by having both parents working outside the home. By having more than two parents involved in raising the children, you can have enough wage earners bringing in income to support the household and still have consistent, loving caregiving for the children. This would give us many of the benefits of the more traditional extended family within the modern social context. Some of Robert Heinlein's work (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Time Enough for Love) discusses alternative marriage structures that don't involve polygamy in the traditional sense. Because "civil union" removes the religious connotations of marriage from the legal relationship, I hope that we would see fewer complaints about how such a group is unnatural.  

[ Parent ]
Interesting (none / 0) (#164)
by kmcrober on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:43:55 PM EST

If I can zero in on one point you make, the last item in your bulleted list is very interesting to me.  I think it's a fascinating argument, for two reasons.

One is that it's almost certainly a deal-breaker.  A federally or state-recognized civil union between multiple partners would simply not fly, because polygamy is such a hot-button issue.  Making the contractual rights valid outside that hot zone would require formulating them in such a way that it would be an essentially new social institution, I think.  

Another reason that I would have assumed it was a deal breaker is the scalability of rights, especially taxation and survivor's rights.  Your dilution idea is very interesting to me.  I wonder how practical it is in the extremes, especially with marital rights (both legal and social) that aren't quantifiable; custody, perhaps.  Great thinking, though.  It's a nuanced approach to a difficult problem.

[ Parent ]

I agree differently (none / 0) (#189)
by p2sam on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 12:14:44 AM EST

I think I agree with you, but from the opposite point of view. I think the religious establishment is trying to put in law what their religions dictate. That marriage/civil_union under law should be limited to the hetro. variety. But after reading your comment, I realize that both special interest groups are simply trying to take advantage and make a big fuss out of this rather trivial matter...

[ Parent ]
Can't see the forest for the trees (2.89 / 19) (#56)
by omegadan on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:09:29 PM EST

The "Gay Marriage" issues infact has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

Look at big republican/south issues in the past and present, gay marriage, racism, homeland security, abortion, religion, I remember in the 90's it was welfare mothers.

They are ALL distractions. Republicans get people riled up about something -- then the media covers THAT story while the republicans are busy FUCKING YOU. While you're talking about gay marriage they're busy passing laws allowing themselves to put mercury and arsenic in you water, clear-cut forests, patriot act bills which are unconstitutional, and generally reinforce the Amercian style economic system which keeps men like them OBSCENLY wealthy at the expense of the lower class.

Do you really think the richest men in the world care about gay marriage at all? The only thing that scares them is not being wealthy. The fact that the president raised the gay marriage issues probably indicates that some HUGE screw is on the horizion for the american public.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley

"Welfare mothers" in the 90s (3.00 / 10) (#57)
by CwazyWabbit on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:23:17 PM EST

At that time in the UK we held single mothers to be the source if all societal decay. They were claimed to take up all available housing and huge chunks of the social welfare budget.

These days, it is immigrants who are the target. Of course, everybody says "illegal immigrants" but nobody actually seems to distinguish the legal from the illegal.

You are right to say that issues like this distract the public from what is really going on and what really needs to be done. I would be surprised if you could prove that only the Republicans do it though. It seems to be fairly obvious to appeal to the baser parts of a mob mentality in order to distract attention from whatever you want hidden.
--
"But here's the thing: if people hand me ammunition, what kind of misanthrope would I be if I didn't use it?" - Sarah-Katherine
[ Parent ]

+3 agree (none / 3) (#69)
by phred on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 03:54:52 PM EST

I seem to remember the moment Monica got caught giving Clintons "presidential podium" attention, he sent some troops somewhere.

This still doesn't dampen my admiration for Bubba Bill. Let me re-emphasis, he got head at work _and_ the girl brought the pizza. Anyways, I'd lie about it too if I was married to Hillary.

[ Parent ]

somewhere... (none / 0) (#146)
by JahToasted on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 04:24:44 PM EST

are you perhaps refering to him launching an attack against al queda in Afghanistan? Shame on him!
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
Wedge Politics (3.00 / 8) (#77)
by cam on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 07:11:18 PM EST

The goal is to get the other party to defend an unpopular minority.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

When you say Welfare mothers... (1.00 / 9) (#61)
by undermyne on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:25:29 PM EST

you of course meant lazy whores, right?

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo

[ Parent ]
Exactly right... (none / 2) (#92)
by araym on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:05:20 AM EST

This is just like when the Republicans won over the South in the 60s. The Democrats weren't being quite racist enough for the common folk there and the Republicans took the opportunity to secure a new voting bloc by playing on their bigotry. I'm sure future generations will look upon this time and marvel that the government at one time legally sanctioned treating people unequally, just how we now look back at Jim Crow laws with disgust.

What's really sad is all those low class southerners voting for a party that's primary and bluntly obvious goal is to increase the disparity between rich and poor.

-=-
SSM

[ Parent ]
Exactly WRONG (none / 2) (#97)
by armonica on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 07:24:31 AM EST

Which party is the ONLY party to have put blacks on the Supreme court? The Republican's, the first one of them in the 1950's by Eisenhower (Thurgood Marshall). In the 1960's Kennedy and more specifically Johnson vetoed a number of civil rights bills. Finally when the outrage got high enough outside Johnson signed the civil rights act, he is on record as not wanting to.

In fact Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican party. The Dem's wanted to keep slavery. That continues to this day, only most of the blacks don't even realize it. They use FUD to keep them in line. Even today most blacks are scared stiff (yes, even a guy like Mike Tyson is scared) to vote for a Republican, as if he is the boogeyman or something. Then the Democrat that they voted for proceed to screw them over big time. Some of them are beginning to realize it and threatening to not vote.

BTW you talk about Jim Crow laws, first of all it is Jim Crowe (he was a slave) and you should look at who passed those laws (because I don't think you know what you are talking about). It wasn't the Republican's. In fact the more democratically controled areas tended to have worse laws. Look it up because I'm sure you think I'm wrong. I'm not. Be sure to get a text that wasn't written by a revisionist (in other words - a liar). There are a bunch of authors over the years that have been throughly shot down for their revisionist texts, however a number of their books still pollute the libraries out there. They should move those books to the fiction section.

