UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
Today, the California Court of Appeals will decide whether or not Proposition 8 is constitutional. Speculation is that if it is indeed ruled to be unconstitutional, same-sex couples would not yet be able to get married because there would likely be another appeal to that decision. The case is likely headed for supreme court.
My question is, if this DOES go all the way to the supreme court, would a decision on this case at the supreme court level open up marriage for same-sex couples across the country, or would those rights still reside within the state? Either way, I expect prop 8 to be overturned in California, on the US level, I'm not sure, but I think it is leaning towards legalization.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
done!
" A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal."
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 1): The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal."
Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal. That's the only federal issue I can see.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal. That's the only federal issue I can see.
If marriage is a fundamental right (and the USSC has ruled eight times than it is) then the equal protection clause must apply. So it actually is a federal issue.
The full faith and credit issue is also important.
I'm happy about today's ruling. Every court to have heard this case so far has struck down Prop 8. However, whether the USSC hears it is the big issue.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3): However, whether the USSC hears it is the big issue.
Not being a lawyer, i ask - what happens if they don't take it up?
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
Hmm... according to the Constitution:
Quote: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
(emphasis added)
Looks like they have jurisdiction as this is a suit against the state of California.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
I can see an argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment holding up in the SCOTUS. I'm generally a more state's rights advocate, but I think this is a 14th Amendment (federal) issue.
Glad to see this outcome. I guess this will make Newt and Santorum want to shut down the 9th Circuit even more. Because that's not tyrannical
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1845 times:
If the USSC takes up the issue, and rules one way or the other, does that open up or bar same-sex marriage for the entire country? Do either parties really want this thing going to the supreme court?
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
Also
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law. Again per the Constitution, 14th Amendment:
Quote: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(emphasis added)
The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3): If marriage is a fundamental right (and the USSC has ruled eight times than it is)
Wow, eight times? I was only aware of Loving vs Virginia. Do you happen to know where I can see a list of the others?
Quoting tugger (Reply 8): The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1817 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9): Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"
And the entire answer is fear and bigotry.
It's not as cut and dry as one would think. I was on the other side of the issue just years ago. It was a strange state of mind really, but I never had any hate for gays or lesbians. Then again, I was never a full functioning adult while having that view so who knows
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1802 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 8): It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law. Again per the Constitution, 14th Amendment:
But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1802 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
It's not as cut and dry as one would think.
From an equality standpoint, it would appear to indeed be that cut and dry.
Well I'm just saying the entire answer is not "fear and bigotry." One must fully understand the other side and where they are coming from, then engage in a civil debate for them to even consider changing their minds.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
Easy, that all men cannot marry another man, and that all women cannot marry another women.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 14): Easy, that all men cannot marry another man, and that all women cannot marry another women.
Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1782 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
I used to use this argument. But in almost all cases, we try to use "citizen" instead of "man" and "woman." That is striving for gender equality. So an American adult can marry and American adult is more fair than choosing who a man can marry and who a woman can marry.
For the time being, I realize that sometimes (at least in this day and age) we need to distinguish between man and woman, but in this case, I see no harm. We look at people as citizens in this case.
Edit: way better wording than my argument:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 16): You cannot marry a man, but a woman can. It's UNequal treatment.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1771 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): It's not as cut and dry as one would think. I was on the other side of the issue just years ago. It was a strange state of mind really, but I never had any hate for gays or lesbians. Then again, I was never a full functioning adult while having that view so who knows
I can relate and I am and pretty much always have been socially liberal. At one point I was "against" same-sex marriage. I use the quote becasue I wasn't against it per se, I just did not support it as being equal nor did I see any reason to.
And yet I had many friends who were gay and lesbian and many of whom were in a relationship. I can't say why I didn't support it nor can I defend it, I just never really thought about it. But when it started to become an issue (more accurately when I became aware that it was an issue, and an important issue for many people that I know) and people were demanding to be recognized equally, I had to actually look at what I was doing (and thinking and not doing) and what I was supporting and how my actions or lack thereof were impacting others.
I truly cannot see why I did not support same-sex marriage, the only reason I had was "well this is just the way things are" and that is not a reason. It was dumb and I feel dumb for not being more aware.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
But are not "all men created equally"? If they are then they can marry each other. Doesn't say nothing about women being equal, in fact they aren't. Oh wait, things change... So are you saying that the US Constitution SHOULD address marriage? Just like it address' suffrage?
I can see you are trying to dance around the issue but it simply doesn't work. The USA and its courts have long recognized that men and women are equal (after realizing the error in it original writing and amending the Constitution). There are rights and legal benefits that are provided to those that are "married" in the eyes of the state, yet not to an entire class of people who would not marry a opposite sex partner (and that they do not desire to marry a member of the opposite is not something that is "bad").
Tugg
[Edited 2012-02-07 12:03:52]
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 19): I truly cannot see why I did not support same-sex marriage, the only reason I had was "well this is just the way things are" and that is not a reason. It was dumb and I feel dumb for not being more aware.
Actually this is pretty much how I felt. But it was rooted deep for me, hard to explain. Before I couldn't just say that's how it was. I don't know, it was confusing. I do know that most people respond very negatively to being called homophobe and all. It puts up a shield, and you focus only on that and not on why you feel the way you feel. That's why I highly encourage everyone to stay civil. Speaking from personal experience, I know it is very touchy for a lot of people and anger pops out very easily. It's natural, but it only hurts the fight.
Meant to say this earlier:
inb4 gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1737 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13): One must fully understand the other side and where they are coming from, then engage in a civil debate for them to even consider changing their minds.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20): do know that most people respond very negatively to being called homophobe and all. It puts up a shield,
It hard to keep cool when people are saying things like:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20): gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality
It hard to keep cool when people say that the homosexuality will finish with humanity, and that we are going to hell.
So, yes I agree that a civil discussion is the way to go, but that civility MUST come from both sides
I appreciate and find your journey thru this inspiring, but i ask the same level of civility that you are asking from the gay community, you should ask from the Religious folks.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 22, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1705 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 21): I appreciate and find your journey thru this inspiring, but i ask the same level of civility that you are asking from the gay community, you should ask from the Religious folks.
inb4 = in before, meaning I'm in before someone says whatever follows inb4. It's a meme. I'm not saying it does lead to those, in fact, I completely disagree that it does. Sorry for the confusion.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): inb4 = in before, meaning I'm in before someone says whatever follows inb4. It's a meme. I'm not saying it does lead to those, in fact, I completely disagree that it does. Sorry for the confusion.
I got it.. Bu that is what "other" people say, I know you don't say that.
My point still stands, the hurtful comments go BOTH ways, and its unfair to ask only gays to tone it down.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 24, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1695 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 23): My point still stands, the hurtful comments go BOTH ways, and its unfair to ask only gays to tone it down.
Oh trust me, I know. Best thing to do is call them out on it. I cannot blame anyone for getting mad, I just try and convince them to stay calm. When it comes to this debate, I'm asking a lot more of the other side. But I'm trying to win over their hearts and minds, it does help that when they equate it to bestiality, it doesn't directly harm me as a straight.
sorry for the thread derailment. Back on topic, has this been appealed, or will it definitely get appealed? Or can gays and lesbians now marry in CA?
RamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
To all my lgbt a.nutter bretheren... Celebrate this victory. If you've had the courage to come out in this homophobic world, you've earned it. And I sincerely hope an equal rights amendment is not far off.
And to anybody who came on this thread to say hateful things... go f#ck yourself and quit meddling in other people's lives.
zrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2699 posts, RR: 11 Reply 26, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
Most people, to my knowledge, who are against same gender marriage say that it is morally wrong and that it tears down the fabric of society. What are the other arguments?
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 27, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24): Or can gays and lesbians now marry in CA?
It may be appealed, not sure. That's why I was wondering if it did go to the US Supreme court, would that indeed become law of the land? The way the judges ruled in this case, makes their ruling fairly specific to California and the issue of Prop 8, not necessarily gay marriage itself. They address the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 because rights were granted and then taken away, therefore, Prop 8 is unconstitutional. They are NOT saying, however, that gay marriage is a right. I believe they are simply stating that Prop 8 isn't constitutional, if that makes any sense. Thus, it may not go to the USSC. While I believe if the issue of gay marriage went to the supreme court, it would rule in favor, I'm wondering if both sides aren't completely worried about the finality of such a decision, and how that would impact their groups. Wondering that if the fear of the finality of such a ruling would keep it from going to the Supreme court?
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 28, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1774 times:
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 26): Most people, to my knowledge, who are against same gender marriage say that it is morally wrong and that it tears down the fabric of society. What are the other arguments?
Same-sex marriage opens the door for Polygamy, Bestiality, and then there is the notion by homophobic people that if gays can marry and adopt, they will raise gay kids, molest them, and then more gays would be in society.
In all of recorded history, gay individuals have existed in society, and society is doing a pretty good job of ripping the moral fabric all on its own, without help from the gays. Gays do no more "ripping" than any other group. In fact, I could go further to say that gays probably do much less, because they are scrutinized so severely, especially those who want to marry or adopt. But anyone else can have a kid...
RamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 29, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 26): What are the other arguments?
There are none as far as I know. Just a mindset of needing to impose your values on everybody else, sadly not uncommon in this country.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 30, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 26): Most people, to my knowledge, who are against same gender marriage say that it is morally wrong and that it tears down the fabric of society. What are the other arguments?
Well, there's the argument that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" in the bible. Those against marriage equality tend to cling to that one while ignoring other socially and morally defunct concepts contained therein.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10022 posts, RR: 54 Reply 32, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
This is 180 degrees from what the Constitution says.
No, the Constitution does not mention the word "marriage," but it does say that you have to treat people equally. That's why states cannot ban miscegenation, why states can't ban women from a public university, why states cannot ban sex between persons of the same gender, etc.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 4): Not being a lawyer, i ask - what happens if they don't take it up?
Prop 8 is banned. Since Prop 8 is only present in California, nothing would happen elsewhere. However, presumably, the 9th Circuit would rule the same way should Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, or Nevada try to institute such a ban.
