NationStates Jolt Archive

hey over here (australia) they can marry in sa and tas however, they dont quite get all the rights like widowers penion and for sum reason no parliment pensoin thingy i forget wat its called so yeh. :headbang:

does any 1 here watch qaf if so wat do u think of it

hey over here (australia) they can marry in sa and tas however, they dont quite get all the rights like widowers penion and for sum reason no parliment pensoin thingy i forget wat its called so yeh. :headbang:

does any 1 here watch qaf if so wat do u think of it

I think it's not an appropriate topic to be discussed in a 'gay rights' thread.

kk srr :rolleyes:

The logic is flawed.

Restricting marriage to members of the opposite gender discriminates on the basis of gender.

Just as restricting marriage to members of the same race discriminates on the basis of race.

The "homosexuals can still marry a member of the opposite gender" argument has no more validity than the "whites can still marry whites and blacks can still marry blacks" argument.
Surely you're not saying that gays are a different race than heterosexuals??? :confused:

kk srr :rolleyes:

Feel free to create your own thread. But hijacking this one would be inappropriate.

Surely you're not saying that gays are a different race than heterosexuals??? :confused:

Of course not.

I am saying that you cannot claim that a law that restricts marriage by gender is non-discriminatory anymore than you can claim a law that restricts marriage by race is non-discriminatory.

This has been gone through several times.

Of course not.

I am saying that you cannot claim that a law that restricts marriage by gender is non-discriminatory anymore than you can claim a law that restricts marriage by race is non-discriminatory.

This has been gone through several times.
Look ... there's no need to get all huffy with me, either in this post or any other on this subject. I happen to think that anyone who finds someone who wants to spend their lives together via marraige should have the opportunity to do so. Personally, I don't care if you marry your damned refrigerator. I'm just struggling to understand why this is such a contentious issue.

Marriage is not an individual right. An individual cannot get married without being part of a couple. Heterosexual couples can get married. Homosexual couples cannot.

Ooops. I see that now. Funny I've never seen that explained before.


You might think my point is facetious or stupid, but it's actually crucial: gay people aren't asking for an equal right (getting married), because they already have that right. They're asking for an additional right: the right to marry someone of their sexual orientation.

Which is the right that straight people have right now (and this is where in my opinion, if thought of in individual terms, it crosses over from legal to moral territory) and when gay marriage is legalized, straight people will be just as well allowed to marry people of the same sex as gays are to marry the opposite sex right now.

Okay, so first time poster here - just wanted to put a Canadian perspective in the thread....

A lot of the recent activity on the "gay marriage" front up here has actually centered on the definition of "spouse". Lots of Family Law legislation uses the term spouse, instead of referring to married couples, as the law applies to both people who go and get officially hitched, and those who just cohabitate in a conjugal relationship for a certain number of years. Spouse, which was defined as referring to an opposite sex partner, was redefined to include same-sex couples, because the original definition was defined to be discriminatory. If the purpose of the family law acts, which cover things like alimony and division of assets on separation, was to ensure fairness and security for both parties in the event of a breakdown in a long-term relationship, then excluding gay and lesbian couples didn't make any sense.

Also, the definition of "marriage" that was challenged here was the common law definition. It was the definition itself that was deemed to be discriminatory. Marriage is now defined to be a union between two persons, with the opposite sex requirement removed. Our courts have ruled that benefits provided by the government (of which civil [as opposed to religious]marriage is) have to be provided in a non-discriminatory manner. A definition being underinclusive can be discriminatory. Hence "gay marriage".

Look ... there's no need to get all huffy with me, either in this post or any other on this subject. I happen to think that anyone who finds someone who wants to spend their lives together via marraige should have the opportunity to do so. Personally, I don't care if you marry your damned refrigerator. I'm just struggling to understand why this is such a contentious issue.

Sorry. But I have made the same argument at least a half-dozen times (in response to the same anti-gay-marriage argument) and I've gotten frustrated repeating it.

I fail to understand why some oppose gay marriage. It is utterly irrational.

As to why gays feel strongly that they are entitled to equal rights, I don't think that is hard to understand.

Okay, so first time poster here - just wanted to put a Canadian perspective in the thread....

A lot of the recent activity on the "gay marriage" front up here has actually centered on the definition of "spouse". Lots of Family Law legislation uses the term spouse, instead of referring to married couples, as the law applies to both people who go and get officially hitched, and those who just cohabitate in a conjugal relationship for a certain number of years. Spouse, which was defined as referring to an opposite sex partner, was redefined to include same-sex couples, because the original definition was defined to be discriminatory. If the purpose of the family law acts, which cover things like alimony and division of assets on separation, was to ensure fairness and security for both parties in the event of a breakdown in a long-term relationship, then excluding gay and lesbian couples didn't make any sense.

Also, the definition of "marriage" that was challenged here was the common law definition. It was the definition itself that was deemed to be discriminatory. Marriage is now defined to be a union between two persons, with the opposite sex requirement removed. Our courts have ruled that benefits provided by the government (of which civil [as opposed to religious]marriage is) have to be provided in a non-discriminatory manner. A definition being underinclusive can be discriminatory. Hence "gay marriage".

Excellent. Hopefully the US will follow suit someday soon.

Surely you're not saying that gays are a different race than heterosexuals??? :confused:

You can discriminate based on something other than race.

Sorry. But I have made the same argument at least a half-dozen times (in response to the same anti-gay-marriage argument) and I've gotten frustrated repeating it.

I fail to understand why some oppose gay marriage. It is utterly irrational.

As to why gays feel strongly that they are entitled to equal rights, I don't think that is hard to understand.

I didnt think you sounded huffy but you are damn well justified in becoming frustrated when you need to make the same argument over and over in such a clear manner and still it doesn't get thru some peoples thick skulls.

However, in the context of a "civil rights" movement, Gay Rights as it is proposed is laughingly similar to something like a civil rights movement for Bikers. Both are a choice of lifestyle made by adults (even if the choice vs. nature argument is never resolved it will always be a choice of lifestyle), both have a negative stereotype associated with them, both are a deviation from a social norm, some people are scared shitless by even the idea of riding a motorcycle while others will claim to be "born to ride," etc, etc, etc... The movement itself is no more or less satirically absurd as a Biker civil rights movement, but the massive media portrayal has given way to the first rule of propaganda; "If you say it enough times, people will believe it."
Sexuality isn't a lifestyle. "Lifesyle" is a misnomer for sexual orientation, because it diminishes homosexuality (and thus heterosexuality) to the classification of such superficial things as socioeconomics. In the right circumstances, we can change things like our economic footing through luck and hard work. At some point we might make lifestyle purchases such as a boat, a recreational vehicle, an overseas holiday. Those lifestyle factors aren't a representation of who we are and what we believe in. They are just a representation of out consumer habits. Sexuality doesn't constitute a "lifestyle" any more than personality or excessive body hair constitutes a lifestyle.
Bikers choose to be bikers. Goths choose to be goths. Teenyboppers choose to be teenyboppers. Its the same mechanism of belonging. To say that a gay rights agenda is anything like a biker/goth/teenybopper agenda is pissflaps. Whether they accept it or not, it takes a conscious decision to be part of a subculture. In my experience, it takes more than a conscious decision to bend someone's sexual preference.

There should be NO legal distinction made to represent homosexuality.

Absolutely. That is, if you hadn't noticed, the *aim* of gay rights. That is what is being campaigned *for* - that GLB people will not be discriminated against, that the GLB community will be treated just like everyone else.

I think we'll find that Jibea is either a middle-aged or teen-aged Catholic male who knows next to nothing about relationships, love, or modern culture. :P
Trust me, not all Catholics feel the same way about gay marriage and adoption by gay couples. I'm a Catholic myself (although not in the strict Vatican sense of the word) and I'm in favour of both gay marriage and adoption.

But then again, I live in Europe. Perhaps things are different in the US...

Absolutely. That is, if you hadn't noticed, the *aim* of gay rights. That is what is being campaigned *for* - that GLB people will not be discriminated against, that the GLB community will be treated just like everyone else.

A sort of "catching up" if you will.

They should have no rights whatsoever. Maybe the right to live...but they fend for themselves.

They should have no rights whatsoever. Maybe the right to live...but they fend for themselves.

Why do they scary you so much?

They should have no rights whatsoever. Maybe the right to live...but they fend for themselves.

Sel Appa should have no rights whatsoever. Maybe the right to live... but Sel Appa must fend for himself....

Fear and hate are not the same thing...well to Yoda they are related...it's yet to be tested if I would run away if I found out the person next to me was gay.

What's the point of having two distinct genders if two men or two women can love each other?

They should have no rights whatsoever. Maybe the right to live...but they fend for themselves.

Ah, the little troll wants to play. Sorry, no rights for trolls whatsoever.

Fear and hate are not the same thing...well to Yoda they are related...it's yet to be tested if I would run away if I found out the person next to me was gay.

I think Yoda would highly disagree with your bigotous attitude.

What's the point of having two distinct genders if two men or two women can love each other?

Ask mother nature. Two genders...It's her fault. I mean, snails get along just fine, don't they?

Gays should be treated the same as everyone else.

I mean, look at it this way; disliking someone because of the way they have sex.

That's just weird.

I think this is a good discussion so far, except for the fact that gender and sex are two totally different things. Sex is biology while gender is "apparent social role." That's according to my genderstudies class, which, let me tell you gives me an incredible headache when I have to think about what really makes a man a man and a woman a woman. However this is just semantics.

When it comes to "gay rights" it's not just about marriage or civil unions It's about JOBS and KIDS.

There are plenty of people who have been fired or had thier children taken away because they have come out of the closet or been going through the transition. Teens that get thrown out of thier house and the state refuses to give them any kind of support. Someone else said it earlier but this is a Human Rights issue.

"Gays" aren't animals, they are people who need what everyone else does.

Ask mother nature. Two genders...It's her fault. I mean, snails get along just fine, don't they?

Actually there are a LOT more than two genders. I mean if you think about it, have you ever met a male who didn't have ANY feminine qualities at all? Or a woman who was totally devoid of masculine traits? It's estimated that there are probably at least 18 different genders in the human race alone. Which makes my head hurt to think about that.

In fact there are more than two sexes. Male, female, intersexed.

Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to educate you a bit. :)

Everyone should be equal under the law. Enough said.

Question for those against gay marriage....

There is a genetic syndrome that can be found on occation amongst genetic males... That is those possessing the XY chromosome marker.

It is called CAIS (Complete Andgrogen Insensitivity Syndrome).

This syndrome results from a genetic insensitivity to testosterone. Lacking AR receptors.

As is well known, all fetus devlope feminine from conception, and later males later undergoing a morphological change in the presence of testosterone as their gonads enter final developmental stages. Those males with CAIS, lacking functional AR receptors, cannot react to testosterone. Morphologically they develope, and are born as, females.. And even declares such on their birth certificates.

As puberty approaches, the syndrom is diagnosed... Usually because they devlope symptoms that mimic ovarian cancer, biopsies are done on their gonads... It is at this point, doctors discover their gonads (which they thought were ovaries) are in fact testicles. And the syndrome is diagnosed.

Typically the child is then placed on hormone replacement medication, similar to that which is given to hysterectomy patients, and girls with Turner's syndrome (lack of final chromosome [XO it is also called]). And this usually occurs when the child is 7 to 9 years old.

Now, legally, and from birth, these children are female... they are also by their birth certificates (which may not be ammended) female.. And they possess all normative female external morphological characteristics (vagina, labia, vulva, clitoris, etc.)

Even though genetic males, they can marry like any other woman. And for all legal purposes are women.

So the questions:

- Are they "homosexuals" because they are technically males by genetic consideration, even though they possess natural female morphology?

- They are presently allowed to marry. Since they are legally females. Why is it they can marry another male human but other males may not?

Turner's syndrome holds and even harder point towards you... They are not technicaly male or female by genetics, though possess partially functional ovaries (produce some hormones, but no eggs), all female normative morphology (including natural breast development through their teen years). They may legally marry as well....

Because those genetic males are legally males, oh nos. I don't see your basis on the comparison of these two, highly different situations. If you're calling homosexuality a deformity, then you can compare the two. Also, as of yet, homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic at all... which is where people were going with the "lifestyle" argument. A lifestyle is something that is chosen by every individual, and lifestyles can range from a variety of things, such as how much you spend shopping to also who/what you're attracted to. A genetic trait is something you're born with, something that you do not have any control over, and technically, can never change, for now at least. If you're blonde, your roots will come out blonde, if you're male, you'll have more testorone and less estrogen than females, and if you have 11 toes, well, that's your own problem... Since homosexuality has not yet been proven to be a genetic trait, it is a lifestyle, something that you have control over. Yes, the environment one lives in may play a role... but it is not a deciding factor.

Because those genetic males are legally males, oh nos.

so it's a matter of law, and not morality... Thank you...


I don't see your basis on the comparison of these two, highly different situations. If you're calling homosexuality a deformity, then you can compare the two.

Yes, ok, homosexuality is a natural deformity. I'll go with that.


Also, as of yet, homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic at all... which is where people were going with the "lifestyle" argument.

Note: They are males, with male gonads. Their place as females is determinate by enviroment, conditioning and developement. Their insensitivity to AR does not effect their sexual lifestyle.. Only their morphology of development. So they are connected.


A lifestyle is something that is chosen by every individual, and lifestyles can range from a variety of things, such as how much you spend shopping to also who/what you're attracted to.

So, what is detrimental about their lifestyle?


A genetic trait is something you're born with, something that you do not have any control over, and technically, can never change, for now at least. If you're blonde, your roots will come out blonde, if you're male, you'll have more testorone and less estrogen than females,

They have testosterone, they just can't process it. And they lack estrogen (which is why they go on replacement therapy).


and if you have 11 toes, well, that's your own problem... Since homosexuality has not yet been proven to be a genetic trait, it is a lifestyle, something that you have control over. Yes, the environment one lives in may play a role... but it is not a deciding factor.

Then you agree its a lifestyle... However, why can these males marry, and other cannot marry other males... You never answered that one.

Wow, everyone here has way too much time on their hands! :eek:


Before I replied to this issue initially, these were the positions I held: homosexual unions are fundamentally different from heterosexual unions; "Don't ask, don't tell" applies to all sexual relations (outside marriage) in the millitary; the cause of homosexuality is not scientifically proven; the word "marriage" carries significance and meaning in religious, social, and historic contexts; and our legal code was developed without consideration to same sex unions.

Now that I have looked at the issue further, these are the discoveries I have made: marriage is not specifically defined or protected in the Constitution, with the possible interpretive protection of the 9th and 14th ammendments; gender ambiguity and change create legislative nightmares (thank you Tekania, others); and this issue seems to be argued most vehemently between ultra conservatives and ultra liberals.



As for the issues of rights, rectifying the disparity between existing laws and the proposed ideological change would take the work of many, many lawyers, untold amounts of funding, and solve relatively few problems. I say this would solve few problems because hate crimes stem from freedom of thought. So long as people think freely, there will always be some level of discrimination.

Just a random idea, what if marriage was reserved for clear heterosexual unions, while civil unions were given the same legal rights as marriage. Then the only distinctions would relate to hetero-specific relationships. The reason for this is that the majority of committed relationships are currently hetero. Who knows if that is going to change in the future.



Ninth Amendment issue: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This becomes a semantical arguement revolving around the definition of "rights" and "retained." I have no legal qualification to discuss the point past ideologies of what I think should be allowed. Also, this flies directly in the face of a law principle (enumeration of rights, priveleges, or entities implies exclusion of others), and makes civil rights law very slippery in this country. No wonder we have problems.

Fourteenth Amendment issue: "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;" The only question here is, "was due process of law followed?" I do not see how this in any way refers to laws themselves, so long as they were created with due process.


Marriage
Spousal death benefits.
Any spousal benefits for that matter.
The right to uphold your signifigant other's death wishes.
The right to adopt (in some states)
The right to attend any church they choose
The right to be free from harrassment
The right not to be discriminated against in public places (Thinking specifically of a city in Ohio here)
and many more.The rights of a church/religion are protected by another amendment, I don't believe I have to expound on that one. Agreeing to the precepts of an association are a prerequisite to membership... this has been known. Changing historical documents is on the same level as state-instituded book burning and propaganda.

I believe (could be wrong) that making a significant other the executor of a will a way to uphold death benifits.

Freedom from harassment is already illegal, in common law if not codified. I'm a bit unclear on the definition of discrimination in public places, but again I had thought this was an illegal practice. I believe the "right to refuse service to anyone" can be used. On the other hand, I thought there could be no established policy against a "class" of people.

Adoption technicalities vary state to state, but I have been under the impression that individuals are allowed to adopt. Orientation should have no effect on this... unless a psychological analysis deems an individual unfit by another basis.

Semantics are hardly appropriate when we are talking about fundamental human rights.I'm not talking semantics, I'm talking law. We're talking about changing the law, so we should understand how it works and be precise about it, shouldn't we?

As far as the analogy equating gay marriage and interracial marriage, it is the one which is facetious. Since time immemorial, marriage has been between a man and a woman, just like since time immemorial, marriage has been interracial. Alexander the Great, who was gay, forced his Greek (white) generals to marry Persian noble women (darkies) in order to blend the two people, but never once did he entertain the thought of allowing marriage between two men, even though he was openly gay. Every nation is the blend of other nations, and interracial marriage is as old as race.

The point here is that the institution of marriage was altered from its basic recipe to prevent interracial marriage, and allowing interracial marriage was simply returning the institution to its normal state. On the opposite, gay people are trying to alter the institution from its relatively normal state in which it is now.

So, the analogy with interracial marriage is fallacious.

Ok, not to take things a step further, in light of current arguments against the ideas of gay-marriage in light of Constitutional Law, and the natural rights of man, as expressed either in enumeration (Amendments I - VIII) or not (Amendments IX and X).

Marriage has sacred religious meaning....

Bad argument. If this indeed holds sway, then by Constitutional Law applying definitions or laws in accordance with its procedure would be unconstitutional. (Amendment I: first clause). Therefore, this argument defeats itself before the Constitution, and bars the government to interfere with said institution. Thus gay-marriage should not be determined by any form of religious dogma, but should be allowed towards institutions to which would perform such aspects as marriage of homosexual or lesbian couples. Leaving the institution in the hands of the religion(s) to which it is being argued it carries such form in. Thus, defining gay-marriages illegality based upon religious morality, and in defiance of other religious institutions to which may perform it, makes any law of that calibre unconstitutional.

Marriage is between one man and one woman... It is a social foundation...

If this indeed is the case, it gets far more complicated. Placing marriage in the realm of social construct. One, this makes things far less clear in matters as towards appropriateness; though it also does not give any reliable argument against the practice. Thankfully the US is ruled by a Social Contract... This contract is known as our Constitution.... It is through this that powers are enumerated to the government, and protections of natural rights are mentioned... Given that the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage... It then places this social idea amongst the people of this nation in the realm of Amendment IX... Amendment IX dealing with rights not enumerated, brings the principle of natural rights into the picture of all of this.