[ Parent ]

Hold on there, buddy (none / 1) (#113)
by rigorist on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:14:35 AM EST

Which party is the ONLY party to have put blacks on the Supreme court? The Republican's, the first one of them in the 1950's by Eisenhower (Thurgood Marshall).

Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Court in 1967. That would be the second LBJ Administration.

In fact Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican party.

Abraham Linconln was only the second candidate run for President by the Republican Party (John Fremont was the first in 1856). The party was founded by a variety of persons opposed to slavery and is the successor (mostly) to the now-defunct Whig Party.

In fact the more democratically controled areas tended to have worse laws. Look it up because I'm sure you think I'm wrong. I'm not. Be sure to get a text that wasn't written by a revisionist (in other words - a liar). There are a bunch of authors over the years that have been throughly shot down for their revisionist texts, however a number of their books still pollute the libraries out there. They should move those books to the fiction section.

Truth be told, prior to about 1968, both political parties in the South were equally racist. It's just that the Republicans kept losing elections because of the connection to Lincoln. In 1968, Richard Nixon decided to make a move to break the Democrats' stronghold on Southern voters. He was able to do this because Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, was viewed as betraying his Southern roots by pushing hard for civil rights after 1964 (he only pushed lightly prior to that). Southern Democrats were willing to turn because their racism was more important to them than their party loyalty. The strategy was a success.

Lyndon Johnson, for all his faults, dragged the Democratic Party out of its racist past. But the racists and bigots were still around. Nixon, in his cynical way, stepped forward and picked up the dropped banner of bigotry for the Republicans.

[ Parent ]

Actually I do know what I'm talking about... (none / 0) (#179)
by araym on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:51:23 PM EST

That was my whole point, the Democrats controlled the South and then when they finally started to reform their racist ways (at least on the national level) the Republicans picked up the slack (after previously being the much less racist of the two).

-=-
SSM

[ Parent ]
Thurgood Marshall (none / 0) (#207)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:59:01 AM EST

Marshall was put on the court by Johnson, not Eisenhower. He had previously served as Johnson's solicitor general. See here for a brief biography.

[ Parent ]
actually I didnt mean (none / 1) (#127)
by omegadan on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:19:51 PM EST

to exclude democrats... they've done their share. But republicans have been the purveyors of the juciest fud lately.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

Can't see the earth, you are way out there (1.00 / 7) (#99)
by armonica on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:06:04 AM EST

Come back to earth. Your view is way out there that you can't even see the earth, nevermind the forest.

You mention a number of issues. Most of them have nothing to do with the Republican's and are distractions of the Democrats. They are famous for misleading the public. Then you state that they are fucking you. Excuse me? WHO introduced welfare, food stamps and headstart? It was Bob Dole - a Republican. Lately the Democrats act like this is their issue. They put pork into it for themselves so they try to preserve it and resisted reform that happened in 1996. The Republican's got that through and it was a stunning success. As for the arsenic issue, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. That law was passed to feel good, it has no basis in scientific fact like say lead for example. In years past they used to use arsenic to ripen potatoes. No harm done. Your comment about allowing mercury into water is against the clean water act (i.e. you have no idea or you are lying). The clear cut forest thing is allowing them to clear away trees and debris so we don't get out of control forest fires (you should know about that too).

The patriot act - this is probably the most misundersood act of our time. You obviously don't understand it, in fact I bet you don't even know what it stands for (you are a victum of FUD). See this washington post article that the post has rolled out to archive, it is preserved at http://www.exo.net/sla-sf/hypermail/0400.html . Think for yourself instead of listening to puke liberals.

The gay marriage thing is to do with being in everyone's face, not JUST in the bedroom. Just as nearly all people reading this agree that "man on boy" sex is taboo, immoral, criminal and sexually deviant, homosexuality was this before 1986. That is when the gays got the psychiatric association to take it out of their book of defined psychosis. They did it with no scientific proof and violated their own charter doing it. Last November they did the same thing with "man on boy" sex. 15-20 years from now we will be having this discussion on why we shouldn't allow men to have sex with boys. Somehow the Republican's will be the crazy right instead of the voice of sanity.

The Las Vegas marriage thing is an abomination as well and should be put to an end as well. The bottom line is homosexuality IS a psychosis and can be cured. That has been proven over and over again. Lets keep the fags out of our face. They already CAN do it in the bedroom. Keep it there (i.e. get a room).

As for marriage, that can be a wonderful thing. I have been married for many years, in fact my son is probably older than you are. Communication is a big problem today and is the root cause of most divorces. A lot of that has to do with feminism - I didn't get my way so he is "discriminating" against me or he thinks I'm stupid (usually the later). Then they get mad and don't even want to talk about it. BTW which party keeps shoving feminism down our throat as well? The Dem's. Then they don't even convict their boy (Bill Clinton) when he sexually harrased Monica. How hypocritical, especially for Feinstein and (barbie) Boxer who got to Congress on the Clarance Thomas "outrage" ticket.

All I know is I had many jobs (and a hell of a time) under Clinton and a better job (just one) under Bush. My retirement funds are up as well. Also, looking at the testimony for Enron and the other companies I found out that we were screwed long before Bush got in office. Most cooking of the books started in 1995. So we were already screwed in 2001.

[ Parent ]

Whatever, you liar (none / 0) (#116)
by rigorist on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:25:02 AM EST

Considering that above I demonstrated your grasp of the facts is tenuous at best, why should we pay attention to anything you say at all?

Who appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court?

Given your ability to tell bald-faced lies, I anticipate a fine future for you in the Bush Adminstration.

[ Parent ]

takes one to know one much? (none / 0) (#169)
by Josh A on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 04:03:29 AM EST

I was ready to look into what you were saying until I got to the "homosexuality can be cured" part. Then you called vegas marriages an "abomination". THEN you attack a straw-woman version of feminism you keep filed under D for Democrats.

