Gay Marriage

[lawcat]

No. Under strict scrutiny the law needs to be more than rationally related—otherwise, what would be the point of strict scrutiny? You certainly don't have to prove A or B. The law needs to be shown to fulfill a compelling governmental interest such that no other (less disenfranchising) method could accomplish. That's quite a different thing altogether.

 

Race, national origin, ethnicity is the highest suspect class. Take an example of a law that says: "Upon Petition to and Authorization of legislature, only those indian tribes native to the State of Iowa as of January 1, 1850, shall be entitled to no more than 100,000 acres of land per tribe to be dedicated as reservation land."

This law classifies on the basis of ethnicity. Is this law invalid as against whites, or blacks?

 

Also, I don't see how you can say a suspect class for homosexuality is "not true" as if by definition it is not. It's a judgment. One state supreme court that I know of has already given the group the classification. It's obviously a valid approach or what you called a method of attack. It is, in fact, an attack which has already worked once. That you disregard it, mistake rational basis for strict scrutiny, and say "not true" for the classification all come of as disingenuous..

 

homosexuality is not a suspect class. The fact that some court somewhere declared it for that one state is attenuated. But, I said "even" if it is true. So for the purposes of the argument here: I concede, you are right and the majority of courts including the supreme court are completely misguided.

[GAHD]

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Marriage+(traditional)

 

You know what traditional marriage is. You had parents I suppose, or your neghbor had parents who were married. You grew up before in the society...

Just FYI:

 

1. My parents got divorced when I was young
   
2. One neighbor lived with her husband and daughters until he died, then became a lesbian.
   
3. the other neighbors never got married traditionally, had 5 kids.
   
4. Several aunts are single mothers.
   
5. One cousin has children, not married
   
6. several friends have children, not married(one will be soon though).
   
7. Many other friends have at least step parent (some have cycled though several)
   
8. Several aunts/uncles are married without children.
   
9. Gay uncle does his own thing.
   

You sir are only looking at one VERY NARROW section of the pie if that's what you honestly think.

 

 

... no one here wants to deprive gays from their Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Out here in the state of Washington homosexuals can have their Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and not call their domestic partnerships “marriage.” I fail to see the harm in that, and the state legislature agrees; that’s why we have the “Everything But Marriage” law. And it’s constitutional, too.

Liberty?

 

• autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
  
• freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
  
• personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
  

It looks to me like authority is arbitrarily oppressing the name "marriage" when used in a homosexual context.

(slight tangent)It looks to me that people who chose NOT to be married are being Oppressed tax-wise in comparison to unmarried individuals.(end slight tangent)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, out here in the Evergreen State and Octopus Garden the laws governing same-sex domestic partnerships are entirely equal to those governing marriage...

...I suggest we can find a few exceptions even within the state of Washington.

 

you two need to provide a relevant itemized list. The law is always available to the common man if he but seeks it.

[lawcat]

Just FYI:

 

You sir are only looking at one VERY NARROW section of the pie if that's what you honestly think.

.

 

OK. Then there is nothing to argue about here. Gay marriage has persisted and is traditional. Books have been written about gay marriages throughout civilizations. Civilizations rest on gay marriage. We as humans can not survive without it. It is in the fabric of every society. There is nothing to change.

[modest]

Well, out here in the Evergreen State and Octopus Garden the laws governing same-sex domestic partnerships are entirely equal to those governing marriage (you know, “heterosexual marriage”?).

 

As shown: not true.

 

The law you're talking about was described like so by its House sponsor:

Although we view this as an improvement that provides real and concrete protections to same-sex partners, it’s an inadequate substitute for marriage

Wash. mulls major expansion of gay partner law | News Story on 365gay.com

 

Oh, btw, we have Indian reservations out here. How does that settle with your anti-separate-but-equal agenda?

 

Indian reservations are not equal to the state of Washington.

 

~modest

[modest]

Race, national origin, ethnicity is the highest suspect class.

Don't forget religion and alienage:

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis

 

STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):

1. Suspect Classifications:
   
   
   1. Race
      
      
   2. National Origin
      
      
   3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
      
      
   4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
      
      

 

UMKC.edu -- Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

 

Take an example of a law that says: "Upon Petition to and Authorization of legislature, only those indian tribes native to the State of Iowa as of January 1, 1850, shall be entitled to no more than 100,000 acres of land per tribe to be dedicated as reservation land."