Quoting tugger (Reply 5): Hmm... according to the Constitution:
Quote:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
(emphasis added)
Looks like they have jurisdiction as this is a suit against the state of California.
That's not what that phrase means. That sentence means that the case may originate at the Supreme Court, instead of going to the Supreme Court only on appeal.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6): I'm generally a more state's rights advocate, but I think this is a 14th Amendment (federal) issue.
Entirely correct that this is a 14th Amendment issue. (We'll work on your states' rights advocacy at another time. )
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7): If the USSC takes up the issue, and rules one way or the other, does that open up or bar same-sex marriage for the entire country?
Basically, yes, though there are some nuances to it.
Quoting tugger (Reply 8): It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law.
This is correct.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
And they used to say, "All whites can go to white schools. All blacks can go to black schools. Where is the inequality? There is none."
zrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2699 posts, RR: 11 Reply 34, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1730 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 33): Really? I always took the people who claimed this at their word.
Those who hide behind religion rather than engage in it often quote things that are just wrong. It's a shame that the religious right has taken this as a cause.
As a rabbi on the religious left, I also believe in family values. But I define it very differently than the right. For me, family values are about love in a family, not about gay parenting.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 35, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1725 times:
I was glad to see the ruling.
I don't believe it will be moved to the USSC because it is so focused on one state. The USSC might end up looking for a more universal case to consider, but I don't believe that will happen until after the November elections.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal.
That is going to be interesting. I believe that the legal status of a couple will be determined if they are legally married in a US State, There might be some challenges in areas like state tax calculations, but I believe that there can be some flexibility in areas like spousal rights in hospitals, etc. I also believe that tome wise state level politicians who know "marriage" won't fly in their states moving to a civil union law that simply changes the name of the relationship. If a couple happens to fly to California to get married they will have the same legal rights in their state - but the state won't call them married.
With the conservatives fighting gay marriage (while half of them file for divorce) I think that is the best the country can do at this time.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 36, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 34): Those who hide behind religion rather than engage in it often quote things that are just wrong. It's a shame that the religious right has taken this as a cause.
Interesting, thanks for clearing that up.
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 34): As a rabbi on the religious left, I also believe in family values. But I define it very differently than the right. For me, family values are about love in a family, not about gay parenting.
Good for you! I sincerely wish more people would share that philosophy.
photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2418 posts, RR: 22 Reply 37, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1729 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15): Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.
Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 29): There are none as far as I know. Just a mindset of needing to impose your values on everybody else, sadly not uncommon in this country.
Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 30): Well, there's the argument that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" in the bible.
It's got nothing at all to do with the bible. I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept. I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 39, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 40, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
LOL, I'm still trying to figure out what agenda I have, and how it differs from yours.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): It's got nothing at all to do with the bible. I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept. I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
Please, all this world needs is more babies. Gays are constantly trying to take in your rejects, if you let us. The last thing this world needs is more procreation by reckless straight couples....and the funny thing is, even if they do reject their babies, some straight mothers and fathers would rather those children be in foster care for the rest of their lives than in a loving home, which also happens to be gay. The irony.
Photopilot, can you show me proof that somehow gay marriage would be bad for society and should be banned? Something other than biblical? Something quantitative and scientific, not something based on Biblical "interpretation?" If you can show me proof, somehow, I might entertain the notion. In fact, if any factual proof that is not biblical in nature can be shown, I will hereby resign my entire fight for equal rights for gay individuals.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 42, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
Note: I don't frequent the site, I only visit it sometimes just for the lulz
I forgot where I read it, but this site said Portugal's economy tanked after adopting gay marriage. I looked at the source which stated not gay marriage, but "liberal policies" and within the article, it said nothing about gay marriage. Not that this site had any credibility before, but now it has negative credibility IMO
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 41): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
What is the gay agenda?
I just got a copy of mine. It is officially sealed by the International Gay Society.
I only asked because everyone is trying to get me to go gay. One unnamed poster on this site claims he needs a new toaster so I must go gay. What is this evil movement??? (sarcasm for the less inept)
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 43, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept. I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
If reproduction was a necessary element of marriage, you might be onto something.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
I'm sure those who were in favor of slavery were similarly irritated by the "agenda" of those fighting for equality. Marriage equality is another example of society evolving and advancing.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 44, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 4): Not being a lawyer, i ask - what happens if they don't take it up?
Then gays can get married in CA. The thing is that if the USSC rules that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, it could follow that ALL bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.
Then, I've heard that it might not mean that. The vagaries of law are a bit beyond me.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7): If the USSC takes up the issue, and rules one way or the other, does that open up or bar same-sex marriage for the entire country? Do either parties really want this thing going to the supreme court?
I do. The outlook is favorable. Kennedy is the swing vote, but he has a history of generally voting for gay rights. Of course, if a plane carrying Scalia crashed on top of Thomas just before the case, it might make the outlook a bit better.
The thing is that gay marriage is an inevitability, much as interracial marriage was, much as desegregation was. Public opinion doesn't really matter in theory, but in practice it does and it is rapidly swinging towards the side of equality. As it does so, opponents of gay marriage have become more desperate, and in doing so have shown themselves to be pretty rabidly hateful. Santorum has compared it to bestiality. Bachmann has called it a disease. As they continue to do so, middle-of-the-road Americans who have never really thought about gay rights are getting more and more turned off to the anti-gay groups and their agenda.
It is only a matter of time. If not this time, then next time.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 45, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42): I forgot where I read it, but this site said Portugal's economy tanked after adopting gay marriage.
If anything, the economy should slightly benefit. But being only 10% of the population at max, I can't see how it affects it much in the first place. Secondly, what fiscal practices are different between gay people and straight people? From all accounts, gay people seem to stimulate the economy more than heterosexuals.
zrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2699 posts, RR: 11 Reply 46, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42): but this site said Portugal's economy tanked after adopting gay marriage.
Here's the text:
"After recognizing same-sex "marriage" and other liberal policies, Portugal saw its credit rating reduced to junk level."
That's like saying, "After the red head looked at me, I got sick. Therefore, red heads cause illness." Think about what Germany said about the Jews. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
In the case of Portugal, what else was going on at the time?
GBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1678 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
As far as I can see gay people don't want to impose any agenda on anyone. The only gay agenda I can see is that gay people want to be treated equally. As a straight married man I would feel absolutely no threat at all to my own way of life if such a law were in debate in my country.
Gay couples live together and commit to each other for life in the same way that straight couples do. If the gay couple are serious about that commitment and want to marry I honestly don't see the problem. It won't affect my life one jot.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 48, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 46): "After recognizing same-sex "marriage" and other liberal policies, Portugal saw its credit rating reduced to junk level."
Hahaha that's it. You know, they may have a point. Look at CA's economy
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 49, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting GBLKD (Reply 47): Gay couples live together and commit to each other for life in the same way that straight couples do. If the gay couple are serious about that commitment and want to marry I honestly don't see the problem. It won't affect my life one jot.
Indeed! I've heard people say that marriage equality destroys the sanctity of marriage, and that it cheapens "traditional" marriage. But a marriage whose sanctity depends upon the actions of others is a marriage that lacks a quality foundation to begin with.
GBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1656 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 49): Indeed! I've heard people say that marriage equality destroys the sanctity of marriage, and that it cheapens "traditional" marriage. But a marriage whose sanctity depends upon the actions of others is a marriage that lacks a quality foundation to begin with.
Yep. In my wide circle of friends the most stable commited couple I know happen to be gay. All bar one of my straight friends are now divorced.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
Where does that leave my wife's sister and her husband who are both infertile? Is thier straight marriage invalid as they are unable to produce a baby? Marriage is not essential and guaranteed for procreation.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 51, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1652 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
Ah, but nature DID make them gay. Do you believe being gay is a choice or not?
Plus the nature argument is very weak. What is intended by nature? That we run around naked in Africa like apes with no technology or society? Nature gave us brains so technology and society can evolve. In fact, that gets me thinking... nature doesn't intend on marriage!!! Animals may stick around for a little while but for the most part, the guy does his business on the girl and splits. Do you think we should be a society of deadbeat dads and single moms? That is the closest to "nature" as we can get. Please explain!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 54, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1616 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 52): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 51):
Ah, but nature DID make them gay. Do you believe being gay is a choice or not?
Do you really need to ask that? What do you think his answer is going to be?
I'm sure I know what the answer will be, but it's been scientifically proven that being gay is not a choice, correct? Regardless, the rest of my argument kinda goes on to say that "nature" really doesn't matter, making this question moot
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 55, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1599 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
Perhaps those of us who believe that a marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults feel that those with a straight agenda should not be imposing their views on us.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
If Mother Nature didn't intend two men to "bugger" each other, then they wouldn't! Hurrrrr
Or how about an infertile couple?
Do you only have sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 56, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1569 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 32): I'm glad you've come around on this issue.
?? You realize who you're talking to?
I'm gay.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 33): Really? I always took the people who claimed this at their word.
You realize that the Bible described polygamous marriage, right? It also defines marriage as the automatic result of rape between a man and an unmarried woman.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15): Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.
The argument in Loving v. Virginia was exactly that. "You can't marry someone of a different race, nor can anyone else. Equal treatment."
Johnny can marry Susie, but Bobby cannot marry Susie because Bobby is Black. That's racial discrimination.
Susie can marry Johnny, but Steve cannot marry Johnny because Steve is a man. That's sexual discrimination.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
A challenge:
I challenge you to list ONE WAY just ONE way in which my marrying my husband imposes anything on you. What do you have to do in your life that you didn't have to do before?
Note you do not have a right to not be offended. You do not have a right to not have to explain things you don't want to your kids.
There's your problem. We aren't talking about "belief", we are discussing the law and legal aspects of what citizens are granted by what the law recognizes.
Quoting GBLKD (Reply 50): Where does that leave my wife's sister and her husband who are both infertile? Is thier straight marriage invalid as they are unable to produce a baby? Marriage is not essential and guaranteed for procreation.