You're obviously as nuts as he is.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
Marriage is a religious sacrament. (3.00 / 13) (#59)
by craigd on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:37:33 PM EST

The government shouldn't be recognizing gay marriage. Or straight marriage, for that matter. Civil Unions should be allowed for all people, gay or straight.


A man who says little is a man who speaks two syllables.
Government recognition (1.80 / 5) (#101)
by armonica on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:23:09 AM EST

Fat chance of that happening. The feminists want marriage to be recognized especially for female-male unions. After all, how can they take guys to the cleaners when they divorce? Most of our laws are very much anti-male. The "female" circumcision law is the latest unconstitutional law passed. Unconstitutional because it only protects female's and not males. So doctors continue to make a lot of money mutilating boys and torturing them shortly after their birth. Then they sell the foreskins for creams to take wrinkles out of women's faces (collogen). Check this out: http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org if you have any guts. If you are turning 18 you can even sue over it - please do.

Ironically I could argue that the Republican's are trying to save gays the pain of divorce. No, not the mental anguish - I hope they suffer for that, I mean the pain when they rip your belonging, money, whatever you value away from you. They are also trying to keep them from officially looking foolish. Marry another guy and it is there for life. An official record of just how stupid you were. So even if they do get their act together - it is still there! Dogging them the rest of their life. It could also cause disrimination on the job, insurance and so on. Be careful what you want - you may get it.

[ Parent ]

Crazy much? (none / 0) (#163)
by kmcrober on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:13:09 PM EST

Seriously, that comes off as a full-blown tinfoil hat rant.  Feminists are circumcising babies to make face cream?  Republicans are trying to stop gay marriage rights so gays won't be embarassed by being gay later in life?  What?

[ Parent ]
The argument for . . . (2.85 / 7) (#60)
by Dphitz on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 01:45:22 PM EST

the sanctity of marriage will always be a loser so long as you can be married by some hack in an Elvis costume without even getting out of your car then get it annulled the next day.  

I wish the religious right would stop blathering on about this "sanctity" bullshit when it's really the decaying influence of Christianity over the U.S. that they fear most.  Why else would you want to teach something as moronic as creationism as science?


God, please save me . . . from your followers

how does this figure into the upcoming election? (none / 0) (#103)
by Humbaba on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:47:21 AM EST

All debating about whether or not gay marriage should be allowed aside, I'm more interested in how this will affect the presidential election.

While I think it's an important issue, I'm more interested in the lethargic economy and the international problems (ie war in Iraq) the US faces right now.  I suspect that if the public debate focuses on things like gay marriage, guns and abortion where there doesn't appear to be a clear majority of opinion, Bush stands a better chance of winning the election.

If instead, candidate X (democrat) forces discussion on jobs, taxes and war, where Bush has weaknesses that can be exploited, it seems like the democrats might gain some ground.

I want to see gay marriage made legitimate and think most of the arguments why it shouldn't be made so are pretty weak.  I won't, however, support the idea if it means another four years of Bush in the white house.  I imagine front-runner Sen. John Kerry is very concerned about the fracas in his home state over gay marriage/civil unions, et. al.

Hear, Hear! (none / 2) (#104)
by clarkcox3 on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:52:14 AM EST

  1. If marriage is a religious construct, then the government has no right to make any laws regarding it (darn that pesky Bill of Rights). It is not the government's responsibility to protect the "sanctity" of religious beliefs. Therefore gay marriage should be legal. Letting the government enforce a single definition of "marriage" is just as absurd as letting the government decree that beef should be illegal because a particular religion sees cows as sacred.
  2. If marriage is a legal construct, then religion is irrelevant. Therefore gay marriage should be legal.

You can't have it both ways, these homophobes have to pick one or the other. However, either way you choose, gay marriage, logically, should be legal.



yep (none / 0) (#114)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:15:47 AM EST

agreed

[ Parent ]
Marriage is both... (none / 0) (#194)
by Elendale on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 04:14:22 AM EST

In the USA at least.

There's a religious side to it, ironically enough same sex couples can already participate in the religious side just as freely as opposite sex couples. Pesky separation of church and state indeed! There's also a legal side, which also happens to fall under separation of church and state. But ultimately, your point stands- if the churches want to use their religious authority to protest same sex marriages then they should logically and legally be bound to hold up whatever the government decides to do.

So same sex couples can already get the ceremony and all of that, but they still (currently) have to file separate tax forms. So, supposedly, two men being able to file on the same tax form will destroy the sanctity of marriage and undermine the moral foundations of America.


---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 3) (#108)
by crazycanuck on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 09:31:37 AM EST

you want to know why everyone is "getting bent [...] for gay marriage"...

what i don't get (none / 2) (#115)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:17:38 AM EST

i'm not a USian but what I don't understand is this whole constitution thing. THe right to bare/bear (which one) is in the constitution so it can;t be change but the constitution can be changed to stop gay marriages. If it can be changed for gay marriages it can be changed for guns. U can't have it both ways.

don't worry, be happy (none / 1) (#120)
by xfrosch on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:42:13 AM EST

It's damned hard to amend the constitution. The easy way is to overwhelmingly carry both houses of congress and then thirty-eight state legislatures. The other way is so hard that it's never been done.

Bush is just using his soapbox to bleat hypocritically while he's got the chance. Any constitutional amendment that might result is highly unlikely to come into force while he's president, even if he somehow weasels his way into another term.

[ Parent ]

The other way (none / 0) (#132)
by cpt kangarooski on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:53:20 PM EST

The other way is so hard that it's never been done.

Well, it's happened before, just not recently. Remember that the last time there was a convention of the states to make alterations in the US government, they ended up trashing the Articles of Confederacy and replacing them with the Constitution.

So it's probably for the best that it isn't something we see every day.