This means we need to ascertain whether or not marriage falls into the realm of natural rights.... For those unfamiliar with these rights, they are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property... It is from these that all other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution extend from. Religious liberty, speech and press extend from the persons natural right to liberty... In word and conscience.

If it is understood that the idea that marriage is for the purpose of happiness towards the couple to which it extends to; grants excess liberties and rights in connection with property; and the many other attributes to which it is applied to by opposition. It is easy to see that the social institution does indeed meet the qualifiers of being applicable to the natural rights of man. And thus does fall within the realm of the peoples right to life, liberty and property. Making it a proper qualifier under the universal protection provided under the 9th Amendment.

The idea that lies here, is that since government, in the social contract (Constitution) has not been granted power over; then the right lay souly with the people... That is, the individual has soul sovereignty over the exercize of the right. Thus two soveriegn people, may, under this purpose exercize this right to their convenience... And that full legal adults, regardless of race, sex/gender may enter into the concept of this "legal union" as espoused in the principle foundation to which marriage is construed....

Marriage vs. Civil Union...

This is a much debated idea. And created many cursory problems under the precepts of the previous two mentioned.

If you ascribe to provide a seperate set of laws upon "civil union", to which may be equal in principle to marriage, you still present yourself with a problem of standing in violation of clause 1 of the 1st Amendment. That is, we cannot consider them seperate legal ideas, merely on the basis of connotations of the institution in regards to personal religious viewpoints. Indeed, this violates the religious liberties of relgions to which support the idea of providing unions (marriages) to homosexual couples. Thus instituting one set of religious beliefs over another in codified law in violation of Clause 1.

Thus it would stand that either everyone get a "marriage" or that everyone get a "civil union".. That you cannot have both without standing in fundamental violation of the liberties of the people. That is, as a libertine nation, based upon our foundational document... You cannot grant religious liberties to one sect in denial of another. This would be tantamount to making legislation as regards to baptism, and then desparaging relgious institutions which do not practice baptism in accordance with the legislation as such. That, everyone would agree, would violate the first fundamental clause. Thus you can no more base legislation of marriage upon religious views, anymore than you could make such basis upon issues such as baptism or communion.

Having weighed all this over time, I have come to the following:

1. Being a christian, I do consider homosexuality a sin. However, In knowledge of my liberties towards my personal religious beliefs; I must also realize that any attempts to make suspension of the liberties of others based upon these beliefs, created precedents towards the detriment of my own beliefs.
2. Granting certain legal powers to one group, and denial of those rights and powers to another, stands in opposition to the princple of liberty to which this nation was founded upon. This once against falls into the principle that by allowing such precedent to stand, my own liberty of conscious stands in danger of violation by others. And thus I must, even though being against the precept of homosexuality morally, must provide they be granted the same rights as persons, as are granted to me. This is equally a defense of their liberties of conscious, as it is to mine to make the personal determination of their activities in regards to my religious convictions. If I deny the right of others to their personal or religious convictions, I deny my own right to my personal convictions.
3. Despite my personal morality on the issue, in regards to my private religious beliefs and convictions. I must support the liberties and rights of homosexuality to the same legal powers as granted me. And that I must support the rights of churches who may wish to precide over legal unions of homosexuals, as towards the rights of my own religious institution to not perform such.
4. It is thus my responsibility as an American to support the rights of marriage or towards whatever institution would replace marriage upon the entire populous of this nation in equal proportionality.

As far as the analogy equating gay marriage and interracial marriage, it is the one which is facetious. Since time immemorial, marriage has been between a man and a woman, just like since time immemorial, marriage has been interracial. Alexander the Great, who was gay, forced his Greek (white) generals to marry Persian noble women (darkies) in order to blend the two people, but never once did he entertain the thought of allowing marriage between two men, even though he was openly gay. Every nation is the blend of other nations, and interracial marriage is as old as race.

The point here is that the institution of marriage was altered from its basic recipe to prevent interracial marriage, and allowing interracial marriage was simply returning the institution to its normal state. On the opposite, gay people are trying to alter the institution from its relatively normal state in which it is now.

So, the analogy with interracial marriage is fallacious.

The analogy does still stand regardless... Because the codifed law does not matter.

The concept is, can you find valid ground to deny one couple legal protection and powers, that you grant another. It does not matter what the codified laws state, and it does not matter where the historic institution stands. All that matters is, can you deny the fundamental right of two people to enter into a legal and contractural union (as protected by natural law in conjunction with the 9th Amendment) and all legal powers conveyed thereupon... That you would grant another couple.

For God sakes, gays already have (most) rights!
So what if you can't marry? Marriages kill relationships. Are you going to sue God because he didn't give you the right to have babies?

Marriage also provides a LARGE amount of benefits, like the ability to decide what happens if your partner is incapacitated, visitation, tax benefits, and over a thousand more.

For God sakes, gays already have (most) rights!
Most isn't good enough, especially not when the Constitution itself has a little bit about equality.
So what if you can't marry? Marriages kill relationships. Are you going to sue God because he didn't give you the right to have babies?
Some people want to marry. It isn't hurting anyone. So why keep it illegal?
It's that simple.

Hey, homosexuals should have eqaul rights, they're people too. Not to mention some of them are really cool. I mean honestly, they're not harming anyone by being themselves and loving the people they want to love. :fluffle:

gays should be allowed equal rights, except being allowed in the military, for one sole reason (http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/4745ed0f/29c03206)

No I advocate gay rights. I like the way they handle themselves in society, not getting into fights (mostly) and such.
I was just vexed because so many of these Gay Rights topics are appearing on NS.

So what are your thoughts on gay righs?

They should have the exact same rights as everyone else, including protection from descrimination. Simple, really.

What's the point of having two distinct genders if two men or two women can love each other?

Anyone who thinks there are truly only two genders is either very naive, or unaware of biology.

Meanwhile, by gender here, I assume you actually meant biological sex.

Turner's syndrome holds and even harder point towards you... They are not technicaly male or female by genetics, though possess partially functional ovaries (produce some hormones, but no eggs), all female normative morphology (including natural breast development through their teen years). They may legally marry as well....

Interestingly enough, some of them have undescended testicles as well. A significant percentage of those with Turner's begin as XY in the womb, but due to a cell dividing slightly wrong, most of their cells end up XO. Because of this, they develop as female, but may still have testes and some XY cells.

*snip*Now that I have looked at the issue further, these are the discoveries I have made: marriage is not specifically defined or protected in the Constitution, with the possible interpretive protection of the 9th and 14th ammendments;

As is true of many fundamental rights.

But if you wish to ignore over 100 years of Supreme Court precedent regarding marriage as a fundamental right in order to deny that right to a few, so be it.

But your right to marriage, to raise your children, to bodily integrity, to privacy, etc, go out with the bath water.


gender ambiguity and change create legislative nightmares (thank you Tekania, others);

Only if you chose to discrminate on the basis of gender. If you choose to simply treat everyone equally regardless of gender, it is rather simple.

and this issue seems to be argued most vehemently between ultra conservatives and ultra liberals.

And anyone who gives a shit about equal rights and opportunites.

If that makes one an "ultra liberal," so be it.

As for the issues of rights, rectifying the disparity between existing laws and the proposed ideological change would take the work of many, many lawyers, untold amounts of funding, and solve relatively few problems.

Not at all.

Most existing civil rights laws simply need to be extended to protect sexual orientation.

And we need to stop discriminating on the basis of gender or orientation.

It will take the work of many and lots of time and money only because of those who (a) equivocate or (b) oppose equality.

I say this would solve few problems because hate crimes stem from freedom of thought. So long as people think freely, there will always be some level of discrimination.

How cute. Can't eliminate the problem 100%, so we shouldn't try at all.

So, as long as some people will hate African-Americans, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were in vein.

Just a random idea, what if marriage was reserved for clear heterosexual unions, while civil unions were given the same legal rights as marriage. Then the only distinctions would relate to hetero-specific relationships. The reason for this is that the majority of committed relationships are currently hetero. Who knows if that is going to change in the future.

Sorry. Seperate but equal has been shown to be rather inequal.

And why make a distinction -- if you are going to try to imply the distinction is without difference?

You can have hetero-only marriages in churches, etc. But the state should recognize either the same marriages for everyone or for no one.

Ninth Amendment issue: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This becomes a semantical arguement revolving around the definition of "rights" and "retained." I have no legal qualification to discuss the point past ideologies of what I think should be allowed.

To bad we don't have some branch of government dedicated to interpreting legal documents like the Constitution. Oh, wait, we do!

Also, this flies directly in the face of a law principle (enumeration of rights, priveleges, or entities implies exclusion of others)

Which, if you knew anything about law, you would know is simply a rule of thumb for statutory interpretation -- and has no application in the face of an express declaration to the contrary!

, and makes civil rights law very slippery in this country. No wonder we have problems.

No. It makes fundamental rights in this country protected by the Constitution, even if not specifically enumerated. The Founding Fathers did not want to limit our rights by enumerating some.

Not that hard of a concept.

We have problems for many reasons. Among them are that everyone seems to think spending 30 seconds reading the Constitution makes their opinion superior to decades of Supreme Court precedent. Another is that some people don't really like the idea of rights or equal protection under the law.

Fourteenth Amendment issue: "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;" The only question here is, "was due process of law followed?" I do not see how this in any way refers to laws themselves, so long as they were created with due process.

You have either missed or deliberately ignored explanations of why this is erroneous.

The Due Process Clause has -- since it was first adopted -- been held to provide more than procedural protections. It protects substantive liberties -- fundamental rights -- as well.

Think about this: if the 14th Amendment does not protect substantive liberties, why can't a state violate freedom of speech?

It is only because of incorporation through the 14th Amendment's protection of substantive liberties that the Bill of Rights restricts the powers of states.

Again, here is a quote from the Supreme Court written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Also, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


If you insist on throwing out over 100 years of Supreme Court caselaw, fine. But do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?



The rights of a church/religion are protected by another amendment, I don't believe I have to expound on that one. Agreeing to the precepts of an association are a prerequisite to membership... this has been known. Changing historical documents is on the same level as state-instituded book burning and propaganda.

I believe (could be wrong) that making a significant other the executor of a will a way to uphold death benifits.

Freedom from harassment is already illegal, in common law if not codified. I'm a bit unclear on the definition of discrimination in public places, but again I had thought this was an illegal practice. I believe the "right to refuse service to anyone" can be used. On the other hand, I thought there could be no established policy against a "class" of people.

Adoption technicalities vary state to state, but I have been under the impression that individuals are allowed to adopt. Orientation should have no effect on this... unless a psychological analysis deems an individual unfit by another basis.

<sigh>

It has already been shown that there are many other rights and equal protections denied to homosexuals.

That you deliberately choose to equivocate about a few shows your true colors.

I'm not talking semantics, I'm talking law. We're talking about changing the law, so we should understand how it works and be precise about it, shouldn't we?

LOL. You've made no arguments based in the law nor demonstrated any understanding of it whatsoever.

If you'd care to raise a legal argument, I'd be glad to discuss it.

In the meantime, don't try to tell your grandmother how to suck eggs.

You were talking semantics about 2 subjects (citizen's rights vs. gay rights; definition of marriage. I'm glad to see you abandon one of those games.

As far as the analogy equating gay marriage and interracial marriage, it is the one which is facetious. Since time immemorial, marriage has been between a man and a woman, just like since time immemorial, marriage has been interracial. Alexander the Great, who was gay, forced his Greek (white) generals to marry Persian noble women (darkies) in order to blend the two people, but never once did he entertain the thought of allowing marriage between two men, even though he was openly gay. Every nation is the blend of other nations, and interracial marriage is as old as race.

The point here is that the institution of marriage was altered from its basic recipe to prevent interracial marriage, and allowing interracial marriage was simply returning the institution to its normal state. On the opposite, gay people are trying to alter the institution from its relatively normal state in which it is now.

So, the analogy with interracial marriage is fallacious.

Cute.

Of course, you would have difficulty proving that marriage has had a single definition "[s]ince time immemorial." There seems to be a rather broad range of "marriages" in the Bible, for example. How many wives did Solomon have? Or among Native American tribes. Or among the Greeks.

More importantly, the legal institution of marriage is a tad different from what you are going on about -- and I thought that was what you wished to talk about. What Alexander the Great did or did not do is not relevant to the fundamental right to marriage protected by the US Constitution.

Moreover, you do not seem to recognize that legal definitions do change -- particularly to eliminate discrimination. African-Americans are no longer property or 3/5ths of a person. They are citizens.

The parallel to interracial marriage illustrates the flaw in arguing that homosexuals have an equal opportunity to marriage as heterosexuals under existing law. Nothing you have said changes that. (And, none of your altered/non-alterated sophistry had anything to do with (a) why bans on interracial marriage were wrong or (b) why they were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.)

so it's a matter of law, and not morality... Thank you...
<-- snip -->
You missed almost all of my point, when I was talking about lifestlyes I wasn't talking about CAIS, but homosexuals. my lifestyle argument has nothing to do with CAIS. Sorry, I shold have made that clearer.

Anyway, by using the "lifestyle" argument I was trying to show how the "oh, well the same stuff happened with interracial marriages."

No, the same stuff did not happen. First off, prohibiting interracial marriage was in violation of the law, because a marriage was between a man and a woman, and in the law, it never differentiated between different races. Also, being black is not an option, it's a genetic trait. You're born that way. For these reasons homosexuality and race cannot be compared, at all. One is a choice, and the other is constant, and Michael Jackson doesn't count.

Also, being black is not an option, it's a genetic trait. You're born that way. For these reasons homosexuality and race cannot be compared, at all. One is a choice, and the other is constant, and Michael Jackson doesn't count.
Err, you know that before you can have sexual orientation being a choice factor into laws, you kinda sorta have to, you know, prove it?
At least, that's the way things are supposed to work.

I just thought of an argument that I've heard against gay marriage a million times, and yet now I finally realize it's technically correct. Straight people are not allowed to marry the same sex, and gay people are perfectly well allowed to marry the opposite sex. We do, actually, have the same exact legal right.
A similar argument was used in an attempt to keep interracial marriage illegal 50 years ago. Conservatives said that both black and white people have the right to marry. They said that no race was denied the right to marry. Just like they're saying that no sexuality is denied the right to marry. However, the courts didn't buy it then and they're not buying it now.

You missed almost all of my point, when I was talking about lifestlyes I wasn't talking about CAIS, but homosexuals. my lifestyle argument has nothing to do with CAIS. Sorry, I shold have made that clearer.

Anyway, by using the "lifestyle" argument I was trying to show how the "oh, well the same stuff happened with interracial marriages."

No, the same stuff did not happen. First off, prohibiting interracial marriage was in violation of the law, because a marriage was between a man and a woman, and in the law, it never differentiated between different races. Also, being black is not an option, it's a genetic trait. You're born that way. For these reasons homosexuality and race cannot be compared, at all. One is a choice, and the other is constant, and Michael Jackson doesn't count.
I'd like to rehash an old proposal issued by a poster here. Let's do a scientific study.

I'd like all the anti-gay folks to line up in a line, half of them go on having sex women, they're the control group, and the other half go out and have sex with men. Report back on if you enjoy it right here in a week or so, and we can see if it is a choice or not. I know it might be hard, but give it the old college try for science's sake.

I'd like to rehash an old proposal issued by a poster here. Let's do a scientific study.

I'd like all the anti-gay folks to line up in a line, half of them go on having sex women, they're the control group, and the other half go out and have sex with men. Report back on if you enjoy it right here in a week or so, and we can see if it is a choice or not. I know it might be hard, but give it the old college try for science's sake.
9 out of 10 people who don't know any better say it is so it must be.

I'm not talking semantics, I'm talking law. We're talking about changing the law, so we should understand how it works and be precise about it, shouldn't we?

As far as the analogy equating gay marriage and interracial marriage, it is the one which is facetious. Since time immemorial, marriage has been between a man and a woman, just like since time immemorial, marriage has been interracial.
Why does this fantasy persist?

Frankly if someone doesnt care enough about marraige to at least educate themselves about the basics, then I dont see that they care enough to have the right to dictate to others what their marraige should look like. If you are one of those who care so much about marraige you think you are entitled to judge what should and shouldnt consitute a marraige not only for yourself, but for everyone in your society, the least you can do is put some effort into finding out what it's actually about.

You missed almost all of my point, when I was talking about lifestlyes I wasn't talking about CAIS, but homosexuals. my lifestyle argument has nothing to do with CAIS. Sorry, I shold have made that clearer.

Anyway, by using the "lifestyle" argument I was trying to show how the "oh, well the same stuff happened with interracial marriages."

No, the same stuff did not happen. First off, prohibiting interracial marriage was in violation of the law, because a marriage was between a man and a woman, and in the law, it never differentiated between different races. Also, being black is not an option, it's a genetic trait. You're born that way. For these reasons homosexuality and race cannot be compared, at all. One is a choice, and the other is constant, and Michael Jackson doesn't count.

Actually, you miss the point entirely regarding the interracial marriage example. It is not a comparison of race and homosexuality. It is a refutation of the rather stupid argument that prohibiting same-sex marriage is not discriminatory.

Those of you that keep citing "the law" should stop. You have no clue what you are talking about.

There is no "the law." There are state statutes. There are federal statutes. There are city ordinances. There are administrative regulations at various levels. There is caselaw -- judicial precedent. There is the supreme law of the land: the Constitution. Which "the law" are you referring to?

Marriage is generally defined by state statutes. And, contrary to your half-assed assertion, state statutes did prohibit interracial marriages. The same "the law" that defined marriage defined it has not including couples of different races.

Setting aside the rather dubious assertion that race is genetic rather than a social construct, we do not know for certain whether homosexuality is genetic. The best evidence we have, however, is that it is not a choice.

Regardless, IF YOU HAD READ THE EXAMPLES YOU CLAIM TO BE REFUTING, you would know that the prohibition on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of gender. You are saying that only people of the male and female gender may marry. You are saying that two people of the same gender cannot marry. That is discrimination on the basis of gender. Although not immutable, gender is at least as genetically based as race -- arguable far more so.

So there went your whole foolish argument.

Men, unlike women, are not allowed to marry men.
Women, unlike men, are not allowed to marry women.

There's your discrimination for you.

Men, unlike women, are not allowed to marry men.
Women, unlike men, are not allowed to marry women.

There's your discrimination for you.

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

The analogy does still stand regardless... Because the codifed law does not matter.

The concept is, can you find valid ground to deny one couple legal protection and powers, that you grant another. It does not matter what the codified laws state, and it does not matter where the historic institution stands. All that matters is, can you deny the fundamental right of two people to enter into a legal and contractural union (as protected by natural law in conjunction with the 9th Amendment) and all legal powers conveyed thereupon... That you would grant another couple.That's nice, except that marriage isn't a contract, it's an institution. Marriage is becoming more and more like a contractural union (a shift I disagree with), but it's still very much an institution. Besides, the 9th Amendment is codified law. It's part of a code called "the Constitution of the United States of America."

