Judges Say Discrimination Against Gays, Lesbians Is Ok
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco recently ruled 2-1 that gays and lesbians do not have a constitutional right to marry.
Link to news article.
Link to the ruling. (Or in pdf.)
The majority opinion can be summarized by these two principles:
1) "Gays and Lesbians have always been discriminated against, so it's ok to uphold the tradition."
2) "In 1948, the courts struck down the ban on interracial marriage but discrimination against gays and lesbians isn't as bad as discrimination against race."
When someone drops the ball flagrantly as this, they really should be called out by name: Justice William McGuiness and Justice Joanne Parrilli are responsible for this ruling.
The central issue is "who gets to define marriage in our democratic society,'' Presiding Justice William McGuiness said in the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Joanne Parrilli. "We believe this power rests in the people and their elected representatives.''
And yet, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have legalized gay marriage. His reasoning was that voters in a 2000 ballot initiative already demonstrated that they are against gay marriage, and that a court needs to rule on the matter. So...the courty says the legislature should decide this. The legislature says the courts should decide? Who should actually decide?
Correct answer: the courts. The "tyranny of the majority" is the concept that the majority may very well believe it's ok to mistreat a minority. If African Americans are a minority, for example, a majority vote might decide that it's ok for the minority to be overly taxed, or taken into slavery, or whatever else. To protect against the tyranny of the majority, we have civil rights that apply to all people, so that even a voting majority cannot decide on a whim to be opressive. This is exactly one of those times. It's the court's job to guard against the tyranny of the majority and protect the rights of people who are discriminated against based on arbitrary factors such as race or sexual orientation.
Justice William McGuiness and Justice Joanne Parrilli, you have both failed us.
At least the dissenting Justice J. Anthony Kline did not stand with McGuiness and Parrilli. He said the majority's conclusion that laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians are more tolerable than racist laws "requires us to deny as judges what we know as people.''
We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about this. I already know what the history books will say, and it's embarassing to live in times like these.
--Sirlin
October 7th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Wow, well said Sirlin!
October 7th, 2006 at 4:58 am
That’s a bit sad, how the majoraty of people are like that.
Power to the people! As long as they’re not all messed up somehow.
October 7th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I wouldn’t be too concerned about that..
afaik Californian courts are the courts that get overruled the most by the US Supreme Court.
October 8th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Cali courts tend to get overruled because they’ve had a history of liberal decisions. This one actually goes the other way.
On the other hand, there’s still the California Supreme Court. Chances are they’ll overturn this. The US Supreme Court on the other hand…
October 8th, 2006 at 8:14 am
On the legislature / courts thing: The court opinion was obviously hinting to the legislature “please change this law so we don’t have to rule this way anymore”. The legislature does have the ultimate power to legalize gay marriage, but they don’t have enough support to prevent the executive branch (Schwarzenegger) from vetoing it.
On other rationale: To rule other than the way they did, the court would have had to rule that laws affecting homosexuals should be overturned simply because they single out homosexuals (like race laws), which runs counter to Supreme Court precedent, or that the civil right to marry is NOT limited to a man and a woman, which the statute states pretty clearly. The court really doesn’t have the option to invoke the civil rights defense until something else changes.
October 8th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
now i confirmed it, Sirlin is gay
October 8th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
I’d have to dig for it, but I’m going to start by paraphrasing some blog entry I read that expresses my conservative sentiment about this issue:
I’m a little sick and tired of you people assuming that a millenia-enduring human institution can be messed around with so frivilously, like nothing bad might ever happen. Please show a little humility in your crusade. When you come across an “arbitrary” wall that you don’t immediately recognize the purpose of, resist the temptation to simply tear it down just because you don’t know why it was put up in the first place. The wall wasn’t likely put up by some accident; there must have been some reason, and the people who don’t understand the reason are the last people that should tear it down.
This game has been around longer than chess, longer than go. You act like you not only understand the historical past of marriage, but can also predict its future: “I already know what the history books will say”. Yeuh.
On the “discrimination continues” claim, no one is prevented from getting married, as the law applies equally to everyone; the restrictions are that you can’t get married to someone of the same sex, as the state does not have the interest in those unions that it does have with opposite-sex unions (for purposes of potential offspring that will require healthy upbringing- this potential does not apply to same-sex couples, obviously). It’s also illegal to marry one’s sibling, to marry more than one spouse at a time, or to marry a child. (Even the gay community at large has ostracized and outright discriminated against NAMBLA for years now.)
Interracial marriage seems to be restricted to times of race segregation. Instead of likening this to a righteous civil rights cause from the 60s, I think it sensible to at least consider other factors as well such as the increased divorce rates since around the same time. Divorce was much harder to obtain before then- again, another wall. I’ll bet there were people back then, saying, “I can already predict the future, why would anyone want to get divorced, beyond a mere inconsequential amount of folks? How would marriage possibly be affected in a negative way from that? I don’t see that in _my_ crystal ball.”
October 8th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Bah, one of the few soapboxes on the internet not used for politics, is now being used for politics. I guess I’ll keep reading, but I really don’t want to see articles like this again. Video games should be an escape from the hassles of life.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Moberho: You saw the title of the thread, clicked on it, and chose to read it. You had plenty of warning before making your choice–it’s not like Sirlin hijacked an existing, non-political thread.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:55 am
“I’m a little sick and tired of you people assuming that a millenia-enduring human institution can be messed around with so frivilously, like nothing bad might ever happen. Please show a little humility in your crusade. When you come across an “arbitrary” wall that you don’t immediately recognize the purpose of, resist the temptation to simply tear it down just because you don’t know why it was put up in the first place. The wall wasn’t likely put up by some accident; there must have been some reason, and the people who don’t understand the reason are the last people that should tear it down.”
Yes, because marriage has never, ever changed in its millenia-long existence. Women are still the property of the men they marry. Blacks can still not marry whites. Most marriages are still entered into out of political or property reasons than out of love. The woman’s parents still have to pay a dowry. And these changes have never, ever been for the better.
“On the “discrimination continues” claim, no one is prevented from getting married, as the law applies equally to everyone; the restrictions are that you can’t get married to someone of the same sex,”
The court didn’t buy it back with Loving v. Virginia (the case declaring interracial marriage legal), and there’s no reason why they’d buy it now. A similar argument does apply to interracial marriage: neither black nor white is being treated unfairly because, after all, the restrictions are still applied the same way. Nevertheless, the court overturned anti miscenigeation laws.
“as the state does not have the interest in those unions that it does have with opposite-sex unions (for purposes of potential offspring that will require healthy upbringing- this potential does not apply to same-sex couples, obviously).”
If the state’s interest in the couple begins at child-bearing and rearing, then a.) heterosexual couples without children should be denied marriage liscences, as should sterile heterosexuals, as sholuld elderly heterosexuals, and b.) homosexuals that adopt or have kids throlugh surrogates should be allowed marriage.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
————————
Comment #8, Moberho:
“Bah, one of the few soapboxes on the internet not used for politics, is now being used for politics. I guess I’ll keep reading, but I really don’t want to see articles like this again. Video games should be an escape from the hassles of life.”“
————————
And that’s exactly the sort of attitude (the one bolded in the quote above, assuming that HTML works in WordPress comments) that is hindering the progress of many industries, including the game industry. The truth is that matters such as these are very relevant to the games industry, not to mention our species as a whole (yes, I’m being serious). Until enough people come to terms with this and actually start taking action that is congruent with their understanding of such matters without letting ‘fear’ get in the way, any development and progress will be a extremely limited.
And for those who may not be following me here, I’m not going to spell out exactly what the matter at hand is. If you are unable to venture past your personal opinions and preferences and figure that out for yourself, you aren’t ready for such information, and no matter how much effort I put into trying to make you come to an understanding, until you are ready, you will only see and be aware of what you want to see.
Additionally, despite what many may think, there actually is a business side to games/game development, and when you are in the games industry (as Sirlin is), it’s very reasonable to bring up such topics on a game/game design/development-related website/blog. There is no “escap[ing]” from the “hassles of life”. You still have responsibility, whether you deny that responsibility or not, and as much as you try to compartmentalise the different areas of your life so that while you are ‘playing a game’ you are “free” from the “hassles of life”, you are only ignoring the fact that the many areas of your life are all interconnected and have great influence on one another.
There is no divide; there is no way to separate them. For example, if you neglect your health for long enough, what will happen to the other areas of your life? Will other areas such as your work/business, recreation/fun, and any other area you want to mention suffer as a result? Of course they will. And while many people like to parade around as if this is not the case, these people are consciously (or unconsciously) living in denial, unnecessarily limiting themselves.
Politics and personal opinion aside, the only way we will get past issues such as these is giving them the attention they deserve, and facing up to the reality that we are responsible for whether we like it or not. To a great many people this may not be the comfortable option and they would rather continue to turn a blind eye and ignore such maters, but unfortunately, the old adage “no pain no gain” rings very true here.
So why is Sirlin making blog posts about such topics? I may be wrong, but I believe he is one of the rarer individuals among us who actually has a deeper understanding of such matters, and realises how important and relevant they really are to all of us.
Regards,
Griffith
October 9th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Always for the better, Tohoya? I dug up that article- it describes several other past examples in history where walls got torn down and their crystal balls weren’t exactly complaining about it at the time either:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
I don’t quite see the similar argument applying to interracial marriage- that restriction had to do with race and keeping couples segregated on the basis of race, not gender. I’m not sure what you mean by the courts buying it back. I can see the 14th Amendment supporting that decision, but not supporting same sex marriage.