Quite obviously their marriage is invalid in the "belief" of some here.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 51): Do you believe being gay is a choice or not?
Well I'll throw this in: Who cares if it is a choice or not? Who cares who you "choose" to love? Why should anyone care? I am positive that it is a natural phenomenon, that "being gay" is a natural thing, I also think that it is possible that someone "swings both ways" and gets to make "the choice".
But why should we care either way..... and I think you addressed this somewhat in the latter part of your post.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6510 posts, RR: 29 Reply 58, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1544 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): It's got nothing at all to do with the bible. I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept. I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
Is marriage a scientific necessity to procreation? No. Mother nature didn't intend people to get married before they have children. She's not sitting there, looking at an unmarried couple having sex, and going, "ooo, no, sorry, you have to get married first!"
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
What does gay marriage impose on you? Your life won't have to change one bit if you don't want it to.
Whereas, preventing gay marriage DOES impose on gays who want to get married.
States and countries legalizing same-sex "marriage" have markedly different levels of quality of life from those that have banned it.
I gotta tell ya, Massachusetts has turned into one giant ghetto since they legalized gay marriage! Houses are boarded up, cars are on fire, people are homeless, there's gunfire through the night, trees are dying, zombies are invading....
Oh, wait.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 43): If reproduction was a necessary element of marriage, you might be onto something.
I'd say that the other way - if marriage was a necessary element of reproduction, THEN he might be onto something.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 49): But a marriage whose sanctity depends upon the actions of others is a marriage that lacks a quality foundation to begin with.
That argument always utterly amazes me.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 59, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 58): I gotta tell ya, Massachusetts has turned into one giant ghetto since they legalized gay marriage! Houses are boarded up, cars are on fire, people are homeless, there's gunfire through the night, trees are dying, zombies are invading....
That would be California....
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4910 posts, RR: 21 Reply 60, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15): Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.
I can't believe you'd even try to pass this off as a serious argument...
I love the knee-jerk reactions to anything 9th circuit. Of course, they ignore changes in the court, the fact that it's not as left-leaning as it once was, or the fact that their decisions are reviewable. But hey, it's the 9th circuit, so any decision they make is clearly judicial activism.
Quoting D L X (Reply 32): No, the Constitution does not mention the word "marriage," but it does say that you have to treat people equally. That's why states cannot ban miscegenation, why states can't ban women from a public university, why states cannot ban sex between persons of the same gender, etc.
Quoting D L X (Reply 32): And they used to say, "All whites can go to white schools. All blacks can go to black schools. Where is the inequality? There is none."
Yup, that's what they used to say.
Exactly. People have claimed that all sorts of unequal situations were, in fact, equal.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
What agenda are we imposing upon you? How will two men or two women being able to legally marry each other affect you or your marriage (if you are married)? Is your sexuality so fragile that the idea of two men being able to legally marry will turn you gay?
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
Is that correct? You have proof to back up this assertion? Are you able to choose homosexuality at any moment? All I can tell you is that I was born this way, and did not choose to be attracted to those of the same sex. It's clear that nothing will ever convince of you of that fact, but at least back up your assertions with some facts.
Quoting GBLKD (Reply 47): The only gay agenda I can see is that gay people want to be treated equally.
Precisely.
Quoting GBLKD (Reply 47): As a straight married man I would feel absolutely no threat at all to my own way of life if such a law were in debate in my country.
As well you shouldn't. It is such a flimsy argument, and people make it without thinking through the fact that they are, by implication, suggesting that their own relationships are so weak as to be vulnerable to destruction at the mere thought of two men or two women getting married.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 55): Perhaps those of us who believe that a marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults feel that those with a straight agenda should not be imposing their views on us.
You really don't know how much it means to me to know that there are so many straight people out there who are all for equality. I'm lucky to have a good group of straight friends in my life who are almost all in favor of gay marriage. It really does mean the world to me.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6510 posts, RR: 29 Reply 61, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
RamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 63, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Are you seriously doing this or are you just trolling?
Cause if you don't believe in gay marriage then I got an idea for you... DON'T GET ONE. Otherwise it in no way affects you. And don't give us the "undermines traditional marriage" bullsh*t either... People getting married undermines marriage? Really? Explain that one please. Surprising you claim to be agnostic because your backwards logic is something I have only ever encountered in religious zealots.
For me personally, marriage is between a man and a woman... cause I ain't gay. I intend to marry my girlfriend. When I do so I doubt any gay people will get offended by it. So how about some live-and-let-live cause I know this will come as a surprise to some but...not everybody on the planet is exactly like you.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 64, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 60): I'm lucky to have a good group of straight friends in my life who are almost all in favor of gay marriage
Well, anyone hell bent against gay marriage is not going to be friends with a gay man. Just sayin'...
However, I can honestly say I have never heard anyone talk down gay marriage to my face since I graduated high school in 2004.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3096 posts, RR: 6 Reply 65, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
I never gave too much thought on the issue but some replies here are just hilarious.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): It's got nothing at all to do with the bible. I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept.
And why would you want to force your "belief" on someone else? Gays getting married affects you in exactly 0 ways. You not wanting them to get married though...
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby
I know many older couples that didn't have children out of choice. I also know couples my age that do not want to have children. Not just their own, in general - not even adopt! Is their marriage still legit?
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.
Nature didn't intend you to do a lot of things, namely fly around the globe, go to space, eat seedless watermelon... How do you really know what mother nature intended? What about scientifically recorded homosexual acts in the animal kingdom? I am no expert but I never reached a point in my adolescence when I consciously decided which sex to be attracted to, so I am assuming gays didn't either.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10022 posts, RR: 54 Reply 66, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1467 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): It's got nothing at all to do with the bible. I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept.
How is someone who says they are not religious but still do not want gays to marry anything other than a homophobe? In my opinion, religion is about the only legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage.
I'll pose it to you like I posed to dreadnought: if you think there is no inequality in banning gay marriage because "a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man," I'll ask you to explain how that is any different than saying that there is no inequality in saying "blacks can go to black schools, and whites can go to white schools" and "blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites?"
But I'm also well aware of a conversation we had when this case was filed, where you were pretty adamant that you wished it had not been filed. I believe you said it was too soon. I said that if you believe it is your civil right and your constitutional right, you should not wait a day for it. There is no "right time" to fight for your rights other than NOW.
aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3289 posts, RR: 10 Reply 67, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1454 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
That's true only in theory. In our culture, marriage is the culmination of a romantic relationship. Permitting a gay person to marry only a member of the opposite sex is like requiring a straight person to marry a person of the same sex -- completely worthless.
It would be like banning the building of buildings with stained glass windows, steeples and a cross at the top. Jews, Muslims and Hindus wouldn't be allowed to build a Church, but it is clearly designed to discriminate against Catholics.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44): The thing is that gay marriage is an inevitability, much as interracial marriage was, much as desegregation was. Public opinion doesn't really matter in theory, but in practice it does and it is rapidly swinging towards the side of equality.
I agree. Even if gay marriage isn't established judicially, public opinion will establish it within a decade. Gay marriage is a non-issue to young people and such laws will easily be overturned as more and more of my generation votes.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 68, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 66): In my opinion, religion is about the only legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage.
Other way around: religion is merely the excuse to do things that have no rational explanation. Homophobes that claim religion as their reason don't oppose gay marriage because they are religious: they are religious because it gives them a politically correct excuse to be against gay marriage.
This is a fact. Just ask anyone who is like that why they think that way: they will say that the Bible says so, when in fact it doesn't. They are quite literally delusional and/or make stuff up.
Alias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2502 posts, RR: 2 Reply 69, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
I wonder if the Supreme Court will even choose to hear the inevitable appeal. With the ruling being narrow in its application to California and Proposition 8, the justices might decide to take a pass and avoid the controversy.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 70, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
And from Rick Santorum's FB page.......
"Today, activist judges in the 9th Circuit stripped away the rights of 7 million California voters by striking down Proposition 8. These judges inserted a right into our Constitution that isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The radical actions of the 9th Circuit underscore the need for a constitutional amendment which would define ‘marriage’ as between one man-one woman. Study after study shows that traditional marriage, as it has always been defined – one man and one woman – creates the best possible environment for our children. And strong families are a key part of a strong America.
This issue is far too important to allow for 50 different definitions of marriage at the state level. And this issue should certainly not be decided by a few activist judges. As your president, I will fight for traditional marriage."
This is the same candidate that is polling at around 50% in MO and 45% in MN (low percentage of votes are in, but STILL)
Having Santorum win the nomination is probably every liberal's dream right now...
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 8 Reply 71, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 69): I wonder if the Supreme Court will even choose to hear the inevitable appeal. With the ruling being narrow in its application to California and Proposition 8, the justices might decide to take a pass and avoid the controversy.
Those who 'lost' in the appeal decision today can apply to the SCOTUS for Certiorari. I have worked as a paralegal with several, including as to non-parties supporting one or the other party ('friend of the court briefs') almost all of them denied, that is be able to have a hearing and briefing before the court leading to a decision. Generally the SCOTUS will take cases if there is conflict of decisions from 2 or more Circuits, it involves such a major Constitutional issue that it requires the court to decide and a few very limited matters where they have original jurisdiction. The odds of being granted 'cert', is very tough, probably about 50 to 1. The court generally does not state why they won't hear a case, but if it is denied, the 9th Circuit (which includes most western states, AK and HI) decision is still valid and California would have to reinstate the law to allow same gender marriage.
I would suspect any appeal to be heard by the court would have to mean another states top court or a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals allowing a state to reverse 'gay marriage' and not recognize it to be part of any cert or a challenge as to the DOMA law. There would probably cause an exceptional number of 'friend of the court' briefs.
Still, the 9th Circuit made a bold, brave and morally sound decision to recognize that denying full right to marriage to those who are the same gender who want to be married is in opposition to human rights.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 72, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
Ted Olson is on TV right now and indicated that he believes this case might well go to the USSC. He also indicated that the issues covered by today's decisions are well defined by the lower courts for the USSC to review.