This law classifies on the basis of ethnicity. Is this law invalid as against whites, or blacks?

A law is not immediately invalid if it discriminates against a suspect class. It is subject to strict scrutiny. I don't know if "non native Americans or native Americans not native to Iowa" can be considered a suspect class. I do think the establishment of Indian reservations would withstand strict scrutiny, but I think that's a bit off topic.

homosexuality is not a suspect class.

The supreme court has never granted homosexuality suspect classification. But, considering they have been so granted in a state supreme court I think it is easily a valid approach to overturning marriage laws which discriminate against same-sex couples. Once a significant amount of states institute gay marriage, I believe this is the exact path the court will take. They will find very much as California did:

we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because

(1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and

(2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.

 

-

California Supreme Court

and conclude that such laws violate due process and equal protection.

The fact that some court somewhere declared it for that one state is attenuated. But, I said "even" if it is true. So for the purposes of the argument here: I concede, you are right and the majority of courts including the supreme court are completely misguided.

My purpose was only to point out that it is a valid approach. Since you were listing valid attacks on anti-gay-marriage legislation it seemed beneficial to add one to your list.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

As shown: not true.

 

The law you're talking about was described like so by its House sponsor:

On top of this (and, in response to GAHD's request), Larv's point is explicitly inaccurate.

 

At present, there is YET ANOTHER bill going through the Washington legislature to add additional benefits and privileges to same sex partnerships... benefits and privileges which are currently available to opposite sex partnerships, but not yet available to same sex partners.

 

 

 

Work on gay rights just getting started

In 2007, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill that created the State Registered Domestic Partnership Registry, giving both same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples over age 62 11 rights of traditional marriage.

 

"The first domestic partnership bill that passed was really about life and death situations," Murray said. The domestic partnership registry initially gave gay and lesbian couples rights equal to heterosexual spouses in certain situations including those involving health care, visitation in hospitals and the control of a partner's remains and final wishes in the event of death with no will.

 

The following year, the house bill sponsored by Pedersen, D-Seattle, and 58 other legislators added 160 additional rights for gay and lesbian couples.

 

This year's bill will tie up loose ends in what legislators hope will amount to a complete package of rights in all the remaining areas where married heterosexual couples get rights automatically. A third of the 300 rights written into the legislation would have to do with public employees and their partner's benefits, pension benefits and insurance rights.

 

Pedersen said that this bill touches every chapter of the Revised Code of Washington, giving gays the rights that heterosexual couples acquire when they marry.

 

 

 

Since that bill has not yet passed (and the fact that two major parts of the bill may be delayed until 2012 due to the economic downturn), it is plainly obvious that:

out here in the Evergreen State and Octopus Garden the laws governing same-sex domestic partnerships are entirely equal to those governing marriage

...is not an accurate statement, and that there still exist quite a fair number of differences (despite the catchy title, "Everything, but Marriage").

 

Domestic partnership in Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Perhaps it would be more accurate for them to call it "A Few Things Here and There, and Definitely Not Marriage." :smilingsun:

[GAHD]

OK. Then there is nothing to argue about here. Gay marriage has persisted and is traditional. Books have been written about gay marriages throughout civilizations. Civilizations rest on gay marriage. We as humans can not survive without it. It is in the fabric of every society. There is nothing to change.

the particular wiki I link into your words also omits the roman "tutoring" practices in the military traditions. For quite some time it was historically appropriate for new military boys to find a distinguished veteran to learn from, and in many cases the resulting relationship was very marriage like and often sexual. This later lead to some "anti gay" laws in the military itself, and in the populous in general. I'll have to see if I can track down the exact reference I'm looking for here, I think It came from an audio book or a series of lectures I listened to.... :hyper:

 

As much as you might like to think you're being sarcastic(or that's how it looks to me) you've actually hit the nail on the head. :smilingsun:

[lawcat]

 

As much as you might like to think you're being sarcastic(or that's how it looks to me) you've actually hit the nail on the head. :smilingsun:

 

I can respect that. You have a lot of balls to make those assertions.

[modest]

The arguments against tradition point out that "There have been bad traditions, therefore traditions are bad."