A.) would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy for infertile heterosexual couples. Elderly women become infertile in much more obvious ways than older men do, in or out of wedlock. The state does not _require_ married people to have kids; the state just wants to be able to track _potential_ kids resulting from the kind of unions that produce kids back to their fathers, because if he doesn’t raise the kid, the state is stuck to deal with the after-effects.
B.) When the state can’t find a man-and-woman parental home for kids, they are often left with no choice and homosexuals have been acknowledged as parents. They are not considered ideal parents, however, since basically children raised under their care are effectively denied mothers (under gays) or denied fathers (under lesbians). In any case, while this parenting is still valued by the state, it doesn’t sanctify it as marriage.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Wow. Just wow. Let’s cut through the fancy talk. David Boudreau is either religious or just plain wants to discriminate against gays and lesbians based on an immutable characteristic, not unlike eye color or skin color. Why do we need to hear from him any further?
Gay parents are not “a last resort,” and gay people deserve more than a “second class marriage” in the from of civil unions. David B’s statements presuppose that gays are “less than.”
I’m optimistic enough to think that in the future, rampant discrimination will do down and recognition of civil rights will go up. We have evolved as a society to the point where we don’t draw and quarter people in the streets anymore (though we still have a death penalty). We don’t consider it ok to keep slaves anymore. We have at least taken great steps in reducing racism. And someday, we won’t consider it ok to discriminate based on other immutable characteristics. To imagine a more bleak future would be too depressing.
This does impact games, btw. Virtual worlds/games are like new nations and they currently treat citizens even worse than our actual nation, when there is a real opportunity to design a society far better than our real one.
Even if games did not exist at all, that would be no excuse to sit idle while other people’s rights are being trampled on. Gay marriage is only one instance of this of course, as warrantless wiretaps and other atrocities are ongoning in America.
–Sirlin
October 10th, 2006 at 1:54 am
@ David Boudreau, comment #7
“I’m a little sick and tired of you people assuming that a millenia-enduring human institution can be messed around with so frivilously, like nothing bad might ever happen. Please show a little humility in your crusade. When you come across an “arbitrary” wall that you don’t immediately recognize the purpose of, resist the temptation to simply tear it down just because you don’t know why it was put up in the first place. The wall wasn’t likely put up by some accident; there must have been some reason, and the people who don’t understand the reason are the last people that should tear it down”
So, rephrased, what your saying is, “Things were the way they were for some reason or another that you clearly will not ever comprehend. Therefore, you should give up and let things continue as they are.” This is a classic conservative stump-speech designed to thwart intelligent debate by interposing old, many-syllabled rhetoric. The whole notion of trying to prove a point by the argument “lets just assume Im right,” is ridiculous and only makes you look childish. If, in the future, you wish to debate this intelectually, I recommend that you come back with an argument, complete with an actual point and several premises that support your conclusion. At least that would give me something to refute other than, “Im right, deal with it”
“On the “discrimination continues” claim, no one is prevented from getting married, as the law applies equally to everyone; the restrictions are that you can’t get married to someone of the same sex”
So your argument is basically that since everyone is equally restricted, everything is fair? That since two straight guys cant marry eachother just the same as two gay guys cant marry eachother, that this is somehow fair? You know, there were some similar laws passed in the south after the Civil War. See, after they lost, they were forced to give African Americans the right to vote. So to get around this, they imposed a whole bunch of laws that denied blacks the right to vote in a roundabout way. They imposed a voting tax that everyone had to pay. Whites could afford it, and thus could still vote, but blacks had only recently liberated from Slavery and had no way to pay it. They imposed a literacy test, which whites could pass but blacks could not, again because they had only recently escaped the cruelty of Slavery. All of these methods are / were still discrimination, just disguised, veiled, and distorted under innumberable loopholes and twisted logic. None of them are fair by any stretch of the imagination.
So now I must ask the question I frequently ask to many conservatives. Why do you care so much about what so many other people are doing? Is your life going to be directly impacted by a gay marriage? Seeing how against it you are, I doubt you plan to participate in one. Then, if it wont affect you personally, why do you care if other people do it? You dont know them. You havent met them. You probably wouldnt like them. But does that really mean that you have to hurt them? Im not gay, tho I have a few gay friends. I dont frankly plan to participate in any gay weddings. But does that make me want to stop them? That doesnt make any sense. No one is forcing you to participate. But let the people that want to do it if they want. No one has any right to deny them that.
I have pondered it for quite a while and come to the conclusion that the only way that anyone could reach such irrational conclusions is if you are very religious and believe your duty is to convert and civilize the world or some other rubbish. Therefore, I will close with a little gem of a quote that I believe destroys the conservative side of this debate in a nice, concise manner:
“I dont have a problem if your God is telling you what to do. Thats fine, good for you. I have a problem if your God is telling you to tell ME what to do”
gg, sir.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Time and again, America has proven its idealogical underpinnings in classical liberalism. While gay marraige probably won’t fully be recognized this generation, twenty years from now it will be taken for granted. That may not be of any comfort to gays now, but I don’t have any doubt that over time in the long-term, America will go with the policy that maximizes civil liberties. It seems almost every argument used against gay marriages was, at one point, used against miscegnation (ethnically mixed marriages.) In fact, it was only a short forty one years ago Vermont judge Leon Bazile stated:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
I think forty one years from now, we will see the anti-gay marriage arguments just as backwards as we see the above. Therefore I don’t see it as ‘embarassing’ to live in these times. Despite regressive decisions by contemporary judges, the real soul of America, which values liberty and equality, has always prevailed in the end.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:32 am
I am embarassed about a great many violations of civil rights in America, and that so many Americans think those violations are ok. “Free speech zones” make the 1st amendment feel weakened. Warrantless wiretaps in the name of national security make the 4th amendment feel weak. And “secret laws” such as those that govern passenger searches at airports make the 5th amendment seem weak. (There’s no due process if you can’t even *know* about a law that you follow.) The president declaring that courts *cannot even rule* on warrantless wiretaps make the checks and balances of our three branches of government seem like lip service.
And yet, James O’s words have brightened my day a little on an issue that just seems darker every day. I hope you are right James.
–Sirlin
October 10th, 2006 at 10:13 am
I’m almost certain James is right about what’s going to happen.
His timeframes may be off, though.
Twenty years won’t be enough time for it to be taken for granted, I don’t think … I’d double his timeframes, myself. But that’s probably too high.
But … yeah, discrimination against gay people is following a common trend.
First, a group is (to the majority) essentially invisible.
Second, it’s visible but “nobody” in the majority actually knows them, so insititutionalized discrimination seems okay - because nobody thinks about it.
Third, it gets to the point where a significant portion of people actually know members of the subgroup, realize that being in that group doesn’t make them less human, and start to question the discrimination… but it continues and with vigorous defense from some.
Fourth, the next generation doesn’t see how you could reasonably discriminate against that group at all, and the barriers start coming down one by one.
Fifth, the discrimination isn’t gone, but nobody ever talks about it except in hushed whispers, because the vast majority of society will come down on them if they do.
Obviously I’m generalizing, but it’s reasonably accurate.
And I’d peg gay people as having reached the third stage of that - and transitioning from third to fourth is almost certain, but I do believe our generation times, at least politically, are increasing with modern health… so it’ll probably take longer than it did in the past.
October 10th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
I wanted to post a link to a srk bg’s thread, but the forum’s down…
Anywho, I seriously almost cried when I read it ’cause this dude got chewed out for being transgendered by another player online.
The anonymity of the internet is interesting and even cool in some ways, but when people speak so strongly I’d really like it if they could say it to my face or a group of people.
(Cooincidentally I made a new gay fighting game friend the night i read that post, which was really refreshing and enlightening ’cause Wyoming doesn’t have much diversity.)
David B…
Polygamy is totally cool in my book. Have you watched Big Love on HBO? (I love it^^) Those people have got it together. Can you provide me a convincing argument that polygamy shouldn’t be practiced as well?
October 10th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Oh, sorry for expressing a view different from yours with all my “fancy talk” and many syllables, I guess that automatically means it’s wrong. Should games be fun? How about, should comments be fun, and agree with everything you think?
Your reactions make me wonder whether you even _care_ to hear the other side of this controversial issue. The article I tried to first paraphrase and then link to expresses the frustration of having to deal with exactly your reaction: “We’ve already made up our minds. Why should we listen anymore?” The article states that a person doesn’t have to be the marginal case to be affected by this or any other issue. (I know it looks long, but actually about 97% of that page is comments.) Oh and for the record, I never mentioned religion or God.
What is marriage, then, specifically to the state, legally? I didn’t say you couldn’t _ever_ comprehend it, but I certainly question your assumptions about it and going on as if you do. I don’t follow this blanket assumption that marriage is restricted to some expression of love between the two people getting married- it’s not _just_ a party, or the three-ring circus to you, is it? I see the union as between the couple on one side, and the state/community on the other (I think Speaker for the Dead or Ender’s Game described this). Any two people can get together and mate/live together- animals do it all the time- but we don’t require them to get married now, do we? The community does have a say in marriages, and actually has had a say for quite some time.
“Less than”, as in a home for a kid, less a mother (gay parents), or a home less than a father(lesbian)? David S.’s statements presuppose children have no right to either one, necessarily.
Kicks, polygamy has led to abuse of rights, or so I’ve heard, so for one argument, in terms of equality for all, it seems inherently unequal to me in a number of basic ways of how spouses have influence over each other, eg wouldn’t it’d be easy for 2 to gang up on 1? I haven’t seen that show yet. They only just started showing “Huff” here on cable, which was a Showtime show I think.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:05 am
“Oh, sorry for expressing a view different from yours with all my “fancy talk” and many syllables, I guess that automatically means it’s wrong. Should games be fun? How about, should comments be fun, and agree with everything you think?”