Didn't catch him until that comment, but Olson is a classic conservative - helped Bush II win the USSC care on Election 2000. Hardly a liberal.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 73, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 70):
And from Rick Santorum's FB page.......
stratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1522 posts, RR: 4 Reply 74, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 56): I challenge you to list ONE WAY just ONE way in which my marrying my husband imposes anything on you. What do you have to do in your life that you didn't have to do before?
It doesn't Doc.. I feel the religious right really are hypocrites in a lot of ways..That said I think the only argument they have is procreation which would never happen in a homosexual relationship. Can't argue that one Doc. But in this day and age I really personally have no problem letting people live and let live. If you want to be married ..Fine.. Love should know no bounds. Some feel civil unions should prevail over actual marriage. I don't care either way. We have so much crime in this world and this country and people who are just full of hate I really don't know why we have to go after people who are good people. I will admit I love women even though they give me reasons not too. But the people I know who are gay are the best people I have ever met in my life and the most kind and they deserve to be happy just like the rest of us.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 75, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
Quoting stratosphere (Reply 74): That said I think the only argument they have is procreation which would never happen in a homosexual relationship. Can't argue that one Doc
Is procreation a requirement a man/woman relationshio?
Quoting stratosphere (Reply 74): Some feel civil unions should prevail over actual marriage. I
Which i don't understand. How can a Civil Union between 2 men be OK, while Marriage between 2 men be the downfall of society?
stratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1522 posts, RR: 4 Reply 76, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1315 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 75): Is procreation a requirement a man/woman relationshio?
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6510 posts, RR: 29 Reply 77, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 75): Which i don't understand. How can a Civil Union between 2 men be OK, while Marriage between 2 men be the downfall of society?
The answer is simple. When you boil it all down, what we're really arguing over is a WORD. Eight letters in a certain order.
Mind-boggling, isn't it?
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 78, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1252 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 66): But I'm also well aware of a conversation we had when this case was filed, where you were pretty adamant that you wished it had not been filed. I believe you said it was too soon.
Ah. I remember that indeed. That was a long time ago.
I'm very happy to say that it appears that I was wrong. I should be wrong like this more often.
I asked him a question. I'll bet anyone a dollar that he won't have a valid answer. It'll be something like "it'll force me to acknowledge..." No it won't. Society will do that, law or no law.
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 79, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
Interesting to see all the gay community celebrating the fact that they too will be allowed to discriminate against single people going forward. This thing has nothing to do about being against discrimination, they just don't like being on the receiving end of it. Kind of like the Puritans' views on religious persecution.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 80, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1238 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 79): Interesting to see all the gay community celebrating the fact that they too will be allowed to discriminate against single people going forward.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6510 posts, RR: 29 Reply 81, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1241 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 79): Interesting to see all the gay community celebrating the fact that they too will be allowed to discriminate against single people going forward. This thing has nothing to do about being against discrimination, they just don't like being on the receiving end of it. Kind of like the Puritans' views on religious persecution.
So.....confused.......
How are single people being discriminated against?
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
How are single people being discriminated against?
They pay more in taxes, nobody else can get their Social Security benefits if they die (unlike married people) so all their forced lifetime contributions go to waste if something happens to them, get paid less at their jobs (effectively) for not being allowed to have anyone else share in their benefits (unlike married people), etc. - you know, all the things the gay community was complaining they didn't get but will now be allowed to get (unlike single people, who will continue to be SOL).
Maybe I should start a movement - no more discrimination against single people.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 83, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not. But if you're not, aren't straight people that are married also "discriminating against single people?" I mean I am all for better inheritance laws for single people, but that's a completely different issue. I'm really confused on this one, sorry...
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6510 posts, RR: 29 Reply 84, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1220 times:
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 85, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83): I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not. But if you're not, aren't straight people that are married also "discriminating against single people?"
Of course. That is why I inserted the word "too" in between "they" and "will"...
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 79): they too will be allowed to discriminate against single people going forward
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 86, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 82): They pay more in taxes, nobody else can get their Social Security benefits if they die (unlike married people) so all their forced lifetime contributions go to waste if something happens to them, get paid less at their jobs (effectively) for not being allowed to have anyone else share in their benefits (unlike married people), etc. - you know, all the things the gay community was complaining they didn't get but will now be allowed to get (unlike single people, who will continue to be SOL).
Except that single people cost more in society.
That is why marriage, partnering, being LEGALLY responsible for another, etc. is so important to society. The simple fact is that when a married/partnered person gets sick, someone is there to take care of them, when they can't work there first fallback isn't government assistance it's their spouse/partner, when that person needs help and assistance the spouse/partner is there first to help versus needing paid assistance. If they have children the children have more resources and time spent tending to them. When the children get sick or have a problem one other of the parents/partners/spouses is better able to stay home and care for them.
It's been shown in study after study that people that are married/in committed relationships are happier, healthier, make more money over their lifetime, etc. All because there are two people that have, in so many words, said "I will put you first, I will help you, love you, take care of you, I will care for what we have built together". Commitment to another is very important to society.
Sorry if the truth hurts and seems unfair.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 82): Maybe I should start a movement - no more discrimination against single people.
I say go for it. You could probably sue for it in court and could win. Or maybe you could put it to vote or even get a Constitutional amendment on it. If it is really important to you, you will fight to right this wrong!
Just like is being done regarding same-sex marriage.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
You make it sound as if someone who is not married is in that situation by choice - plenty of examples where that is not the case. And there are plenty other support networks (to start with the person themselves). But what else to expect from the nanny state?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 88, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 79): Interesting to see all the gay community celebrating the fact that they too will be allowed to discriminate against single people going forward.
Is that you reason for opposing gay marriage?
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 87): But what else to expect from the nanny state?
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 87): You make it sound as if someone who is not married is in that situation by choice - plenty of examples where that is not the case. And there are plenty other support networks (to start with the person themselves). But what else to expect from the nanny state?
I join the others in not understanding,...
Are you suggesting the government should force people into gay marriage?
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 89, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 79): Interesting to see all the gay community celebrating the fact that they too will be allowed to discriminate against single people going forward.
Asking to be treated equally is not discrimination. By your logic, the black population, in their fight for equality, has been and is currently discriminating against the non-black population. Is this indeed your stance?
luckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1409 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1071 times:
Quoting photopilot (Reply 37): Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.
What gay is forcing you to get married to him? It's really quite simple...if you don't want gay marriage...then don't get one.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42): I only asked because everyone is trying to get me to go gay. One unnamed poster on this site claims he needs a new toaster so I must go gay. What is this evil movement??? (sarcasm for the less inept)
I flew on a Delta MD90 the other day...that must mean we need to get married.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 49): Indeed! I've heard people say that marriage equality destroys the sanctity of marriage, and that it cheapens "traditional" marriage. But a marriage whose sanctity depends upon the actions of others is a marriage that lacks a quality foundation to begin with.
Straight people have done such a fabulous job of protecting the sanctity of marriage with statistics such as:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
For a combined total of 53%.
With 57% of men and 54% of women admitting to infidelity.
Oh, and not to mention the way we as a society just cannot get enough of celebrity marriages that don't even last one season on television. Hell, Britney Spears has concerts that are longer than the length of her first marriage. Whoooweee boy I'm glad those straight people are doing their damnedest to protect the sanctity of marriage.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 91, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1059 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting luckyone (Reply 90): Straight people have done such a fabulous job of protecting the sanctity of marriage with statistics such as:
I especially like how the organizations against marriage equality claim children cannot be properly raised in a gay household. That's a claim I hear pretty often, and it's a desperate one. Those organizations seem to care a lot more about limiting the rights of others than they do about helping children.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 92, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1047 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 87): You make it sound as if someone who is not married is in that situation by choice - plenty of examples where that is not the case. And there are plenty other support networks (to start with the person themselves). But what else to expect from the nanny state?
No, no, not trying to imply that single people are bad or "less than" or implying that all single people are single by choice. Not at all. I was merely pointing out that there is a reason why the "benefits" afforded to married couples make sense. Many people value their "singleness" just as much as others value their "partnership", either is fine by me.
Don't get the "nanny state" reference as the tax and legal benefits for married couples have been around for a long, long time. And I do mean it, I support you if you want to pursue having this changed. If it means a lot to you, you need to see what you can do.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
GBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1021 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 56): I challenge you to list ONE WAY just ONE way in which my marrying my husband imposes anything on you. What do you have to do in your life that you didn't have to do before?
Perhaps he's worried about who gets all of the new toasters?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 94, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 993 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 85): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not. But if you're not, aren't straight people that are married also "discriminating against single people?"
Of course. That is why I inserted the word "too" in between "they" and "will"...
Oh gotcha. I don't see why this is the reason to oppose gay marriage, I think you're fighting the wrong battle. I'm all against the death tax and all. Repealing that is "half the battle" for single people I think. I am for smaller government and wouldn't mind seeing government out of marriage all together. Let people set up visitation rights for whoever they want, let people give their money to whoever they want when they die. Let churches perform whatever "marriage" they want. For everyone else, let them do whatever ceremony they want and they can choose their definition of marriage. As long as it doesn't involve child abuse, let 6 gay guys move into a house together and say they're all married. Who really cares as long as the government isn't involved. I know there would be some barriers to my plan, but when you get rid of the death tax (or at least allow multiple inherit-ers) and allow as many visitation rights as one wants, you have government less involved and people more free. Kinda radical, but all in the name of freedom
Quoting luckyone (Reply 90): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42):
I only asked because everyone is trying to get me to go gay. One unnamed poster on this site claims he needs a new toaster so I must go gay. What is this evil movement??? (sarcasm for the less inept)
I flew on a Delta MD90 the other day...that must mean we need to get married.
Guess there's no other choice. Looks like Doc will get that toaster after all...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 95, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 982 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 86): Except that single people cost more in society.
So do skiiers. So do people who fly a lot.