--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]

AFAIK... (none / 0) (#123)
by Sairon on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:34:37 AM EST

The right to bear arms is explicitly listed in the Bills of Rights (a series of ammendments to the Constitution), whereas I don't recall marriage laws and customs coming from anywhere but commonlaw.

jared

[ Parent ]

Oh, both could be changed... (none / 0) (#128)
by ibsulon on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 12:20:41 PM EST

But there's no way in Hades that they're ever going to get an amendment passed to repeal the second... It's more sacred than marrage to a lot of people. :) - It has a lot to do with a fundamental mistrust of the government built into this country. The marriage amendment is equally unlikely to succeed, but it doesn't stop people from talking about it...

[ Parent ]
Marriage = religous, Unions = legal (none / 0) (#118)
by tkrabec on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:29:55 AM EST

Marriage is a religous institution, and as such States should have no control over it. States do however have controll over civil unions. The line between a civil union and Marriage has been muddied over the past several years. If the church has a problem with same sex marriages then that is fine, they do not have to preform marriage ceremonies for  people it does not want to.
States have every right to ban same sex unions if the argument is not based on morals, laws need to be based on legality not morals or we would have a moral system not a legal system
And as for this crap of states not wanting to accept marriages from other states.  If it they do not accept gay marriages then they cannot accept straight marriages or they are being prejudice and that is illegal.
 -- Tim


actually, no. (none / 0) (#121)
by xfrosch on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:11:04 AM EST

This is what I used to think too. But for the first centuries of its existence, Christianity was perfectly happy to leave the entire subject of marriage to the civil authorities. The Church began to invent the concept of sacramental marriage somewhere in the fifth century, and as late as 499 the Council of Toledo explicitly recognized the validity of common-law marriage. Read chapter 11 of Garry Wills' Papal Sin.

Modern Protestants would probably contend that the Church had it wrong back then, but then Protestants pretty much insist on the luxury of making up any kind of ridiculous theological justification they want to.

[ Parent ]

I did not know that. (none / 0) (#196)
by tkrabec on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 12:48:48 PM EST

what about older religions like Jewdaism(sp?) or hindu, etc. Then it begs the question did the "state" give the right for marriage to the church, or in the US, which was formed well after the 5th century which has precidence. -- Tim

[ Parent ]
Ok. what i reckon (none / 1) (#119)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 10:32:52 AM EST

When u get married. First u get the government part covered. Sign the contract whatever, which gives everyone the same rights ie tax free inheritance etc. Then u go for the ceremony. Church, non-religious or vegas. Call it a civil union or whatever. THen the gays get what they want; all the legal rights. And the fundies get what they want; no gay 'marriages'. Then churchs can deny gays marriage in thier institutions and the gays can have their own churches or wedding officials or whatever. If the fundies still object. well they can fark off becuase all men are created equal blah blah blah.

I may be one of the problems, (3.00 / 5) (#126)
by Sairon on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:50:15 AM EST

as I am a 'conservative Christian'. In the process of considering this subject recently, I have formed one personal belief on the subject that may in its basis be flawed. However, it seems to me that the legal definitionof marriage that the state ought to concern itself with is a condition of mutual property ownership, much like that of a corporation. In this case we decide that the property of two individuals is mutual and non-exclusive. That is two say, for two individuals A and B, upon marriage their current and future property is considered to be the property of both and not just one or the other. This follows then for income, etc.

As such, I see no reason why people of any combinations of sex, or numbers of people for that matter, cannot be legal married. While I may be taken aback if my local synagouge began performing such marriages, I don't see why the state should care so long as taxes are filled out properly.

Then, of course, I hit the big emotional gun that is often pulled out in any kind of discussion about government. "What about the children?!!!" choke sob

To break it down, by natural means gay peoples cannot procreate amongst themselves. Therefore the traditional avenues of enterting into parenthood need not be discussed. The key question, to me, is not "May gay married people raise children together" but, "May gay people raise children at all?" And for my part, I do not see how it could be damaging to allow children to be raised by gay peoples. sigh

While I may believe in the God of Abraham, and am a patriot of my Blessed Republic... I don't think these people have been reading the same Bible and Constitution that I have.

Jared

Refreshing (none / 1) (#162)
by kmcrober on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 11:03:39 PM EST

You may want to consider whether you are, in fact, a conservative Christian.  The religious left is alive and well in this country; it's simply less shrill and demanding than the shock troops of Jerry Falwell, and therefore less often heard.

I, personally, have been enormously pleased with a blog called "The Right Christians". It's a politically progressive blog of sorts from a Christian perspective, including regulard obscure Bible passages connected to the commentary.

I find the authors of the blog to be much, much more compassionate and thoughtful than the self-described religious right; there is very little of the terrible hypocrisy that characterizes too many evangelicals these days, and a great deal more introspection and humility.

Hypocritical conservative elements so debased the church I was raised in, in my opinion, that it pushed me away from the faith I was taught as a child.  Discovering a religious left has been deeply satisfying; I hope you at least find it interesting, even if your politics are different.

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#165)
by Sairon on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 12:30:09 AM EST

I'm using the terms I'd feel most easily describe my views for the majority of people. I say conservative, because I generally vote either Republican or Libertarian. I read the Constitution, its Amendments and the Federalist Papers quite literally. I whole-heartedly support the NRA and dislike most social programs. I've never used them, even when I had the 'need'.

I take the Bible quite literaly, though I consider myself Christian by default of having been raised that way. I'm more in a middle-ground of believing in Abraham's God, but I'm not sure one way or another about Jesus.

That said, I think the true road to proper governance lies somewhere in the middle of the road in most cases. I think if the Libertarians won a few battles that both the left and right would find they like it quite a bit. I truly believe that removing things like a minimum wage would grease the wheels of commerce in our nation, leading to more economic stability and enjoyment for our peoples. I think we'd find that wages would mostly raise on their own, though market forces. However, many things are too-often tied together, and taxes would likely have to be revamped. Not likely to happen in my lifetime, but its nice to dream.