Your view is not right or wrong based on how many syllables it has or how fancy it is. In fact, it from your first post, it could not be right or wrong at all, since you made no point, you only ranted about how you disliked the opposing view. Obviously, I do not believe everyone should agree with me. But I wonder if you do? You posted in this thread for the purpose of debating people that you disagreed with - namely Sirlin and likeminded people. I posted in this thread for the same reason - to debate people I disagreed with - namely you. Therefore, your remark about how I somehow expect all views to be in line with my own makes little logical sense, because by your logic it is equally applicable to every person that posted in this thread, including yourself.
“Your reactions make me wonder whether you even _care_ to hear the other side of this controversial issue. The article I tried to first paraphrase and then link to expresses the frustration of having to deal with exactly your reaction: “We’ve already made up our minds. Why should we listen anymore?” The article states that a person doesn’t have to be the marginal case to be affected by this or any other issue. (I know it looks long, but actually about 97% of that page is comments.) Oh and for the record, I never mentioned religion or God.”
First of all, I believe I already have a very good understanding of the “other side of this controversial issue.” Secondly, if you have ideas that you think that are missing from my interpretation of that side, then I welcomed you to point them out to me. If you will notice, I encouraged you to post an actual argument rather than a stump-speech which contains many words that say nothing. I have an opinion. I am very certain that I am right, so I will admit that it will be very difficult for you or anyone else to change my mind. But I can take comfort in the fact that my view, if so set in stone, is that way because it is built on a mountain of facts and solid logic, whereas the other side of the issue is built on… faith? That said, I am equally sure that you and almost every other conservative minded person are equally confirmed in their belief…. for some reason, I guess. In fact, in so many years of debating people like you, I cant think of hardly any times when ANYONE in that debate changed their minds. Everyones just too stubborn. Especially conservatives. This is what makes me incredulous that you can try to label me and people like me as “already having made up our minds, and not wanting to hear the other side of the debate”… in my experience, conservatives are far more set in their notions, however ridiculous they may seem, and are even less willing to hear the other side of debates. Almost every example of censorship or breaking off of rational debate in favor of the “im right, deal with it”, method, has been employed by conservatives.
“What is marriage, then, specifically to the state, legally? I didn’t say you couldn’t _ever_ comprehend it, but I certainly question your assumptions about it and going on as if you do. I don’t follow this blanket assumption that marriage is restricted to some expression of love between the two people getting married- it’s not _just_ a party, or the three-ring circus to you, is it? I see the union as between the couple on one side, and the state/community on the other (I think Speaker for the Dead or Ender’s Game described this). Any two people can get together and mate/live together- animals do it all the time- but we don’t require them to get married now, do we? The community does have a say in marriages, and actually has had a say for quite some time. “
At last, you post an argument… I think. The most I can get out of it when I reconstruct it is that you think that marraige union between a couple, sanctioned by the state… and thus, the state should have some kind of say. (this is quite a generous reconstruction, I had to connect several dots for you, but this is the best I can get out of that messy paragraph) Nevertheless, this looks like what your argument is, and it fits in context with other, similar conservative arguments.
1) The participation of the state in marraige, as far as Im concerned, is purely a formality. Your tax structure changes. Your marraige gets noted down in some database so the census has some easy data to work with and the government has some idea of whose married to who if it ever needed to know. And thats about as far as it goes.
2) Whether this means that the state has a say in whether a particular couple can or cannot get married is questionable. The state certainly has the right to know what goes on, but I doubt whether it has the right to influence it. The taxes, the census, and the database arent going to throw some kind of critical error because of the nature of the two people involved. The state does not care about whether the people are from different races, religions, or ethnicities. Why should it care about gender? The state is more an observer and scribe in this matter, than a participant.
3) Even if the state did have a say, that say should doubtlessly be a resounding yes. Personal freedom is king in America. Equality is king in America. Seperation of Church and State is king in America. All of these values indicate the only rational conclusion: gay marraige is ok.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:52 am
David B…
First I’d like to say sorry for singling you out. I wrote that very early in the morning after staying up writing a paper. Though I still think polygamy is interesting.
But I am here to hear both sides of the issue and I too would like to hear a solid argument or proposal from your side.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:08 am
What is the purpose of marriage?
Well … let’s look at the benefits, shall we?
That is, the list of over a thousand legal gains that a couple gets after marrying.
Or … how about we just pick a few?
1) Default inheritance. In other words, when one member of a couple dies, the state says that unless they have a will saying otherwise, the other member of the couple gets everything. Any particular reason that the state would care if they’re the same sex or not? I don’t think so. I think the state only cares that it’s reasonable to assume that not only are they pooling resources in getting by (so the process of disentangling who owns what would be a difficult one), but that the “closest relative” should in fact be the spouse.
2) Visitation rights. In other words … if one member of the couple is critically injured, the other has the right to visit them in the hospital if they’re in a condition where they can’t give permission either way. Again … does the gender matter? I think not.
3) Child custody. Okay … here we come into the issue of reproduction. Except … it’s not that simple.
What about this scenario? A woman gets into an abusive relationship with a man. Has a child. Eventually leaves him - maybe his abuse of the child gives her the courage she needs. (Gets custody during the divorce - not too surprising, right?) Also comes to the conclusion she’s gay. Winds up hooking up with another woman. Lives with her partner… the child spends, say, ten years of (insert gender here - I’ll pick female) her life with two “mommies”, and the first few (ie, least remembered) ones with a “mommy” and a “daddy”…
… then her mother dies. The child is maybe 12 or 13.
If the mother was not able to legally marry her partner … her partner - who has been raising the child for a decade and is almost certainly who the child would choose to stay with - has no legal right to keep the child. Instead, the abusive father gets custody.
How is that in the state’s interest?
How are any of those displaying interests of the state that actually depend critically on the gender of the parents?
One can argue about adoption - one has to ignore all scientific studies done to date, but at least it’s not entirely insane - but adoption does not have to automatically follow after marriage. Only joint custody would follow - which I doubt anyone would actually argue against.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Also, I would claim that the argument that children “have a right to a [father/mother]” is not an argument that has sufficient validation.
I would only accept that claim if it were shown that NOT having a [father/mother] caused damage - and specifically if that were done in studies that controlled for number of parents. (because obviously having only one parent means they’re spending a lot of time not taking care of the child, while two [or more, but polygamy is a separate argument, at least for now] parents means the child can get full-time care, while the parents still possess money.)
Furthermore, I would challenge that argument as it means that every time a child is born out of wedlock, their rights are being violated - how should we rectify that? Mandatory abortions for unmarried women? Hmm, probably not.
It would also mean that unadopted children are having violated rights - how do we rectify THAT? Mandatory adoptions? Hell no.
It would futhermore mean that a couple should not be allowed to divorce if they have children … but what about the fact that a couple that continually fights is worse for a child than only having one parent?
What do we do if one parent dies? Do we force the surviving parent to remarry?
Accepting that argument means some rather absurd consequences, and it rests on unshown premises.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
I’m sorry for any confusion I might have caused, Neo- I was responding to various comments from various people, but mostly Mr. Sirlin, in particular and his “do we even need to hear from him any further” take on my comments. Yes, we are both debating for the same reason: to try and understand the other side. Likewise, if you think I misrepresent your side, just let me know. Do we conservatives seem stubborn? Liberals often seem overly emotional to me. Maybe we are both detecting an attitude of “I’m right, deal with it” that you mention from one another.
As for my original point, it’s that you (or I) don’t have to be the marginal case to be affected by some change in the law, in a nutshell. This is the central idea I want to convey in response to the liberal argument for gay marriage when it so typically jumps straight to “but
you’re not affected by it- you just want to discriminate!”. In response to numbered points:
1) Then we disagree fundamentally on what a marriage is. I don’t see it as purely a formality- if you feel this way, then why would you say we need it at all? There’s got to be some reason for the database, why tax structures have to change- do they have to? Do you feel we need marriage at all? What right does the state have to know what’s going on? (in 2) When I read your description this is what I’m hearing- marriage is essentially a party, it’s all for show; where’s my party, don’t I get one too?
2) I’ll answer why I think the state should care about gender in marrieds. The state only cares about the unions where there is potential for children to be produced (physical births); it’s in the state’s interest to make sure the parents- particularly the father- stick around. If the child is raised without parents, the state is left to deal with the consequences, most all of which I feel are negative, so this is important for society. Not all hetero unions produce children, but marriage keeps the man and woman in the bond- while one partner may be infertile, the other may not (in case women outside the bond of marriage get visited by some random stork). In a good society you want parents to take responsibility for their actions and own up to it.
3) Because of 1) and 2), we obviously don’t come to the same conclusion of the state having a say or not, nor that it should be a resounding yes.
Kicks, no need for an apology. Polygamy is a whole nother ball a wax though- in terms of same sex marriage debate, polygamy is perhaps similar to talking about MMO’s when we are still figuring out 2 player fighting game balance. I have a friend who is from Senegal (Africa) and he’s Muslim; polygamy is allowed there, though rare and probably restricted to rich men who can afford it. I also think it is interesting, particularly from a biological perspective; males and females court in different ways, and for different reasons. Females are basically restricted to giving birth to one child per year. Males can practically father an unlimited number of births per year. So females look for quality in a mate, while males might look for sheer quantity in terms of mating. But for most animals living just to survive, that might make more sense; animals don’t worry about marriage (in any case, their separation/divorce rate is much lower than humans’, esp. in the US- so personally I’m quite thankful the term “committment” hasn’t come up in this thread yet).