And before someone accuses me of arguing semantics for pointing out this fact, let me grab this ol' treaty of civil law over here and quote: "In some cases, the law sets the new situation and its frame. The will of the parties is not absent, since a manifestation of that will is necessary to make them adhere to this institution. (...) Marriage is the archetype of an institution of private law: one is free to get married or not get married, but, if one does, one must submit to a set of rules which are written in law." (Mazeaud, I, Vol. 1, 260)The parallel to interracial marriage illustrates the flaw in arguing that homosexuals have an equal opportunity to marriage as heterosexuals under existing law. Nothing you have said changes that. (And, none of your altered/non-alterated sophistry had anything to do with (a) why bans on interracial marriage were wrong or (b) why they were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.)I probably haven't made myself clear, and I apologize for that. I will try again.

People advocating gay marriage are advocating a change of the right to marry. And they're saying (among other things): well, black people and white people didn't have the right to marry and now they do, so clearly we should have that right too. They're making an analogy: interracial marriage is like gay marriage. So, since banning interracial marriage is bad, banning gay marriage must be as bad.

Makes sense to see how that analogy holds up before agreeing to it, so let's check it out.

(First of all, there's the fact that gender is a much (much) more important parameter when building a family than race, but that's another question altogether.)

But, as I was saying, another means to prove the validity of the analogy is to look at the history of the right to marry. Actually, there is no such thing as the "right to marry." What people mean by that is the right to access the civil institution of marriage. So let's look at the institution of marriage throughout the years, why at some point it discriminated against interracial unions, and why throughout history and to this day, it discriminates against same sex unions.

At this point, the notion of "discrimination" should be clarified. There has been a sort of semantic shift which has made the word discriminate sound pejorative, when it used to be laudative. In old days, someone would say, as a compliment: "He's very discriminating." A "discriminating mind" would be the mind of someone who can tell the good elements from the bad in a situation. When Harvard University refuses students who don't have the right grades or the right attitude to get into Harvard, that's discrimination. When Harvard University revuses students who are black, because they're black, that's also discrimination. Why do you have "black rights" groups and not "lousy student rights" groups? Because one discrimination is fair, and the other is unfair discrimination. This is what we're fighting against. When I let friends into my house and not Jehovah's witnesses, I discriminate, and yet nobody thinks that this discrimination is outrageous (or maybe some rousseauist who opposes private property). What I'm trying to clarify here is the fact that discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, all of human relationships are based on discrimination: we choose to be friends with some people, but not other people, etc. It's unfair discrimination that is a bad thing.

Once again, you might think I'm only arguing semantics or, worse, waving a red herring, but a- people misusing vocabulary annoys me and b- this is actually important, because gay rights activists (and others) use this semantic blur to their advantage. When they say that marriage discriminates against same-sex unions (not gay people, gay people can get married), which it does, they're implying that it discriminates unfairly. For instance, marriage also discriminates against minors, or people who aren't of sound mind, yet few people argue that this discrimination is unfair.

And that's where the analogy with interracial marriage (I haven't forgotten it!) comes in. They make the analogy that in both cases you have discrimination, and that since the discrimination against interracial marriage is unfair, so's the one against gay marriage. For that analogy to work, those two discriminations have to be similar. So, let's compare.

Any jurist (any good one at least) will tell you that you can't understand a legal concept without first understanding its history. And the history of these discriminations shows that the discrimination against interracial unions is the exception while the discrimination against same-sex unions is the rule. That is true about the U.S. if you want to remain in the U.S. (That is also true about all of western civilization.)

The people who wrote down U.S. marriage law (it's State's law, right?) decided (only sometimes--if memory serves me, interracial unions were indeed always allowed in some states, but I may be wrong) against interracial unions for political/social reasons which had to do with the makeup of society in the place and time where they lived. However, they decided against same-sex unions (or rather, didn't even consider them in the slightest) because to them, the fact that marriage had to be between a man and a woman was a core, sine qua non condition for the validity and the existence of a marital bond.

These are two different situations, and for two different discriminations. Therefore, for all these reasons and more, as I've said, the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage, while enticing, is fallacious.

Voila. Another defence of traditional family without referencing religion. *Waves flags and throws confetti*

Gays are disgusting and an abomination to the human race - can you make a child with two men? Besides the test tube drivel? It's not what the human race was designed for - if everyone was gay, the humans would die off.

Voila. Another defence of traditional family without referencing religion. *Waves flags and throws confetti*


Umm I think the post was about a faulty comparison between race and sexual orientation. :confused:

Gays are disgusting and an abomination to the human race - can you make a child with two men? Besides the test tube drivel? It's not what the human race was designed for - if everyone was gay, the humans would die off.

Totally agreed, the only 'rites' they deserve are the last ones.

[QUOTE=LazyHippies Discrimination would be if a gay wanted to marry a woman and he was refused the marriage license because he is gay. That is not the case here. The case here is that neither gays nor straights are allowed to marry people of the same sex. Therefore it isnt a case of discrimination or violation of rights. Its simply a case of figuring out whether it is time to make new laws that allow these types of unions to happen or whether we want to change the existing ones to allow this type of union to happen (or whether we dont want them to happen at all).[/QUOTE]]

I think you have a very blinkered view of "rights". The topic clearly is about homosexual people having the same rights and privileges that heterosexual people have, any other "analysis" is superflous and a waste of reasoning.

It's not what the human race was designed for - if everyone was gay, the humans would die off.
Prove it.

At this point, the notion of "discrimination" should be clarified. There has been a sort of semantic shift which has made the word discriminate sound pejorative, when it used to be laudative. In old days, someone would say, as a compliment: "He's very discriminating." A "discriminating mind" would be the mind of someone who can tell the good elements from the bad in a situation. When Harvard University refuses students who don't have the right grades or the right attitude to get into Harvard, that's discrimination. When Harvard University revuses students who are black, because they're black, that's also discrimination. Why do you have "black rights" groups and not "lousy student rights" groups? Because one discrimination is fair, and the other is unfair discrimination. This is what we're fighting against. When I let friends into my house and not Jehovah's witnesses, I discriminate, and yet nobody thinks that this discrimination is outrageous (or maybe some rousseauist who opposes private property). What I'm trying to clarify here is the fact that discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, all of human relationships are based on discrimination: we choose to be friends with some people, but not other people, etc. It's unfair discrimination that is a bad thing.

Once again, you might think I'm only arguing semantics or, worse, waving a red herring, but a- people misusing vocabulary annoys me and b- this is actually important, because gay rights activists (and others) use this semantic blur to their advantage. When they say that marriage discriminates against same-sex unions (not gay people, gay people can get married), which it does, they're implying that it discriminates unfairly. For instance, marriage also discriminates against minors, or people who aren't of sound mind, yet few people argue that this discrimination is unfair.Fair enough. Discrimination based upon race (by the government) is unfair (although obviously the states who had laws against interracial marriage disagreed). Discrimination based upon gender (by the government) is unfair. Discrimination based upon sexual orientation (again, by the government) is unfair.

Any jurist (any good one at least) will tell you that you can't understand a legal concept without first understanding its history. And the history of these discriminations shows that the discrimination against interracial unions is the exception while the discrimination against same-sex unions is the rule. That is true about the U.S. if you want to remain in the U.S. (That is also true about all of western civilization.)

The people who wrote down U.S. marriage law (it's State's law, right?) decided (only sometimes--if memory serves me, interracial unions were indeed always allowed in some states, but I may be wrong) against interracial unions for political/social reasons which had to do with the makeup of society in the place and time where they lived. However, they decided against same-sex unions (or rather, didn't even consider them in the slightest) because to them, the fact that marriage had to be between a man and a woman was a core, sine qua non condition for the validity and the existence of a marital bond.Except, that while Massachusetts may be an exception, gay marriage is allowed there. How many states would have to legalize gay marriage before it became the rule, in your opinion?

Prove it.
use ya brain ya idiot.

Why does this fantasy persist?

because it's comforting and people aren't confronted on their ignorant beliefs nearly enough.

use ya brain ya idiot.
Ummm...first of all, homosexuals aren't sterile. A gay man could quite easily be a father. A lesbian could quite easily be a mother. 27% of all gay couples have children.
The second point is that you asserted that the human race was designed. Prove it.

Join the Gay Flamingo Region! We don't like homosexuality, except between Flamingos!

So, if you're straight, and can have just enough tolerance to accept homosexual birds - join us!

Your brilliance is blinding me! Turn it down, lest I die of envy, please.
^5

That's nice, except that marriage isn't a contract, it's an institution. Marriage is becoming more and more like a contractural union (a shift I disagree with), but it's still very much an institution.

Cute. Semantics.

It is a legal institution. It comes with a host of legal and social benefits, rights, protections, and responsibilities.

You have yet to justify the denial of those and social benefits, rights, protections, and responsibilities on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.

Besides, the 9th Amendment is codified law. It's part of a code called "the Constitution of the United States of America."

No one denied that the 9th Amendment was codified law. To the contrary, we have wondered why you like to ignore it and, more importantly, the 14th Amendment.

And before someone accuses me of arguing semantics for pointing out this fact, let me grab this ol' treaty of civil law over here and quote: "In some cases, the law sets the new situation and its frame. The will of the parties is not absent, since a manifestation of that will is necessary to make them adhere to this institution. (...) Marriage is the archetype of an institution of private law: one is free to get married or not get married, but, if one does, one must submit to a set of rules which are written in law." (Mazeaud, I, Vol. 1, 260)I probably haven't made myself clear, and I apologize for that. I will try again.

Perhaps you'd like to provide a full citation.

But I think you are, in fact, quoting a "treaty of civil law." As has been explained several times, we are not a civil law country. Unlike France.

And I believe the author advocated a change in the civil law of France regarding marriage.

People advocating gay marriage are advocating a change of the right to marry. And they're saying (among other things): well, black people and white people didn't have the right to marry and now they do, so clearly we should have that right too. They're making an analogy: interracial marriage is like gay marriage. So, since banning interracial marriage is bad, banning gay marriage must be as bad.

Makes sense to see how that analogy holds up before agreeing to it, so let's check it out.

You rather enjoy debating strawmen.

This was not the analogy raised herein regarding interracial marriage -- as I have explained in response to you before.

(First of all, there's the fact that gender is a much (much) more important parameter when building a family than race, but that's another question altogether.)

That is a different question -- and one that is not relevant to whether gender discrimination re marriage is justifiable.

But, as I was saying, another means to prove the validity of the analogy is to look at the history of the right to marry. Actually, there is no such thing as the "right to marry." What people mean by that is the right to access the civil institution of marriage. So let's look at the institution of marriage throughout the years, why at some point it discriminated against interracial unions, and why throughout history and to this day, it discriminates against same sex unions.

Setting aside the flaw in your understanding of history -- which others as well as myself have pointed out previously -- this boils down to little more than an argument from tradition. It has been this way for a long time, therefore it is good.

Same argument could be made for slavery. But it is wrong.

At this point, the notion of "discrimination" should be clarified. There has been a sort of semantic shift which has made the word discriminate sound pejorative, when it used to be laudative. In old days, someone would say, as a compliment: "He's very discriminating." A "discriminating mind" would be the mind of someone who can tell the good elements from the bad in a situation. When Harvard University refuses students who don't have the right grades or the right attitude to get into Harvard, that's discrimination. When Harvard University revuses students who are black, because they're black, that's also discrimination. Why do you have "black rights" groups and not "lousy student rights" groups? Because one discrimination is fair, and the other is unfair discrimination. This is what we're fighting against. When I let friends into my house and not Jehovah's witnesses, I discriminate, and yet nobody thinks that this discrimination is outrageous (or maybe some rousseauist who opposes private property). What I'm trying to clarify here is the fact that discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, all of human relationships are based on discrimination: we choose to be friends with some people, but not other people, etc. It's unfair discrimination that is a bad thing.

Once again, you might think I'm only arguing semantics or, worse, waving a red herring, but a- people misusing vocabulary annoys me and b- this is actually important, because gay rights activists (and others) use this semantic blur to their advantage. When they say that marriage discriminates against same-sex unions (not gay people, gay people can get married), which it does, they're implying that it discriminates unfairly. For instance, marriage also discriminates against minors, or people who aren't of sound mind, yet few people argue that this discrimination is unfair.

Perhaps you should look up the word "semantics" because yes, it is what you are arguing semantics.

If, as you have insisted, the context of this discussion is law, then the other possible uses for the word "discriminate" have no relevance.

The question is whether the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage deny equal protection under the laws on the basis of gender. They do. Next question.

And your comment about minors demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the "institution" you claim to be defending.

And that's where the analogy with interracial marriage (I haven't forgotten it!) comes in. They make the analogy that in both cases you have discrimination, and that since the discrimination against interracial marriage is unfair, so's the one against gay marriage. For that analogy to work, those two discriminations have to be similar. So, let's compare.

Again, not the argument was made. But if you like getting straw on your little fists, have at it.

Any jurist (any good one at least) will tell you that you can't understand a legal concept without first understanding its history. And the history of these discriminations shows that the discrimination against interracial unions is the exception while the discrimination against same-sex unions is the rule. That is true about the U.S. if you want to remain in the U.S. (That is also true about all of western civilization.)

Any jurist worthy of the name recognizes that legal concepts evolve. Like the concepts of persons and citizens.

And any jurist worthy of the name has a little better understanding of history.

And a better understanding of international and US law.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada. Also in The Netherlands. And Belgium. In 1995, Hungary extended the recognition of “common-law” marriages to partners of the same sex. Most other European countries provide for a form of partnership or civil union with legal status similar to marriage. At the national level, same-sex relationships are recognized for the purposes of at least some of the benefits of marriage in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Israel, and New Zealand, among others. At the local level, same-sex relationships are recognized in a number of jurisdictions within countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage. Alaska, Hawaii, California, and Vermont provide for civil unions.

The people who wrote down U.S. marriage law (it's State's law, right?) decided (only sometimes--if memory serves me, interracial unions were indeed always allowed in some states, but I may be wrong) against interracial unions for political/social reasons which had to do with the makeup of society in the place and time where they lived. However, they decided against same-sex unions (or rather, didn't even consider them in the slightest) because to them, the fact that marriage had to be between a man and a woman was a core, sine qua non condition for the validity and the existence of a marital bond.

Again, a feeble rendition of history.

But basically your argument boils down to:

1. "Marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman." In case your keen legal mind didn't catch it, this is circular.

2. "Marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because it has been that way for a long time." As noted earlier, this is flawed in many ways. On its face, it is uncompelling.

These are two different situations, and for two different discriminations. Therefore, for all these reasons and more, as I've said, the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage, while enticing, is fallacious.

And, for all the reason above and for all the reasons I've provided earlier and you have ignored, your reasoning is what is fallacious.

use ya brain ya idiot.

Is this your way of saying "I don't actually have a clue."?

Men, unlike women, are not allowed to marry men.
Women, unlike men, are not allowed to marry women.

There's your discrimination for you.

And to continue this line of reasoning, same-sex marriage will not lead to marriage with animals and children, since *no-one* is allowed to marry either an animal or a child.
Ergo, no discrimination.

Gays are disgusting and an abomination to the human race - can you make a child with two men? Besides the test tube drivel? It's not what the human race was designed for - if everyone was gay, the humans would die off.

You can't make a baby with an infertile man and woman, or a man with a woman who has reached the menopause. Two men can't make babies, even WITH a test tube. The human race wasn't designed. Lastly, good point, if everyone was gay, the human race would die off. You might not have noticed, however, that most people aren't gay, and the human race is in no danger of dying off, quite the opposite, infact, as the human population of Earth crashes through the 6 billion barrier, growing exponentially. Do you have some major malfunction, Private Pile? Nurse! The screens!

Males are disgusting and an abomination to the human race - can you make a child with two men? Besides the test tube drivel? It's not what the human race was designed for - if everyone was male, the humans would die off.

Note the subtle difference.

Gay people do have the right to marry. Any man and woman can get married, and whether they're gay doesn't change that.

You might think my point is facetious or stupid, but it's actually crucial: gay people aren't asking for an equal right (getting married), because they already have that right. They're asking for an additional right: the right to marry someone of their sexual orientation.

As far as discrimination is concerned, I agree that it's unfair and that there shouldn't be any. But that's not gay rights: it's citizen rights.


yes but they would ask for that right for straight people too. so if 2 straight men wanted to get married, they could, it wouldnt be only gay people who had that right

(gee i hope that hasnt been pointed out yet, i was in the middle and didnt want to lose track of this point)

I had heard feminists talking about using similar methods as the procreation of dolly the sheep - using egg and nucleus for procreation. Shame men can't do the same. Would that classify as descrimination? O.o The above method could work, questions of morality and 'why?' could very well be asked - but why not try it? It would shut the homophobes up (something I would like), albeit not natural, something tells me a lot of things done via scientists nowadays is not exactly natural either - killing animals for anything than for defense or food is not exactly natural, is it? I have not studied animal nature in depth, so please, no anomalies or pedantics unless it proves me wrong? :P They don't mind using the internet though, do they? *wonders whether the internet would come around naturally*... Talk about what is natural, worrys me. Homosexuals exist - ask some, and I think they would tell you it wasn't by choice - how does that make them unnatural? Anyway, I'm out, I'm drunk - I might regret posting this later, but my first point about nucleus/egg fusion was all I set out to do.

yes but they would ask for that right for straight people too. so if 2 straight men wanted to get married, they could, it wouldnt be only gay people who had that right

(gee i hope that hasnt been pointed out yet, i was in the middle and didnt want to lose track of this point)

I think it has but if not I have been too :)

The right to same sex marrige would allow ALL to get married not just homosexuals

if you ask me gay rights are a bad thing. people can do what they want, however their marriages should not be legal and they should not have excessive conact with straight people. how would the human race stay alive if everyone was gay? answer me that mr. I'm a liberal and proud of it.

if you ask me gay rights are a bad thing. people can do what they want, however their marriages should not be legal and they should not have excessive conact with straight people. how would the human race stay alive if everyone was gay? answer me that mr. I'm a liberal and proud of it.
But gay rights have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH everyone being gay. Everyone is not gay, and I'm fairly sure that allowing gay to be gay won't magically cause more gay people. Your assertion is a straw man fallacy.

And what's this "they should not havre excessive contact with straight people"? Oh boy, segregation.

if you ask me gay rights are a bad thing. people can do what they want, however their marriages should not be legal and they should not have excessive conact with straight people. how would the human race stay alive if everyone was gay? answer me that mr. I'm a liberal and proud of it.

Well, Mr. I'm a fascist and proud of it.

Homosexuals can reproduce. So there went that theory.

And homosexuality isn't contagious. You won't "catch it" if we don't keep gays locked in cages.

It seems rather clear that we would be better of if some Nazi wannabes did not have "excessive" contact with anyone, but we liberals believe in these pesky things called rights, so no concentration camps are appropriate.

Well, Mr. I'm a fascist and proud of it.

Homosexuals can reproduce. So there went that theory.

And homosexuality isn't contagious. You won't "catch it" if we don't keep gays locked in cages.

It seems rather clear that we would be better of if some Nazi wannabes did not have "excessive" contact with anyone, but we liberals believe in these pesky things called rights, so no concentration camps are appropriate.