I wasn't aware anyone had made that argument. I believe Enorbet commented on the applicability of tradition in his last post very well. The fact that something is tradition does not establish that it cannot be changed. As Freeztar said, tradition is just the passing on of information. This neither makes the information good or bad. In light of that, I don't see how "tradition" is an argument at all. It seems most like an observation to me. Traditions can be good or bad and any judgments about whether tradition should change needs to be made on the merits of the information being passed on rather than the fact that it has been passed on.

 

I would further add that tradition is often born of necessity. Slavery was tradition in the south because there was a labor shortage in agriculture. With modern farming techniques such a thing is not only morally outrageous, but unnecessary. If the tradition of precluding same-sex marriage comes from Victorian sensibility on sexuality (which was "necessary" in our Puritan settlements of the New World), it may no longer be the necessity which it traditionally was. In other words: gay marriage would have devastated a puritan society, but may have no negative effects on our society at all. Times do change and the necessities of a prosperous society change with them. So I really don't see "tradition" as an argument for or against the topic at hand.

 

Arguing From Tradition is a fallacy, but you cannot claim it as such by resorting to another fallacy. When arguing against the position of tradition you must argue against the specific tradition in question.

 

Well said :smilingsun: It is the merits of the tradition which make it good or bad and not the fact that it is tradition.

 

I am saying this because we must use care in how we present our arguments and challenge those of others, and we must most certainly keep this information in mind before we degenerate the conversation into accusations of hate and bigotry, name calling, or coming to conclusions about a person's motives because of fallacious interpretations of their argument.

 

Yes. I think this has been an exemplary example of a cordial debate—and over such a divisive social issue! It's truly a testament to the character of Hypographers. :hyper:

 

~modest

[lemit]

I'm the one who made the argument against the validity of tradition. I would like to withdraw that argument, because I was forgetting another tradition we have, the tradition of expanding rights, of finding "the better angels of our natures" and assuring that all people are granted full rights, once we become aware that there are people who do not already enjoy those rights.

 

Sometimes we are slow in granting rights. The guarantees of the 14th Amendment had to wait 100 years. Sometimes we we act rapidly, as in the application of equal rights to sexual orientation. The Supreme Court took only 17 years to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence v. Texas. Adeo pro stare decisis.

 

There seems to be a strong will to change the way we deal with sexual orientation. The steps that have already been taken bear testament to that will. One step remains. We will take that step soon, possibly as a result of the cooperation of the opposing attorneys from Gore v. Bush.

 

It'll be all right, really.

 

--lemit

[TheBigDog]

What does "Separate but equal" mean?

 

Separate but equal was first used in legal jargon by the state of Louisiana in 1890 to describe how services should be provided for blacks in an effort to prevent racial interaction. It was then used in the ruling of Plessy v Ferguson in the form of "equal but separate". In 1896 that ruling provided constitutional cover for segregation laws that would exists for the next 70 years.

 

In 1954 there was the case of Brown v Board of Education, where the SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal was not valid for education and that segregated schools were not legal. This was followed by a series of other rulings that deconstructed other segregation laws that existed. Then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which broadly addressed the issue of racial equality.

 

But the notion, the meaning of "Separate but equal" was one of physical space. It was specifically about separating races. Separate schools, separate train cars, separate waiting rooms, separate rest rooms, separate parks, separate swimming pools, etc. It was always about physical space. In other "separate but equal" rulings it has also been about physical space. The vast majority of these rulings have also involved questions of race, but at least one was about gender (United States vs Virginia et al 1996) where the Virginia Military Academy was compelled to accept female students.

 

The argument of "Separate but equal" as used in the same sex marriage argument is an equivocation and misuse of the established meaning of "Separate but equal". It attempts to establish that different legal contracts with the same legal standing and benefits suffers from the same flaws that caused racial segregation to fail. Having two laws representing legal contracts, one being marriage the other being civil union or domestic partners, is hardly on par with having different spaces that people can occupy. It is not forcing people to the back of a bus, or to a separate swimming pool. Everyone is in the same space, everyone is equal under the law; but there remains, if by definition only, distinction between a marriage and a same sex coupling. The mechanisms of the law are perfectly capable of providing legal equality in these circumstances.

 

Another thing to consider with "Separate but equal" is that there is already "separate" established on the basis of gender: restrooms, locker rooms and dressing rooms. I only include this to dispel the notion that separate but equal is in all cases a proven mistake.

 

That leads me to another question: What are the rules of marriage?