Michael, in terms of benefits of marriage points you brought up:
1) Wills can be drawn up and that is the recommended practice in any case- any gay couple would easily be advised to do so if that’s really a potential issue.
2) Visitation rights doesn’t really ever come up, and if it did, I’m pretty sure all it would take would be filling out a form. Seriously, of all the ways to fight city hall _and_ win, this has got to be the easiest of all if anyone is seriously worried about it. Hospitals probably invented the term, “significant other”.
3) First, I’d like to thank you for imagining a scenario that might be the marginal case not involving myself or any of us here in the thread. In answering how it would be in the state’s interest, the welfare of this child certainly would be. The state would not put the kid in the custody of an abusive father in any good conscience. Can we trust the benevolent partner to bring that up with child protection/state services? I think the state would have little problem if everyone would be happy if the girl wound up living with the partner, given those options.
As for my claim that a child should have an inherent right to a mother and father where possible, maybe we just disagree. Babies are made from a man and a woman. If I were adopted, I’d be curious about who my biological parents were, no matter what. Maybe that’s just me. Hey Neo, what color pill would you take, red or blue? When a man marries a woman, they step into gendered roles and in turn, offer extremely influential, lifelong-lasting gender role models for their children. Gendered roles have been dissolving for years now- much of it good, but I’m not sure it would serve kids well in this case of same sex marriage, that’s where I for one draw the line.
I do not support children being born out of wedlock- the state has an interest in keeping this practice rather shameful, again because it will have to pay for raising the kid if the father doesn’t fulfill his responsibility. Co-habitation poses a flight risk in the case of an unexpected pregnancy, so the state shouldn’t exactly encourage that either.
You kinda lost me with the mandatory abortions/adoptions thing.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:34 am
How about outlawing marriage all together? As #19 says: “Any two people can get together and mate/live together- animals do it all the time- but we don’t require them to get married now, do we?”
While we are at it, we should get rid of borders between countries, because currently that is the best reason to get married.
If we don’t remove country borders then we need to allow for gay marriage because international gay couples are constantly being split apart by our INS due to them not being able to apply for a spousal green card.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:06 am
David B…
What do you think marriage is then, if you think your definition is different? I didn’t seem to pick up on what you think marriage is. You mentioned something about two unions-between the couple and with the state. I think that’s really interesting and never thought about it, but I don’t think that’s what people have in mind when they wanna get married. Do you? If you are or plan on getting married, are you totally stoked about being married to the state as well?
On that note, I know that many gay couples DO want that recognition by the state and such, but I think it’s more about breaking down that wall as they aren’t recognized as now.
October 12th, 2006 at 4:20 am
So, basically what you are saying, David B, is that gay marraige is bad because it is unhealthy for the upbringing of potential adopted children; and since the state should be very interested in the upbringing of children, it should prefer that children be raised in “straight” households.
I find this argument invalid for the following reasons:
1) I did not say that marraige is a formaility. I said that the state’s role in marraige is a formaility. The state extends many desirable rights and benifits to married couples, which Michael Ralston did a good job outlining in #22 and #23. In order to extend these to the correct people, the state must know who is married to who.
2) Marraige itself is fundamentally an emotional bond formed between two individuals, a promise of love to one another. People do not get married just for some title or label, even though living together while married is often more benificial than living together whilst unmarried. Marraige is principally about the promise and bond being made between two individuals. Marraige has been going on for a very, very long time, long before any of these complicating rights became an issue. With the exception of pre-arranged marraige (another matter entirely), I guarentee you that no one back then was getting married because they wanted some kind of recognition from the state. They just wanted acknowledgement between eachother and before God.
3) There is no solid scientific evidence yet that a “gay household” is any better or worse for a child than any other household. You also make a case that being raised by foster parents is bad in and of itself - but that makes gay foster parents no different than any other foster parents. Again, I keep coming back to the lack of evidence condemning the effectiveness of a gay household to raise a child.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:50 am
Ah, the classic “gender role model” argument.
So we should be taking children away from couples that have insufficiently masculine fathers, right?
And, again, should we be forcing widows and widowers (with pre-adult children, obviously) to get married?
It’s the logical conclusion of your argument.
As for visitation rights … no, signing a form is not enough. Nor is the “seperate but equal” situation you describe reasonable.
There is also the issue someone else brought up of immigration.
The custody question … yes, I exaggerated.
But that question arises rather more frequently than you want to believe, albeit usually to a lesser extent.
How about this revised scenario:
Woman is married. Has a child. Her husband dies while the child is still young. Woman gets into a comitted gay relationship, stays in it for a decade, also dies.
Right now, there is nothing that woman or her partner can do to allow her partner to keep the child - even though the only possible alternative is an orphanage. Is this reasonable? Is this fair? Is it good for the child? I don’t think so.
There’s also the issue of the discrimination based on sexual orientation that not having legalised gay marriage allows companies to do - despite the fact that it IS illegal otherwise, mind you.
And do you really think you can list reasons why the rest of the thousand+ marriage rights do not need to be extended to homosexual couples? I doubt it, and if I’m compelled to, I will go find lists to cite each and every one.
…
“I do not support children being born out of wedlock- the state has an interest in keeping this practice rather shameful, again because it will have to pay for raising the kid if the father doesn’t fulfill his responsibility”
I hadn’t noticed that.
Wow. So you think that not only are single mothers incapable of caring for children, but they should be punished?
Furthermore, you really think the father shouldn’t be compelled by the state TO “fulfill his responsibility”? (That’s the logical conclusion based on what you said, anyway.)
I will certainly have to agree that we have completely different worldviews, and I reject your hateful and mysogynistic one.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Lion-gv, the words quoted were mine, but in the context of trying to get at the reason why the state needs to get involved in marriage (i.e. making sure parenting gets done responsibly: by the parents responsible). If the INS is splitting gay couples apart, where a legal marriage to a US citizen would “save them” from deportation, the underlying intent is dubious at best and certainly looked upon with reasonable suspicion.
Kicks… I think marriage is a union, not a union between the man on one side, and the woman on the other side. Instead, it is a union between the couple (both man and woman, together) as one side of the union, and then, on the other side of the union, the state/community. Basically the couple “marries” to the community- and I don’t think the community should have to be to be forced into some marriage it doesn’t want. If the man and woman (or man and man, or woman and woman) want to hang out, throw a party, committ to each other, have sex, they are generally free to do that stuff anyways- but marriage is something where the community/extended family/tribe is concerned. Wikipedia’s article on Marriage has this to say concerning who has a stake beyond the couple:
“Marriage has traditionally been a prerequisite for starting a family, which usually serves as the building block of a community and society. Thus, marriage not only serves the interests of the two individuals, but also the interests of their children and the society of which they are a part.”
I am forced to agree with you- I don’t think most people have that in mind when they wanna get married, despite such a high divorce rate, despite Wikipedia- to them it’s the big 3 ring circus, “hey where’s my circus, let’s spend money on a dress that costs the same as a good used car”. Only very recently did marriage become solely about things like love and easy-out divorce. Yes, I am married, to a Japanese. In my case, being married to the state technically offers me an excuse to stay in it (Japan), so that could very well be something to get quite stoked about indeed (for the record- my visa is a work visa, not spouse). Many gay couples might want to enter this union with a US state, but that state just hasn’t made up its mind yet. So far the answer is defaulting to “no” but you never know.
Neo, not potential adopted children, but potential children in the sense, when a man and a woman get together, there is a potential for the woman to become pregnant. For adoption, the state doesn’t exactly complain when people are willing to take mouths to feed off their hands. _Ideally_, though, I feel the adopted child has a right to both a mother and a father- I think that is where we disagree.
1) I addressed Michael Ralston’s points in turn (btw for some reason, Michael’s posts seem to have disappeared for me today- 22 and 23 are lion-gv’s and Kicks’). Scenarios would have us believe hospital rooms have armed guards checking IDs outside, ready for Solid Snake. In other blogs I’ve read, both sides generally acknowledge this thing about hospital visitation as largely a smoke screen. Any hospital not allowing a gay partner would be the exception to the norm. I also find it hard to imagine the partner/step-parent losing custody to an orphanage. Orphanages don’t try to collect children to separate them from homes; they try to put them in them.
As far as benefits (going to the correct people or not) are concerned, one of the things the article I linked to illustrates was the underlying history and intent of why the benefits were put in place in the first place. Just look at the inner cities and what’s happened to marriage.
2) No offense but I think your notion of marriage between two individuals’ “promise of love” to one another is naive (though extremely popular these days). The mushy love stuff taking such prominence in our ideas is very recent, probably since around women sufferage and women getting more power in the world over the past 100 years or so. That is extremely recent in the grand scheme of this long-lasting human institution.
You offer me a guarantee that “no one back then was getting married because they wanted some kind of recognition from the state. They just wanted acknowledgement between each other and before God.” That’s just not the case, Neo. In many places around the world, until recently if a man wanted to claim a woman for marriage she had little say in the matter. The marriage sealed the deal, and one way to seal the marriage was to rape her. This was true in Japan, English law, and even goes as far back to the ancient Hebrews, where the marriage of an unbetrothed rape victim to her assailant was considered a fair punishment- the state forced the marriage and he could not divorce her. http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/history.html In English law “the rule that the assailant was to marry his victim evidently became a means of upward mobility for certain landless men: They could rape an heiress, be forced to marry her, and thereby inherit the family property.” In fact, it’s only a very recent notion that rape could even occur within the marriage bond (like, 1980’s when anything was done about it?). I appreciate our discussion Neo, but frankly the guarantee you offered me was not worth much in light of historical facts- getting recognition from the state via marriage was exactly one major way to do it.