Last time I heard, homosexuals couldn't reproduce, you might want to go to a PRIVATE school instead of them government owned ones, what are they called, oh yeah, crappy chavs schools. ah conservativism. the best possible way.

Last time I heard, homosexuals couldn't reproduce
But they can.
If a gay man wanted a child, he could have sex with a woman. He might not enjoy the sex, but he could.
If the entire planet was populated by gays and lesbians, they could decide to continue the human race and have children.

. how would the human race stay alive if everyone was gay? answer me that mr. I'm a liberal and proud of it.

True. But without gay people, how would the human race stay fabulous?

Last time I heard, homosexuals couldn't reproduce, you might want to go to a PRIVATE school instead of them government owned ones, what are they called, oh yeah, crappy chavs schools. ah conservativism. the best possible way.

You might want to look up "in vitro fetilization" and "artificial insemination," braniac.

The birds and the bees doesn't quite cover the spectrum of possibilities.

Even without artificial means, you don't have to be heterosexual to have heterosexual sex. It just may be unpleasant.

And I'll take my advanced degrees over a blackshirt any day of the week.

Last time I heard, homosexuals couldn't reproduce, you might want to go to a PRIVATE school instead of them government owned ones, what are they called, oh yeah, crappy chavs schools. ah conservativism. the best possible way.

Uhh homosexuality =/= sterility. Did you learn it was in this superior conservative private school that no self-respecting government would fund lest it bloat its society with dullards?

True. But without gay people, how would the human race stay fabulous?

:D

But perhaps you shouldn't confuse it.

Its sense of humor may have left with its sense of decency.

Last time I heard, homosexuals couldn't reproduce, you might want to go to a PRIVATE school instead of them government owned ones, what are they called, oh yeah, crappy chavs schools. ah conservativism. the best possible way.
I went to a private school for 9 years of my life :) yours does not appear to have helped you though :fluffle: besides learned more in the public school by far

:D

But perhaps you shouldn't confuse it.

It's sense of humor may have left with its sense of decency.


Us gays know when we're not wanted. Apparantly we're an abomination. Frankly we should just pack our achievements -y'know, the foundation of western civilization, the Mona Lisa, Computers, the plays and poetry of Oscar Wilde, modern military discipline, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, much of Western Philosophy and Elton John- up in our big pink suitcases of abomination and go somewhere where people can dress properly. Don't worry, you can keep Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, we never liked it anyway. It'd look fantastic on your mantelpiece next to your big bumper box o' repression.

Us gays know when we're not wanted. Apparantly we're an abomination. Frankly we should just pack our achievements -y'know, the foundation of western civilization, the Mona Lisa, Computers, the plays and poetry of Oscar Wilde, modern military discipline, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, much of Western Philosophy and Elton John- up in our big pink suitcases of abomination and go somewhere where people can dress properly. Don't worry, you can keep Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, we never liked it anyway. It'd look fantastic on your mantelpiece next to your big bumper box o' repression.
computers? I dident know babbage was gay lol

computers? I dident know babbage was gay lol

Although he was the designer of the first computing machine, modern computing and information technology was largely the work of Alan Turing (who also worked at Bletchley Park decoding the famous Enigma machine). He was also tormented by the British authorities for his homosexuality, eventually being offered the choice of jail (hardly an exciting prospect for a homosexual in 1950s Britain) or 'chemical castration', where he was fed female hormones. This lead him to commit suicide by eating a poisoned apple (how wonderfully macabre). The computer firm Apple is named after this (hence the logo, a half eaten apple). Way to look after your war heroes, Britain.

Although he was the designer of the first computing machine, modern computing and information technology was largely the work of Alan Turing (who also worked at Bletchley Park decoding the famous Enigma machine). He was also tormented by the British authorities for his homosexuality, eventually being offered the choice of jail (hardly an exciting prospect for a homosexual in 1950s Britain) or 'chemical castration', where he was fed female hormones. This lead him to commit suicide by eating a poisoned apple (how wonderfully macabre). The computer firm Apple is named after this (hence the logo, a half eaten apple). Way to look after your war heroes, Britain.
Thank you ... computer history is never a massive part of the actuall computing majors :)

Although this is not known to happen often, I have changed my mind on an issue (not a matter of fact, an issue) due to an internet discussion. More credit to Tekania than anyone else.

Marriage has sacred religious meaning....

Bad argument. If this indeed holds sway, then by Constitutional Law applying definitions or laws in accordance with its procedure would be unconstitutional. (Amendment I: first clause).Although bad as an arguement, this is a factoring reason behind many decisions. Worldview incorporates all social, religious, scientific, etc. reasons into one individual, and it is individuals who make decisions. Codified law has little to do with reasoning and everything to do with results, though the deliberative process and judicial review require reasoning.

This means that the job of the Supreme Court is of great importance in determining what does and does not violate the 1st amendment.

Marriage is between one man and one woman... It is a social foundation...

If this indeed is the case, it gets far more complicated. Placing marriage in the realm of social construct. One, this makes things far less clear in matters as towards appropriateness; though it also does not give any reliable argument against the practice.Except for historical significance and social acceptability. Public nudity is not inherently wrong, but has been deemed to be socially unacceptable. The catch is change in view over time. If that is what you meant by reliable, then I agree.

Marriage vs. Civil Union...Touche and well put. Because I view the word marriage as specifically relating to the union of a male and a female, I am instead thinking that the word marriage be removed from the legal codes and that affected laws be rewritten. It is the word marriage that I (and others) get hung up with. Since it has been viewed as the union of a man to a woman during the entire existance of this nation (as far as I know), and that so many religious attachments are associated with the word, it no longer seems to be a fit legal term, in my opinion. Legal definitions can change. This separation would allow legal rights to continue, leaving the term of marriage to be argued in a social setting without disturbing basic rights. In other words, all marriages would be civil unions (legally recognized as solely a civil union), but not all unions would be marriages.


But if you wish to ignore over 100 years of Supreme Court precedent regarding marriage as a fundamental right in order to deny that right to a few, so be it.With that 100 year Supreme Court precedent comes a 100 year legislative precedent of defining marriage as "one man, one woman, joined until death or seperation."

If that makes one an "ultra liberal," so be it. I would think anyone claiming a desire to change over 1000 federal laws for a single cause could be considered an ultra liberal. Well, I guess that makes two of us now. On the other hand, I still think we want different ends.

Most existing civil rights laws simply need to be extended to protect sexual orientation.*Most* is a pivotal word in this conversation. Either way, the existing statutes would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

And we need to stop discriminating on the basis of gender or orientation.

<snip>

Sorry. Seperate but equal has been shown to be rather inequal.

And why make a distinction -- if you are going to try to imply the distinction is without difference?Equivocation of gender and orientation. When you put it that way, it sounds as if all genders are the same. It also sounds like all relationships are the same. I do not mean equal, I mean that it sounds like there are no differences. Without a biological set of matching, working sex organs, it is only possible for a hetero couple to have children by natural means. THAT is a difference. Also, there is the difference of practice by majority. This may not be important in a legal setting, but it is important on a practical level where real people live, pursue happiness, and exercise free choice. The issues of handling more complicated situations (artificial insemination, adoption, test tube growth, etc.) seem to be issues that should be handled prior to or after a decision is made on gay/lesbian unions.

So, as long as some people will hate African-Americans, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were in vein.No, and that is not what I said. There are differences in proportion, extents of violation, and existing protection under law in the case of African-Americans. To compensate for that, checks and balances exist, in addition to society choosing where those boundaries exist.

<sigh>

It has already been shown that there are many other rights and equal protections denied to homosexuals.

That you deliberately choose to equivocate about a few shows your true colors.No. It will be shown that there are many other rights and equal protections denied to homosexuals only when it is also shown that there is no other venue by which that right may be obtained.

But basically your argument boils down to:

1. "Marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman." In case your keen legal mind didn't catch it, this is circular.

2. "Marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because it has been that way for a long time." As noted earlier, this is flawed in many ways. On its face, it is uncompelling.Nice strawman. First comes the definition of marriage. It is typically held as "A union between a man and a woman recognized by the state." Why man and woman? Social and religious reasons, in addition to a long history of precedence. Next question, why not another combination? First of all, until recent medical developments it was impossible for any other kind of relationship to produce offspring. Thus, hetero families were the only ones where continuity could occur. Adoption has a complication, but a blanket statement calling every adoption a formation of family is sketchy. Most importantly: is marriage a right? I do not think it is a right so much as a classification. It is the rights attached to marriage which need to be addressed, not the institution of marriage.

Thank you ... computer history is never a massive part of the actuall computing majors :)
Well, not everyone might have known, mister :P

Well, not everyone might have known, mister :P
No I wasent tryin to be sarcastic I have two masters in computing related fields and I had never heard of it before I was being honest :) we cover history of developments and who by but very rarly do we cover the people behind the inveintions

No I wasent tryin to be sarcastic I have two masters in computing related fields and I had never heard of it before I was being honest :) we cover history of developments and who by but very rarly do we cover the people behind the inveintions


hehe, oh right. Well, yeah, that's what happened. Virtually cut two years off the war, and that's how he was rewarded.

hehe, oh right. Well, yeah, that's what happened. Virtually cut two years off the war, and that's how he was rewarded.
Yeah and freed hundreds if not thousands of people from computing firing tables as well:)

Yeah and freed hundreds if not thousands of people from computing firing tables as well:)

And gave a generation of homosexuals ammunition in the 'what have gays ever done for us?' debate.

And gave a generation of homosexuals ammunition in the 'what have gays ever done for us?' debate.
And just think if any before any AI is declared a truly sentiant it has to past the turing test :) (so the work of thousands of specialists strait or not is being weighed up to a homosexuals standards :D)

And just think if any before any AI is declared a truly sentiant it has to past the turing test :) (so the work of thousands of specialists strait or not is being weighed up to a homosexuals standards :D)
What is the Turing Test? Or is it so deathly boring I don't want to know?

What is the Turing Test? Or is it so deathly boring I don't want to know?
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/ai/turing.html

Thats SOME info

The basics are a test to determine if a created intellegence is sentiant or if it is just immitating natural language

As well as


The Turing Test was introduced by Alan M. Turing (1912-1954) as "the imitation game" in his 1950 article (now available online) Computing Machinery and Intelligence (Mind, Vol. 59, No. 236, pp. 433-460) which he so boldly began by the following sentence:

I propose to consider the question "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think."

Turing Test is meant to determine if a computer program has intelligence. Quoting Turing, the original imitation game can be described as follows:

The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the "imitation game." It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B.



from http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/%7Easaygin/tt/ttest.html#intro

*snip*

Choosing to respond only selectively to some arguments and to take them out of context is hardly a worthy debating tactic.

I'd assume you concede all the many points to which you did not respond, but it seems in some places you just edited out some of my points so your response wouldn't seem so feeble.

With that 100 year Supreme Court precedent comes a 100 year legislative precedent of defining marriage as "one man, one woman, joined until death or seperation."

Um, from where did you pull that definition?

And you did not respond to the point: marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court have defined marriage in the limited way you do in recognizing this right.

I've laid out some of the caselaw. I've laid out the reasoning behind it.

You've given no reason for why marriage is not a fundamental right other than it was not expressly in the Constitution. I explained how that was faulty.

You've failed to respond to the relevant points.

And the generic meaning of precedent and the legal meaning are a bit different. You are not referring to legal precedent.

I would think anyone claiming a desire to change over 1000 federal laws for a single cause could be considered an ultra liberal. Well, I guess that makes two of us now. On the other hand, I still think we want different ends.

One need not change over 1000 federal laws to grant equal protection of those laws to homosexuals.

One merely need to allow same-sex marriage. That would be a handful of laws per state.

Then the over 1000 federal laws providing special rights, privileges, benefits, and protections to married couples would automatically apply to same-sex married couples. No heavy lifting required.

*Most* is a pivotal word in this conversation. Either way, the existing statutes would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Your attempt to make it seem like there is some prohibitive cost to granting equal protection to homosexuals is absurd.

All the relevant federal laws could be amended with one bill. A relatively short one. Far, far less complex than say -- Bush's social security plan or the Patriot Act.

Equivocation of gender and orientation. When you put it that way, it sounds as if all genders are the same. It also sounds like all relationships are the same. I do not mean equal, I mean that it sounds like there are no differences.

Again, you are trying to make the simple complicated.

Equal protection of the laws regardless of gender or, if you prefer, sex.

Without a compelling state interest and a narrowly tailored remedy, you can't treat women differently than men.

Without a compelling state interest and a narrowly tailored remedy, you can't treat two women or two men differently than two men.

There is no reason why a same-sex marriage should not legally be the same as one between a man and a woman. You have offered no reason except tradition.

Without a biological set of matching, working sex organs, it is only possible for a hetero couple to have children by natural means. THAT is a difference.

It is a difference. It is not a relevant difference. We don't require hetero couples to be capable of reproduction by natural means in order to get married, do we?

Also, there is the difference of practice by majority. This may not be important in a legal setting, but it is important on a practical level where real people live, pursue happiness, and exercise free choice. The issues of handling more complicated situations (artificial insemination, adoption, test tube growth, etc.) seem to be issues that should be handled prior to or after a decision is made on gay/lesbian unions.

WTF?

What about these alleged "complicated situations" require resolution before we stop discriminating on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation?

None of these issues seems particularly complicated. Nor do they seem relevant.

Me smells red herring.

No, and that is not what I said. There are differences in proportion, extents of violation, and existing protection under law in the case of African-Americans. To compensate for that, checks and balances exist, in addition to society choosing where those boundaries exist.

Randomly inserting legal/political phrases "checks and balances" into your sentences doesn't make them sound better. It makes them nonsensical.

What you said was:

"I say this would solve few problems because hate crimes stem from freedom of thought. So long as people think freely, there will always be some level of discrimination."

You seemed to think this is a good argument against advancing the rights of gays and lesbians and against equal protection of the laws.

It isn't.

It is no more valid when it comes to discrimination against gays and lesbians than it is about African-Americans.

No. It will be shown that there are many other rights and equal protections denied to homosexuals only when it is also shown that there is no other venue by which that right may be obtained.

First of all, you continue to ignore the multiple times a long list of rights and protections denied to homosexuals have been listed. Most are denied. Period.

Second, that is not how it works. If I have to jump through numerous hoops in order to get the same "right" you have, then I don't have equal protection under the laws. You have special rights that I don't.



Nice strawman.

Come again. I accurately summarized the two arguments of a third poster.

Rather sad that you cannot respond to the arguments I made in response to you, so you feel the need to take arguments I made against a third party out of context.

But as your are going to repeat the same mistakes he made, I'll respond to those fallacies.


First comes the definition of marriage. It is typically held as "A union between a man and a woman recognized by the state." Why man and woman? Social and religious reasons, in addition to a long history of precedence.

OK. This comes down to three points.

1. "Marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman because marriage is only a union between a man and a woman." Circular.

2. Tradition. So? Calling tradition "precedence" doesn't give it any greater significance.

3. Mysterious "social and religious reasons" that you fail to explain.

You did no better than Venus Mound.



Next question, why not another combination? First of all, until recent medical developments it was impossible for any other kind of relationship to produce offspring. Thus, hetero families were the only ones where continuity could occur. Adoption has a complication, but a blanket statement calling every adoption a formation of family is sketchy.

Um. Procreation is possible without marriage. Procreation is not required for marriage. There goes that theory.

Your definition of family as a nuclear family is not traditional. The nuclear family is a rather modern concept -- and is still only a portion of families.

In order to continue to deny the right to marriage to homosexuals, you now wish to tell adopted children they don't belong to a family? There is nothing "sketchy" about adoption. It has as long a history as marriage. My sister is adopted. She is my family. Don't even imply otherwise. Have you no decency?

Most importantly: is marriage a right? I do not think it is a right so much as a classification. It is the rights attached to marriage which need to be addressed, not the institution of marriage.

<sigh>

We've been over this. You decided to skip over all my arguments on this.

Marriage -- not the rights associated with marriage -- has been recognized as a fundamental right repeatedly in the country. It is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. It has been so recognized repeatedly since 1888.

That you would deny that marriage is a right in order to deny it to homosexuals smacks of desperation.

Let's put it this way. Can Congress ban marriage tomorrow? Or would that violate any rights? Try to answer with some intellectual integrity.

Gay rights good.

Human rights good.

Discrimination bad.

Homophobia bad.

Any questions?

gay rights bad-kill them

human rights bad

discrimination(racial, gender) bad-put them in prison(the rasists, feminists, masculinists, and all them people)

homophobia bad-kill them also

human rights bad
That is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.

That is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.
I think he/she was trying to be funny

I think he/she was trying to be funny
Meh. I doubt it. Look through Yupaenu's other posts. They're more of the same.

I'll have my word on gay rights... Gays should have the right to wed; although, I don't believe in marriage as I am an atheist (that's a whole 'nother debate). My mother, father, and those pesky homophobes say "If we let gays marry, soon enough people are gonna want rights to marry sheep." Anyway... I hate those people. Why not have civil rights? Even if we have all the civil rights in the world, we're still going to be discriminated against. Even African-Americans still get discriminated against! Equality is not yet on its way.

The only way the world will be equal:
Give a small group of any random people, even the most conservative white men, from anywhere in the world the power to make all the rules that everyone in the world must follow. Then tell them that after they go to bed tonight, they will wake up in different place, a world away from their own, in someone else's bed, in someone else's life whether female, male, rich, poor, African, Chinese, Hmong, gay, straight... etc. This will be their life. Now make the rules.

I wish I lived in the perfect world. I wish my mom didn't want me to be "normal," but that's my life.

- Emily -

I'm gonna post something now.. it was not written by me.. but I agree to many things there in ...
----------------------------------------------------
San Francisco constantly struggles with itself to solve the question of how many ***holes it's possible to fit into a square mile. How many cybersissies can you cram into a phone booth? How many Gaia-peddling belly-floppers? How many self-absorbed monkish Nerf balls of ideological irrelevance? How many dayglo lemon-meringue fashion tarantulas? How many gaunt, cellophane-wrapped nipple-tweakers? How many prune-twatted hipster debutantes?

It's a star-lit ballroom full of elitists masquerading as egalitarians. Of snobs pretending to be socialists. Of petty backstabbers who appoint themselves as, moral crusaders These creeps can't get along with the other 99% of the country -- s***, most of their time is spent quarreling among themselves -- yet they try to fist-**** you with Universal Brotherhood. Almost down to the very last shaved anus, San Franciscans are a xenophobic breed, If you don't speak, look, and act like a San Franciscan, their policy is one of Zero Tolerance. They're totalitarian in the sense that they insist on controlling the thoughts and lives of others through forceful statist intervention. In doing so, they align themselves with the establishment which they pretend to be overthrowing. They're a buncha urban supremacists. Unyielding. Humorless. Stuffed to the gills with an unwarranted sense of their own cultural/ moral superiority. I call them "Bay Aryans."

