I like GWB but...

back in the '70's there was a study in the NEJM involving slums and IQ. They were looking for a correlation between head trama and the low IQ's of slum denizens. There numbers came up with a P=.9+

 

Who's tossing around rhetoric and being intolerant now?
I have phrased my argument, you don't get to rephrase it for me.
Argue your side, not mine.
Me and MY SORT? That sounds very bigoted to me.

 

Because with laws like DOMA and with members of congress and the president proposing the ammendment, the government is officially telling them that their behavior is undesirable. They are being told that whatever it is that makes them desire another person and want to commit themselves to that person is wrong, harmful and should be discouraged. A majority of Americans may say that is just the way it is and they need to accept it but how can a gay person fully pursue happiness in such a culture? Homosexuals have only recently been assured that they will not be arrested for private sexual activity but they are still discouraged from pretending that they are as worthy of the institution of marriage and forming families as people with sexual desires for the opposite sex.

You have argued long and patiently on this issue and I respect your reasonable conviction but to me, the matter is all about happiness. There is a slight chance an ammendment may pass and for awhile, some people may feel that the decline of society was slowed but I'm confident that if so, it will be repealed and this debate will be forgotten like the debate over interracial marriage has largely been forgotten. I'm know you think that my position on this is as irrational and misguided as I think yours is. I'm sure neither one of us will change our minds.
One thing that makes me optimistic about the future is that acceptance of homosexuality is higher among young people.

 

Having sex when you know in advance you wont be physically aroused is silly (if not impossible).

But not being sexually attracted to someone is entirely different from finding them unnatural and disasteful, or fearing and hating them.

 

Personally, I don't see much chance for an amendment nor think it is necessarily warranted. The decision should rest with each state and the people who live there.

Acceptance of anything and everything under the guise of being forward-thinking and tolerant is not necessarily the guarantee of a better society you think it is.
Unfortunately, historical perspective comes only with age and experience. A lot of the things I thought were good and believed were right when I was young have turned out otherwise.
Of course, when I was young, I had no respect for the wisdom that comes with age either, so it's hard to denigrate those who are now in the same position and frame of mind I was in 30 years ago.

Young people these days have a surface sophistication far beyond their years, but are actually more immature and less able to cope with adversity compared to kids of my age group. It wouldn't surprize me to hear the same thing from my grandfather, were he still alive. It's not hard to surmise that the average 10 year old from the depression era probably had better survival skills than the average 18 or 20 year old of today.
Again, this is only something you can see in hindsight.

There is more to this country than the pursuit of personal happiness, but a whole generation has been raised who feel that the needs and desires of the individual supercede the needs of the society they live in. Only time will tell what that will mean to the survival of this country, and I have to confess it doesn't help me to sleep better at night.

It seems like the only thing people feel is worthwhile fighting for anymore is that they be allowed to do what they feel. That's the legacy of my generation. We thought we had all the answers, and some of us still think that.

I disagree, but only time will tell. For my children's sake, I hope I'm wrong.

 

My point was that he would find the act of having sex with another man distasteful. Finding someones actions distasteful or unnatural does not mean you fear or hate them. Those are the buzzwords of the gay political machine.

The fact is, if you are a heterosexual man who would be ashamed or embarassed to admit that you had sex with another man, or even thought about it, then you think there is something wrong with having sex with another man. If you didn't, you would feel no sense of shame or revulsion. Therefore you think there is something wrong with two men having sex. It's just simple logic.

To say you don't prefer it or you are not attracted to men just avoids the question. It's tough to challenge what you claim to believe.

 

IYC,

While I am complimented by your "just curious" offer, I'm not gay enough to drive to New Hampshire to "experiment" with you. But we might be able to meet in Syracuse. . .

Although gay sex may not be "natural" to me personally, it certainly comes very naturally to many people. Being gay is as much a part of their being as "just curious" (or whatever ) is for you. Ask your gay friends if you have any doubt. Its not a choice. Its just the way you are.

I'm not really sure why this issue matters to anyone who isn't gay. I wonder what the haters are threatened by?

Oh well. Back to Spartacus .

 

I should know better than to expect a straight answer from a lawyer.
Although, actually, that was a straight answer, wasn't it?


I have to point out, though, that there is no scientific evidence to support the "born gay" theory, far more likely it is learned or influenced behavour.
There is also no reason to suggest that people who don't support gays and their life-style hate or fear them.

It would be more correct to say that they feel they don't set a good example. Use strippers as a comparison.
I don't hate or fear them but I don't think their actions should be presented to my daughter societally as merely a "life-style choice" of equal merit to becoming a doctor or engineer.

 

May take a few years before it's accepted in all states. The religious right will jump up and down. But same sex marriage is a done deal. Get used to it.

 

If "marriage," in the legal sense, is all about raising kids in a two-parent environment, please show me the sections of US or state codes where your marriage license is invalidated after a certain period if no children are produced.

My ex-wife and I had no children. Yet, our marriage was completely legal and I was afforded the same benefits of being legally married as those folks who've popped out a few babies. I also had to go through the same legal divorce proceedings as married folks with children. I paid the same taxes as all other married folks (dependent children being a separate section of the tax code).

Also, you keep pointing out stuff about "anarchy" and all that when confronted with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Sorry, but those two Amendments have a pretty clear meaning. The ninth says that rights don't need to specifically be enumerated in the Constitution to exist. The 10th also clearly states that powers not explicitly given to the state are reserved for the people. No where in that document does it state that the people have given the state the power to be the arbiter of who you take as a spouse. The majority opinion of the populace is also equally meaningless in that regard, as this is a representative republic, not a democracy subject to mob rule. The function of government is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is one of those cases. The First Amendment protects your rights to say things that the majority of Americans might find offensive. That's how rights are supposed to work. Hell, the state doesn't even require a blood test any longer, meaning you can get married when you're biologically incompatible and highly unlikely to be able to have children in the first place. How is that legal, if marriage is all about state-approved breeding? Why are sterile people allowed to wed? Why are couples with children allowed to divorce?

