Gay Marriage

[lawcat]

Yep. And I've been citing express constitutional provisions, so by your own admission, my argument is much stronger. Thanks for the kind words. It's nice to know that even those in opposition see the strength of my points. :lol:

 

You win! :wave:

[jackson33]

dannie quotes;

A1 Reply : However, homosexuals cannot marry people of the gender of their choice. They are being deprived of their perfectly normal preference.

 

A2 Reply: Your personal beliefs are actually incorrect. LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A3 Reply: By natural, I mean, not my choice. I did not have a choice in being into women. It is not just the sexuality of it, it is the mindset and general difference between men and women that make me want women. I didn't choose one day 'I'll like women.' Neither did the millions of other gays.

 

A4 Reply: THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS NOT RECREATION. We have stated this. The reason they have that rule in China is because they are overpopulated, and could manipulate the rule to have a child in and out of the marriage.

 

R1- And there are a lot of things heterosexuals can't do, more likely are obligated TO DO, and this includes any so called rights. This is what I really don't understand in all these arguments. By applying for a license in the first place your agreeing to rules, regulation, responsibilities to basically control or manage a relationship or at best a very minor degree of benefits. Would think the same holds true in the UK or England. I understand the desire to be equal in status with sociably acceptable others, but in some cases this is neither going to be or IMO should it be. Society must reflect the society.

 

R2- Probably should have stated 'personal experience' since I did question sexuality in my younger days, feel most all have at some point. However your site does add to my mention of acceptance in the US on adoption rights. Keep in mind we are talking short periods in time for assessing results, which in time may not prove out to be correct.

 

On the site itself, something new for me. A very large share of transgenders, never complete the process or another group 'cross dresser' never start the process, both directions. I might ask. at what point in the process of social evolution, would you personally say...Now that's enough? It will happen...

 

LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, for example, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home.[1] Nevertheless, LGBT parenting in general, and adoption by LGBT couples in particular, are issues of ongoing political controversy in many Western countries, often seen as part of culture wars between conservatives and social liberals.

 

Side note; Seems to me in a good share are trying to tranditionalize same sex unions, though don't accept the idea of natural conception. In my world, we call this artificial at best and blatant hypocrisy at worst.

 

R3- Okay we have established your lesbian, which is 100% fine in my heart, no less than my one daughter, now 40 and still in the closet. I am not going to try an analyze you or what did or did not lead you to this belief. I will say "wake up one morning and decide" which is a rather common saying. I am going to go on but please do not confuse my examples in any way with you.

 

People, the human species never consider life altering experiences as a determining factor in the later action of their life. They don't wake up one morning and declare anything, THEY CONCLUDE for whatever reasons those experience have offered. We could go through the latest studies, many indicating nothing a human does like murder, being a dope dealer, an adulterer, a loyal partner, an attorney, priest or a Doctor have underlying reasons. Personally again I feel most comes from that simple nurturing of a parent, the family life (if had) and the ideas and morals of those parents.

 

R4- However you believe humans of today evolved, they did so from a very strong desire to experience sex, not necessarily the results. This is where so much confusion comes from IMO. If your turned on (enjoy sex) from persons with the same sex, or for some reason do not enjoy sex with the opposite sex, obviously your inclined to BELIEVE yourself G/L. This is true through out society and the so called 'Straights' develop preference (including G/L) beyond gender. This otherwise known as 'natural selection' where certain features (red hair/body parts/skin color a few) were preferred.

 

China has a very long Social History, long indulged in 'isolationism' and traditions that are maintained today. Yes, their concerns were 'over population' (more for control and/or caring for) but it would have been just as easy to outlaw children (for a period) or promote a lifestyle that produced none, but did not...

 

There are not more bisexuals than homosexuals. There are far people who identify as bisexual as homosexual. Most bisexual teenagers are either in a phase or looking for attention/sexual attraction. Bisexuality is quite uncommon. Homosexuality is not above heterosexuality; there is no common harm in homosexual OR heterosexual cases, except for ... exceptions.

 

What you are saying actually WOULD confirm my personal theory if possible to prove. Your saying that those engaged in HSA, either men or women have never experienced the opposite gender in sex. While I do know this is true in many cases the overwhelming numbers have experienced the opposite sex and for some reason did not enjoy their first or first few experiences, then somehow did with a a person of the same sex.

As for 'common harm', this may be true for the ladies, but most certainly not for men....