Surely I must be kidding, that I don't mean to compare such twinkle-toed West Coast coolness-mongerers to the TEETH-CHATTERINGLY SINISTER ATROCITIES of the Nazi pork-butchers. After all, Hitler killed six million Jewboys! That's enuff goldurned Heeb-a-ross to fill eight San Franciscos. You may be right, tootsie-pop, but are you aware that non-racist, peace-licking, universal-personhood-touting communist governments have slaughtered ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE this century? The commies beat Hitler 20- 1. Their unbounded love for "humanity" didn't seem to put a check on an even stronger love for controlling and killing human beings. So much for your murky notions of government-mandated humanism. Better a Nazi than a commie, I guess. And either one's better than a Bay Aryan. Being born in San Francisco is excusable, provided that you evacuate within 30 days of reaching adulthood. But moving TO the Bay Area is unforgivable under any circumstance. Based on an unfortunate long-term trend of Freak Relocation, the town has become a sort of Kurdish tent village of refugee wierdlings. A once-pretty city with flap-happy seagulls has degenerated into an island of white-breads-in-exile who've all fled from hometown persecution. San Francisco's foggy hills have become America's largest support group, a Jonestown for people who were socially traumatized in high school. Within city limits, I think, San Francisco's fine as a cultural sanctuary for oversocialized misfits. Its danger lies in an apparently insatiable drive to vengefully impose its values on everyone outside the fortress. I think it's good that you people should have your own ghetto. I just think we should build a fence around it. Among most humans, the need for social approval seems stronger than the need to know the truth. Rejected by the Uberclique, the Bay Ayrans form cliques of their own. Blind puppies in a cardboard box, they crawl over each other looking for 'scene' status. So weak as individuals, they truly believe that 'scene status' is a worthy goal. They howl about 'fighting facism' yet they exhibit a strong urge to feel a part of some 'community' which is the first flash of the facist impulse. You all need a crowd. You all need a movement. You need to be surrounded by the wool of a million other sheep before you start to feel warm. You all have social consciences because you're zeros as individuals. Your 'compassion' for others is ironically founded on your own self-hatred. You swim with 'the movement' because you're lost on your own. I don't care about your precious personal lifestyle choices. I really don't. And your entire dingbat philosophy, the whole tectonic plate on which San Francisco rests, is based on the false presumption that people such as me are upset with the manner in which you flap your genitals around. Egads.

It isn't what you do, it's the way you do it. Not the meat, but rather the motion. It's not what you're saying, it's your lousy voice. It isn't your private ****-slurping, it's your public megaphone-mouth. It ain't how you move beneath the sheets, it's the way you wave the picket signs around. The problem isn't your self-consciously "decadent" personal lifestyle, it's your warped social instincts. It has nothing to do with the widespread sidewalk display of ***-rimming ... or the women who look like Lou Costello ... or even the concept of white people who hate the concept of white people. In fact, those are some of the things I LIKE about SF. It's the attitude. The vantage point. Cloistered in a cultural Presidio, the Bay Aryans see fit to cast judgment about the millions of peasants who live out on the Plains. The Bay Aryans prove that they aren't truly compassionare by consistently showing a flagrant hatred for America's white rural limpenproletariat.

Though San Franciscans may mince through the streets in protest of hate speech, they sure as shootin' despise dem trailer trash. Although their hearts are opened like dilated (something to do with the lower alimentary canal) for poster kids halfway around the world, they disowned the homebound hillbillies a long time ago. I wonder what would happen if the hillbillies were to disown the Bay Aryans? Maybe if all the redneck farmers just decided to stop growing crops for a year. Perhaps if all the white-trash truckers agreed to halt delivery of all goods into this hostile enemy area. Maybe if all the EVIL WHITE MALE PIG COPS decided to ease up on Oakland and let black people really express how they feel about their brethren in Frisco and Berkely. That's all it would take. A puff of wind and they'd all fall down. It's a good thing the rest of your country sees your city as a harmless Fruitcake Palace. The rest of America is too busy trying to put food on the table than worrying about your neurotic socio-libidinal peccadilloes. The rest of America could get along fine without San Francisco. The reverse is hardly true. You should thank Goddess that there are a few Nazis in Idaho and a smattering of Klansmen in Kentucky, because what else would you talk about at the weekly gatherings of the collective? Never mind that you all live in a much more AFFLUENT place than Idahoans or Kentuckians do. Personal finances don't often factor into your idea of what constitutes oppression, do they? You claim to identify with the poor and downtrodden, yet you're miraculously able to pay some of the highest rents in America. How do you do it? Maybe if you took the silver spoon out of your mouth, I'd be able to understand what you were rumbling about empowerment.

Modem American Leftoidism, a Volk religion epitomized in places as the evil SF/Berkeley vortex, is almost exclusively the purview of upper-middle-class white kids who've never breathed a fleeting gasp of true oppression in their lives. This must be why the Bay Aryans don't seem nearly as concerned with America's widening class disparities as they are with its fashion mistakes and verbal boorishness.

Though the Bay Aryans fancy themselves as revolutionaries, they're actually little more than a left-wristed inversion of Miss Manners. An area that prides itself on the Free Speech Movement is now gung-ho in favor of legal restrictions on terminology which it doesn't deem proper or sensitive. The Bay area teems with tattletales and stool pigeons and hall monitors and snitches. Since they don't have any REAL problems in their lives, these mushy bananas worry about getting their feelings bruised.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you. but human history is not entirely summarized by the bold struggle for the "right" to poke your (you can guess what) through disco-bathroom glory holes. Not every act is political. Some are just silly and ugly and stinky.

Are you all high on crack? Does some municipal law require you to either have a glass pipe or a **** in your mouth at all times? Who else would seriously try to argue that rape has nothing to do with sex or that racism has nothing to do with economics? The holes in your logic have been stretched wider than your sphincters. Any honest overview of African, Asian, and Hispanic cultures would reveal more sexism, homophobia, and ethnic strife than you could shake a white **** at. Everyone is born corrupt. White males were simply better at it. You can show your sincere opposition to whitemale imperialism by giving your city back to the Injuns. Maybe we could help San Francisco realize its multicultural dreams by immediately shipping a million or so Third World indigents there. Let them take your jobs while you starve for awhile. We could forcibly relocate all the white-hipster undesirables out to Alcatraz, where they'd perform bloody gladitorial feats to the delight of Kenyan tourists on paddleboats.

I'm glad you've all gathered together in one place. Makes it easier to aim the missiles. Aren't you due for another natural disaster or something? Exactly what year are you scheduled to slide into the ocean? I want to take pictures. No offense, but I have a higher opinion of the runny, worm-filled dogs*** I scrape from my boot with a popsicle stick than I do of your fair city. You gave us OJ Simpson, but what have you done lately?

San Francisco, America's B-movie imitation of Paris. San Francisco, the city that ruined punk rock. San Francisco, the most intolerant place in the country. Second to Berkeley, of course. Berkeley's so bad, it's too painful to talk about. Tony Bennett left his heart. I took a dump. I'd tell you all to go to hell, but you already live there.

-----------------------------------------------------------
As far as I was informed .. this was by a guy named Jim.. should I post his surname? Heh I dunno. One thing for sure.. I didn't write it.. but I find it brilliant to a certain extent.

I'd like to rehash an old proposal issued by a poster here. Let's do a scientific study.

I'd like all the anti-gay folks to line up in a line, half of them go on having sex women, they're the control group, and the other half go out and have sex with men. Report back on if you enjoy it right here in a week or so, and we can see if it is a choice or not. I know it might be hard, but give it the old college try for science's sake.
I'd like to point out the scientific study that shows that homophobes tend to be sexually attracted to the same sex.

Point being, they will most likely enjoy it. We'd need a better test group.

As far as I was informed .. this was by a guy named Jim.. should I post his surname? Heh I dunno. One thing for sure.. I didn't write it.. but I find it brilliant to a certain extent.
I've seen much better satire. It wasn't really funny.

gay marriage = not gonna work b/c marriage is religious
gay civil union = might work but not federalized.. better if states decide


im gonna clear this up.... gays rights aren't abused... they have the same rights as anyone else... the problem is they just dont get marriage privaleges (which i beleive is only if you get married .. ie. religiously affiliated) including lower taxes and such (at least in the united states). IF gays want to get a civil union, no one is stopping them from going to massachusettes or some other state that has it, and getting one. REMEMBER these are privaleges... the same privaleges that unmarried ppl **dont** have, and those who get civil unions **dont** have.

About the army.. theres a dont ask dont tell policy... if your openly gay, you are generally not allowed to be part of the army... this is perfectly fine because you are with a group of (usually) other men, who might feel uncomfortable near you.. its not homophobia, its just a natural thing... by making the other guys uncomfortable, you can jeopardize a mission or whatever... ppl have toe feel comfortable working together in the army.. sometimes its life or death situations.

The problem with making gay unions or marriage legal, is that most of the country (still talking only US stadpoint) is very much against it... whether you think its ok of them to be aggainst it or not.. iit doesnt change the fact that they are. The only way that being gay will be more accepted is within the next few decades.. it will be more widely common and accustomed to, to the younger generations. It is a slow process that will take maybe another 30 or 40 years.. but its the only way gays will become more accepted in today's society. Sometimes you have to wait to get rights, or risk losing any respect you have by acting quickly and foolishly.

I've seen much better satire. It wasn't really funny.


Never said it would crack a bone in people. I just said I agree with some of the points writer made. Got something funny? Post it.

gay marriage = not gonna work b/c marriage is religious
gay civil union = might work but not federalized.. better if states decide


im gonna clear this up.... gays rights aren't abused... they have the same rights as anyone else... the problem is they just dont get marriage privaleges (which i beleive is only if you get married .. ie. religiously affiliated) including lower taxes and such (at least in the united states). IF gays want to get a civil union, no one is stopping them from going to massachusettes or some other state that has it, and getting one. REMEMBER these are privaleges... the same privaleges that unmarried ppl **dont** have, and those who get civil unions **dont** have.

About the army.. theres a dont ask dont tell policy... if your openly gay, you are generally not allowed to be part of the army... this is perfectly fine because you are with a group of (usually) other men, who might feel uncomfortable near you.. its not homophobia, its just a natural thing... by making the other guys uncomfortable, you can jeopardize a mission or whatever... ppl have toe feel comfortable working together in the army.. sometimes its life or death situations.

The problem with making gay unions or marriage legal, is that most of the country (still talking only US stadpoint) is very much against it... whether you think its ok of them to be aggainst it or not.. iit doesnt change the fact that they are. The only way that being gay will be more accepted is within the next few decades.. it will be more widely common and accustomed to, to the younger generations. It is a slow process that will take maybe another 30 or 40 years.. but its the only way gays will become more accepted in today's society. Sometimes you have to wait to get rights, or risk losing any respect you have by acting quickly and foolishly.

WTG... you start with claim then proceed to contradict yourself. :confused:

Never said it would crack a bone in people. I just said I agree with some of the points writer made. Got something funny? Post it.

Perhaps you need a sharp blow to your sense of funny. Repeatedly.

That might be funny.

Definitely more funny than what you posted.

One problem that gay marriage poses.. yes, gays can marry, but they'd have to go to Mass. or Canada to do it. The Problem is that the state they live in will not recognize them as a married couple and will not allot to them the privileges as if they would to a male-female couple. I live in Wisconsin and personally know married female couple; they have children and run the city's youth group. The state will not recognize one or the other of being the guardian of all the children in their household. Where's the equality? Would you like to be married and have kids, but not being able to have your name on the "father" line or "mother" line? You must love your children, remember? (Even God does)

- Emily -

The single most idiotic crock of feces ever strewn across mainstream media. A bad joke that half the people don't get and take far to seriously and the other half does get but isn't laughing. An embarrassment to "civil rights" and a haven for the worst kind of bigots.

Like you?

-snip-

About the army.. theres a dont ask dont tell policy... if your openly gay, you are generally not allowed to be part of the army... this is perfectly fine because you are with a group of (usually) other men, who might feel uncomfortable near you.. its not homophobia, its just a natural thing... by making the other guys uncomfortable, you can jeopardize a mission or whatever... ppl have toe feel comfortable working together in the army.. sometimes its life or death situations.

The problem with making gay unions or marriage legal, is that most of the country (still talking only US stadpoint) is very much against it... whether you think its ok of them to be aggainst it or not.. iit doesnt change the fact that they are. The only way that being gay will be more accepted is within the next few decades.. it will be more widely common and accustomed to, to the younger generations. It is a slow process that will take maybe another 30 or 40 years.. but its the only way gays will become more accepted in today's society. Sometimes you have to wait to get rights, or risk losing any respect you have by acting quickly and foolishly.-snip

I agree with ya, it will take certain generations dieing off... and then some... to accept gay's fully. I take it you are speaking of men..not women gays.

My take on women in the military..


1. Few should make it in. Into combat type situations. I'm a female myself .. and not a pussy one., I'll knock a guy upside the head as quick as anyone.. but I don't feel women are naturally meant to be in battle. It can cause many weaknesses and distractions. Only the rare female should be allowend into battle.. and this takes much prejudice.

2. If that woman is really wanting to see blood and kill.. she should be given a full hysterectomy before ever entering battle. I'm for equal oppritunity. But I'm sorry you can't be on the line needing a pad or tampon change. If that woman is that gung ho in acting like a man she should be willing to give up what makes her ass a woman.. but I'm not sure that is enough. There are few women that have that man like battle stance to them. I see so many females being accepted into the military here in America.... and most of them aren't capable of combat..so I consider it a weakness. Yes I believe women can think as well as men on certain aspects.. tacticle warfare?.. well it has to be proven.. and don't count on it being shown anytime soon. Can they fight as well? Hold their weight .. throw their own weight as well? No. Not the normal. I respect any being wanting to fight for their country.. but you have to be put in your most successful place. But let a hoss as bitch walk in that you know can throw dukes and handle the average man in a one on one fight.. yeah let her bust ass.

WTG... you start with claim then proceed to contradict yourself. :confused:


HUH?... i didnt contradict myself.. i said marriage wudnt work.. maybe state unions **could** work.. the only way society will accept gays (married/unioned, or not) will be with time... doesnt sound too contradicting to me...

Actually, for a woman to stop having what makes her female, all she would have to do is take testosterone. When women take testosterone, they will stop menstruating, build muscle (by doing nothing, btw), improve spatial and motor skills, become more aggressive and have a greater sex drive, and may be inclined to masculine sexuality. Hormone treatment will be much healthier for a woman than taking out her uterus because when women have their female parts removed, their bodies stop making those lovely hormones that keep their bones from getting brittle, having hot flashes, getting moody, and what-so-ever makes us female..... :)

- Emily -

Never said it would crack a bone in people. I just said I agree with some of the points writer made. Got something funny? Post it.
I couldn't see any real points in there. Just half-baked attempts to be funny.

Oh yeah, removing female parts results in low levels of estrogen, so that would basically cause a woman to go through menopause...
yeah, I'm done now

How about responding to what I wrote.. my last post. Instead of what I copied and posted. You might get more of a kick out of that.

Actually, for a woman to stop having what makes her female, all she would have to do is take testosterone. When women take testosterone, they will stop menstruating, build muscle (by doing nothing, btw), improve spatial and motor skills, become more aggressive and have a greater sex drive, and may be inclined to masculine sexuality. Hormone treatment will be much healthier for a woman than taking out her uterus because when women have their female parts removed, their bodies stop making those lovely hormones that keep their bones from getting brittle, having hot flashes, getting moody, and what-so-ever makes us female..... :)

- Emily -


Whatever works

Also major exhaustion/ major work will cut back on the monlthy cycle.. but how often is that gonna happen. Ofcourse possible in a war when they are out in the sticks.. hardley and food etc. but can you rely on that? And ofcourse if a chic was to go through Navy Seal training there cycle would probably stop if they didnt first.. but that was a movie and if real.. very very few and far far between.

*snip*

How about you stop hijacking the thread with your half-assed Neaderthal notions of feminity and military service?

If you want to spew this stuff, create your own thread on that topic.

How about you stop hijacking the thread with your half-assed Neaderthal notions of feminity and military service?

If you want to spew this stuff, create your own thread on that topic.

Eh? Wasn't hijacking a damn thing. I posted my opinion. Sorry you disagree. But thats my thought on this subject.

Very true... anyway. I agree that a woman would have difficulties in the military and that one in the military should be of certain masculine qualities. I would've joined the Navy to be a Nuke, but I didn't; although, the thought of going to Boot Camp would have been quite exciting for me. Anyone may have his or her own place in the military. Although a woman is not built for front-line duty, she may be a nurse or doctor in a hospital or work in communications or intelligence.

This may be words from the uneducated, so please tolerate a little more... :p
I say, if you feel you are married, and your partner feels you are married, then have a 'wedding', invite your friends, wear rings (all the other symbols not dictated by law)..... and know to yourself you are together.... even if its not legal blah blah blah.... you have love, and that is what counts....right? ;)

absolutely right!!!!

Jello Biafra Ummm...first of all, homosexuals aren't sterile. A gay man could quite easily be a father. A lesbian could quite easily be a mother. 27% of all gay couples have children.

A tragedy for the children.

The second point is that you asserted that the human race was designed. Prove it.

Really? Please quote me where I asserted that? :rolleyes:

gay marriage = not gonna work b/c marriage is religious

Incorrect. If marriage were purely religious, the government would have nothing to do with it in the first place. There are two institutions of marriage, the religious and the civil. Civil marriage is purely a goverment structure - it is a set of legal protections and responsibilities granted to a couple who is granted a marriage license.

gay civil union = might work but not federalized.. better if states decide

If the federal government ceases to recognize marriage at all, then you have a point. Otherwise, it must recognize homosexual unions exactly the same as heterosexual ones.

im gonna clear this up.... gays rights aren't abused... they have the same rights as anyone else... the problem is they just dont get marriage privaleges (which i beleive is only if you get married .. ie. religiously affiliated)

Incorrect. You do not have to have any type of religious ceremony to be legally married. It is a separate process.

including lower taxes and such (at least in the united states).

Incorrect again. In most areas, married couples pay more taxes than they would as single people. This is because the marriage tax codes were formulated for a single person in the family to be working. The vast majority these days have both working, thus they end up paying more taxes as a married couple.

IF gays want to get a civil union, no one is stopping them from going to massachusettes or some other state that has it, and getting one.

So you think that a homosexual should have to move away from their home to be recognized as full human beings?

REMEMBER these are privaleges... the same privaleges that unmarried ppl **dont** have, and those who get civil unions **dont** have.

A driver's license is a priviledge, but we don't deny driver's licenses to people based on sexual orientation.

About the army.. theres a dont ask dont tell policy... if your openly gay, you are generally not allowed to be part of the army... this is perfectly fine because you are with a group of (usually) other men, who might feel uncomfortable near you.. its not homophobia, its just a natural thing... by making the other guys uncomfortable, you can jeopardize a mission or whatever... ppl have toe feel comfortable working together in the army.. sometimes its life or death situations.

Bullshit. I have met more than one soldier who fought with homosexual soldiers. None of them felt uncomfortable about it and they all thought it was bullshit when people got kicked out of the military over sexual orientation.

The problem with making gay unions or marriage legal, is that most of the country (still talking only US stadpoint) is very much against it... whether you think its ok of them to be aggainst it or not.. iit doesnt change the fact that they are.