3) You can find all the scientific evidence you want for it, depending on who funded the study. Ironcially, gay households lack diversity, and exclude a parent based on her or his gender alone- more discrimination based on immutable characteristics. Be that as it may, gay households adopting kids does seem to be coming into more prominence- and the state isn’t really complaining about this.
Michael, that is exactly right we should be taking children away from insufficiently masculine fathers- if you define them as deadbeats. Men need to not walk down that road in order to be considered a man, a real man. No, we don’t need to force widows to get remarried- and that is not the logical conclusion. I do believe a two-parent home where one of the two-parents is a man and the other one a woman is the ideal.
If the only reason someone wants to get married is to immigrate by obtaining citizenship, that’s questionable to begin with.
I find it hard to imagine the partner/step-parent losing custody to an orphanage. Orphanages don’t try to collect children to separate them from homes, they try to put them in them.
Most of the marriage rights/benefits were originally instituted for reasons that may be outdated for straight couples, to provide for the woman and children in households where something happened to the principal breadwinner; these days many households have two working parents. These laws can change a lot easier than marriage laws, in any case.
I didn’t say single mothers should be punished. They certainly shouldn’t be _rewarded_ with increased welfare checks for having additional kids with no intention to marry though! There are incentives to increase the number of bastards- this is not a good thing. As for “the father shouldn’t be compelled by the state TO fulfill his responsibility”, you misunderstood.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:17 am
If you defined “insufficiently masculine” as “deadbeat”, you are not using English. You are using some private made-up language and there is no point attempting to converse with you, because there is no reason to believe that any word you use means what I or anyone else believes it to mean.
And yes, if you declare that children have a right to parents of both genders such that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt them, you are also declaring that widows/widowers (with non-adult children, of course) should not be allowed to raise children either.
“I find it hard to imagine the partner/step-parent losing custody to an orphanage. Orphanages don’t try to collect children to separate them from homes, they try to put them in them.”
That’s true, except for the part where they never had the custody to lose. Look it up.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:44 am
I’m most curious about the idea of immutable characteristics of human personality. I’d assume pedophiles aren’t choosing their sexual attraction either. No one I know hesitates to call that perversion. There’s no one in this discussion who can say they weren’t attracted to multiple people at one time or another, so why shouldn’t polygamy be accepted. Beastiality, public displays, and everything else isn’t something someone chooses, it’s just something they desire.
Basically, does eliminating discrimination on the basis of choice imply that we can’t distinguish (but really discriminate) against any sexual expression because none of it is chosen? Is there any sexual expression that society should discriminate against?
October 13th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Usually, “between consenting human adults” is a pretty good and clear line. The “slippery slope” argument doesn’t really work there.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Also, I should note that I do not consider marriage as David seems to view it to be desireable in any way.
My wife and I certainly didn’t enter our marriage that way. We did so out of love, and because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together.
The fundamental thing I don’t get about opposition to gay marriage is how it can possibly affect someone who isn’t gay. I support it, because I feel that gay people should have equal rights. (Certainly all the gay people I know are, well, perfectly normal except for that.)
I mean … “messing with an institution that’s thousands of years old” … all well and good except modern marriage has nothing to do with historical marriage ANYWAY. And it’s not like allowing gay marriage means banning straight marriages. Indeed - how would it hurt a single straight marriage to allow a gay marriage?
The detour into “The right of a child to have two parents of different genders” is all interesting and all … except that it assumes a conclusion, ignores any possibility of evidence bearing on the question (as it most certainly does), and doesn’t really address reality anyway.
As for what Pawnblue said … James’s response is concise and clear, I think. Little more to say.
(except that polygamy can be rejected for one reason that gay marriage cannot - getting a “divorce” in a polygamous marriage would be a much more complicated thing than it is in a monogamous marriage.)
… oh, and that reminds me of ANOTHER benefit of marriage that I doubt David has considered: The ability to get divorced.
That is *important*, if you want to argue that there’s any way the ability of a couple to enter into various forms of contracts as a couple could be upheld for gay people - they have to be able to legally CEASE being a couple - with the attendant effects upon all contracts they entered into as a couple.
(for instance - possession of the home, the cars, the bank account … it’s very complicated for any two non-married people to try to do joint ownership of things, and it’s exceptionally messy to try to end it, even if the ending is amicable. Divorces are much simpler.)
October 13th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
“Adult”, James? Isn’t that a fairly arbitrary distinction? Why would you want to restrict yourself or those who so choose to relationships based on some– number? The number is a cultural distinction imposed on individuals with different rates of maturity. And why should we be forced to limit ourselves to our own species for that matter?
At least with familial inbreeding, you can justify this as bad because of the risk of lack of diversity from the same gene pool (with effects like stunted growth and bad teeth, to higher infant mortality rate). So sometimes, we can clearly see why social walls were put up in the first place.
Kicks, before I mentioned the biological differences in the mating priorities of males vs. females. Polygamy would probably be in the form of polygyny (one man, multiple wives) in most cases. One woman, multiple husbands has been extremely rare in history in any case. So this leaves not enough women to go around for all the men left over who aren’t alpha males. That would suck if you were not an alpha male basically.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
I hear you on the consenting adults line, but that line is defined by our very mutable laws. If the immutable desire of the pedophile is somehow able to change the mutable laws, do we think that is a problem? My understanding is that some states have laws allowing 13 or 14 year olds to consent. Should pedophiles consider moving to those states, since there is less discrimination for them there?
But even disregarding pedophilia, should polygamy be recognized legally? Is it discrimination to limit marriage to one person?
I guess I’m asking why people feel that limiting homosexual rights is discriminatory, but are ok with limiting the rights of other forms of sexual and marital expression.
I don’t want to paint myself as anti-homosexual rights. Homosexuals should have the right to marry. But there’s hypocrisy on all sides.
Internal desires just aren’t as immutable as skin color. An intangible thing like a desire can’t be. Just because some citizens have different desires does not mean that the laws that do not endorse those desires should automatically change.
If we as a country do not find a reasonable way to draw behavioral lines, then you have a social anarchy. Most people seem to agree that there is a line of sexual deviance. That line is mutable as well. People seem to define that line by what they think of as sick or gross. Exposure to sick/gross behaviors will make them seem less gross and more personal.
Is there anyone out there who has any ideas about whether our society should draw that line, and where we should draw it?
October 14th, 2006 at 12:58 am
This is going to be unpopular at least, and considered ignorant at best, but just hear me out.
If I went to a doctor, and told him, “Doc… I just don’t FEEL like I should’ve been born with both hands. Could you, maybe, chop off my left hand? It’d make me feel like I think I was meant to be.”
I’d be crazy, and locked up, and “not accepted”.
But replace “left hand” with “penis” and all of a sudden it’s a touchy issue, and we have to respect the rights of THOSE people, because after all, THEY couldn’t be crazy. No way. What, are you some kinda homophobe?
I think the main issue is that conservatives are hoping that the more they push down and/or ignore the issue of gay marriage, the quicker it’ll magically go away. I personally feel that homosexuality, transgenderism, and most other sexual “deviancies” (and I’m using the word in the strictest dictionary sense, calm down), including bestiality, pedophilia, sadism/masochism, and more or less anything “special” involving sex, are symptoms of a bigger issue. Sorry, no, I don’t think bestiality is genetic, I think the person had a ridiculously awful experience at some point in thier life and it messed them up just enough to want to do a horse. Same with homosexuality. I’m not against gays as people with equal rights, but I think more people need to understand, seeing as how it’s evolutionarily “opposite” to what people are “supposed” to do, that homosexuality IS essentially, for lack of a better term, a mental illness. The main reason it’s not technically classified as that anymore is cited as “changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States” http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Meaning, essentially, the gays got louder.
But, and I’m not equating the two in any sense, what if the pedophiles got louder? Foley, anyone? What if the furries got louder? At what point do we distinguish between sexual minority and unacceptable sexual deviancy?
And please, if you actually do reply to this, keep in mind that I’m an athiest, a Democrat, and a college graduate. (Just to weed out the trolls. :)
Thanks.
October 14th, 2006 at 6:02 am
Genetic or not, i feel if it’s a choice to be homosexual, transgendered, beasti…whatever, etc… then it’s still their choice and I want them to be able to do that. Other ‘acts’ within or that come with that can be scrutinized.
I think someone has the right to be a nazi, but murder is still ‘wrong’ or at least against the law. You can be attracted to young persons, but sex with as an adult with a minor is still against the law. Murder and pedophelia have their own reasons for being wrong.
I don’t see anything wrong, impractical or unlawful for two people of the same sex getting married. It merely adds a right and does not infringe on any practical rights that I can think of.
October 14th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Pawnblue said that sexual desires aren’t as immuatable as skin color. Oh really? I don’t think a gay person can just choose to attracted to the opposite sex. I don’t think I could choose to be attracted to the same sex. Even with all the disagreement here, there seems to be at least agreement that you don’t get to choose this stuff.
David B’s views on marriage are so alien to me that I don’t evne know how to comment. Even Justice Parilli (mentioned in my original post) said in the proceedings that “Perhaps the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.” That certainly makes more sense than anything David B is saying about marrying the state! But since the state *is* in the marriage business right now, it owes the same very long list of advantages to black people, white people, gay people, Christians, athiests, and everyone else.