 

I do not think I will be able to convince you. You have had this view your entire life. You will not change. Society is not wrong, you are inflexible. By no means do I mean to insult you, as you seem perfectly respectable, but you must realize that your inflexibility from age has something to do with your steadfast opinion.

 

Remember we are talking about changing social acceptance of a change in what 3000+ years of the word 'Marriage' means to 80% of the worlds people, forget Sodomy altogether. I have agreed many times on right of people to engage in any sexual activity they please. In fact I've written a great deal on our US TLDS (commune style life) and their right to exist with in other current laws. You should already have realized I don't oppose G/L and would defend their rights, under law with the same passion I respect the traditionalist. Since the US was founded and remains a secular government and I believe Marriage is traditionally a religious term, government could and should simply drop the term and allow States, Church's or individuals to call their unions whatever they please. This includes G/L unions who could call their relationship a marriage. It's the idea that a relatively minor portion of society could or should dictate to the majority, that I oppose.

 

I bet that in ten, twenty years, there will be no tradition, because things will change as quick as fashion does.

I completely see your point, but you must recognise that there is little we can do to prevent our generation from implementing what we think is right_

 

Well the UK has been ahead of the US on change on many social issues, but from what I read are behind the US on accepting G/L relationships. I will disagree on 10-20 or 100 years for traditional ideology, suggesting you yourself will grow into thinking this way. In my years, I've seen 20 movements alone to eliminate the Monarchy (King/Queen and family) which has been around a very long time. Traditional thinking is the face of England, the US and in fact any Country. You'll find English Law, Governments, Languages all around the World, in places that have long broke from the 'Commonwealth'.

 

You generation and our young folks in the US, seem to agree on change, but as things change, you and they will change, in the end I feel you will find change is NOT what you wanted. Choice is already available and your just beginning to accept choice, but with consequences. If I am wrong (hope not) you will lose choice altogether or to the degree government is manipulated.

[Moontanman]

I don't know what that has to do with anything other than the "camel grinder" reminded me of it. You have no idea the nature of the God that guides my thinking. Please don't presume to be mightier that He.

 

Other than knowing that your god resides in the same place your thinking does and no where else, you are correct i do not know the nature of your God, and I would never presume to be mightier than he but i can honestly say i am just as mighty...:lol:

 

 

Other than that I appreciate your efforts at getting this thread on track, I assure you that we have it well in hand.

 

Bill

 

It would seem not but thank you very much anyway....

[Cedars]

I applaud everyone's contributions as I've found it an enjoyable read and quite informative. I must say that coming into this thread, I was 100% in favor of Gay marriage. But since there have been so many convincing arguments against it, it's probably more like 80% now.

 

I have to say I also was swayed by the points made and am no longer 95% sure the term 'marriage' should include same sex partners. But these couples do need some kind of legal protection as accessible as a recognized marriage. Property rights, next of kin issues need resolving. Some things listed as benefits, I am unsure should qualify for same sex partners, such as S.S. pension, SSI, Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs, to name a few.

 

But there are other issues which I think should be accessible on a civil union arrangement such as Funeral and bereavement leave, Joint adoption and foster care and next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions, as a few of them.

[InfiniteNow]

Just don't go callin' it a marriage. :shrug:

[modest]

I have to say I also was swayed by the points made and am no longer 95% sure the term 'marriage' should include same sex partners.

 

I'm curious which arguments you found convincing. I'm not trying to set you up with bait or anything. I really am curious which points expressed in this thread against gay marriage would leave a person hesitant of their pro-gay-marriage position.

 

The argument I found best was Lawcat's relation of heterosexual marriage and procreation with the vested interest of the state. While I thought it was the best argument offered, I didn't find it convincing.

 

~modest

[Larv]

Just don't go callin' it a marriage. :shrug:

Ah, ha! InfiniteNow finally admits it: it's all about the word.

[InfiniteNow]

Uber-sigh.

 

It should be noted... AGAIN... that none of you have provided a legitimate secular reason why the relationship of two same sex partners cannot be called a marriage. Most of you have referred to it as a marriage in your own posts, simply prefacing with the words "same sex."

 

Your point is so weak you implicitly reject it with the words you choose in your own posts.

 

 

It's a marriage, plain and simple. Tradition, ignorance, or refusal/inability to offer a reasonable argument does not change that... not one iota.