Irrelevant. If most of the country was against feeding babies, would you be advocating that we starve all the babies?

If most of the country thought that we should remove rights from all Muslims (and there are those who think this way), would it be ok to revoke the rights of our Muslim citizens?

A tragedy for the children.

How is a loving family a tragedy?

A tragedy for the children.




Yeah cause its so much better then being molested by your redneck strait parents :rolleyes:

Bullshit. I have met more than one soldier who fought with homosexual soldiers. None of them felt uncomfortable about it and they all thought it was bullshit when people got kicked out of the military over sexual orientation.


We only have your word for this.

We only have your word for this.
And we only have your word it is any different not a very good arguement

We only have your word for this.

Which is fitting, as the same goes for all of your purported arguments.

Which is fitting, as the same goes for all of your purported arguments.
Lol do I hear an echo :)

Which is fitting, as the same goes for all of your purported arguments.

Like???

Like???
That homosexuality matters to thoes fighting along side of homosexuals

That homosexuality matters to thoes fighting along side of homosexuals

Along side...yes, the side of evil.

Along side...yes, the side of evil.
? wtf

no. if they want to be equal, they should shut the f... up.
not shutting up is what got them a lot of their rights.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be the summary of the thread:

Definition of marraige: union between male and female recognized by the state

Definition of civil untion: union of two citizens recognized by the state


Now, can someone please describe to me the differences in rights between these two unions?

The right to do what one wishes in the privacy of one's own home is beyond the realm of this distinction. Often taxes are worse for combined income, so it would be advantageous to file seperately anyway. The entire arguement, as I see it, is that gays state, "We want this name, although it gives us nothing."

Do we remove the distinction of being an infant (minor) in states because it creates inequality in voting rights and contractual obligations? What about distinctions of felony versus citizen in good standing.
perhaps you should actually look into civil unions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union *cough*one state*cough*

no. if they want to be equal, they should shut the f... up.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd be quiet if you were denied equal treatment under the law.

dont gays already have equal rights?
no

to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.
theres this little document called the Constitution perhaps you should try googling it.

Yeah cause its so much better then being molested by your redneck strait parents :rolleyes:

Another myth, pushed venemently by gay rightists, :rolleyes: that rednecks molest their children on a regular widespread basis, its usually a cousin that does it. Same goes for gays too, molesters are just as likely to be gay as normal. if you could call them that.

Another myth, pushed venemently by gay rightists, :rolleyes: that rednecks molest their children on a regular widespread basis, its usually a cousin that does it. Same goes for gays too, molesters are just as likely to be gay as normal. if you could call them that.

Incorrect. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual.

How is a loving family a tragedy?

Right, because its gay its automatically loving.

Incorrect. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual.

laugh, actually most of them have admitted to being in gay relationships at one time or another in their life.
Sees a pattern forming here...

Right, because its gay its automatically loving.

I didn't say that, but the vast majority of families (made up of people of any orientation) are loving families.

Another myth, pushed venemently by gay rightists, :rolleyes: that rednecks molest their children on a regular widespread basis, its usually a cousin that does it. Same goes for gays too, molesters are just as likely to be gay as normal. if you could call them that.
Statisticaly the opposite strait parents/relitives are more likly to molest their kids then their gay counterparts the last stats my class covered were that as high as 98 percent of molestation is perpetrated by strait white males

Sorry try again :)

In one study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only two offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the cases studied involving molestation of a boy by a man, 74 percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boy's mother or another female relative. The study concluded that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual."10

laugh, actually most of them have admitted to being in gay relationships at one time or another in their life, nothing permanent but.

Sees some kind of pattern forming here...

Considering that what you just said is contrary to every psychology paper and report I have ever seen, you're going to have to provide a link for that.

Considering that what you just said is contrary to every psychology paper and report I have ever seen, you're going to have to provide a link for that.
I posted some stats on there ... me thinks this is a time I should dig out my CJ books lol

I didn't say that, but the vast majority of families (made up of people of any orientation) are loving families.

What! Not even those nasty redneck bible thumping homo hating Christians!!

Lazy Hippies don't speak on an issue when you don't know everything about it. Do you not remember the recent debates over gay marriage? That's included in the list of rights gay people don't have. Also, gays are allowed to serve in the military on a don't ask, don't tell policy. As long as they keep it to themselves it's perfectly fine for them to be in the military. You're ignorant and stupid.

Statisticaly the opposite strait parents/relitives are more likly to molest their kids then their gay counterparts the last stats my class covered were that as high as 98 percent of molestation is perpetrated by strait white males
Sorry try again :)

They also have admitted to having homo sex at one point or another as well, meaning their not straight.

They also have admitted to having homo sex at one point or another as well, meaning their not straight.
You have any proof of that? I was nice enough to spend the time finding the facts for you

So if a gay guy sleeps with a woman does that make him not gay?

I personally think that Homosexuality is like a crime against nature and/or humananity since it hurts humanity (Sorry if you take offense about this). This is how. Sex is supposed to be used for reproduction to help keep the species alive, and is more beneficial then asexual reproduction since in asexual reproduction everysingle organism in that species is a clone (except the mutated ones) and another species (Especially contagious disease) would kill them (except some mutants but we dont care about them for now). That is why there are two genders required for reproduction for humans, male and female. Male and male and female and female sex has no purpose besides pleasure but that was made in three species of animals (Humans, Dolphins and some species of african monkey) so that the mates would stay together longer so they can both take care of the offspring. A man was evolved to only stay with a woman for 4 years but that length later changed.
yeah! anyone who masterbates should be tried in Geneva!!!

Lazy Hippies don't speak on an issue when you don't know everything about it. Do you not remember the recent debates over gay marriage? That's included in the list of rights gay people don't have. Also, gays are allowed to serve in the military on a don't ask, don't tell policy. As long as they keep it to themselves it's perfectly fine for them to be in the military. You're ignorant and stupid.

I dont agree with homos in the armed forces, so what? You telling me I cant have this opinion makes you stupid and ignorant, if your caught in the act of being a homosexual in the armed forces you should be instantly discharged.

I dont agree with homos in the armed forces, so what? You telling me I cant have this opinion makes you stupid and ignorant, if your caught in the act of being a homosexual in the armed forces you should be instantly discharged.
Can he tell you that your opinion is stupid and ignorant?

I dont agree with homos in the armed forces, so what? You telling me I cant have this opinion makes you stupid and ignorant, if your caught in the act of being a homosexual in the armed forces you should be instantly discharged.
With your apparent hate for homosexuals I would figure you would want them to be in a risky situation such as the military :rolleyes:

You have any proof of that? I was nice enough to spend the time finding the facts for you
So if a gay guy sleeps with a woman does that make him not gay?

You didnt find any facts at all! How about a URL and some real quotes to go with your 'facts' next time. and ones dug up from gay websites dont count as their biast. I would also consider anything from a western university study now to be contaminated and unacceptable as well.

BINGO!

The only reason why people even give gays the attention they crave (as a minority interest group) is because they feel as though more should be done for them.

Gays have their rights and that is enough. Even you crazy Leftists out there have to admit that the only true way to make it so that we have equality; is to give them the exact same fundamental human rights as every one else has.

They are people and should be treated as such. Just because they have a disorder does not mean that we can't treat them as human beings.
highly postulatory (to go with the math theme)

You didnt find any facts at all! How about a URL and some real quotes to go with your 'facts' next time. and ones dug up from gay websites dont count as their biast. I would also consider anything from a western university study now to be contaminated and unacceptable as well.
Because obviously all western academia is gay? :confused:

You didnt find any facts at all! How about a URL and some real quotes to go with your 'facts' next time. and ones dug up from gay websites dont count as their biast. I would also consider anything from a western university study now to be contaminated and unacceptable as well.
Personaly I dont care what you find acceptable :p I am fairly sure you will just convinatly not accept anything that you dont already agree with

ignorance is bliss is it not

Because obviously all western academia is gay? :confused:

-supporting, never questioning in any way, which makes it biast, and therefore not relevant.

-supporting, never questioning in any way, which makes it biast, and therefore not relevant.
If that were true there would be no studies on homosexuality from western universities for you to ignore. The fact that you have to ignore them seems to contradict that.

-supporting, never questioning in any way, which makes it biast, and therefore not logical.
As long as they are strait up statistics you can perform your own confidence levels and regression on them ... thats the beauty of statistics they themselfs cant be corrupted just the presentation (assuming a large enough random study)

But I wouldent expect you to understand that

Personaly I dont care what you find acceptable :p I am fairly sure you will just convinatly not accept anything that you dont already agree with
ignorance is bliss is it not

Well why would you accept something you dont agree with?
As for ignorance, I would consider your own in not seeing the ramiforcations of gay rights having on the future of western society(which has none now, by the way)

Well why would you accept something you dont agree with?
As for ignorance, I would consider your own in not seeing the ramiforcations of gay rights having on the future of western society(which has none now, by the way)


I see great benifits ... hell some of the greatist inventions were by gay people ... we could use more if that is what they contribute to sociaty

As long as they are strait up statistics you can perform your own confidence levels and regression on them ... thats the beauty of statistics they themselfs cant be corrupted just the presentation (assuming a large enough random study)
But I wouldent expect you to understand that

I understand perfectly, can you explain why you think statistics cant be corrupted?

Well why would you accept something you dont agree with?
As for ignorance, I would consider your own in not seeing the ramiforcations of gay rights having on the future of western society(which has none now, by the way)
Please, please, please tell me how gayness is going to end western civilization.

I see great benifits ... hell some of the greatist inventions were by gay people ... we could use more if that is what they contribute to sociaty

Of course, Im not disputing any difference in intelligence between gay and straight people, just social issues.

I understand perfectly, can you explain why you think statistics cant be corrupted?
Because as long as the initial survey was compleated fairly it is all a matter of bias interpretation ... that is WAY different from te statistics being corrupted

And if there is bias in the stats (survey) it is a non valid survey and should not be concidered

That can all be determined through R^2 valuses and confidence levels

Of course, Im not disputing any difference in intelligence between gay and straight people, just social issues.
Like?

The USA is a democratic republic centered on a social-contract... And the "majority" does not "rule"... You can get as many people as you wish to "rule" but I can gunrantee in the end, it will not stand against the Constitution... And if they try to, their will always be a Court to overrule attempts by the legislature to violate the fundamental principles.
lets try to make up more irrelevant names which could take the place of democracy!!!.....

Please, please, please tell me how gayness is going to end western civilization.

Not so much gayness, more the social accepting of it and other issues, which is dragging western society into the ground.
I see the Asians taking over completely around fifty years or so from now, after ashort and deadly conflict with the middle east. Western civilisation will be remembered more for the great centurys of learning and history it bought into the world, not the short, corrupt and stagnent sad end it came to, in its last century.

Because as long as the initial survey was compleated fairly it is all a matter of bias interpretation ... that is WAY different from te statistics being corrupted
And if there is bias in the stats (survey) it is a non valid survey and should not be concidered
That can all be determined through R^2 valuses and confidence levels

OMG! You are so naive!
Stats can be easily ignored.

Not so much gayness, more the social accepting of it and other issues, which is dragging western society into the ground.
I see the Asians taking over completely around fifty years or so from now, after ashort and deadly conflict with the middle east. Western civilisation will be remembered more for the great centurys of learning and history it bought into the world, not the short, corrupt and stagnent sad end it came to, in its last century.
:rolleyes:

Not so much gayness, more the social accepting of it and other issues, which is dragging western society into the ground.
I see the Asians taking over completely around fifty years or so from now, after ashort and deadly conflict with the middle east. Western civilisation will be remembered more for the great centurys of learning and history it bought into the world, not the short, corrupt and stagnent sad end it came to, in its last century.
Amazingly this sounds almost like thoes that wished to support segragation ... they were proved wrong with time too

Amazingly this sounds almost like thoes that wished to support segragation ... they were proved wrong with time too


...but that was different.

:rolleyes:

Like?

Gay marriage for one, and in a nutshell to answer all your questions, I believe its wrong, and thats the only answer you will ever get.

OMG! You are so naive!
Stats can be easily ignored.
LOL I think you are the naive one stats CAN be ignored that does not make them corupt :p

What people wish to see has nothing to do with the origional article

Example people wish to ignore that my truck is black ... it does not change the fact that my truck is black :p
(psst I am a stats grad I know exactly what stats can and can not do lol)

:mp5: So what are your thoughts on gay righs?\

No such thing. No such thing at all. Gays are not a race, they don't require special attention or their own rights, it was their choice to become gay and it's still their choice to become like everyone else.

Not so much gayness, more the social accepting of it and other issues, which is dragging western society into the ground.
I see the Asians taking over completely around fifty years or so from now, after ashort and deadly conflict with the middle east. Western civilisation will be remembered more for the great centurys of learning and history it bought into the world, not the short, corrupt and stagnent sad end it came to, in its last century.
Ok, I'll bite

Please, please, please tell me how accetping gayness is going to end western civilization.

Gay marriage for one, and in a nutshell to answer all your questions, I believe its wrong, and thats the only answer you will ever get.
You can believe anything you wish :) does not make it the truth :p

:mp5: \

No such thing. No such thing at all. Gays are not a race, they don't require special attention or their own rights, it was their choice to become gay and it's still their choice to become like everyone else.
:fluffle: troll

Gays shouldn't have as much rights as heterosexual couples.

They should seriously be shot.
Reported to moderation trolling is not looked kindly on

Amazingly this sounds almost like thoes that wished to support segragation ... they were proved wrong with time too

They were proved wrong with a war and the worlds industry gradually necessitating no need for slavery. dont bring any great morality into this issue, because there is none. Slavery was a necessity, the worlds industry becoming more advanced reduced the need for it. Blacks made the best slaves because they were strong physically,but unfortunately for them unorganised and backward, therefore easily caught, too bad if you cant accept that, but thats just how it was. Slavery came to an end because of advanced mechanics in industry, not because of some great moral enligtenment on the world.
If the world falls into another dark age, and industry and technology is lost, then slavery will come back, as an economic necessity and the first ones to be used in this way will be the blacks for given reasons above, you mighten like this or disagree with it, I dont myself, but thats just how it is.

This is why gay rights have got nothing to do with slavery.

They were proved wrong with a war and the worlds industry gradually necessitating no need for slavery. dont bring any great morality into this issue, because there is none. Slavery was a necessity, the worlds industry becoming more advanced reduced the need for it. Blacks made the best slaves because they were strong physically,but unfortunately for them unorganised and backward, therefore easily caught, too bad if you cant accept that, but thats just how it was. Slavery came to an end because of advanced mechanics in industry, not because of some great moral enligtenment on the world.
If the world falls into another dark age, and industry and technology is lost, then slavery will come back, as an economic necessity and the first ones to be used in this way will be the blacks for given reasons above, you mighten like this or disagree with it, I dont myself, but thats just how it is.

This is why gay rights have got nothing to do with slavery.


LOL you compleatly missed the point I said SEGRAGATION nice arguement against something I never said :p

They were proved wrong with a war and the worlds industry gradually necessitating no need for slavery. dont bring any great morality into this issue, because there is none. Slavery was a necessity, the worlds industry becoming more advanced reduced the need for it. Blacks made the best slaves because they were strong physically,but unfortunately for them unorganised and backward, therefore easily caught, too bad if you cant accept that, but thats just how it was. Slavery came to an end because of advanced mechanics in industry, not because of some great moral enligtenment on the world.
If the world falls into another dark age, and industry and technology is lost, then slavery will come back, as an economic necessity and the first ones to be used in this way will be the blacks for given reasons above, you mighten like this or disagree with it, I dont myself, but thats just how it is.

This is why gay rights have got nothing to do with slavery.

Now what does slavery have to do with segregation? :confused:

They should seriously be shot.

Sorry I disagree.

They were proved wrong with a war and the worlds industry gradually necessitating no need for slavery. dont bring any great morality into this issue, because there is none. Slavery was a necessity, the worlds industry becoming more advanced reduced the need for it. Blacks made the best slaves because they were strong physically,but unfortunately for them unorganised and backward, therefore easily caught, too bad if you cant accept that, but thats just how it was. Slavery came to an end because of advanced mechanics in industry, not because of some great moral enligtenment on the world.
If the world falls into another dark age, and industry and technology is lost, then slavery will come back, as an economic necessity and the first ones to be used in this way will be the blacks for given reasons above, you mighten like this or disagree with it, I dont myself, but thats just how it is.

This is why gay rights have got nothing to do with slavery.

Wow......just wow dude. Seriously.
Racism and ignorance abound.
For future reference segragation does not mean slavery. That might help to make you not look that bad

Edit: Seriously, wow

Wow......just wow dude. Seriously.
Racism and ignorance abound.
For future reference segragation does not mean slavery. That might help to make you not look that bad
Lol I know :) the social implications and reasons for upholding the status quo were compleatly different between slavery and segragation (or at least supported differently) which makes that whole arguement exactly bunk lol

LOL you compleatly missed the point I said SEGRAGATION nice arguement against something I never said :p

Segregation was a result of slavery, gays have never been slaves because their gay, so why should they consider themselves to be segregated.

Wow......just wow dude. Seriously.
Racism and ignorance abound.
For future reference segragation does not mean slavery. That might help to make you not look that bad
Edit: Seriously, wow

Yeah wow wow wow. :rolleyes: yippee now please just fuck off.
You brought nothing new to the table here, your like a little yapping dog excitedly repeating more intelligent answeers than you could come up with originally, seriously get your own answers for a change, intead of plagurising your betters.

Segregation was a result of slavery, gays have never been slaves because their gay, so why should they consider themselves to be segregated.
No one ever said gays were segregated. They said that you used the same justifications some people used for segregation.

Also, still wow

Segregation was a result of slavery, gays have never been slaves because their gay, so why should they consider themselves to be segregated.
I dident say they were I was making a COMPARISON ... you know where you look at the simmilarities and differences between the situations
(hint I was comparing the likness of the pro both arguements to eachother not nessisarily the complete situation)

Yeah wow wow wow. :rolleyes: yippee now fuck off.
We are just amazed you cant understand the basics of comparison and contrast :rolleyes: its not our fault that you are not equiped for the discussion

We are just amazed you cant understand the basics of comparison and contrast :rolleyes: its not our fault that you are not equiped for the discussion

Please do me a favour, and go shoot yourself, seriously your an odious person, you will probably make alot of other people who have to put up with you, happy as well.
Do it.
Seriously.

I dident say they were I was making a COMPARISON ... you know where you look at the simmilarities and differences between the situations
(hint I was comparing the likness of the pro both arguements to eachother not nessisarily the complete situation)

Ill attempt to answer your question, when you can manage to put it in some kind of understandable format, hint at least two of the words in each line spelt correctly. Its amazing that someone who thinks they are of such a superior intelligence, cant even spell or make use of grammer properly.
Were you educated by the state system?

Please do me a favour, and go shoot yourself, seriously your an odious person, you will probably make alot of other people who have to put up with you, happy as well.
Do it.
Seriously.
Thats not very nice :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

yo i no this is completely off topic but how do u start a nu thread :headbang:

Thats not very nice :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

It wasnt meant to be nice, it was a serious comment, and one I hope you take seriously.

yo i no this is completely off topic but how do u start a nu thread :headbang:

Go to General forum, its at the top of the pg under thread tools.