Sorry, but can we not go down the "costs to society" road? That argument can be used to justify the most ridiculous and draconian policies.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 96, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 95): Sorry, but can we not go down the "costs to society" road? That argument can be used to justify the most ridiculous and draconian policies.
I know and I agree with you.
And that is why I am fine if he wants to change it. I encourage him and anyone that believes there is an injustice to go out and fight against it, gather supporters and change things.
The simple fact is marriage is important. Pairing up, partnering, committing, civil union'ing, marriage..... whatever, for the greater society there is not much that is more important than that smallest unit of society, two people together, committing and being responsible to and for one another. It is the first building block of any society.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 97, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 944 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 96): The simple fact is marriage is important. Pairing up, partnering, committing, civil union'ing, marriage..... whatever, for the greater society there is not much that is more important than that smallest unit of society, two people together, committing and being responsible to and for one another. It is the first building block of any society.
And... if you hear about two people who you've never met getting married, what does it say about you as a person that your reaction is rage, rather than to simply wish them well?
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 98, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 823 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 66): I'll ask you to explain how that is any different than saying that there is no inequality in saying "blacks can go to black schools, and whites can go to white schools" and "blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites?"
Actually there is a difference. Scientifically speaking the explanation of why someone is black (or white, asian etc.) is the same + the reasons why someone is a certain race or has certain cranial features is with purpose. There is absolutely no purpose to being born homosexual as it stems from you being born from a hormonal imbalance (read medically not normal) and if you subscribe to evolution any trait that does not give an advantage in surviving or reproducing (depending on your natural environment) will die off. You can cry all you want that its unfair but homosexuality is pretty much scientifically worthless, being black on the other hand, isn't.
Genetic mutation could very well survive (See blond hair, blue eyes developing over X number of millenia) as you would have to mate in the same gene pool constantly. Still a recessive trait. Doesnt really matter because homosexuals cant pass along any genes.
Is it something to discriminate? No. I dont discriminate against albinos, midgets or people who happen to be 7ft tall either in the short run, but don't lie to yourself you're not within evolutionary norms if you are albino or a midget and your condition does not contribute in any way to the survival of your species hence you shall be eliminated/and or kept to a minimum as the overwhelming majority are born with a purpose to further the species over the long period of time.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 89): By your logic, the black population, in their fight for equality, has been and is currently discriminating against the non-black population.
Black people were discriminated against based on false assumptions that they were worth less by nature. But I would make the point that the average black person is worth the same as any person of any other race.
By definition you are worth less as a homosexual to the evolutionary cycle because you bring forth nothing to do table genetics wise, and even if you did, you can never pass it on unless you believe in some twisted world like the Matrix that is.
I submit that in fact being a midget or having 6 fingers on one hand is worth more to the human race than homosexuality from a pure scientific evolutionary standpoint and species survival. 6 fingers might be better suited to do certain tasks in certain environments and it can evolve so that a certain race has said 6 fingers on each hand, indeed they CAN evolve.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 99, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 814 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): There is absolutely no purpose to being born homosexual as it stems from you being born from a hormonal imbalance (read medically not normal) and if you subscribe to evolution any trait that does not give an advantage in surviving or reproducing (depending on your natural environment) will die off. You can cry all you want that its unfair but homosexuality is pretty much scientifically worthless, being black on the other hand, isn't.
So I don't exist?
Or are you accusing me of lying when I say that I was born this way?
Furthermore, I know that religion is a choice. I know that stopping someone from having what they want when it has no bearing on you is a choice (it's the basic definition of cruelty, making life unpleasant for someone else for no gain of your own, actually).
So why should that be protected if my "choice" of sexual orientation is not?
Or are you saying that because it's a "mutation" it should not be protected? Because if that's the case, I'm sure I can find a few ways that you're genetically imperfect and have you prohibited from getting married, too.
You think I'd choose this? Seriously? I'm a rational, intelligent human being with two degrees in molecular biology and a medical degree. All I wanted for my childhood was to grow up, get a job, get married, and have kids. Why would I choose to be gay? That makes no sense!
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 100, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 813 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): shall be eliminated/and or kept to a minimum as the overwhelming majority are born with a purpose to further the species over the long period of time.
You make it sound like homosexuals are sterile, and have no desire to care for children or have a family.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 101, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 802 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 100): You make it sound like homosexuals are sterile, and have no desire to care for children or have a family.
I dont know where you are getting that from. I made no mention of "homosexuals are unable to care for children or have families"
However, you cant have a family without reproducing. If you are homosexual how can you reproduce (take away test tubes for one minute because that is a man made invention). The moment you have sex to reproduce you are no longer homosexual.
Take away society for a second and think about it scientifically. If you are going to use arguments such as "I am homosexual and I adopt to enhance my family" that is well laughable, an albino can adopt as well and care for the family just as much as anyone else.
Like I said, its not something to be discriminated against. It causes absolutely no harm to anyone.
Or are you accusing me of lying when I say that I was born this way?
Can you read?
I never said anyone chooses to be gay. If you had basic comprehension of English you would realize that I just wrote that one has no choice and is born that way because of hormonal imbalance to start out with.
You look foolish going on a tirade saying I think you should be discriminated against when I just wrote about why you should not be discriminated against.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 103, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 797 times:
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 104, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 786 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 103): So a man, that marries a woman who has a child from another man cannot be a family?
I hope I'm misunderstanding. Otherwise, what you said is truly hurtful to adopted children.
Where in the hell are you getting family from? What does the ability or want of having a family have to do with anything?
Quoting mt99 (Reply 103): I knew several gay men that came out after fathering children with women.
What is your point? That is purely societal pressure. If you took these societal pressures away human nature dictates that a woman would not have sex with a gay male just for the sake of a child because the woman would want love and to care for the offspring as a family unit and would seek out a male that would want to reciprocate the same feelings with her. Those are human traits, we aren't Salmon or Alligators.
You could also get raped by a woman and have a child that way, does not mean you are straight. Does not mean that is normal behavior either and you can nitpick on those levels all you want.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 105, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 781 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 104): Where in the hell are you getting family from? What does the ability or want of having a family have to do with anything?
Dude, from right here, your own post! do you forget what you post?
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 106, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 782 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 105):
Dude, from right here, your own post! do you forget what you post?
No. I never said "a gay person does not want a family or is unable to care for a child" Show me where I said that.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 105): Again, i know gay men who lived married to women for many many years and fathered children.They are not homosexuals? Ill be sure to let them know.
How are they gay if they are married to and having sex with women? They are bisexual. That is not gay.
Quote: I really don't know what to say to this... I am floored that someone would say this.
Maybe when the shock wears off, i can respond
It happens. Deal with it.
You want to take it to a less graphic level look at Michael Jackson. Same concept.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 107, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 776 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): Scientifically speaking the explanation of why someone is black (or white, asian etc.) is the same + the reasons why someone is a certain race or has certain cranial features is with purpose.
Possible cause and purpose seem to be a bit confused here. Some mutations may give rise to benefits over time and become adopted while others may die out. But none of that suggests "purpose" as that suggests conscious change rather than random mutation. So giraffes suddenly decided one day that it would be better if they had longer necks so that they could reach higher branches rather than giraffes that just so happened to have longer necks had greater access to food and could pass on their genes.
And who says that there is no benefit to society from some of the population being homosexual? While people who are homosexual can reproduce, perhaps the fact that of being attracted to one's own sex has the "purpose" of reducing population pressures. Fewer mouths to feed in times of scarcity. More soldiers to defend the herd without leaving widows and orphans. OK, it stands in the way of the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" but it seems as much a "scientific" theory as any other arguing the contrary.
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 104): If you took these societal pressures away human nature dictates that a woman would not have sex with a gay male just for the sake of a child because the woman would want love and to care for the offspring as a family unit and would seek out a male that would want to reciprocate the same feelings with her.
While lesbian women may not be salmon or alligators they are very much human beings and can, and do, seek to have children while not being married to a man.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 108, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 775 times:
"However, you cant have a family without reproducing. If you are homosexual how can you reproduce (take away test tubes for one minute because that is a man made invention). The moment you have sex to reproduce you are no longer homosexual."
This statement just illustrates that you haven't got a good grasp on what homosexuality is. It is not just the physical act of sex. The actual sexual act is pretty much incidental, and myself included, I know of many people straight and gay that had relationships that didn't involve sex at all. Does sexual intercourse define your life? If it does, I feel sorry for you.
"I knew several gay men that came out after fathering children with women."
Most gay men in this country have had some level of sexual interaction with females be it experimentation, late realization, denial, or hiding due to constrains our society has placed on homosexuals. The ridiculous stigma attached by some can cause a great deal of confusion, and it is not talked about in a non-judgmental way. It's an issue a lot of us have had to grapple with and do some rather clumsy fumblings because of piety and religiously-influenced "scientific" closed-mindedness.
"Take away society for a second and think about it scientifically. If you are going to use arguments such as "I am homosexual and I adopt to enhance my family" that is well laughable, an albino can adopt as well and care for the family just as much as anyone else."
As for the first part of your statement...you can't just single out one facet of the issue for your convenience. Well, I guess you could try, but it neuters your credibility. As for the second part, that's precious. I get a good laugh when people grasp at straws. Nobody's saying an albino couldn't. As it is, straight people incapable of conceiving (perhaps you're unaware that only about 60% of conceptions naturally make it to delivery) adopt all the time to enhance their family. Plenty of men and women are both straight and completely incapable of conceiving. Nobody's lining up in hatred and prejudism to keep them from getting married.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 110, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 761 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 107): Possible cause and purpose seem to be a bit confused here. Some mutations may give rise to benefits over time and become adopted while others may die out. But none of that suggests "purpose" as that suggests conscious change rather than random mutation. So giraffes suddenly decided one day that it would be better if they had longer necks so that they could reach higher branches rather than giraffes that just so happened to have longer necks had greater access to food and could pass on their genes.