Quad: there is no reason for me or any of us to live our lives by the rules we think evolution presents. Evolution is not a god that has commanded we live our lives a certain way. Evolution has created a situation where you and I should kill animals for food, but it’s certainly reasonable for us to say that we don’t think it’s right to kill animals if we have a reasonable alternative. For example, we could become vegetarians and/or develop and eat synthetic foods. In fact, going with evolution on that one is probably the morally wrong thing to do.
Evolution also “tells” us that straight couples are the way to go. Again, that is no basis to be making a moral decision. You and I are free to decide that a more fair and moral decision is to treat gay people and straight people equally. Evolution is just a process that does what it does. If *anyone* is using that as a basis to decide right and wrong, then we’re already disagreeing on first principles.
–Sirlin
October 14th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Pedophilia is only illegal because a child cannot really consent as most children cannot comprehend what they would be agreeing to. It has nothing to do with it being fundamentally wrong for an adult to love a child in that way; it is just that the child cannot consent to any romantic involvement due to a lack of development, and in order to represent this, we drew an arbitrary line for age, being sure to err far enough so that we could protect all children. Of course, seeing as this is the reality, pedophilia is generally discouraged as any pedophilic action is inherently criminal in nature, but there is no law against proclaiming a love for small children or creating virtual pornography to represent small children(using computer programs to create images, not actual pictures of naked children). I cannot relate to the feelings of those who are drawn to small children, but those who do harbor such feelings but have the responsibility not to act on those feelings should not be called bad people. That actually makes them very good people as they are wired to be attracted to persons who cannot consent to a relationship, and it requires a strong act of will on their part to stay on the side of righteousness.
Beastiality has always confused me with the legal stuff. I mean, who are we to judge if someone gets off to a cow? I don’t really get that there’s a consent issue either as the fact that you can go to a restaurant and order a steak is pretty indicative that we have decided that cows are basically objects(we agreed it is okay to kill them despite our true lack of a practical need for meat in the modern world). I could see a vegitarian/animal rights person having a disagreement with beastiality, but the fact that most people who would object to a man having relations with a cow have eaten cow sometime in the last week has always confused me. Again, I want no part of beastiality; I think it’s rather disgusting to be honest, but what someone does in private without causing harm to another person is really not my buisiness, and I don’t see why you would want to make it yours.
Ok, now that I’ve shocked and offended all of you by rejecting that pedophilia and beastiality are inherently wrong(though engaging in a romantic or sexual relationship with a child is indeed quite wrong; let us make that distinction again); I think I’ll comment on homosexuality. It is, quite frankly, backward and stupid to discriminate against them. First of all, that two people of the same sex should feel that way about each other does not hurt anyone at all. Provided they are both consenting adults, there is no victim. I have known homosexuals, and I can say the relationship has the same legitimate love in it as a heterosexual one. To call their relationship anything less than a heterosexual one is being bigoted. There is no way around it. They are two people who love each other, and you are saying that their love isn’t good enough. That is inherently wrong, and even if you can find some negative consequence to homosexual marriage(I don’t see one), there is no way it is greater than the negativity of the existing injustice.
Also, for the point about polygamy, I stand by what I’ve said about everything else. As long as all parties consent, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If everyone involved is a consenting adult, there is no reason to restrict it. You can argue that all this makes marriage lose its meaning, but really all marriage is is a statement before the public that you are devoted to a person, and that they can trust their future well being on an equal level as yours. It really only matters from a legal perspective if you get divorced someday and things like alimony come into play.
Also, about evolution, it doesn’t tell us anything. If gay couples are wrong, evolution will tell us that when they stop existing. If the number of gays in the world increases, it is obviously evolutionarily correct. Evolution doesn’t give prior notice of anything; the only way evolution gives a message is through results. Of course, as sirlin said, that’s a terrible ground on which to base moral decision making.
The last point is about inbreeding. Well, that’s illegal because it produces children with severe defects. That’s the simple only reason. If it produced no children, there would be no need for any law about it.
Lastly, to wrap it up, you cannot choose how you feel. No one can really choose how they feel about anything. If an attractive woman walks by, most men are simply unable to avoid feeling some form of infatuation with her. A pedophile cannot choose whether to feel attracted to small children. It is not wrong to feel anything ever. It is how you act that is the question. The pedophile has only done something wrong once he or she has made an advance on a child; before that, all was completely fine regardless of the thoughts and feelings the pedophile had. However, an important thing to note is that marriage is an expression of feeling brought to the level of commitment; the only real question in marriage is whether the feeling is mutual. In such, it should inherently be open to all mutually consentual romantic relationships.
I know this is a highly disagreeable statement, but I feel strongly about it. Before anyone with highly traditional values challenges me on it, I’ll tell you right now that I’m extremely liberal and I don’t believe in god so don’t try to call to conservative or religious values in debating this as it will fall on deaf ears. If you can rationally prove to me that I’m wrong, I’ll be willing to listen.
October 14th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
I seem unable to make posts here … I keep getting caught by the spam filter.
That said - I’ve attempted to present a reason why polygamy would be an exception even for those who might accept a “slippery slope” from homosexual marriage on down to pedophilia and bestiality. Specifically, the issue of divorce is significantly more complicated for polygamous marriages than it would be for any form of monogamous marriage. (Likewise, polygamy can also be an exception for those who say “permit virtually everything”, simply because legal recognition of that is rather complicated.)
Also, as a side note … there are two reasons that (certain forms of) incest is illegal.
First, of course, is the whole “birth defect” thing.
But second, and possibly more important, is that incestual relationships are often not actually consenting - if a 16-year-old daughter is in an incestuous relationship with her father … can she truly be said to be consenting, even if we’d agree she was consenting if she was in a relationship with a 17-year-old boy not in her family?
Also … David, you claim that polygamy has historically only been one man many women … first, this is not true - there are in fact historical cases where the opposite was the rule.
Second, so what? Most places where that was the case, men were the only people who could own property. One man could then afford many women - but would have no reason to “share”.
Do we view women as property, or think they shouldn’t be allowed to own it? I sure don’t. And just because something has historically been the case does not mean it is the way it is certain to be, or desireable to be.
Anyone want to claim it is good and just and unavoidable for there to be a tiny ruling elite and a massive poor underclass? It’s been that way more often in human history than any given form of marriage whatsoever - and yet it’s something our society near-universally rejects in favor of a “diamond-shaped” society, with some ultra-rich (who are not “elite” in the sense of having seperate laws, either), and a few very poor, and the majority in the middle - in fact, a “middle class”, something that did not exist a few centuries ago.
October 15th, 2006 at 5:11 am
There are at least three seperate issues being debated here, causing at least some degree of confusion. The two pertaining specifically to Gay marriage are:
1) Should the court have ruled the way it did?
2) Should marriage be limited to a man and a woman?
With regards to (1), I am inclined to answer “yes,” with regards to (2) “no.”
The court ruled correctly because marriage does not confer rights to gay couples which are both constitutionally guaranteed and not available to domestic partners. It is therefore not unconstitutional to limit the scope of marriage in this way.
Another question is the morality of such a definition of marriage. This is obviously a much touchier issue. The claim that marriage is a union between the state and the couple seems to be ill-founded: the obligation of a state to a married couple is almost precisely the same as to domestic partners. A justification based on precedent seems equally faulty, and I do not even see a clear chain of reasoning here. The only real argument against a broader definition of marraige is that it makes some people uncomfortable, or reduces in their minds the integrity of the institution of marriage. But to my mind, this is precisely the reason why allowing same-sex marriage is necessary; by not allowing the word to apply to same-sex relationships, the government is continuing a longstanding tradition of questioning their validity. The question of gay-marriage seems largely a symbolic one, and the existence of a popular objection on these grounds seems to me to really demonstrate the importance of the change.
I am afraid that I disagree with you entirely Quad. I do not know how much you know about human biology, but being homosexual is quite frankly not a concious decision. It is a “genetic defect” in the sense that it is a mutation which decreases the probability that the mutant gene will be passed on, but that is immaterial. Treating people differently on the basis of such a genetic criteria is precisely the same as treating non-aryans differently because they have imperfect genetic material.
October 15th, 2006 at 5:43 am
I should probably not have posted so quickly. Having thought some more about the issue, I would argue that the answer to (1) is also “no”. I had based my argument on a California statute including the clause: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
I see now that this does not mean that domestic partnership is equivalent to marriage. In particular, the federal government does not recognize such a union as a marriage (and this recognition does confer some important privelages). In light of this, prohibiting gay couples from marriage is actually a restriction of rights based on sexual orientation, and is therefore unconstituional. This also makes the case for (2) much stronger, as it is now clear that disallowing such marriages not only doesn’t help the state, but harms gay couples.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Wow, big debate in the states. Here in Spain same sex unions were legalized a long time ago, and same sex marriages almost a year ago. In that moment there was the usual criticism from conservatives, but now hardly anyone cares about it and it hasn’t changed anyone’s life, except for gays, of course.
It’s so stupid ruling against it. People should mind their own bussiness and stop judging other people’s lifes.
October 17th, 2006 at 7:21 am
I’ve thought about it a lot, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the state needs to be seperated from marriage, so that they may freely conduct their own civil unions in a manner that maximises the benefit to the state.
Essentially, marriage would be a name only. If you’re just trying to get together for love, or some other fleeting reason, then you go to church/synagogue/mosque/captain/etc, and you have a ceremony.
Civil unions would confer all of the current benefits of state recognised marriages, but only when certain criteria are met.
Those criteria would ideally be:
Two people, cohabiting, take joint custody, through adoption, birth, or a combination of the two, of one or more children between the ages of 0-16/18(age of consent/emancipation).
The couple then send away their forms (copy of birth certificate/adoption papers, application form, etc), the forms get processed, and they are declared by the state to have entered into a civil union, thus gaining the status of a married couple.