Ill attempt to answer your question, when you can manage to put it in some kind of understandable format, hint at least two of the words in each line spelt correctly. Its amazing that someone who thinks they are of such a superior intelligence, cant even spell or make use of grammer properly.
Were you educated by the state system?
LOL how did I know THAT was coming :) cant argue with the statement so turn it ad-hominem

It wasnt meant to be nice, it was a serious comment, and one I hope you take seriously.
Nope just like most of your arguments is not worth taking seriously :p

LOL how did I know THAT was coming :) cant argue with the statement so turn it ad-hominem

For best results use a double barrelled shotgun on narrow choke, place in mouth pointed at 60 dg angle, pull both triggers simutaneusly.

Nope just like most of your arguments is not worth taking seriously :p

see shotgun answer

do it.

Anyways Bass over there is leading us off topic

So far there has been no proof stated of any significant threat of sociatal harm because of gay marrige to justify the lack of equal rights

Pretty clear case

Anyways Bass over there is leading us off topic
So far there has been no proof stated of any significant threat of sociatal harm because of gay marrige to justify the lack of equal rights
Pretty clear case

Because any proof found would be either hidden or shouted down by the gay lobbys as discrimination.

Because any proof found would be either hidden or shouted down by the gay lobbys as discrimination.
They have the power to change and supress statistics all over the world?

Because any proof found would be either hidden or shouted down by the gay lobbys as discrimination.

Someone give this gentleman a tinfoil hat.

Someone give this gentleman a tinfoil hat.

I dont know what you mean by that, but Ill assume its not a compliment, if you have to lower yourself to insults then you shouldnt really be on here, try and bring something to the table in future besides your boring comments.

i have no problem with gay people getting civil unions and THOSE coming with all the perks of marriage... but to call it "marriage" is incorrect, inasmuch as the Bible defines marriage as the union between a woman and a man.

my only caveat, hence, is with that definition... that the definition be respected/not changed.




Okay.

Why not do what the FDA does and do a little 'trial' with this for a time and see how well this works, shall we?

You get to go first.

From now on the words 'marriage' and any form of the word is now FORBIDDEN for you to use. In fact, since the word 'wedding' specifically referes to a marriage, this word too is off limits. It is illegal to use any of these words. These words do not belong to you, you do not deserve the right to use them.

From this day forth you must use the words "CIVIL UNION".

Ready?


Let's begin:


Do you remember the moment the love of your live got down on one knee and said: "Frangland, would you be civil unioned with me?

Remember how estatic you were when you told your friends; "We're getting civil unioned!!!"

Remember the day you went and bought your matching civil union rings?

Remember filling out all those civil union invitation cards?

Remember how many copies of the newpaper you bought with your picture in the 'Civil Union Annoucements' section?

Remember how giddy you felt filling out the civil union license at the courthouse?

How you got into an arguemnt trying to decide on a caterer to do your civil union?

Remember the place where you had your Civil Union reception?

My, but didnt the civil union cake look so grand on your civil union day!

And you looked so lovely in your civil union gown.

And the civil union photographer did such a great job, too.

Do you recall how tingly you felt when the Preacher civil unioned you?

Do you remember how that one couple sitting next to you at dinner on your honeymoon said they just loved watching newlycivilunions?

ON LEGAL FROMS:

Check one:

Single.

Widowed.

Married.

Civil Unioned.


Do you recall the romantic evening you had when you went out to celebrate your first aniversary of your civil union ?

How many times have you pulled out your Civil Union album to show friends?


So, btw, how long have you been civil unioned now.......?


























How does it feel to be "Civil Unioned".............?

They have the power to change and supress statistics all over the world?

Why should that surprise you?
Try and say anything against the gay movement in western society, go on just try it.
The rest of the world watches on with amusement, and a growing sense of disgust and disinterest.

I dont know what you mean by that, but Ill assume its not a compliment, if you have to lower yourself to insults then you shouldnt really be on here, try and bring something to the table in future besides your boring comments.
LOL just like your suicide comments lol Anyways what it refers to is a common joke passed around because of a few paranoid schizophrenics that used tinfoil hats to "block" "mind control beams"

I dont know what you mean by that, but Ill assume its not a compliment, if you have to lower yourself to insults then you shouldnt really be on here

Holy hypocrite, Batman!

Please do me a favour, and go shoot yourself, seriously your an odious person, you will probably make alot of other people who have to put up with you, happy as well.
Do it.
Seriously.

For best results use a double barrelled shotgun on narrow choke, place in mouth pointed at 60 dg angle, pull both triggers simutaneusly.

Why should that surprise you?
Try and say anything against the gay movement in western society, go on just try it.
The rest of the world watches on with amusement, and a growing sense of disgust and disinterest.
A lot of them because they cant believe we have not just given them equality yet (namely most of Europe)

And cultural leanings like that have nothing to do with ability to suppress statistics all around the word (specially because of the leaning you seem to think they have)

Wow, this Sea Bass character is something else. Has he been deleted yet?

A lot of them because they cant believe we have not just given them equality yet (namely most of Europe)
And cultural leanings like that have nothing to do with ability to suppress statistics all around the word (specially because of the leaning you seem to think they have)

So your saying all of Asia, Africa, South America and the middle east have given gays full equality under their laws, if you care to visit some of these places you will find nothing could be further from the truth, and it is they that look apon the west with growing disgust.

Wow, this Sea Bass character is something else. Has he been deleted yet?

Why should I be deleted, I have as much right to be on here and express opinions as you do, if you disagree with that, then your nothing but a facist.

Why should I be deleted, I have as much right to be on here and express opinions as you do, if you disagree with that, then your nothing but a facist.While you do have the right to express an opinion, you are expected to actually back them up with facts.

Besides the difference of opinion, there are clearly misunderstandings here.

I'm probably not making myself clear, and I apologize for that. Anyway, let me try again to clear the misunderstanding.

The first thing I would like to point out was that my last post specifically concerned the gay marriage/interracial marriage analogy. I was not trying to make an argument against gay marriage, I was only trying to argue that the analogy doesn't work. I get the feeling that you mistook my argument against the analogy for an argument against gay marriage.

Cute. Semantics.

The context for this quote is referring to my pointing out that marriage is an institution, not a contract. Pointing out legal categories is not semantics.

If you kill someone and you say "Bah, that's just a misdemeanor!", I say "No, it's a crime.", and you reply "Cute. Semantics.", I may be arguing semantics but you'll still be dragged away to a long time in jail because hey, guess what, what you did is a crime. Law works by putting things in boxes. Conveniently, these boxes have labels. Giving the right label to things ins't just "semantics," it's also a jurist's job.

Words like "crime" and "misdemeanor" are labels we use to refer to categories in penal law. Similarily, "contract" and "institution" are categories in civil law. Depending on the category you're referring to, in law, different things are true and different things happen. If your action is labelled a crime, different things will happen than if it's labelled a misdemeanor. Similarily, if something is a contract, in law, the same things don't apply than if it is an institution.

The poster's argument I was replying to would have made sense if marriage had been a contract. However, marriage is not a contract, it is an institution. So I pointed this out. If you think that's arguing semantics, well, it may be, but in this case it's also arguing law.

This whole debate about my arguing "semantics" somehow makes me think that whenever I will say anything that annoys you you will simply accuse me of the mortal sin of arguing semantics. If that's true, it should prove annoying.

No one denied that the 9th Amendment was codified law.

The poster I was replying to said that "codified law doesn't matter" and then argued the 9th amendment. So naturally I assumed that he thought the 9th Amendment wasn't codified law. I apologize if I misunderstood.

But I think you are, in fact, quoting a "treaty of civil law." As has been explained several times, we are not a civil law country. Unlike France.

Another misunderstanding, an easy one to make if you don't know legal concepts well. It happened because the expression "civil law" can refer to several things.

Yes, the expression "civil law" is used by contrast to "common law" to refer to the two main types of legal systems which are used by modern countries. (This is the way you understood my use of the expression.)

However, civil law is also a subset of the discipline of law as a whole, just like penal law or constitutional law. In this case, the expression "civil law" is used to refer to the field of law which handles, basically, relations between people. So marriage law, but also contract law, labour law, etc. are subsets of civil law as a field. And that's true for France, the U.S., the U.K., Russia, and other countries. (This is what I was referring to)

A basic legal notion like the notion of a contract vs. an institution works accross all those countries. Of course, contracts will tend to be different or have a different scope in "civil law countries" than in "common law countries," but the definitions of the basic concepts are pretty universal.Setting aside the flaw in your understanding of history -- which others as well as myself have pointed out previously -- this boils down to little more than an argument from tradition. It has been this way for a long time, therefore it is good.

Same argument could be made for slavery. But it is wrong.Hey, who said slavery was wrong? ;)

In all seriousness, once again you misunderstand me: I was not arguing against gay marriage, I was simply arguing against the analogy. This is why I said that, since the two situations are different (and showing that entails historical analysis), there is no possible analogy.

I didn't make an argument from tradition against gay marriage. Hell, I didn't even make an argument from tradition against the analogy. I simply pointed out the historical difference between the two situations.

(To refresh your memory, the difference is that the discrimination against race was motivated by contingent political and social issues, while the discrimination against same-sex unions is motivated by the core definition of marriage. This is where you say "Haha, you have a feeble understanding of history, the definition of marriage has changed a buncha times throughout history!" and this is where I reply "Yes, but there are still a few core elements which never change, and girl+boy is one!")

Perhaps you should look up the word "semantics" because yes, it is what you are arguing semantics.It's a trap!

You want me to look up semantics and post up a definition so you can have my head for arguing semantics!

:p

Anyway, on the whole topic of "arguing semantics," years, nay decades, nay centuries of arguing over the Internet have shown me that arguments can draw on and on with both sides getting increasingly frustrated, all because they're arguing concepts that hold a different meaning for each side. So, before I use a word, I like to put out my definition (or the definition, in the case of a legal concept), in order to minmize such misunderstandings and avoid frustration for both sides.

If that's arguing semantics, well, so be it. And if arguing semantics is wrong, well, I don't wanna be right! ;)

And your comment about minors demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the "institution" you claim to be defending.

If this is true, I would very much like for you to dispel my ignorance.

But if you like getting straw on your little fists, have at it.

Yes, I do have petite hands. How did you know? :)

Any jurist worthy of the name recognizes that legal concepts evolve. Like the concepts of persons and citizens.

And any jurist worthy of the name has a little better understanding of history.

And a better understanding of international and US law.

...Ouch.

One at a time:

Yes, legal concepts evolve. In fact, I love watching legal concepts evolve, that makes law a living, thriving field. However, legal concepts evolve because of historical factors. So you have to look at the history of a legal concept to see why it evolves, what will happen when it does, and if it should.

What's so bad about my understanding of history? You keep castigating me for my "ignorance" of history, and yet I am the only one supplying the discussion with historical facts, which you respond to with mockery and then conveniently avoiding to discuss them.

And as far as my understanding of international and US law goes, given that whenever I try to clarify legal concepts you wedge your fingers as deep in your ear canals as you can and shout "SEMANTICS! SEMANTICS!," it's not very surprising that you think little of my skills in the area.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada. Also in The Netherlands. And Belgium. In 1995, Hungary extended the recognition of “common-law” marriages to partners of the same sex. Most other European countries provide for a form of partnership or civil union with legal status similar to marriage. At the national level, same-sex relationships are recognized for the purposes of at least some of the benefits of marriage in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Israel, and New Zealand, among others. At the local level, same-sex relationships are recognized in a number of jurisdictions within countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage. Alaska, Hawaii, California, and Vermont provide for civil unions.

You forgot that Spain has just passed (or is passing, I don't follow the issue closely) a same-sex marriage bill.

That's nice, but essentially you're countering my so-called argument from tradition by an argument from popularity. This is irrelevant.

Also, I'm not opposed to the idea of some form of civil union, although I think it's dishonest to set it up as a pseudo-marriage.

1. "Marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman." In case your keen legal mind didn't catch it, this is circular.

Of course it's circular!

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what it is.

"Why isn't this table a car?" "Because it's a table!" "Bah. That's circular. Besides, give me a reason why we shouldn't fit four tires and an engine on that table?" "...Because it's a table!" You suggested I look semantics up in a dictionary, why don't you look up marriage?

When you say that same sex couples don't have the same protection under the law as married couples, I say, of course they don't: they're not married. Is it a circular argument? Maybe. Does it work in law? Hell yes!

This is like a guy living in an apartment building, in the 3rd floor, who goes "Why don't I live on the 5th floor!!?" Well, you don't live on the 5th floor because you don't. You live on the 3rd floor. "But I have a right to the 5th floor!" Yes you do. Go move to the 5th floor. Similarily, if someone wants the legal protection of marriage that bad, well, no-one's stopping him from getting married.

I don't see what the big deal is.

...

:)

Of course, I'm being obtuse here. Not that this argument doesn't work; I find its "circularity" quite elegant.

The big flaw with that argument isn't so much that it's circular, but that the definition of marriage can and does evolve. My oh-so-feeble understanding of history doesn't stop me from knowing that marriage has recently evolved, e.g. to accomodate things like gender equality or divorce, things which we now take for granted but were (in some countries) unthinkable a century ago.
If you do look up marriage in a couple dictionaries, you'll find that while, say, the 1913 edition of Webster only recognizes marriage as the "legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife," today's Merriam-Webster also includes "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." Of course (except in Massachussets, Spain, and those other places you mentioned), the legal definition of marriage hasn't quite caught up with the semantic one.

But it can catch up, so we have to wonder if it should. This is called a reasoning de lege ferenda in law, but to answer the question we have to move past the well-combed field of law into areas such as philosophy, history, sociology, morals, religion, etc.: law is not a system which exists for itself, but only as a reflection of a society's values and social order. It exists to maintain the order that's necessary to any viable society and, to a lesser extent, to promote morals.

The reason why there can be no gay marriage (besides the Bible) is that families are the building blocks of any viable society. Promoting same-sex unions as somehow equivalent to marriage would deteriorate family and, ultimately, society as a whole.

This isn't a very original stance; I'm sure this has been argued here before (hasn't every point of view on this been argued to death anyway?), but hear me out.

Before you mock my lacking knowledge, let me inform you that I do realize that the concept of family varies wildly from place and time. In some places women are sequestered in the menstrual hut every month, in some places each gender lives in its half of the village, in some places you have polygamy, in others the familial bond is very tenuous, in some very primitive societies, the men played pool and drank whiskey in one room while the women gossiped over port in the other. But, and this is an anthropological fact, every society, whether nomadic or sedentary, whether primitive or advanced, has relied on some form of the family unit as its primordial building block.

You may think this is an argument from tradition and, in a way, it is. (I might as well reply to2. "Marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because it has been that way for a long time." As noted earlier, this is flawed in many ways. On its face, it is uncompelling.as well while I'm at it.)

But it's more than an argument from tradition: an argument from tradition is, as you've pointed out quite clearly, simply saying that it should be that way "because it has been that way for a long time." My argument points out that it has been that way all the time, but that's not my argument. My argument is that it's been that way for a reason. What reason you ask?

Human nature.

The Iliad and The Odyssey resonate with (some) modern readers even though the Greek society of the time, not to mention the gods, mythical creatures and impossible events portrayed by these epics are completely dissimilar to our own habits, concerns and culture. This is because there are a few core elements that all human beings share, that are always there, despite the many, wild differences there are between cultures and eras. We call these core elements "human nature." They are what we share with the characters in Homer's poetry. They are what all societies have in common.

The existence of a human nature has been used by jurists to infer the existence of a natural law, to which the rest of the law must submit. Declarations of rights, such as the ones featured in the Declaration of Independence of the U.S., the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and later such documents are all attempts at codifying natural law.

Take for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which clearly states:

Article 16 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

And the guys who wrote down this declaration weren't exactly right-wing moral conservatists.

Please note, while we're on the topic, that I am not arguing that being gay is against human nature and that there shouldn't be same sex marriages because it's "wrong."

What I am arguing, however, is that a society can only properly function when it is based on the family as a core unit, and that this core unit is really only itself when it is a matrix for the complementarity of the members, a coherent environment which solidifies and perpetuates the social fabric. Some people who think they love each other and that this somehow grants them some special rights are not a family; this is also true for a lot of straight couples out there, mainly the ones swelling the divorce rates.

And why do societies only work with families based on girl+boy? Because it is in the human nature that things work this way. It is how we are, and it is how we work.

If that's circular, then fine, it's circular. Deal with it.

It doesn't change the fact that everyone has a right to liberty, that gay people can have whatever relationships they choose to, and that same-sex unions should probably be granted some recognition under the law. However, I do believe that promoting same-sex unions an equivalent to marriage would effectively sabotage family as the building block of society, and have potentially dramatic consequences.

If you want to throw the slavery argument at me, first of all, human nature includes an intrinsic value for all humans, which precludes slavery; second of all, slavery, while pervasive in the ancient world, is not nearly as universal as the family unit, and third of all, sorry, but not getting some tax breaks isn't the same as being Spartacus.

As far as a more US-centric argument goes, well, isn't America a Christian country? Sure, you have the separation of church and State, but the separation of church and State isn't the same thing as the separation of religion and the State. Separation of church and State only means that the State doesn't endorse nor fund any specific religion, but that doesn't change the fact that America was built by Christians on Christian values. I've pointed out earlier that law, to an extent, promotes a society's moral values. And, as I'm sure you're aware, gay marriage isn't exactly highest on the list of what Christianity endorses.

All of this debate exemplifies a shift in our understanding of marriage which is considerably annoying. People now think that love is a necessary and sufficient condition for a marriage, when it is not. The story of Romeo & Juliet is now touted as the ideal to which every couple should aspire, when Shakespeare intended it as a fierce satire demonstrating how criminally stupid horny teenagers can be. Marriage is the expression of the will to found a family. But now it's considered to be a sort of diploma for love. So you get young foolish couples who get married because of some feeling which only lasts for a while, and when that "spark" is gone, they get a divorce. You get gay couples who appeal decisions annulling their unlawful wedding because of they want "the right to love," as if that was in any way related to the issue (or made any sense). Marriage is not a reward for bull@#~! pseudo-romantic love. It's something else--something better.

While you do have the right to express an opinion, you are expected to actually back them up with facts.

Like you do right?

Why should I be deleted, I have as much right to be on here and express opinions as you do, if you disagree with that, then your nothing but a facist.That's nice except that this is a privately owned website which only allows you to express your opinions through it, and bans what it considers to be offensive behaviour.

The reason why there can be no gay marriage (besides the Bible) is that families are the building blocks of any viable society. Promoting same-sex unions as somehow equivalent to marriage would deteriorate family and, ultimately, society as a whole.

This isn't a very original stance; I'm sure this has been argued here before (hasn't every point of view on this been argued to death anyway?), but hear me out.