Interestingly enough, the government model that God seems to suggest is entirely minimal. Leaders raise themselves through common approval for specific tasks, and everyday law is headed by a few judges. I should be back to programming now

Jared

[ Parent ]

Adoption (none / 3) (#139)
by preeder on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 02:44:13 PM EST

In my mind, the issue is simple.  It isn't gay marriage that I am against, but some of the benefits that come with it.

In particular, the allowance of adopting a child.  I am single, and do not have the ability to adopt.  I feel that this is with good reason.  I, alone, do not have the facility to provide everything necessary to raise a child productively.  Thus, the state does not allow me to do so.

I feel that a gay couple also does not have this facility.

The state has the obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves.  By not allowing homosexual marriages, they are protecting orphaned or otherwise undesired children.

prey-tell, why? (none / 1) (#147)
by benxor on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:09:01 PM EST

Is it because their gayness might rub off on the child, causing them to be gay and then.... get married to another gay person and.... you know... do weird gay stuff together... ewwwwww...

What the fuck is it about gayness that seems to confuse people with 'high level gamma radiation'? It doesn't affect those around them. Children of a parent who is gay don't necessarily turn out to be gay; nobody becomes gay; so the problem then must be that a gay couple can't, what, provide adequate food and shelter or something? What?

--
all generalisations are false - including this one
[ Parent ]

Not even close (none / 1) (#150)
by preeder on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:22:33 PM EST

It isn't any concern about a child "becoming" gay. It is just that you often teach children through experience.

When my sister (single parent at the time) was potty training my nephew, she brought him to me. And he learned, by watching, how to urinate standing up. And I know that seems like an insignificant thing, but these things are important.

As a perhaps better example, consider two "dads" telling their daughter about menstruation when she has her first period. You can describe the physical bodily processes in detail, but neither could relate to how it feels, because of lack of experiences.

Incidentally, I notice that you mention that "no one becomes gay". I would actually differ on your opinion here. Homosexuality is a choice. It is sexual preference, not sexual orientation.



[ Parent ]
If I may say so... (none / 1) (#156)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:17:56 PM EST

... That is a pretty thoughtless analysis. As an example of why gays can't raise children, you use your single sister inviting a family member of the opposite sex to provide the information you claim gays can't.

When did you make the choice to find members of the opposite sex arousing? In my experience, it just happened on its own.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Pertinence (none / 1) (#158)
by preeder on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:56:09 PM EST

I think that it is very pertinent as an example.

The point is that the parental figure(s) in my sister's family unit at the time (namely herself) lacked in some way, and that gay couples would have similar deficiencies.

The difference here is that while my sister could make choices on her own whether or not to get pregnant while single, the ability to adopt a child is a benefit given by the state to marriage couples.

The point isn't who or why you find someone arousing it is what you choose to do when some arouses you.



[ Parent ]
So (none / 2) (#159)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 07:35:48 PM EST

your sister found an obvious solution to a fairly minor problem, but gays couldn't do the same. Therefore gays shouldn't be able to adopt. Come on. Gays should be denied children because they have a possibility of having a hurdle explaining menstruation? A foster home is better? Or an orphanage?

There just isn't a rational reason to deny gay people full and equal rights and priviledges.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Should the gov't knowing place a child there? (none / 0) (#160)
by preeder on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:03:43 PM EST

The difference again is that the government decides who can adopt children.  It is unfortunate that my sister made decisions that led to her being a single parent.

Yes, my sister found ways to correct the deficiency.  And of course, anyone in such a situation could make similar actions.  However, should the government allow adoptions when such a deficiency exists?  I think not.

This sort of argument exists all over the place. But to go to an extreme ....
Should murder become legal because some murderers don't get caught?

--Paul

[ Parent ]

"such a deficiency"? (none / 0) (#161)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 08:22:25 PM EST

What's the harm that a child could suffer if they suspect their dad doesn't truly understand menstruation? Is a child permanently scarred if an uncle shows them how to pee standing up? How do these "deficiencies" affect the quality of parenting?

And what possible connection does your murder example have to the issue?
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
whaa? (none / 0) (#191)
by binford2k on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 02:48:29 AM EST

What's the harm that a child could suffer if they suspect their dad doesn't truly understand menstruation?

Oh, nice.  So you, as a man, think that you are prepared to show a 12 year old girl how to insert a tampon?  "Your Honor, I was just trying to show her how to insert a tampon . . . . !"

And then you're going to teach her about sex, and why her breasts are sore, and you're going to teach her how to self examine her breasts.  When she comes to you at 15 and asks you what the clitoris is you will be prepared to show her, right?  When she gets pregnant at 16 and asks you what it is like having a baby, you'll know all about it because you went through it yourself.  No wait, . . .  you didn't.

And around you she will learn appropriate ways of playing with other little girls and with little boys.  She'll learn little girl things like going to the bathroom with mommy, oh, wait, I mean daddy.  She'll learn how little girls act, so she can actually have friends, or are you one of those people who says that friends don't matter and are prepared to impose that on a child?

I can't possibly imagine how somebody can conscientiously promote the odoption of a child of the opposite sex by a gay couple.  It is obviously a bad situation for the child.

For two gay men to raise a boy is a different story.  However, I am still a bit hesitant to endorse this.  I know that at the school I went to, a kid who had gay parents would have had his ass kicked on a daily basis and that is not right to knowingly subject a child to that.

I honestly think that gay parents who wish to adopt are selfish.  They want a kid, maybe because it would validate their relationship, and they don't care that it would hurt the child.

Yes, I have thought a lot about this subject.  My brother is gay and he wants to adopt.  We have talked a lot about this and everything I've said here, I've said to him.