 

 

What is it about the same sex pairing that prevents you from calling it a marriage? It is parallel in every way except genitals to the pairing of opposite sex partners.

 

So, what is it? What is this amazingly profound reason why it must be called something different? ... because, it sure seems to me that it's just another way to perpetuate the us/them mentality, and to ensure that the gay people are seen as "different" for just a bit longer.

[Cedars]

I'm curious which arguments you found convincing. I'm not trying to set you up with bait or anything. I really am curious which points expressed in this thread against gay marriage would leave a person hesitant of their pro-gay-marriage position.

I would suggest you re-read BigDogs posts and try to block out your own opinion. Read them with an open mind. Read them with the goal of seeing a different perspective.

The argument I found best was Lawcat's relation of heterosexual marriage and procreation with the vested interest of the state. While I thought it was the best argument offered, I didn't find it convincing.

 

~modest

I enjoyed lawcat explaining why courts wont overturn defined marriages. Prior to his POV/input, I couldnt understand why it didnt have the same impact inter-racial marriages had, with all the time that has passed it seemed a no brainer. Now at least I can see the legal foundation for their positions that differed from my own opinion on this matter.

 

And then, while your at it, re-read my post which gives some of my own personal lines that I am not sure need to be re-drawn. Keep in mind that I dont think people should be able to claim more than two children (maybe 4 because I am flexible) as dependents on their taxes. After 2 (or 4) its a litter (and a burden on the state).

[InfiniteNow]

I would suggest you re-read BigDogs posts and try to block out your own opinion.

 

<...>

 

And then, while your at it, re-read my post which gives some of my own personal lines that I am not sure need to be re-drawn.

I'm with Modest on this one. I've read your posts to this thread. I've read Bill's posts, too... many of them two or three times.

 

I'm not seeing the same thing you're seeing. At least, I don't think I am. I obviously don't know what you are seeing since you haven't answered the question put to you in an open manner. Maybe if you'd be willing to summarize what you see... maybe I might then be able to see it also. Right now, I just see you not willing to be open about what it was that changed your mind... not willing to share.

 

I've read the posts. I'm sure Modest has read them, too. How about you summarize what you saw that you found compelling? I'd sincerely like to know.

[TheBigDog]

If she tells you are you going to point out how she is wrong specifically, or just say thanks?

[InfiniteNow]

It shouldn't matter. This is a discussion forum. She's made a post, and I (and Modest) asked a question about that post. If she's unwilling to answer it, then she should not participate at all.

 

To be clear, that's not what I want... not at all. I truly and sincerely wish to better understand the position of those who feel differently than me, and to understand what motivates it.

 

It shouldn't matter whether or not I may challenge it. Isn't that what we do here?

 

Never mind... That IS what we do here, and this tangent is off-topic.

[Moontanman]

This thread has lurched along, staggering back and forth between extremes, almost everyone has an axe to grind, including me. some are more Liberal some are more Conservative but almost all if not every single poster's ideas are rooted in what we have been told since childhood about homosexuals, morality, and what is right and wrong.

 

I would be a lier if I said I had no qualms about homosexuality. To a straight man it is difficult to understand and easy to hide that misunderstanding behind religious morality we have been taught since childhood. I, for one, have totally rejected that morality, even in rejecting it the idea of religious morality has a hold on my thoughts even if it is to automatically reject that argument. In some ways this makes me unable to see how some things can be harmful.

 

Looking at it from the opposite side some people accept the version of morality they have been taught without question. Anything outside the realm of religious morality is wrong and should be squashed. some where between these too extremes are caught real human beings with real feelings real lives and real wants and needs.

 

What we as rational human beings should be looking at is how could this change hurt society. Could gays be included in our current laws with out harming anyone? Is the idea of annoying people who hold some truths dear be enough to allow society to deny rights from others who harm no one by their existence?

 

Look deep people, is this argument one of real merit or are we just allowing our personal likes and dislikes to allow us to harm people who we disagree with? If every gay person was to get married (highly unlikely from what I've seen) would it really impact the people who are not gay in any way?

 

Homosexuals are not asking to be allowed to do anything special, not asking for more than any one else has. all the twisted logic of reproduction, the state, bigotry, religion, cannot be allowed to bring harm to a group of people who contribute to the state the same way as anyone else. Can the argument be trimmed down to the basics?