And who says that there is no benefit to society from some of the population being homosexual? While people who are homosexual can reproduce, perhaps the fact that of attracted to one's own sex has the "purpose" of reducing population pressures. Fewer mouths to feed in times of scarcity. More soldiers to defend the herd without leaving widows and orphans. OK, it stands in the way of the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" but it seems as much a "scientific" theory as any other arguing the contrary.
You are confusing genetic adaptations. Being homosexual is not a genetic adaptation like a giraffes neck or perhaps humans mutating to have no tail.
Your second paragraph would have merit if being gay was a recessive/dominant gene such as a long neck on a giraffe or a tail on a monkey to balance on trees. It is not. There is no such thing as the "gay gene"
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 107): While lesbian women may not be salmon or alligators they are very much human beings and can, and do, seek to have children while not being married to a man.
Human nature is not as rigid as you imply.
I agree with you that they do. However, since we are not alligators or salmon we seek to have offspring with those that care and love us. Lesbian women do not want a family neither do they love males. Hence if you took away technology by say a nuclear war and we were sent back to the stone age how would these lesbian women actually have children?
Frankly, I'd like to have 12 fingers, it may be possible to do this because of technology right now in the year 2012. However if the year was 20,000 B.C. or in fact 20,000 A.D after a global war and there was no electricity or modern medicine it would not matter what I would want because I could not physically have it. Human nature is best tested where there is no pressure from society or man made inventions that alter your choices as those can be very well be only temporary.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 111, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 755 times:
Just some advice, you should probably be clearer when explaining things. You did come off as offensive sounding, and you claim no harm, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... just some advice
And remember, people can benefit society greatly without having kids... if reproduction was the only thing a species needed, rabbits would rule the world
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 112, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 746 times:
Why are you calling me sweety and saying I showed my true colors. We don't even know each other.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 109): As for the first part of your statement...you can't just single out one facet of the issue for your convenience. Well, I guess you could try, but it neuters your credibility. As for the second part, that's precious. I get a good laugh when people grasp at straws. Nobody's saying an albino couldn't. As it is, straight people incapable of conceiving (perhaps you're unaware that only about 60% of conceptions naturally make it to delivery) adopt all the time to enhance their family. Plenty of men and women are both straight and completely incapable of conceiving. Nobody's lining up in hatred and prejudism to keep them from getting married.
I am not following you where I believe that someone should be discriminated against because they are unable to conceive a child? I have not made one statement that said that.
Both of you are blind to the fact not once have I said somewhere "I oppose gay marriage and I believe we should discriminate." I find it to be hilarious that you are so blinded to the point that you are saying I said something and then arguing with it, essentially with yourselves.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 109): This statement just illustrates that you haven't got a good grasp on what homosexuality is. It is not just the physical act of sex. The actual sexual act is pretty much incidental, and myself included, I know of many people straight and gay that had relationships that didn't involve sex at all. Does sexual intercourse define your life? If it does, I feel sorry for you.
Do you think I am that daft that I dont know that homosexuality is the attraction and identity not simply a physical act? If you do no big deal, it doesnt really change my world other than a good laugh.
Quoting luckyone (Reply 109): Most gay men in this country have had some level of sexual interaction with females be it experimentation, late realization, denial, or hiding due to constrains our society has placed on homosexuals. The ridiculous stigma attached by some can cause a great deal of confusion, and it is not talked about in a non-judgmental way. It's an issue a lot of us have had to grapple with and do some rather clumsy fumblings because of piety and religiously-influenced "scientific" closed-mindedness.
The only person bringing up religion or stigma is you. Do I look look like Rick Santorum that believes we should discriminate against yourself or mt99 because an imaginary figure in the stratosphere told me so on top of a mountain 2000 years ago? Let me repeat not once have I said we should discriminate or it is acceptable to discriminate. I am not going to constantly beat that into everyone's head in this thread because all it does is remind me of "If you tell yourself a lie over and over again over time it will become the truth"
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 113, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 740 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 110): Lesbian women do not want a family neither do they love males.
Wrong. They may not wish to live in your definition of a family. The fact that they wish to marry and have children is indicative that they want as much as others to enjoy the comforts of family. Just that their definition of family differs from yours.
And who says that lesbians don't love men? Not all love is sexual. You are confusing love with copulation and procreation. They are not the same thing although the former may include the latter.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 114, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 736 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): There is absolutely no purpose to being born homosexual as it stems from you being born from a hormonal imbalance (read medically not normal) and if you subscribe to evolution any trait that does not give an advantage in surviving or reproducing (depending on your natural environment) will die off.
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): Black people were discriminated against based on false assumptions that they were worth less by nature. But I would make the point that the average black person is worth the same as any person of any other race.
By definition you are worth less as a homosexual to the evolutionary cycle because you bring forth nothing to do table genetics wise, and even if you did,
You are so very uneducated (and insulting to an entire valued group in society) on this aspect on evolution and societal dynamics it almost doesn't bear correcting... However becasue I am felling generous:
I take it then that you can state fully that worker bees have absolutley no benefit generationally or genetically or societally to bees and their colonies? Right? The worker bees don't procreate, they just work and care for and defend the hive. Gee, kinda like Doc.... he works, and cares for the children of our society.
A non-reproducing individual can be a huge benefit to a group and society. And is is proven that they don't just die off and the trait disappears as the trait has been around for thousands of years, even though it has technically been sorted against (homosexuals have been persecuted and thought of as "less than' and killed for thousands of years as well) yet it still survives and persists. Why? Because it is an advantage for society.
You really need to do some basic reading on biodiversity within species and how non-reproducing groups within those species are quite important. Gee I guess you could even look at wolves and others hierarchical species where only one male contributes at a time and the rest just protect and challenge each other for "rights" to procreate. But that still means the majority of the males don't procreate.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 115, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111): Just some advice, you should probably be clearer when explaining things. You did come off as offensive sounding, and you claim no harm, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... just some advice
And remember, people can benefit society greatly without having kids... if reproduction was the only thing a species needed, rabbits would rule the world
If I gave a flying donkeys rear about not being offensive constantly in this great country of ours that I have adopted id probably by now be calling fat people "Persons of Size" and the Mexican lawn guys "Lawn Technicians of Latin Origins". Doesn't change that they are fat and Jose is from Guadalajara. Those are just facts. I dont have the time to ponder about why someone might be offended when nothing offensive was really said and people seem to have caught a PC cold. BTW, if you were here 6-7 years ago you'd know this thread ain't jack on the s***-o-meter scale.
Indeed, it reminds me of the time someone in this country said I hate Polaks and im a xenophobe when I made a self-comedic joke. Morons.
As for rabbits, they overtake whole ecosystems because of their fast reproductions. Point proven. Once they learn how to swim and fly properly we're all screwed, especially the pigeons.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 116, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 729 times:
Ok well my other point of advice still comes into play:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111): you should probably be clearer when explaining things
because either we're all retarded and aren't getting what you're saying or you're doing a lousy job of explaining things. Sorry dude
Just when I think that I've heard every ridiculous anti-gay marriage argument, I'm proven wrong. Gay marriage is discrimination against singles because of tax advantages? Unbelievable...
Quoting mt99 (Reply 88): Is that you reason for opposing gay marriage?
I continue to be floored by the lengths people will go to find reasons to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. Honestly, I'd have so much more respect for people if they just came out and said "I don't like gay people, and I don't think that they should be allowed to marry." Crap such as discrimination against singles is a cop-out.
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 101): The moment you have sex to reproduce you are no longer homosexual.
Says who? You clearly don't know much about homosexuality. Just because you have sex with someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean that you cease being homosexual.
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 106): How are they gay if they are married to and having sex with women? They are bisexual. That is not gay.
Do you know a lot of gay people? I can assure you that there are plenty of gay men out there who are/were married and having sex with women. They are not bi, they are gay. They were never sexually attracted to their wives, but only married them due to various influences. Again, having sex with someone of the opposite sex does not automatically make you bisexual.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 108): I still can't believe that you make light of rape to further your point.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 118, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 720 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 113): Wrong. They may not wish to live in your definition of a family. The fact that they wish to marry and have children is indicative that they want as much as others to enjoy the comforts of family. Just that their definition of family differs from yours.
And who says that lesbians don't love men? Not all love is sexual. You are confusing love with copulation and procreation. They are not the same thing although the former may include the latter.
It seems as if our definition of love is different when it comes to having a family and procreating, I wasnt talking about "my lesbian friend is unable of loving me as a friend because she is lesbian". Ill leave it at that.
Quoting tugger (Reply 114): A non-reproducing individual can be a huge benefit to a group and society. And is is proven that they don't just die off and the trait disappears as the trait has been around for thousands of years, even though it has technically been sorted against (homosexuals have been persecuted and thought of as "less than' and killed for thousands of years as well) yet it still survives and persists. Why? Because it is an advantage for society.
I dont even know where to begin with this. If a non-reproducing individual does not pass a genetic trait he/she sees the trait dies off and disappears. In addition just because something has survived does not mean it is an advantage for society. Mind telling me what advantage we have in society from albinos? They happen because a natural abnormality that occurs when there are chemical inbalances. Nothing more, nothing less.
You base your whole argument on the fact that you dont need 100% of the subjects in the species to procreate. This is obvious, some will die, some cant have offsprings for natural reasons, some get cancer etc. I fail to see what this has to do with passing on a particular trait as being homosexual is not something you can pass along.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 119, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 717 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 117): Says who? You clearly don't know much about homosexuality. Just because you have sex with someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean that you cease being homosexual.
Says the damn definition of the word bi, which is more than one.
Quoting OA412 (Reply 117): Do you know a lot of gay people? I can assure you that there are plenty of gay men out there who are/were married and having sex with women. They are not bi, they are gay. They were never sexually attracted to their wives, but only married them due to various influences. Again, having sex with someone of the opposite sex does not automatically make you bisexual.
By physical definition they are bi. Doesn't matter how much you argue.