This is based on the state’s interest in marriage and child-rearing, and the principal of being as indiscriminate as is possible within the constraints of maintaining the practical usefulness of such a union in terms of societal and legal impact on everyone involved.
All parties now have equal access to both marriage, and a state recognised civil union. No time is wasted on those whom are unable or unwilling to contribute to maintaining the population, and seeing to it that future potential citizens are prepared as best they can be by those raising them.
Despite the inadequacies of homosexual couples (missing gender stereotypes, lack of examples of proper interaction between the sexes), it is in the states interest to find parentless children the best parents available. As such, while the child should always be placed in ideal conditions where available, the next-best alternative would be used wherever neccessary, and incentivised.
Single parents would receive aid in rearing their children, although not so much that becomes preferable to the couple reuniting and cohabiting. Exceptions would of course be made for widows and widowers [of all sexual preferences], since their preferred partner is no longer available to complete the union, and they can’t be expected to re-marry for the sake of it, eliminating and incentive they have to form a civil union.
I’m fairly certain that I’ve covered all possible circumstances.
Before anyone lumps me in with David, I’d like to point out that I bring a more extreme form of utilitarianism to the table than he does. The main difference between us, for those interested, is that he seems to feel that marriage needs to be maintained in its present form, to some degree at least, in order for it to be relevant to modern society, whereas I feel that marriage needs to be re-worked in order to be relevant.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:57 am
Sirlin, despite your lack of imagination, sexual preferences simple aren’t 100% immutable. Skin color is 100% immutable. Just like your experience and enjoyment of SFII is much wider and varied than mine, some people’s expereinces and enjoyment of sexual preferences is quite wide and varied. Also, immutability isn’t defined by choice, but that’s a different argument.
Imagine the hottest celebrity you can. If it’s the same girl as it was 2 years ago, I’m shocked. Your sexual preference is pretty immutable if that’s the case. But my guess is at least one aspect of your sexual preference has changed. Maybe without your choice.
So some people enjoy a wide range of sexual pleasure (bi-sexuals, polygamists, etc) and we have people with limited ranges of sexual pleasure (me, you, straight, gay, pedophiles). Why shoudl some be recognized and others scorned?
I’m trying to ask if we want to draw lines throughout our sexuality. Straight: OK! Gay: well, you’re here, so we got used to it. Polygamist: go to jail you freak.
I don’t care about the legal argument, like the guy from Spain said, people will complain for a while, but gay relationships will eventually get legal acecptance.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:17 am
@ BOMBKangaroo: it is worth noting that the state currently offers a civil union with precisely those properties, except for less strict requirements. The critical point is that the federal government does not recognize this union (or so it seems to me), and neither do other states (necessarily). Also, I do not see why having a child should be a requirement: such a civil union has practically negligible expense to the state, while it is quite convenient for the couple in a variety of ways.
@ Pawnblue: First, the similarity you draw between polygamy and homosexuality does not seem to accurately reflect reality. There is strong evidence to suggest that all men are “polygamists” biologically, and the argument in terms of natural selection is extremely persuasive for obvious reasons. Conversely, most people do not have the potential to be homosexuals–there is strong evidence suggesting highly inheritable traits with recognizable chemical consequences which make an individual predisposed to be homosexual.
Much more importantly, allowing gay couples causes no harm to society at large, excepting religious or moral considerations (even the California court ruling against gay marraige concluded that gay marriage hurts no one). Polygamy, on the other hand, is undesirable for a large number of reasons. It leads almost directly to gender-inequality in a society (while there are counterexamples to the tradition of one man many women, for what are hopefully very obvious biological reasons this setup is much more likely). It leads to a more society in which many more males are unhappy (in particular everyone who isn’t a alpha male). There are other logistic concerns from the state’s viewpoints, and developmental concerns for the children of such a relationship.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
If gay people want to marry I don’t understand why they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. It’s not like they are hurting anyone by doing it.
But adoption… that’s a difficult question. I feel it’s not up to me to answer. I have no doubt that gay people can be excellent parents. But… shouldn’t a child have the ‘right’ to a mother and a father? I understand there are many single parents, but again… having gay parents is slightly different. What is best for the child?
However, it’s so obviously right to let them marry if they want.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:23 am
The problem with comparing gays with racial minorities is that isn’t a perfect ideological fit. While many gay people say that their sexual preference is something they are born with, and thus it is an immutable characteristic like gender or race, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. For instance, during college, there was a whole class of women nicknamed lugs (lesbians until graduation). During the freewheeling years in college, they were bohemian feminists. However, many of them became married to men and pregnant when they entered the ‘real’ world. Obviously, an African-American remains an African-American regardless of his behavior.
It is very difficult to look at the Constitution and see a protection for gay marriage. It is also very difficult to look at the Anglo-Saxon common law and see any rights or protections for it. Bans against miscegenation, oddly enough, was a fairly modern invention in the South out of reaction to an artificial racial classism that never existed in the North or in England. For that reason, it was very simple to repeal it on the grounds that it is unfair or arbitrary. Sodomy has been a hanging offense for a long time; Americans, particularly relgious Americans, are going to need a little more time to adjust.
I’m afraid that liberals expect the courts to support every justified liberal crusade. This one is going to require a lot of popular support befor anything will happen.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 am
The Constitutions of both California and the US specifically state that no person shall be “denied equal protection of the laws”. I believe that this has been traditionally interpreted as guaranteeing all citizens the same privelages under the law (this was, unless I am misled, the reason for the inclusion of the clause in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution). It is pretty clear that right now in California, a state policy denies to homosexual couples certain privileges which are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. We may quibble as to whether this is equivalent, for the purposes of the equal protection clause, to denying those privileges to homosexuals themselves on the basis of the sexual orientation. I think that this is supported by precedent–eg in the case of interracial marriage–but I am not sure if this issue was even decided by a court or on what grounds (I do not think that a law being arbitrary or new is ever–at least officially–considered as grounds for repeal). That said, it does appear that it is going to require clear popular support to get such a change through, but I do not think this will take very long at all. The fact that our legislature supports the change suggests that it is very nearly favored by the majority already.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:14 am
Three points:
1. Marriage is a historical and religious union instituted by God, and merely recognized by the state. Any nation that thinks to redefine marriage (man with man, woman with woman, man with cat, cat with cat, man with blender, man with cat with blender, etc) by legislation may as well try to repeal the laws of physics: It cannot be done — and any attempt to do so is utterly farcical. A homosexual union will never be a marriage in reality, and at best can be nothing but a hopeless mockery of the real thing. The idea that the state should extend comparable benefits to homosexual couples is open to debate, but to assert that such a thing constitutes marriage is untenable.
2. No discrimination is being shown, homosexuals are just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else, and heterosexuals are just as forbidden from “marrying” someone of the same sex, a parent, their pet gerbil, or the living room sofa (even if you and the parent/pet/furniture are genuinely in love).
3. Since when is homosexuality an “immutable” trait? Check your data again, the so-called ‘gay gene’ was a hoax. The idea that homosexuals are deterministically compelled to do what they do is rooted in a biased political agenda rather than scientific fact. Any theory of immutability is thoroughly refuted by even one valid counter-example; and quite a few cases of one transitioning from homosexuality to heterosexuality already exist (just a few examples can be seen in the video documentary, “I Do Exist!”, which contains the testimonials of five former homosexuals). Homosexuality may have some biological or genetic influences, but it, like pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, as well as acts of rape and incest are ultimately choices that one makes.
November 9th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Dear JC Thibodaux,
Three counterpoints:
1. There is no reason to believe this. Christians may marry, but so do atheists, and they enjoy no less or greater fidelity in its practice than religious people do. Ergo, marriage is rooted in culture (and not exclusively in any particular theology). So it has always been subject to the specific requirements of the inhabitants of that culture, whether it be dowried, subject the politcal convenience of the state (cf. kings and queens), or whether one party is legally the property of the other. Additionally, marriage transcends any exclusivity to Judeo-Christian tradition.
Denying this obfuscates the role of marriage throughout history, in or out of Judeo-Christian tradition. If God sets the rules, then He set it outside your limited experience. Your church is not abliged to recognize gay marriages. Your imposition of those values on the state does you ill, since there may come a time when it may be used likewise against you. (Remember the golden rule.)
2. This argument is worthless. If no discrimination is being shown here, then blacks are not being discriminated against when they are not allowed to marry those whom they have chosen to marry. After all, if blacks can marry each other, they cannot be discriminated against when they are only allowed to marry other blacks.
Or Jews. Or Christians. Or [autosubstitute preferred minority here].
3. Homosexuality is not exclusively immutable, but it is immutable for many homosexuals. Many so-called conservative Christians have chosen not to recognise research which shows that the sexual orientation of people is variable, more like blends of gradients, rather than simple caricatures of black or white. Therefore some may not be able to change their orientation. Some may be able to change their orientation only with great difficulty. Others go back and forth with more ease.
That five homosexuals were able to stop being homosexual does not refute anything. It shows that they could (as you would expect), not that every one of them could (again, as you would expect).
Additionally, putting homosexuality into the same company as “pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, as well as acts of rape and incest” is perilously close to begging the question. Being gay is not like being a rapist, or a pedophile, or &c.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Dear Mr. Elyard,
There is plenty reason to believe point one, the historical validity of the resurrection of Christ who Himself testified to the accuracy of the Old Testament scriptures being not the least of them. If you disagree with a religious premise in making law, then take it up with the founding fathers who wrote that we are all endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. While marriage is recognized by a variety of traditions, religious and otherwise, the point stands that marriage will never be anything other than what God ordained it to be. What the state chooses to recognize as marriage makes no difference, for it has not the capacity to alter a higher decree. Let them legislate mathematics if they so choose, 2 + 3 will always equal 5, and marriage will always be between a man and woman.