As for your idea about gayness being learned, I'll pass that along to my gay friend. Considering he grew up in an area with no exposure whatsoever to the homosexual lifestyle, yet he still turned out gay. Must have been a subliminal message tape his mother played for him as a child or something.

 

I disagree with your definition. From what I understand, marriage has historically been an institution to promote wealth and protect personal property. Certainly, a structured and secure environment in which to raise children is part of the wealth/property protection concept, but marriage is more than just that. Also, it has only been within recent history that we have had the luxury of marrying on the basis of love.

If all is well and good in a marriage, the marriage contract is almost irrelevant per se. It is when the contract is broken and the property/wealth is to be divided that the marriage contract is most useful. Because the government provides a judicial system for the resolution of contract disputes, it makes sense for them to be in the marriage business as marriage is an instant contract backed by a lot of precedent.

IMHO, I believe that any two people of legal age should be allowed to enter into the legal marriage contract regardless of sex.

Marriage also has its religous/spiritual aspects but these should be matters of religions, not government.

 

Actually, I said learned or influenced. If you would like to show me any scientifically produced proof to the contrary, I'll be glad to reconsider. There is absolutely NO proof that attraction to your own sex is an in-born or genetic trait. Make your argument with facts, sarcasm isn't proof.

 

Nope, only the laws which go over and above the state's authority. State definitions of who you can marry fall into that category.

Mr. Gabis also makes some excellent points as to the basis for marriage. Points that don't seem to jive with your notion of it's existence simply to foster child rearing.

 

None of what you have said here backs the insistence on utilizing civil unions rather than marriage for non-heterosexual couples, quite the opposite actually. As far as marriage as a legal contract, it is a very loose legal contract subject to extreme interpretation.
If the intent is only to delineate property rights, far better legal instruments may be drawn up than a marriage contract.

As far as your belief that "any two people of legal age should be allowed to enter into the legal marriage contract regardless of sex", evidently the majority of citizens don't agree with you since that change has yet to be legislated. Even Vermont approved civil unions, it did not redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

 

Then again we come back to the fact that a man should be able to legally marry an animal (or his mother or sister, etc). If state laws created by the citizens of that state to define the parameters of marriage have no validity then they cannot limit it in any way. The fact that an animal cannot enter into a contract doesn't hold since the only entity involved who is able to enter into one is sufficient to create the contract. Of couse, a legal contract with no parameters is not a contract.

Are you in fact making the assertion that state governments have no right to prevent you from marrying your mother, sister, or child?
Since Mr Gabis stated "IMHO, I believe that any two people of legal age should be allowed to enter into the legal marriage contract regardless of sex", then I pose the same question to him.
Are you advocating that brothers and sisters should be able to marry, and that parents should be able to marry their own children?

 

As an atheist, I agree with you about those damned religious people. Obviously they are not real citizens and their opinions should be disregarded as they are totally invalid due to their insistence on believing in something or having values.

Anyone who discriminates between things according to what they feel is acceptable or preferable must be a fool. Intelligent people have no values or preferences at all.
All food is the same, all motorcycles are the same, all jobs are the same, all women are the same.
Everything is acceptable and nothing is better or worse than anything else. That's true tolerance in it's purest form.

Religous people probably should be deported as they obviously have no right to live here or have an opinion.

But wouldn't that be intolerant? Uh oh, Catch 22.

 

Yes, the marriage contract could be considered loose. I see your point as to the extreme interpretation of the contract but I won't concede that without more study. Indeed, there are better legal instruments to delineate property rights; however, it is not general practice to generate a specific contract for each marriage. Those with something to lose may consider it and those with nothing may feel it unnecessary.

It seems we are in agreement that two people, regardless of sex, have the right to enter into a contract that grants rights and responsibilities to each party which pertain to community property, rights to make decisions for the couple in case one is unable, and a redress of grievances in cases (just to name a few things) where the agreed upon contract is violated.

The difference,as I understand it, is that I believe this contract exists as marriage and you feel that a separate contract, a civil union, should be required for people of the same sex.

I don not see the need for two different instruments to achieve the same legal goal.

Your arguments such far are that a union of a man and woman is natural and can produce children where as a union of same-sex couples is unnatural and can't produce children and this difference is why one is a marriage and the other is a civil union.

When considering that hetero couples can be married and not reproduce or that hetero couples can reproduce without being married, it seems to me that the consideration of children is practically irrelevant to the contract being entered. I do understand that children cannot be ignored as they are a responsibility, but that isn't germaine to the existence of the contract.

I understand the what has and hasn't been legislated and I understand that my fellow citizens may or may not agree with me.

I was merely pointing out that I disagree with your definition of marriage and adding my opinion.

I think civil union and marriage are the same thing and having both is redundant.

 

As far as the issue goes, when and if the people legislate that marriage is no longer restricted to a man and a woman, I am willing to accept that and live with it.

As far as I am concerned, that ability to control destiny through the legislative representative process is what this country is all about and what makes it great, not the right of individuals to do anything they desire. The process requires reasonable compromise to promote coexistence and a stable society.

 

Note that I said the religious right. This is a well established, organized, and powerful political entity that has as much use for the separation of church and state as your average Mullah. I am opposed to almost every social issue they support. So take your sarcasm an stuff it

 

Still waiting.