This is like the born again virgins argument - "I didnt want to have sex but I did it because society forced me to do it" and then they say they are virgins. Well yea, they may be emotionally but not medically they are not. I dont really give a flying F about the emotional definition as I was talking about physical and statistical states that took out societal pressures from the beginning.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, RR: 6 Reply 120, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 716 times:
Before the thread drifts off into a discussion of the impact of paleodrainage systems on genetic variation of Simoselaps (Neelaps) bimaculatus, perhaps we can come back to Proposition 8. Or is it now too late?
It seems that the judgement was written narrowly so that it could only apply to California and even avoid going to the USSC. Perhaps if Protect Marriage wants to appeal a ruling might have wider effect. How likely is it that Protect Marriage will appeal? (The only sources I have been able to read state that they are still considering an appeal.)
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 121, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 711 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 118): If a non-reproducing individual does not pass a genetic trait he/she sees the trait dies off and disappears.
But you are wrong, here's a simple example: You can have non-producing members from the same family, the same genetic material. The non-producing member(s) of that family still tends to be more protective of the family and the offspring of that family thereby providing that family and *his* genetics a better chance to survive into the future.
Very simple.
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 118): You base your whole argument on the fact that you dont need 100% of the subjects in the species to procreate. This is obvious, some will die, some cant have offsprings for natural reasons, some get cancer etc. I fail to see what this has to do with passing on a particular trait as being homosexual is not something you can pass along.
As you see from above, the trait can survive quite well and in fact it could be a selecting trait that contributes to the success of a genetic branch. The more individuals that can be available to care for the offspring, the more likely that branch will succeed and procreate further. So having a portion of your family that does not attempt to create offspring that compete for the family resources but instead will more likely contribute their time and energy to the family will increase the success of the family.
It could be that just 10% additional population that does not compete for the procreative resources increases the genetic success of that branch of a species.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 120): perhaps we can come back to Proposition 8.
Tugg
[Edited 2012-02-08 22:55:23]
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 122, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 709 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 120): Before the thread drifts off into a discussion of the impact of paleodrainage systems on genetic variation of Simoselaps (Neelaps) bimaculatus, perhaps we can come back to Proposition 8. Or is it now too late?
It seems that the judgement was written narrowly so that it could only apply to California and even avoid going to the USSC. Perhaps if Protect Marriage wants to appeal a ruling might have wider effect. How likely is it that Protect Marriage will appeal? (The only sources I have been able to read state that they are still considering an appeal.)
Thanks. Hah, never too late. I think they are already appealing because the judge said no same-sex couple can marry in CA until all of the appeals are over. If the case was definite then we'd probably see marriages restart tomorrow.
The real issue that we should be discussing however is why does the religious lobby hold such power that they can force laws upon people which goes against free will in this country and I am not defining this to only same sex marriages. On one hand it is obviously historical but I would have thought especially the citizens of CA gotten over this considering their rather socially liberal mindset?
In my view this is also a common sense issue and its honestly hard not to relate prop 8 to say American speed limit or some alcohol laws. They make no sense, serve no purpose and restrict people in A) the name of safety or B) in the name of the good of society.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 123, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 715 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 121): But you are wrong, here's a simple example: You can have non-producing members from the same family, the same genetic material. The non-producing member(s) of that family still tends to be more protective of the family and the offspring of that family thereby providing that family and *his* genetics a better chance to survive into the future.
Thank you for proving my point.
It would be and I wouldnt have this argument with you if homosexuality was based on pure genetics not like it has been scientifically proven to be first and foremost hormonal imbalances. You do absolutely nothing as a non-producing member of your family to help the chance of homosexuality surviving in the future as there is no gay gene. You cannot pass homosexuality like you can: skin color, eye color, hair color, 6 fingers etc.
If your family is blond and the neighbors next door all have black hair and you want to protect the blond you protect your family. It is mathematically by genetics proven that you stand a much greater chance of having a blond offspring. If someone in your family of 4 is gay and your next door neighbors family of 4 are all straight there is not a SHRED of evidence that says your family's offspring has a greater chance of being gay than the offspring coming from the 100% straight family next door. Indeed, you might as well just play the powerball at this point.
Hence my whole argument.
Ill take a truce with you and give you at least the peace of mind when I tell you that I will vote FOR same sex marriage everytime it comes up on the ballot in my (socially conservative) state.
Doona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3665 posts, RR: 11 Reply 124, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 693 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 110): Lesbian women do not want a family neither do they love males.
I find issue with this one. Fine, I'll go along with the second part of that sentence, but the first part? Lesbian women do not want families? I'm friends with a lesbian couple who just had their first child, maybe I need to let them know that they don't actually want it?
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 119): By physical definition they are bi. Doesn't matter how much you argue.
But you yourself stated in an earlier post that you are aware of the fact that it's not simply about physical actions, but rather sense of identity. So why stick to using "physical definition"?
Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 125, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 695 times:
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 123): It would be and I wouldnt have this argument with you if homosexuality was based on pure genetics not like it has been scientifically proven to be first and foremost hormonal imbalances. You do absolutely nothing as a non-producing member of your family to help the chance of homosexuality surviving in the future as there is no gay gene. You cannot pass homosexuality like you can: skin color, eye color, hair color, 6 fingers etc. Hence my whole argument my friend.
Except that there are many factors that are genetically controlled, such and hormones, that are passed on in each generation and they are either selected in or out if they contribute to the success of the species. The science is still not complete on it but there does not have to be a "gay gene" for there to be a genetic component to being homosexual. There can be several genes that interact and affect one another that could be the cause. Or it could be the genes in a certain combination cause the hormones to be balanced properly to create a homosexual nature in an individual.
I am not saying this is what happens, I am saying we don't know and there is the distinct possibility.
But beyond that, and to head back to the actual thread topic, we are humans and we do exceed a "just genetic" requirement for our species currently. We don't need to have it be genetic or to care really what causes it to understand and allow that if someone is homosexual, we can accept them freely.
And if that person should fall in love with someone and choose to get married, we as individuals and as a society do not need to be offended or disallow that person from being with and marrying the one they love. And finally, last I checked, neither marriage nor love (as humans experience it) were genetic. In fact love could be, and has been called, a massive hormone imbalance itself.
.
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 122): I think they are already appealing because the judge said no same-sex couple can marry in CA until all of the appeals are over. If the case was definite then we'd probably see marriages restart tomorrow.
The Prop 8 folks have two weeks to file their appeal and have indicated that they will do so. Also they have a strategic choice to make as to whether they appeal it to the full 9th Circuit Court or to take it to the US Supreme Court. The decision the 3 member panel handed down was very narrow and limited it to only California and as such the Supreme Court may uphold the ruling//decline to hear the case.
Tugg
[Edited 2012-02-08 23:41:22]
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 126, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 697 times:
Quoting Doona (Reply 124): I find issue with this one. Fine, I'll go along with the second part of that sentence, but the first part? Lesbian women do not want families? I'm friends with a lesbian couple who just had their first child, maybe I need to let them know that they don't actually want it?
Should read: do not want families with males as partners. My bad on that.
Quoting Doona (Reply 124): But you yourself stated in an earlier post that you are aware of the fact that it's not simply about physical actions, but rather sense of identity. So why stick to using "physical definition"?
Because it is about the physical definition when you are talking about it from an evolutionary and mathematical perspective and looking at the big picture over millenia. Consider this, if homosexuality was a gene trait like hair color right now you could calculate who to have children with in order maximize continuation of that trait. You cant.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 127, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 125): And if that person should fall in love with someone and choose to get married, that we as individuals and as a society do not need to be offended or disallow that person from being with and marrying the one they love. And finally, last I checked, neither marriage nor love (as humans experience it) were genetic. In fact love could be, and has been called, a massive hormone imbalance.
I 100% agree with you, and thus support your cause. And now I shall retire from this thread and sing kumbaya.
ATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 379 posts, RR: 3 Reply 128, posted (3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 694 times:
Can anyone just explain to me what is wrong with a gay relationship without the words "The Bible says..."?
Who the F cares? Just because I swing for Adam and Eve doesnt mean my love for my lady friend is any greater than that of someone advocating for Adam and Steve....
Sure, the Christian religion, per 'THE BIBLE' says homosexuality is a capital offense, but it also says that a woman disrespecting her husband is as well, a child misbehaving shall be stoned to death and that we should all own slaves.
At some point even the religious nuts need to take a step back and realize most people are not 'orthodox' whatever the dumb religion of the day is and accept people for whatever their decisions may be (dont get me started on the whole 'not my decision' thing, I am advocating for gay rights), and accept people for who they are because if I recall my dumb Sunday School teachings correctly, 'Thou shalt not pass judgement lest ye be judged' was far more prevalent than 'Thou shalt stick thy nose in others' business and prohibit one from loving one with the same hardware'....
Seriously, unless you ARE God and we all face you on judgement day, shut up and let people live their lives without your bullshit input...
My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
"Do you think I am that daft that I dont know that homosexuality is the attraction and identity not simply a physical act? If you do no big deal, it doesnt really change my world other than a good laugh."
Quite frankly, yes. Despite your insistence to the contrary, your entire argument and your defense of it points to gross ignorance RE homosexuality.
"The only person bringing up religion or stigma is you."
You asked why gay men have children with women. I told you why, and growing up gay in the Bible Belt, I know a thing or two about it. Apparently you didn't like my answer and deflected it.
"Do I look look like Rick Santorum that believes we should discriminate against yourself or mt99 because an imaginary figure in the stratosphere told me so on top of a mountain 2000 years ago?"
If not, you've done a fabulous job of imitating it.
How about you actually go learn about gay people, and refrain from telling us what we are or what we want and why we want it, since you obviously are a bit misguided.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 131, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 634 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 98): By definition you are worth less as a homosexual to the evolutionary cycle because you bring forth nothing to do table genetics wise
A gay couple's ability to "benefit society", is not (and should not be) limited to genetics. I would argue there are far more important benefits. As Quokkas pointed out, population pressures are reduced. And given the huge number of unwanted and/or abused children in the world, we should all welcome a population that is interested in adopting rather than procreating.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111): Just some advice, you should probably be clearer when explaining things. You did come off as offensive sounding
Agreed. Whether he intends to or not, LOT767-300ER has, over the years, made a habit of posting in a very inflammatory and disrespectful manner.