[ Parent ]

Tolerent, aren't you (none / 0) (#197)
by Shadowfoot on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 03:30:54 AM EST

Oh, nice. So you, as a man, think that you are prepared to show a 12 year old girl how to insert a tampon? "Your Honor, I was just trying to show her how to insert a tampon . . . . !"
So we get the nurse to show her how to do that, or her aunt.
And then you're going to teach her about sex, and why her breasts are sore, and you're going to teach her how to self examine her breasts.
Why not? Men can get breast cancer too. Did your mother show you? Did her mother show her? Or perhaps she spoke to her doctor about it, or read it in a woman's magazine that regularly publishes such things.
When she comes to you at 15 and asks you what the clitoris is you will be prepared to show her, right?
At 15? I'd hope she knows before that.
When she gets pregnant at 16 and asks you what it is like having a baby, you'll know all about it because you went through it yourself. No wait, . . . you didn't.
Would that be the same problem all adoptive parents have? You are more likely to find that she knows about sex and protection years before she ever has it.
And around you she will learn appropriate ways of playing with other little girls and with little boys. She'll learn little girl things like going to the bathroom with mommy, oh, wait, I mean daddy.
Are you suggesting there is a problem with fathers taking their daughters into toilets? What do you think all those Saturday dads do? Let the child wet herself?
She'll learn how little girls act, so she can actually have friends,
That'll when she learns things at preschool before she realises what the differences between boys and girls are? Or do you expect your daughter to do all the things you do now?
or are you one of those people who says that friends don't matter and are prepared to impose that on a child?
I pity the child you raise.
I can't possibly imagine how somebody can conscientiously promote the odoption of a child of the opposite sex by a gay couple. It is obviously a bad situation for the child.
Are you seriously suggesting that being without any parents is better for a child?
For two gay men to raise a boy is a different story.
How?
However, I am still a bit hesitant to endorse this. I know that at the school I went to, a kid who had gay parents would have had his ass kicked on a daily basis and that is not right to knowingly subject a child to that.
Tolerent, aren't you? You will probably find that some young kids would be that both their dads turned up at the school play. Later, at high school a boy might get teased, but he'd understand it, and he'd be able to take care of himself. Some kids get picked on, but this won't be the reason.
I honestly think that gay parents who wish to adopt are selfish. They want a kid, maybe because it would validate their relationship, and they don't care that it would hurt the child.
Unlike a woman who just gets herself knocked up to have a child, gay parents don't ghave children "by accident".
Yes, I have thought a lot about this subject. My brother is gay and he wants to adopt. We have talked a lot about this and everything I've said here, I've said to him.
I feel sorry for you brother to have a sibling as callous as you. Do you think he is no good with children, or would you say that if he was straight he'd make a great dad? Don't forget there are already a lot of kids, and adults, with gay parents. Your hate is the only thing going against them. Some of them had parents who came out later in life, yet the kids are fine. Some may be teased in school, but that's happening now. Are you suggesting these kids be taken off their parents and placed into foster care, along with any child whose parents are no longer together?

[ Parent ]
sorry for the late response (none / 0) (#224)
by binford2k on Fri Jul 16, 2004 at 11:29:30 PM EST

I haven't been to the site lately.

Your response is actually pretty humorous.  It's obvious that your bigotry blinds your ability to see the truth.  So, everyone who disagrees with you is filled with hate, eh?  Must be lonely in such a hateful world.

For what it is worth, yes, I'm an excellent father of a 5 year old daughter.  And yes, I take her into restrooms when a suitable female figure is not available.  My gay brother would also be an excellent daddy.  Re-read my post and point out to me where I said otherwise.  My daughter loves being with him and misses him in his absence.

As far as your charges of "tolerance," I challenge you to come up with evidence supporting your claim.  My brother is gay, and I don't fault him for it.  One of my best friends here at school is gay, even my riding partner is gay.  Many other people in my life are gay.  Most of them have babysat my daughter at one point or another.  Now how is this intolerant again?

I could go on refuting your ad hominum accusations, but what's the use.  You know they are BS claims as well as I do.

Now if you have something to say about my claim, do so.  For your reference it is this:  Any person who subjects a child to the additional hardships of having gay parents, willingly and for no other reason than their own selfishness is not fit to be a parent.

Ideally, I think you are right.  Many gay people I've known would make great parents, and the state really doesn't have the right to deny you the chance to prove that.  But in today's culture of fear and hate, doing so would put so much pressure on the child for your choices, and that isn't fair to them.  It's not fair to you either, but you don't have the right to force that onto a child.

[ Parent ]

Shadowfoot got most of it... (none / 0) (#202)
by Happy Monkey on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 04:19:17 PM EST

...But this bit is real nice:

For two gay men to raise a boy is a different story. However, I am still a bit hesitant to endorse this. I know that at the school I went to, a kid who had gay parents would have had his ass kicked on a daily basis and that is not right to knowingly subject a child to that.

Justifying bigotry by saying that bigots will be a problem. Lovely. How about orphans/foster children? That won't cause teasing? How about interracial couples in the sixties (and still in a few places)? No children for them? How about minority couples? No kids if they live in a mostly white neighborhood? How about white couples in a mostly minority neighborhood? No kids allowed?

Saying "the kids will be harrased" is a horrible cop-out. It is essentially saying that it's OK to treat certain people as inferior because they are currently treated as inferior. All the same issues were brought up for interracial marriages, and that is no longer an issue in most schools. It takes time to get over bigotry, but you have to start by not treating a group as inferior under the law.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Err, right.... (none / 0) (#214)
by Filip on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 09:26:28 AM EST

I discover a couple of strange ideas in your reasoning:

1. For a gay man to talk about sexuality with a girl, would seem pretty relaxed to me. After all, he is unlikely to be aroused by her or her female friends. Besides, he likes men - just as she (probably) does. It'd be a bit worse for a widower to handle. By your logic, it might be that the gov't should take care of girls who have only a father, and no mother. (After all, hesitance to prevent a crime is pretty bad.)

2. I realize there is probably a sexual outspokenness in the US that I have previously not been aware of. But of course a mother is explaining all of the intimate stuff to her daughter without becoming embarrased. Which teenage mother (or father WRT boys) wouldn't? </SARCASM>

3. What I also have real trouble with, is your thinking that "normal" parents get kids for unselfish reasons. I have two sons, and I can't say there is much unselfishness involved in our relationship (either way). The intricate ways they twist my heart is just exactly what makes me go on. It is very selfish of me to demand the amount of love and adoration I get from them - but I still do...