Your rebuttal to point two did not even touch the issue, for under the same laws, whites would also be denied the right to marry blacks, making this not a case of discrimination by race, but an unfounded restriction on marriage based on race.
As to your third answer, I never argued that people did not have different dispositions, (quoting me: “Homosexuality may have some biological or genetic influences…”); I argued that homosexuality is not an immutable trait. If you contend that there are examples of people who are irrevocably homosexual, then valid evidence must be supplied citing examples and the underlying reasons as to why such a trait would be immutable. In absence of such evidence, we are then left with no evidence but that derived from simple induction from the previous counter-examples. “Begging the question”? How’s that? I am not assuming what I am trying to prove; let me turn it around: how is being sexually attracted to children, dead bodies, or animals less deviant than homosexuality?
November 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
1. Marriage is a word. The important points are the legal status conferred by marriage and the discrimination entailed by deliberately narrowing the definition of the term. The fact that the term marriage is used in the bible is pretty clearly considered by the courts to be a non-issue, at least officially; the fact that our founding fathers used the term “creator” does not seem to be at all relevant, given in general their very obvious efforts to seperate church and state.
I do not really care about any church’s views about homosexuality, but it seems wrong that members of the church feel the need to extend the religious concept of marriage into the political realm. I do not understand how the state’s recognition or non-recognition of the marriage of 2 people whom I have never met effects me, and perhaps this is the key point I am missing.
2. Although this is an important issue, it is pretty obviously a technicality. The point is, the law as it is now very blatantly denies certain privelages to individuals in a same sex relationship, and we are arguing that the fact that they are in a same sex relationship is an immediate consequence of a characteristic on the basis of which, because of the equal protection clause, they cannot legally be discriminated against.
3. I am aware that the simplification of homosexuality to a gene or combination of genes is very blatantly misleading, and I personally would have edited my post to reflect that immediately after making it if I could have. That said, your stance is even more deliberately misleading, and your a priori claims are seriously flawed. Gay marriage is discrimination (under our arguments) if there exist any people who are “immutably” gay. The existence of a bisexual is more or less immaterial. As for evidence that homosexuality is immutable, we can provide no conclusive evidence by design. What would you say would constitute conclusive evidence? People who continue to be gay even though it costs them ostracization and ultimately their lives? I certainly can’t think of any historical examples like that. The possibility of a genetic basis for homosexuality is pretty obvious–I am not sure why you would conclude that there couldn’t exist a genome which led to exclusively homosexual individuals any more than a genome which leads to normal sexuality, besides some kind of fundamental misunderstanding. How close the genetic structure of gay people actually comes to such an absolute is, of course, up for debate.
Further, your line of argument here seems to indicate serious moral differences between the two camps, or at least one section of each camp. If we disregard the arguments about choice, etc, I do not see why bestiality should be a cause for discrimination. Please enlighten me; on what basis, besides animal rights (a position, as mentioned, you cannot realistically hold unless you are vegetarian), is bestiality fundamentally wrong? Being a rapist or pedophile is entirely different–the actions of a rapist or pedophile (presumably) have a direct effect on the quality of life of others in their community, and therefore the community has a responsiblity and motivation to discourage such activity.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Marriage is more than a word, it is a covenant between a man and woman. Try that argument when settling alimony. Discrimination cannot be implied by deliberately narrowing the term, for the term has never been that broad to begin with; it has always been between a man and woman, regardless of what any state may say (Denmark, for example). The separation of church and state is not explicitly stated, but implied in the constitution; the purpose of such an implication is not to keep religious principle out of law and government, but to keep a particular sect from usurping control over the local or national government, and keep the government from establishing a state church. The reason the church fights homosexual “marriage” is because the practice is very sinful, and the government should not make attempts to legitimize such a practice by associating it with a ritual that is, ultimately, religious.
As to,
“The point is, the law as it is now very blatantly denies certain privelages to individuals in a same sex relationship, and we are arguing that the fact that they are in a same sex relationship is an immediate consequence of a characteristic on the basis of which, because of the equal protection clause, they cannot legally be discriminated against.”
You are fighting a losing battle, as you cannot escape the fundamentally sound logic of my argument. It cannot be called discrimination, because the same “privelege” of marrying one of the same sex is denied to heterosexual people as well. Could it be a bad call legally speaking? If my biblical worldview, and historical legal premise are wrong, then yes, it very well could. But a bad call does not necessarily equal discrimination: that is a non-issue.
Which brings us to the last point,
“What would you say would constitute conclusive evidence?”
1. Strong induction by imperical observation without exceptions (failed)
2. An underlying physiological cause, (genetic, hormonal, etc) (tried repeatedly, all attempts failed thus far)
In fact, the evidence against such a belief is rather strong. Identical twins, for instance, are almost completely identical genetically. Yet a study published by Bearman and Bruckner (Bearman, P.S. & Bruckner H. Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology 2002, 107, 1179-1205) that there was only a 6.7% (boys 7.7%, girls 5.3%) average concordance rate of homosexuality in identical twins. Mind you that many of these cases grow up with each other and in very similar environments, yet the rate at which virtual clones of each other both are homosexual is extremely small, lending credence that homosexuality is learned, not inherited.
As to your questions about bestiality, it is fundamentally wrong biblically; I realize that not everyone believes the Bible as I do, but I do not believe that the ’separation of church and state’ was meant to exclude biblical principle from our legal system.
If you want to argue that homosexuality is okay but rape is wrong from the quality of life for others standpoint, you will only find more difficulties there: homosexuality is biologically one of the most efficient ways to spread disease, including Hepatitis B, C and HIV. Don’t believe it? Why do you think they always ask if you’ve had sex with another man since 1973 when you donate blood (blood donated by homosexuals cannot be legally used)? The homosexual practice of “rimming” (anal-oral sex) will quickly spread diseases such as cholera or typhus, and anal sex is a very quick way to spread any blood-borne pathogens. If a homosexual does for some reason have sex with women, he could infect not only his female partners, but possibly also the children they may bear. There are also at least 200 cases of medical personnel being infected by their patients with AIDS, the majority of cases being made up of homosexual men; numerous reports also exist of homosexual AIDS patients deliberately trying to infect medical staff that attend to them. Combine this with Clifford Davidson’s reccomendation that homosexuals lie about their sexual past when giving blood, and the occasional public call for HIV infected homosexuals to contaminate the blood supply, and I’d say you have a fairly substantial effect on the quality of life, and the community should indeed discourage such activity, to say nothing of legitimizing it.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:44 am
Let’s not try to make this an intellectual debate, because it isn’t. Unless you’ve dined with homosexuals, whores and tax collectors, you have no business judging them. Jesus doesn’t care about statistics. He does care that some of you are passing the kind of judgment reserved solely for Him, using your hate to treat them differently than He Himself would treat them, and presuming to have the authority to speak on His behalf when He Himself would have told you to have a little humility (if you were worthy enough to have a direct conversation with Him). Giving to God what is God’s is one thing, but gay marriage lies squarely within the realm of Caesar, no matter what kind of “intellectual” argument you try to make. Quit obsessing about other people’s “sins” and worry about your own. You’re lying to yourself if you think persecuting anyone gets you into heaven.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:58 am
“I do not believe that the ’separation of church and state’ was meant to exclude biblical principle from our legal system.”
Then what exactly does it mean?
“homosexuality is biologically one of the most efficient ways to spread disease, including Hepatitis B, C and HIV. Don’t believe it?”
No actually, no I don’t. Unprotected homosexual sex is any more efficient at spreading disease than unprotected heterosexual sex.
” Why do you think they always ask if you’ve had sex with another man since 1973 when you donate blood (blood donated by homosexuals cannot be legally used)?”
Because blood banks, like most institutions, are run by homophobic Christians such as yourself, who have no idea what its like to be gay.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:18 am
Had I been born a gay then I would have probably sucked 1,000 dicks by now. That being said:
Marriage, as an institution, exists to ensure that our society’s women are taken care of. So once a man voluntarily agrees to shoulder the financial burden of a wife FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, our government does its best to help him out through a series of special programs.
I don’t see why two healthy, able-bodied men should get tax breaks and other benefits just for fucking each other up the arse >:(
November 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
…so if I take it in the vagina, I get to be married. If I take it up the arse, I don’t get to be married. And if you’re a deadbeat who does nothing for society and your wife takes care of your pathetic ass, you still get all the tax breaks for being a man. Does your wife agree with you (have her post if she does), or are you a gem the ladies haven’t discovered yet?
November 27th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
“Deathpony,” this is an intellectual debate about court decisions in case you missed the subject of this thread (the assertion that the current judgements are discriminatory, which I have soundly refuted). I do not judge anyone, but simply confess the judgement the word of God has already pronounced. I have no hatred for homosexuals, but desire that they come to the truth and obedience of the gospel, just as any other sinners; if that sounds prideful to you, then I question your understanding of pride and humility. Since when is being opposed to legitimizing sin by process of law ‘persecution’? You have zeal, but not knowledge friend.
Anon, you said,
“No actually, no I don’t. Unprotected homosexual sex is any more efficient at spreading disease than unprotected heterosexual sex.”
Well in your world insulated from facts that is fine, but in reality, homosexual practices are statistically, unmistakeably, biologically very dangerous. The fact that a great percentage of HIV and AIDS cases are homosexuals (44 percent of new cases acco