Before you mock my lacking knowledge, let me inform you that I do realize that the concept of family varies wildly from place and time. In some places women are sequestered in the menstrual hut every month, in some places each gender lives in its half of the village, in some places you have polygamy, in others the familial bond is very tenuous, in some very primitive societies, the men played pool and drank whiskey in one room while the women gossiped over port in the other. But, and this is an anthropological fact, every society, whether nomadic or sedentary, whether primitive or advanced, has relied on some form of the family unit as its primordial building block.
As most of the post wasn't to me, I won't argue against the whole thing. I will make a couple of arguements against this part:

You have said that the purpose of marriage is to start a family. <shrug.> Fine. What of gays who wish to get married and start a family? 27% of all gay couples have children. How is this different than your idea of what a family is?

The second point is that having children/starting a family is not, nor has it ever been (to my knowledge), a legal requirement for marriage. If it were, senior citizens couldn't marry, or sterile people. To assert that marriage is about family ignores these marriages.

Like you do right?Well, yes, the 27% of gay couples having children was a fact, at least according to my source.

You have said that the purpose of marriage is to start a family. <shrug.> Fine. What of gays who wish to get married and start a family? 27% of all gay couples have children. How is this different than your idea of what a family is?

The second point is that having children/starting a family is not, nor has it ever been (to my knowledge), a legal requirement for marriage. If it were, senior citizens couldn't marry, or sterile people. To assert that marriage is about family ignores these marriages.A family can be two people. It can be a single mom and a kid. It can be a sterile couple. It can't be a gay couple. Why? Complementarity. Fundamentally different people whose differences complement themselves and who become one in a union, that exceeds the sum of its parts. A partnership of people of the same sex, while it may be the way they choose to lead their life, only equals the sum of its parts, and does not constitutute a family. Why? Beats me. But that's the way it is. That's how human nature works. Take it as an axiom, if you like.

And as far as that 27% figure goes, I have serious doubts regarding its validity. First of all, "of gay couples." Where? Worldwide? The U.S.? San Francisco? And how do they define a couple? Who's been together more than a month? Six months? A year? Who live together? Who've lived together for more than a year? Who've lived together for more than a year and pay a lot of taxes (so that increases their likelihood of qualifying for adoption)? I'm not questioning you as much as your source. Statistics are easily tweaked to fit an agenda.

And 62% of them are just made up on the spot. ;)

A family can be two people. It can be a single mom and a kid. It can be a sterile couple. It can't be a gay couple. Why? Complementarity. Fundamentally different people whose differences complement themselves and who become one in a union, that exceeds the sum of its parts. A partnership of people of the same sex, while it may be the way they choose to lead their life, only equals the sum of its parts, and does not constitutute a family. Why? Beats me. But that's the way it is. That's how human nature works. Take it as an axiom, if you like.

And as far as that 27% figure goes, I have serious doubts regarding its validity. First of all, "of gay couples." Where? Worldwide? The U.S.? San Francisco? And how do they define a couple? Who's been together more than a month? Six months? A year? Who live together? Who've lived together for more than a year? Who've lived together for more than a year and pay a lot of taxes (so that increases their likelihood of qualifying for adoption)? I'm not questioning you as much as your source. Statistics are easily tweaked to fit an agenda.

And 62% of them are just made up on the spot. ;)I wouldn't write off gay couples as similar, there are a variety of gay couples that would fit the "complementarity" requirement. These couples are usually called "butch/femme" couples.

As far as the statistic goes, I will look up the source more thoroughly and get back to you.

A family can be two people. It can be a single mom and a kid. It can be a sterile couple. It can't be a gay couple. Why? Complementarity. Fundamentally different people whose differences complement themselves and who become one in a union, that exceeds the sum of its parts. A partnership of people of the same sex, while it may be the way they choose to lead their life, only equals the sum of its parts, and does not constitutute a family. Why? Beats me. But that's the way it is. That's how human nature works. Take it as an axiom, if you like.

And as far as that 27% figure goes, I have serious doubts regarding its validity. First of all, "of gay couples." Where? Worldwide? The U.S.? San Francisco? And how do they define a couple? Who's been together more than a month? Six months? A year? Who live together? Who've lived together for more than a year? Who've lived together for more than a year and pay a lot of taxes (so that increases their likelihood of qualifying for adoption)? I'm not questioning you as much as your source. Statistics are easily tweaked to fit an agenda.

And 62% of them are just made up on the spot. ;)

If you can't say why, that makes it your opinion, not a fact. Two men or two women can complement each other very well. Gender does not define your identity. As for a source, I found this:

http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html

As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or lesbian parent. (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families.)

I don't know if that's 27%, but it sure is a whole lot, isn't it?

That's nice except that this is a privately owned website which only allows you to express your opinions through it, and bans what it considers to be offensive behaviour.

Yeah well, its not like I have to listen to you is it? In other words, let the people running this site lay down the law, and you just shut up.

Well, yes, the 27% of gay couples having children was a fact, at least according to my source.

And your source is most probably likely to be some gay pride organisation, oh yeah, like Im going to take that seriously.

Please do me a favour, and go shoot yourself, seriously your an odious person, you will probably make alot of other people who have to put up with you, happy as well.
Do it.
Seriously.
For best results use a double barrelled shotgun on narrow choke, place in mouth pointed at 60 dg angle, pull both triggers simutaneusly.
Mutated Sea Bass, you are Officially Warned for flamebaiting /flaming / whatever you want to call this kind of bullshit. This goes waaaay beyond civil discussion on the forums. Do it again, and you're history. Clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

If you can't say why, that makes it your opinion, not a fact.If I notice that the earth is round, but can't say why it is round, that doesn't make the earth's rotundity an opinion.Two men or two women can complement each other very well. Gender does not define your identity. As for a source, I found this:

http://www.colage.org/research/facts.htmlThis is a page on the mental health of kids with gay parents, something I haven't said anything about. "Mental health" is such an undefinable concept that you'll get wildly differning answers on whoever you ask to measure it, so I don't really have an opinion on the issue.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "gender doesn't define your identity." If you're saying that there should/can be no differences between men and women other than biology, that is demonstrably false. This 60's era ideology has been shown by the medical community to be as silly as the Victorian ideology on gender roles. The truth is somewhere inbetween the two extremes, as is so often the case. Even though they don't mean that all women should stay at home and that all men should be Clark Gable, there are fundamental differences between the sexes.

Anyway, 6 to 14 million? That is high. That's also very inaccurate. How did they gather such a wide range? Hmmm. (I'm not trying to invalidate the statistic just to invalidate it, it's just that how statistics are made are a hobby of mine and I know to what extremes they can be tweaked to show anything and its opposite.)

No, the same stuff did not happen. First off, prohibiting interracial marriage was in violation of the law, because a marriage was between a man and a woman, and in the law, it never differentiated between different races. Also, being black is not an option, it's a genetic trait. You're born that way. For these reasons homosexuality and race cannot be compared, at all. One is a choice, and the other is constant, and Michael Jackson doesn't count.

I have only 1 thing to say...

WHAT THE LAW DEFINES MARRIAGE AS DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER...

In fact, the ability of codified law to even DEFINE marriage as that, is what is in fact on trial here. That definition is on trial against United States Common Law principles...

The issue: Can the you deny or disparage one couples legal rights in regards to contractural familial unions (and all the benefits therein) that you would grant to another couple.

If I notice that the earth is round, but can't say why it is round, that doesn't make the earth's rotundity an opinion.This is a page on the mental health of kids with gay parents, something I haven't said anything about. "Mental health" is such an undefinable concept that you'll get wildly differning answers on whoever you ask to measure it, so I don't really have an opinion on the issue.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "gender doesn't define your identity." If you're saying that there should/can be no differences between men and women other than biology, that is demonstrably false. This 60's era ideology has been shown by the medical community to be as silly as the Victorian ideology on gender roles. The truth is somewhere inbetween the two extremes, as is so often the case. Even though they don't mean that all women should stay at home and that all men should be Clark Gable, there are fundamental differences between the sexes.

You missed the point(s) entirely. You wanted to know how many gay people had children, and I posted a site that contained such information. I even quoted the relevent part in my post. How could you miss that?

A physicist could tell you why the world is round. No one can say why two men or two women can't create a functional family. Therein lies the difference.

And lastly, I never said that there are no differences between men and women. Of course there are. I'm just saying that one's gender does not define 100% of one's personality. There are effeminate men and macho women. Thus, there's no reason that two of the same gender can't compliment each other.

Mutated Sea Bass, you are Officially Warned for flamebaiting /flaming / whatever you want to call this kind of bullshit. This goes waaaay beyond civil discussion on the forums. Do it again, and you're history. Clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Sorry, he/she was just such an asshole, I couldnt help it.

Well, I'm a big raving homosexual, and I'm going to fluffle all you plebians. That's my right.

Well, I'm a big raving homosexual, and I'm going to fluffle all you plebians. That's my right.
Go for it.

You missed the point(s) entirely. You wanted to know how many gay people had children, and I posted a site that contained such information. I even quoted the relevent part in my post. How could you miss that?Yeah, I'm sorry, I noticed that later on and edited my post.A physicist could tell you why the world is round. No one can say why two men or two women can't create a functional family. Therein lies the difference.The greek were the first to notice that the earth was round, and the theory of accretion which explains why the earth is round is from the 20th century (or maybe 19th). Similarily, physicists don't know what the hell is this "dark energy" which is making the universe expand so fast. It doesn't mean that they think dark energy is some guy's opinion.And lastly, I never said that there are no differences between men and women. Of course there are. I'm just saying that one's gender does not define 100% of one's personality. There are effeminate men and macho women. Thus, there's no reason that two of the same gender can't compliment each other.The difference between the sexes is much more fundamental than being effeminate or macho, in fact it's almost metaphysical. I'm not talking about differences in character. I'm talking about something which, while it certainly doesn't define your entire being, is more profound than whether you're a butch or a femme.

And lastly, I'd like to say that I'm happy to be able to have a rational and friendly discussion on this topic, which is often sensitive, making the discussion too emotionally-charged and making it degenerate quickly.

The only right I know of that gays have yet to acquire in the US is the right to serve in the military. They should be given this right. Other than that, they already have all of the rights everyone else has, the only thing left to do is to penalise those people who discriminate against them.


Unfortunately, gays in the US military can't be open about their lifestyle. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still enforced. We also don't have the right to marry in this country, as well as in many other places in the world. Hence we don't have all the rights that everyone else has. Try again.

[I]Unfortunately, gays in the US military can't be open about their lifestyle. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still enforced. We also don't have the right to marry in this country, as well as in many other places in the world. Hence we don't have all the rights that everyone else has. Try again.

It should go further if anything, any one caught in the act of homsexuality in the armed services should be instantly discharged, and I mean instantly. No pay, possessions, just out with the clothes you have on, and any Id you may need.

That's nice, except that marriage isn't a contract, it's an institution. Marriage is becoming more and more like a contractural union (a shift I disagree with), but it's still very much an institution. Besides, the 9th Amendment is codified law. It's part of a code called "the Constitution of the United States of America."

Institution / Contract... It's the same thing...

9th Amendment is condifcation eluding to uncodified principles of law (common law)...

Yeah, I'm sorry, I noticed that later on and edited my post.

Fair enough.


The greek were the first to notice that the earth was round, and the theory of accretion which explains why the earth is round is from the 20th century (or maybe 19th). Similarily, physicists don't know what the hell is this "dark energy" which is making the universe expand so fast. It doesn't mean that they think dark energy is some guy's opinion.

No, it's a theory (or several). If something can not be proven, it is a theory or an opinion. The difference is that a theory can someday be proven or disproven. Opinions, however, are subjective. I believe that the composition of a family falls into that category. Indeed, the existence of gay relationships and polygamy (in some cultures) shows that there is no single one definition of family. Deciding what is and isn't a family is subjective and therefore opinion.


The difference between the sexes is much more fundamental than being effeminate or macho, in fact it's almost metaphysical. I'm not talking about differences in character. I'm talking about something which, while it certainly doesn't define your entire being, is more profound than whether you're a butch or a femme.

Indeed, but I maintain that those differences can be present within the same gender as well.


And lastly, I'd like to say that I'm happy to be able to have a rational and friendly discussion on this topic, which is often sensitive, making the discussion too emotionally-charged and making it degenerate quickly.

My pleasure. :)

Sorry, he/she was just such an asshole, I couldnt help it.
Man, you can't even apologize without flaming. Take a day off from the forums to cool down. Here, I'll help.

Forumbanned, 24 hours.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

No, it's a theory (or several). If something can not be proven, it is a theory or an opinion. The difference is that a theory can someday be proven or disproven. Opinions, however, are subjective. I believe that the composition of a family falls into that category. Indeed, the existence of gay relationships and polygamy (in some cultures) shows that there is no single one definition of family. Deciding what is and isn't a family is subjective and therefore opinion. I did mention polygamy earlier. And even though gay relationships have pretty much always existed, it's only now that they're trying to set themselves up as an alternative to family, which I don't think they can be.

Now, the fact/theory/opinion distinction you're making is right, and also an interesting one.

I still think that the definitions of human nature and family that I've made earlier in this thread are very much factual.

But the fact is (no pun intended), sometimes it's damn hard to draw the line between a fact and an opinion, at least in social sciences, where experiments aren't nearly as rational and reproductible as they are in a physics lab.

And even if that's only my opinion, is that so bad that I have an opinion? This is a web forum, isn't it, and we're here to exchange views, aren't we? I like to think my views are based on facts and on reason. We're trying to convince each other with facts of something that, ultimately, is only decided by our own moral views. I think it's much more productive, instead of confronting our views, to simply try to understand one another's.

Indeed, but I maintain that those differences can be present within the same gender as well.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree then. :)

Although I have to insist that I think that the difference between sexes is so qualitative and fundamental, that most other differences which make characters seem complementary are more superficial.

Institution / Contract... It's the same thing...

9th Amendment is condifcation eluding to uncodified principles of law (common law)...Condification? Is that something Condoleeza Rice did? ;)

An institution and a contract are not the same thing. An institution has parameters bound by law, while contracts are only determined by the sovereign will of the parties.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the 9th Amendment "eludes to uncodified principles of [common] law." All that it says is that the list of the rights set out in the amendments to the Constitution is not limitative, and that other rights may be later recognized by the judiciary. If you think that the right to gay marriage is one of these other rights, well, I guess we're just going to have to wait till the Supreme Court agrees with you. :)

*snip*

Alrighty. I'm a biomedical researcher myself, so I generally like facts to be neatly categorized, something that isn't possible in social sciences, mainly because the "facts" change as time passes.

Having opinions is all well and good, but presenting opinions as if they were facts makes for problematic situations. Instead of "that's the way it is", it would be better to say "that's the way I see it". Attempting to make one's views into an absolute, especially in such a controversial and heated subject, often leads to an inflamed argument.

But, as you say, agree to disagree. I think it's rather rare for anyone to actually change their views on a web forum, but debating is just too fun. :)

Condification? Is that something Condoleeza Rice did? ;)

An institution and a contract are not the same thing. An institution has parameters bound by law, while contracts are only determined by the sovereign will of the parties.

Then you recognize Marriage as a contract... Since historically it has been that.... It wasn't untill Emporer Augustus and the invention of the civil law, that marriage entered any form of codified status in civil law. Prior to that it was an institution that was private and familial...


I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the 9th Amendment "eludes to uncodified principles of [common] law." All that it says is that the list of the rights set out in the amendments to the Constitution is not limitative, and that other rights may be later recognized by the judiciary. If you think that the right to gay marriage is one of these other rights, well, I guess we're just going to have to wait till the Supreme Court agrees with you. :)

The United States of America is a Common Law based system. Not Civil Law... Our "Civil Law" is the process by which the "Common Law" is codified.

And no, it does not state "other rights may be recognized"....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It is understood these rights of "retention".... That is, all rights are specifically retained by the people in the Constitution... That the enumeration in the Constitution is incomplete... And these rights exist amongst the people in originality. Even if the codified law may not see them as such yet... Segregation and Slavery were a denial of rights to which lay in retention, and were later realized to be a violation of the principles (common law) of the nation... Even if code may have said otherwise. The rights of women regarding the vote, and the like, were also a denial of these rights in code, which went against the fundamental common law principles (uncodified law) of the nation. And seem to think that the United States as a Civil Law state.... If you think that, you are patently wrong, as any first year law student can tell you. Their does not need to be codified law, for their to be a legal violation... Codified Law is that which is written... It is found in the State and Federal Legal Code, and the US Constitution... Common Law is both written and unwritten, and can be found written in the codfied law and rulings of the courts, and unwritten in the principles by which those rullings are made. "Recognition of rights" in Common Law, is where rights are enumerated in the code.... This does not imply they are "Granted" at a point... It is understood by the courts that they exist inherant to the people. And a ruling is made to bring the codified law in compliance with the uncodified principles.

We have a "limited" government system... The system does not "enumerate certain rights to the people, and deny all others"... The system enumerates certain powers to the government, all others understood to lay inherantly with the people... The original purpose of the first 10 Amendments was to make understood that the former cannot be used to undermine the latter.

You simply do not understand the United States as an entity, and its foundation..... I must assume you failed history and government.

It should go further if anything, any one caught in the act of homsexuality in the armed services should be instantly discharged, and I mean instantly. No pay, possessions, just out with the clothes you have on, and any Id you may need.

I can just imagine a regiment of tough rambo-marines bursting out in crying because one of them turns out to be a homosexual.
Yep, we sure can depend on our military. :rolleyes:

Then you recognize Marriage as a contract... Since historically it has been that.... It wasn't untill Emporer Augustus and the invention of the civil law, that marriage entered any form of codified status in civil law. Prior to that it was an institution that was private and familial...Before it was codified, marriage was still a social institution. The notion of an institution is not indigenous to civil law systems. As I have said earlier, the notion is valid for all modern countries. Even if marriages were private, they were still very much a social institution with rules that were non-negotiable, even if they were unwritten.

Hell, even in Jewish law, which explicitly defines marriage as a contract, it's actually more institutionalized than in most systems, because of the very important (and beautiful) role families have in Jewish communities as a vector of joyous praise and obedience to the law. The United States of America is a Common Law based system. Not Civil Law... Our "Civil Law" is the process by which the "Common Law" is codified.

(snip)

You simply do not understand the United States as an entity, and its foundation..... I must assume you failed history and government.Yeah, assume away.

You're right. I misinterpreted the 9th Amendment, and that's very interesting.

(Although I'm afraid you wasted your time explaining the difference between common law and civil law, since I already know about that.)

Anyway, if I understand correctly, you're saying that the people have retained the right to marry with people of their gender up to this point. This is nice, but, marriage is an institution. It's an institution of civil law, but it's also and most of all an institution of common law. Why is it that in those states where the law doesn't specify anything about gender, same sex marriages are still banned? Because in common law, which, as you've said so yourself, supercedes civil or penal law, marriage is an institution which requires parties of opposite gender.

Of course, if the courts "recognized" that the people have retained the right to marry with whomever they want, then yes, marriage would become a contract, and that would be sad because family would become a soft, disposable carry-all of an arrangement instead of the solid institution which is required for a healthy society. But, so far, it is not a contract. (Nor should it be, for the reasons stated above. But that's just my opinion.)