I'm all for gay marriage, and gay adoption, in both the legal and religious senses of the word - and since I'm a priest, both senses are relevant in my case.

/Filip
-- I'm just a figment of your imagination.
[ Parent ]

should who? (none / 0) (#168)
by Josh A on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:50:21 AM EST

Open adoption is a possibility. The mother gets to choose the family. If she has no problem letting a gay couple adopt her child, I'm pretty sure you should keep your opinion to yourself on that particular instance.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
Ooh...Ooh... (none / 2) (#155)
by curunir on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:17:44 PM EST

Mandatory abortions for single parents! They don't have the necessary facilities to raise their kids!

Right? As a child who grew up in a single-parent household, I find your comment repulsive. To suggest that I wasn't raised productively is an insult. To suggest the save of someone raised with twice the parental involvement that I had is simply laughable.

Besides...with all the children living in foster care, I would be surprised if you were correct about your inability to adopt due to your single status. I have no idea what it's like for normal people, but several high-profile, single actors/actresses have adopted children.

[ Parent ]
Adoption (none / 0) (#172)
by Znork on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 08:32:30 AM EST

So, having the church and state say 'you're married' on a paper means you're going to be a good parent and raise the child in a stable environment?

I think not.

Marriage used as a criteria for anything is the problem. Marriage no longer has anything to do with family stability or the intent to stay together, nor wether or not you have the facility to raise a child or will have it in the future.

Marriage as a concept should be entirely eliminated from civil law and government regulation. It no longer serves any purpose, and should be relegated entirely to the domain of the church, if they still feel there is a point to it.

[ Parent ]

In many states (none / 0) (#206)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:53:19 AM EST

gay couples can adopt without being married. California, for example, allows this.

[ Parent ]
Let Them Have It (none / 1) (#144)
by NeantHumain on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 04:05:30 PM EST

I, as a jaded heterosexual male, see little reason to ever get married, considering the divorce rate and other factors. If, on the other hand, a few homosexual couples wish to commit themselves like that and share in the benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples, I see no reason to stop this.

And as a point of fact, I'd like to say it's a sterotype that most lesbians are hot to us heterosexual males; this would be like saying every heterosexual female is hot. In fact, the only two lesbians I've ever seen (and known were) would not qualify as physically attractive in my opinion.


I hate my sig.


I find your article offensive (2.50 / 6) (#148)
by benxor on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:19:28 PM EST

'hot lesbian action types'? What the fuck is that meant to mean? Have you ever met real lesbians? Apart from the fact they'd probably bite out your throat for a insinuation like that, most of them don't look like Willow and Buffy, I can assure you.

Apart from anything, I'm amazed at the kind of bullshit arguments people use to argue against this sort of thing. Who gives a shit about the Christian perspective? 'Oh, I say it destroys the sanctity of marriage' - 'Oh, I'm a more modern Christian, I think the sanctity of marriage is already gone, government being third-party to the fact and all, blah blah' - who gives a fuck what you think, Christians? I wasn't aware that America was actually called Right-Wing-Catholica, I thought it's princicples were founded on freedom of thought, speech, association, and equal fucking rights. (no pun intended)

Who cares on compassionate conservatives have to say about it, and a host of other subjects, only tennuously related to Bible study because most Christiants simply percieve the Bible as being a book of rules banning everything?
     What about we ask the Portuguese Immigrant Perspective, or the 3rd-Generation German-Jew Living in Pennsylvania fucking Perspective? Or is the Christian perspective so utterly special in a land where the government is ostensibly secular, the laws are secular, and the right to self-determinism is so paramount that it's called the American Dream?

Besides which: it's gonna happen. Some day... some time... perhaps in the far-flung post-modernist heathen future, somehow - gay people will in fact be able to say 'I do', and kiss in front of you. Imagine that - doesn't it just make you really uncomfortable? Oh well. Suck.

ps: I apologise if I'm completely missed the point of the article as satire or something, but nonetheless I feel the above had to be mentioned.

--
all generalisations are false - including this one

Willow and Buffy? (none / 1) (#186)
by undermyne on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 07:13:22 PM EST

Fag

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo

[ Parent ]
My Take... (none / 3) (#152)
by curunir on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 05:45:05 PM EST

This topic came up on another (much more conservative) discussion board that I post to recently, and the arguments against gay marriage could basically be summed up as...

1) Why would they even want it?
2) Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
3) Ew!

Each of these arguements can basically be countered logically:
1) They do, get over it.
2) You're begging the question. The issue is whether to change the definition of marriage, so citing the definition isn't really an argument.
3) Homophobia, pure and simple.

So, I've basically concluded that the "sanctimony of marriage" crowd are not approaching this issue from a logical standpoint. People feel like they're having something taken away from them by it being given to someone else, and react viscerally. This makes the debate one of the most frustrating you'll ever encounter, and so I've learned to try to avoid it.

However, without really trying to argue one way or the other, a couple of observations...

- The institution of marriage predates the Catholic church. Egyptians and Babylonians, among others, were performing marriage ceremonies thousands of years before Christ. Any claim to guardianship of the sanctity of marriage by the church can only mean that they first co-opted marriage, and thus cannot argue that supporters of gay marriage are co-opting marriage without a certain measure of hypocrisy.

- Questioning the definition of marriage means not only questioning the sexes of the participants, but also the number of participants. Polygamy feels wrong to many in much the same way I imagine gay marriage feels wrong to many religious people. But if we want to support gay marriage, we have to be prepared to accept that, provided all participants are of age and are consenting, polygamy should be just as legal as gay marriage.

Of course (none / 1) (#176)
by mstefan on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 01:30:54 PM EST

So, I've basically concluded that the "sanctimony of marriage" crowd are not approaching this issue from a logical standpoint.