 

Not pie in the sky arguments not hurt feelings, pride or some sense of insulting an institution. show me real harm gay marriage would do to society over all and I will be willing to change my mind. Sadly so far all I see is posturing by people with problems with the morality of homosexuality.

[modest]

I would suggest you re-read BigDogs posts and try to block out your own opinion. Read them with an open mind. Read them with the goal of seeing a different perspective.

 

I enjoyed lawcat explaining why courts wont overturn defined marriages. Prior to his POV/input, I couldnt understand why it didnt have the same impact inter-racial marriages had, with all the time that has passed it seemed a no brainer. Now at least I can see the legal foundation for their positions that differed from my own opinion on this matter.

 

And then, while your at it, re-read my post which gives some of my own personal lines that I am not sure need to be re-drawn. Keep in mind that I dont think people should be able to claim more than two children (maybe 4 because I am flexible) as dependents on their taxes. After 2 (or 4) its a litter (and a burden on the state).

 

Alrighty then... thank you.

 

~modest

[lemit]

I haven't read all of the last page or two. I got too angry.

 

Tradition! Tradition! When did we get Tevye mixed up in this?

 

If you take that to mean I'm going to be opposed to gay marriage, you're going to be disappointed. I'm going to try to find something to offend everybody, so let me explain that my support of gay marriage is based on the premise that people have a perfect right to do things that make me uncomfortable. I have said that to people before. Generally they have, as a result, done things that made me extremely uncomfortable, like arguing vehemently for hours at a time. But I'm going to let those people off the hook early, because they are right.

 

Does nobody else have a memory of the Civil Rights Movement in the fifties and sixties? Does nobody remember Emmett Till? I wonder if the people who stole his body knew who he was? Has nobody even read about that period? Has anybody read about the causes of the Civil War?

 

Tevye, could you refresh our memory? TRADITION! Don't drag in the Loving case. It was in the Deep South that Emmett Till was killed. It was the Deep South that opposed any change of any kind, mostly due to . . . any guesses? It was Tradition that people in the Deep South during the Civil War were willing to kill and be killed for. By the time of the Civil Rights Movement they had decided it was quite a bit better to kill than to be killed. But they still clung to their tradition like the baby blanket it had been for the Deep South for nearly 400 years. Anybody know when the first African slave was brought here?

 

Okay, let's get rid of Tradition in this discussion. It is a red herring that has begun to smell. A simple truth is that human rights can't be parsed. You can't give one group its rights while you deny another group. All the Christians who would deny human rights maybe ought to find another definition for themselves. They are sorting out things they don't want to see and skipping over the real theology of the last couple of millenia. The scholarly works they would find if they looked promote human rights. There's nothing much else you can get out of the New Testament.

 

So, if the bible and two millenia of scholarship about the bible have tended toward human rights for whoever needs them at any given time, where do the other people get their ideas? Oh, no! It's Tevye! Get him!

 

--lemit

 

p.s. People don't talk much about the Irish race any more. There must have been a mass extinction or some kind. The potato famine maybe? Yeah, that's probably why the whole race seems to have disappeared.

[TheBigDog]

Anybody know when the first African slave was brought here?

1619. 1619 to 1776 slavery under Colonial rule. 1776 - 1789 slavery under the Revolutionary government in Southern States (what he heck is the name of that period?) 1789 - 1863 slavery in Southern US States. The area that is today the United States has a history of 244 years of Slavery.

 

There may have been oppression of rights longer than that, but slavery was 244 years. The United States itself only had Slavery for 87 years if you begin from the Declaration of Independence. 74 years from the ratification of the Constitution. All too many years. None are "nearly 400" as is so commonly asserted that it is accepted as a fact.

 

Bill

[Larv]

Uber-sigh...Your point is so weak you implicitly reject it with the words you choose in your own posts.

 

It's a marriage, plain and simple. Tradition, ignorance, or refusal/inability to offer a reasonable argument does not change that... not one iota.

 

What is it about the same sex pairing that prevents you from calling it a marriage? It is parallel in every way except genitals to the pairing of opposite sex partners.

Well, to me, marriage is between one man and one woman, while, to you, it can be something else. I’m OK with changing my stand of traditional marriage if a state supreme court or SCOTUS interprets their respective constitutions in favor of “gay marriage.” I’ll go along with it and give up my traditional values to show my support for this constitutional republic.

 

The key question for you, IN, is whether or not you would do the same thing if any of those supreme courts ruled against your position.