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 128): Sure, the Christian religion, per 'THE BIBLE' says homosexuality is a capital offense, but it also says that a woman disrespecting her husband is as well, a child misbehaving shall be stoned to death and that we should all own slaves.
It seems to me that the modern christian religion is built upon a vast foundation of contradictions, to be rearranged as needed according to the set of fears and bigotry most popular on any given day.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 132, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 632 times:
I'm not a lawyer but I think that when you strip away all the extraneous arguments the Gay Marriage debate comes down to a fundamental Constitutional question:
- Some believe that the "Free Exercise" clause empowers religious people/groups to use government lawmaking to build or preserve an environment that is compatible with the religious worldview of the majority. This would include regulating the definition of 'marriage' among other things.
- Others believe that the "Establishment" clause should prohibit the making of laws that favor any particular religious views at the expense of other people's freedom. To them, laws limiting the freedom of gay people to enjoy (or suffer LOL) the same kind of marriage that straight people do is a de facto establishment of a religious view as 'Official' and therefore Unconstitutional.
So, the religious person who is against 'Gay Marriage' percieves the California decision as an attack on his/her religious freedom, while others see it as the Court accurately interpreting the Constitution and fostering equal rights under the law.
Admittedly there have been some attempts to make secular arguments against Gay Marriage but when you dig into what people mean by 'sanctity of marriage', 'family', or 'fabric of society' you find that a religious view is at the root of it. Nobody is suing gay couples for compensatory damages caused by their union.
Personally, I support the Establishment clause view because allowing laws to be made by majority rule on solely religious grounds is just begging to trample on the right of smaller religious groups or athiests to have their own "Free Exercise". I have always believed that the intent of the Founders was to preserve the basic rights of 'out groups' rather than validate the will of the mob, but perhaps I've been wrong? But it does beg the question of why we'd even need a Bill of Rights if majority rule was their intent.
Either way I think Christians would have a different definition of "free exercise" and view the relationship between religion and government differently if they weren't such a large majority of the US population.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 133, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 620 times:
Trying to argue it is a genetic abnormality that will die off because gays don't reproduce, is sort of futile. The genetic trait is passed by straight people, who are NOT gay, and appears often too frequently and in a large population, especially if you are trying to label it as a genetic anomaly. Being albino, having Down's Syndrome, and other genetic conditions are "anomalies." If you want to call them that, because they happen so rarely, but homosexuality as a genetic trait, is so broadly a frequently seen in humans, it can't be considered an anomaly. Not to mention, it's a genetic trait that isn't dying out because the people passing it on, are the ones who are reproducing.
To my knowledge, there has been no credible geneticist who shares your point of view. I'm not even sure if non-credible ones share you view either. I know you are pretty well formed in your opinion, and probably not going to see the argument(s) against your theory, but it seems you might need to research your idea a bit more and bring back some established, researched, and quotable facts.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 134, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 566 times:
Sorry to continue this discussion, but I thought being homosexual wasn't necessarily a "trait" but affected by a hormonal difference during development. In other words, any of us straight people could (with the same DNA) have actually been gay if our / our mom's hormones were different. I could be wayyy of the mark though.
If this case does go before the 12 judge panel, could it then be appealed again to the SCOTUS??
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 135, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 557 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 134): Sorry to continue this discussion, but I thought being homosexual wasn't necessarily a "trait" but affected by a hormonal difference during development.
I was under the impression that the actual cause of it, which psychological factors have been ruled out, is not quite clear. Some say genetics, some say hormones of the mother...
mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2490 posts, RR: 2 Reply 136, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 537 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 135): I was under the impression that the actual cause of it, which psychological factors have been ruled out, is not quite clear. Some say genetics, some say hormones of the mother...
Nothing definitive has been worked out, but there's a lot of attention paid to an answer that is both nature and nurture; i.e., genetic proclivity (nature) coupled with exposure to certain hormones in utero (nurture).
Note that when scientist point to "nurture" in their theories, they're not talking about having a domineering mother or an weak father or any other ridiculous stereotypes from the 1950s. They're using nurture to describe events in very early development, especially in utero.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 137, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 471 times:
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 132): So, the religious person who is against 'Gay Marriage' percieves the California decision as an attack on his/her religious freedom,
And they would be unambiguously wrong. Your religious freedom is the freedom to practice your own religion. When that practice steps on the rights of others, then the establishment clause steps in.
The founders and early politicians left several official and unofficial documents expressly stating that the United States is not a Christian nation. Their writings were very explicit in their intent in adding that amendment to the Constitution. In those days, the atrocities of the various religious institutions in Europe were a very fresh memory and they were not about to have them repeated here.
Current religious conservatives have tried to argue that this is not true. They have discounted historical documents, come up with "creative interpretations" of them, and even altered school curricula (in TX, for example) to exclude documents that might hurt their cause. This is called "historical revisionism" and it is VERY DANGEROUS because when you have to lie to make your case, then you are more concerned about being right than doing what is right. And the logical conclusion is that their rightness trumps facts. After all, if God is doing the legislation, then any opposition must be ungodly, right? The ungodly must be punished. They must be repressed, thrown in jail, in concentration camps, or even gassed to death en masse. That is why there has NEVER in history been a democratic theocracy.
Your right to "free exercise" ends at my front door. You do not have the right to "freely exercise" your religion into law.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 139, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 439 times:
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 140, posted (3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 369 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 137): And they would be unambiguously wrong. Your religious freedom is the freedom to practice your own religion. When that practice steps on the rights of others, then the establishment clause steps in.
Doc - just wanted to be clear that I agree with you 100% on this. Unfortunately there are MANY people in the US who don't see the logical disconnect behind religious justification for government action other than to protect people's right to worship how they please.
The most common argument I hear on this is to the effect that "the majority of people believe that X (Gay Marriage for example) is wrong, therefore it should be the law of the land." Even if that majority believe it is wrong primarily on religious or personal preference grounds. The problem there is that if we want to just go with the majority opinion on issues of personal freedom our Constitution and Bill of Rights are redundant.
I think it comes down to how fundamentally the preferences of the majority impact the individual freedoms of a minority, especially when exercise of those freedoms can't be shown to materially injure others.
For example, the majority probably believe that public nudity should be curtailed, if for no other reason than that they don't want to see other people naked. Homophobes or religious/social conservative individuals might make the same argument about married gay couples - ie they "don't want to see that" - either because they personally find it offensive or religiously sinful. In both cases one would be hard pressed to articulate how the presence of either public nudity or married gay couples might materially injure another person. After all, over the course of history humans have probably been naked a lot longer than they have been dressed. The difference is that depriving an individual of the freedom to dispense with clothing is orders of magnitude less of an imposition by the majority than depriving gay people of their ability to exercise one of the basic human rights that heterosexuals enjoy (entering into a marriage bond with another person).
Please understand I'm not trying to compare gay people to nudists, it just works well for the logic of my argument.
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 136): Nothing definitive has been worked out, but there's a lot of attention paid to an answer that is both nature and nurture; i.e., genetic proclivity (nature) coupled with exposure to certain hormones in utero (nurture).
I'm a big fan of science, but I wonder sometimes what the point of even answering this question might be, other than to show that people don't simply select their orientation. The fact is that most people are straight ('mostly straight' I should probably say) and some aren't. And both contribute positively to the "fabric of society". I'm straight and grew up programmed to be a homophobe, but being a member of a minority group myself (non-religious) I now see that we need to work toward an attitude where people can just be who they are as long as it isn't hurting anybody else. Whatever your thing happens to be.
Call me cynical, but I think that if we ever do conclusively discover the 'cause' of homosexuality, the same people who have consistently called being gay a choice would probably be the first ones to abandon that view and advocate pursuing ways to intervene genetically or hormonally to "cure" homosexuality in utero.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 141, posted (3 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 366 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 140): The most common argument I hear on this is to the effect that "the majority of people believe that X (Gay Marriage for example) is wrong, therefore it should be the law of the land." Even if that majority believe it is wrong primarily on religious or personal preference grounds. The problem there is that if we want to just go with the majority opinion on issues of personal freedom our Constitution and Bill of Rights are redundant.
Indeed. At one time, the majority believed slavery was acceptable.
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 140): if we ever do conclusively discover the 'cause' of homosexuality, the same people who have consistently called being gay a choice would probably be the first ones to abandon that view and advocate pursuing ways to intervene genetically or hormonally to "cure" homosexuality in utero.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 142, posted (3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 350 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 141):
Indeed. At one time, the majority believed slavery was acceptable.
mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2490 posts, RR: 2 Reply 143, posted (3 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 334 times:
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 140): ...but I wonder sometimes what the point of even answering this question...
If you are saying pro gay rights people rely too heavily on the didn't-have-a-choice argument, I tend to agree. Even if it were true that a person totally self-selects their sexual preference why shun them or persecute them? What is the point of this type of behavior besides being small minded and hateful?
On the other hand, this defense - that much of sexual orientation is more or less predetermined - flies in the face of Christianists who seek to condemn homosexuals based on the teachings and biblical interpretations of their respective churches.
So I think it's a worthy argument to make and I think it persuades many decent, respectful Christians to reconsider their policy views on this topic.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 144, posted (3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 322 times:
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 143): If you are saying pro gay rights people rely too heavily on the didn't-have-a-choice argument, I tend to agree. Even if it were true that a person totally self-selects their sexual preference why shun them or persecute them? What is the point of this type of behavior besides being small minded and hateful?
That was what I was driving at, but you said it a lot more clearly than I would
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 143): On the other hand, this defense - that much of sexual orientation is more or less predetermined - flies in the face of Christianists who seek to condemn homosexuals based on the teachings and biblical interpretations of their respective churches.
So I think it's a worthy argument to make and I think it persuades many decent, respectful Christians to reconsider their policy views on this topic.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, 5640 posts, 
)
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2418 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 330 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3665 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3096 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 440 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