It has never been a logical argument, from what I've read and listened to; primarily because they know there's no logic to it. It's an emotional argument, simply based on the fear of change and of what is different.

The parallels between opponents of interracial marriage in the last century, and the opponents of same-sex marriage in this century, draw some interesting parallels. The people who are against gay marriage would never (publically at least) come out and say that people of different races who marry are offending God, committing a sin or eroding the institution of marriage itself. Yet, they feel comfortable asserting that people attracted to the same sex somehow undermine or invalidate their own feelings towards people of the opposite sex. It's a strange position indeed.

The thing I find most interesting is the religious argument against it, and against homosexuality in general. A lot is made of the passage in Leviticus about a man not laying down with another man as he would a woman and homosexuality being called an "abomination". The thing is, that's not really an accurate translation of the Hebrew word "toevah"; it really doesn't mean "abomination" how we use the word, but rather refers to something that is unclean or wrong, typically in a ritualistic sense. According to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong in the same context that having sex with a menstruating woman, eating pork or shellfish or trimming your beard is "toevah". And interestingly enough, for Christians, this shouldn't even be an issue because Jesus (according to Paul) explicity disregarded the Jewish purity laws and issued the commandment that people should simply love one another.

In the end, as homosexuality becomes more accepted and understood, people will look back at this whole controversy in the same way that we now shake our heads in wonder at the stupidity of those who argued that there was something immoral about a black man and white woman (or vice versa) marrying.



[ Parent ]
Also on the religious end... (none / 1) (#190)
by Elendale on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 02:41:20 AM EST

Same sex couples can already get religiously married. There's no law against it, nor can there be due to separation of church and state issues. Ergo, these "same sex marriage erodes the sanctity of real marriage!" types are arguing from a stance in which they have already "lost". The question is from a governmental side- which, again, allows no religiously fueled arguments due to the same separation of church and state clauses. In short, a good 90% of the argument is from a position that will take a half-decent lawyer or judge about ten minutes to refute. Now, there're trickier and less easily defeated arguments against marriage, but essentially they're just trumped-up versions of the other 90%...
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
Evolutionary psychology of monogamy (none / 0) (#157)
by Baldrson on Thu Feb 12, 2004 at 06:22:37 PM EST

Harem size will tend to increase with Genetic Omni-Domiance. The relatively obvious reasons for this are two fold:

  • It is lower status males that tend to be driven to the periphery of the ecological range.
  • The periphery of the ecological range has a lower carrying capacity and therefore requires greater paternal investment for child rearing.

If sexual subspecies can maintain themselves for enough generations, genetic predispositions toward decreasing harem size with decreasing GOD should arise. In extreme cases, this may exhibit itself as monogamy. For the purposes of this article, I'll call such monogamy Ecologically Imposed Monogamy (EIM) to distinguish it from the Socially Imposed Monogamy (SIM) exhibited in human societies that is a popular topic of study among sociologists. During periods of environmental change, such as that which occurs in human ecologies during the advance of technologies for trade, transport and habitat construction, we should expect to see ethnic conflict centered on the Y chromosome crossing GOD clines, including parasitic castration of indigenous males by males of greater GOD.

A primary failing of the literature on SIM is its lack of attention to:

  • The underlying genetic predisposition for EIM of populations at the periphery of human ecological ranges
  • The disruption of EIM by the introduction of technologies that cause gene-flow to cross GOD clines (such as the Viking traders) and
  • The resulting need for SIM to preserve populations that, in their natural state exhibit EIM (see Tacitus's Germania for his comment on the manifest EIM of Germanic tribes where the only exceptions are occasional polygynous marriages of alliance among the nobles) during periods of such disruption. Christianity may, therefore, be seen as a SIM necessitated by the increasing traffic between the northern frontiers of the Roman Empire and the middle East.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


how pathetic (none / 2) (#170)
by 49399 on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 05:01:31 AM EST

a bunch of nerds criticizing heterosexual marriage, a subject they are notably ignorant of... there even some pseudo-geneticists around here.

It doesn't help your view or my own, but... (none / 3) (#184)
by ph317 on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 06:44:12 PM EST


[BLOCKQUOTE]I have seen studies that say as many as 50% of all marriages will end in divorce[/BLOCKQUOTE] ... is a very misleading abuse of statistics.  It is usually thrown out with the intent of communicating to people a different point that the one it really makes.

Half of all marraiges end in divorce, but the majority of divorcees do it more than once.  You might have 100 couples get married, then 10-20 of those couples divorce and remarry each other and divorce again cyclically within their pool of divorce-types.  The net result can be that half of the marraiges that occured over time ended in divorce, but in reality 80+ percent of the original couples stayed together.

worry about (none / 2) (#188)
by il on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 09:31:33 PM EST

Did anyone else follow the link "worry about?" Man, that shit is hot! I wish that happened at my middle school. Furthermore I think Mr. Rhynes sounds like a reasonable youngman.

Question: What is the social purpose of marriage? (none / 0) (#203)
by ptvan on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 12:05:26 AM EST

The sanctity of marraige doesn't make sense to me.. Are you the same person that you were ten years ago? five years? yesterday? ..of course you aren't the same person. Your perspectives evolve, your feelings change, your physiology changes, your environment changes.. if you agree with this perpetual evolution, divorce should not be a suprise.

Is it reasonable to expect someone to "love" one singular person for forty years?

My parents and most of my friends' parents no longer love each other; they stay together to maintain the household and the psychological stability of their children.

Genetically, instinctively, men are inclined to be polygamous, to take every opportunity available to plant a seed.

How did we end up with this particular instution of marriage? .. Jesus?

Did you know? that some pagans believe that at the beginning of time, there was an androgenous super-being that was split into two bodies, and the desire for uniting with a member of the opposite sex is a manifestation of a subconscious desire to return to the state of androgenous super-being

The Great Marriage Debate | 223 comments (184 topical, 39 editorial, 4 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!