 

In the open post of this thread it is said that you don't go down a checklist when you want to get married, you just acknowledge that you are in love. I have to say that statement is wishful thinking. If I fall in love with someone who is married, I cannot marry that person until they are no longer married. If I fall in love with someone who is not old enough to marry then I need to wait until they are of age. The simple fact is that there are rules about who can marry. All of those excluded by those rules suffer the same discrimination.

 

Marriage Checklist:

 

1) Two consenting adults (everywhere)

2) Opposite sex couple (everywhere)

3) Same sex couple (some places)

4) First cousins (some places)

5) Closer than first cousin (Not in US, but some places)

6) Multiple marriages (Not in US, but some places)

7) Sexually transmitted disease (blood test and disclosure required in some states)

 

As you can see being in love is not on the list. It may be what drives the want to marry, but it is only the first requirement. You must also fall within the remaining requirements in order to receive a marriage certificate. Yes, number seven is not an automatic blocker, but it is interesting to note that in some states disclosure is required and must be acknowledged before a marriage license will be granted.

 

My point is this; while two wrongs do not make a right, there are far more than just same sex couples who are missing out on the benefits of marriage. What is the purpose for same sex marriage that cannot be claimed by other groups? What claim can same sex marriage make that is not valid for some other restricted group? What are the phobias and biases that prevent the non same sex couples from marrying?

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

Okay - totally different angle on matters:

 

Here in South Africa, we live in a very conservative society where matters religious and sexual are concerned.

 

We also have a fair share of homosexuals amongst the populace.

 

And for years, the debate have been raging on about the injustice of gay partners living together not having the same civil rights as married couples in the traditional sense of the word. This covers things like legal protection in the case of one partner dying, and his family getting his entire estate, because he "was not married, the gay partner has no rights".

 

Which led to lots of gay couples merely changing their estates so that it grants the surviving partner the exact same legal protection in case of the other's death. They were "married" according to themselves, and to hell with the rest.

 

A lawyer friend of mine told me that he had a whole package deal set up once, a couple of years before same-sex couples were allowed to "marry". This included the creation of a trust, where both partners were set up as trustees. Both their estates were ceded to the trust. Their testaments were amended with the trust being the only beneficiary. All their capital purchases (houses, cars, etc.) was done by the trust. The partners got "married" in a ceremony where their friends and families knew what the deal was.

 

To cut a long story short, the mechanisms for "legal protection" have always existed. The couples concerned, just had to apply the law in such a way as that they're both protected, like married couples are. And who cares what the State thinks?

 

Unless they crave the acceptance of "marriage" in the religious sense. Which means that if they really are religious (Christians, at least), they shouldn't be homosexuals in the first place. Unless they are raving masochists and like to throw each others with stones. But homosexuality not being a choice, and being religious being a choice, it's quite clear that that particular obstacle can be overcome quite easily.

 

But from a legal point of view, they have been catered for for quite a while - with pre-set trust documentation catering for this specific need having been around here for many years.

[modest]

What does "Separate but equal" mean?

 

To use it in a sentence: "They've divided up the physical education budget so that the girls' teams are separate but equal to the boys." (Separate but equal: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com)

 

But the notion, the meaning of "Separate but equal" was one of physical space...

 

It was always about physical space. In other "separate but equal" rulings it has also been about physical space.

 

In Brown v. The Board of Education it was found that the physical space and physical things which could be called "separate" were, in point of fact, equal. The buildings, the budget, the pay for teachers, etc, were all 'equal'. It was therefore necessary for the court to state in its decision that "separate but equal" was not about the physical space and the physical things, but about the opportunities which are inherently unequal when an institution is segregated. They say this explicitly in the decision:

Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education...

 

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

 

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

Not being about the inequality of physical location and tangible facilities, it ended up being about an inequality of opportunity which came from the act of segregation itself.

 

Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal.

 

It seems evident to me that segregating same-sex partnerships from opposite-sex marriage carries the same kind of social inequality which Jim Crow laws cultivated. In both cases is the the act of segregation itself which carries the social stigma. The inequality is not about the 1500 federal and state benefits which civil partners could theoretically receive any more than the inequality in Topeka schools was about the budget for textbooks or the quality of the building which students occupied.

 

Of course, the situation is all the worse when black kids are segregated from white kids and they have inferior textbooks and an inferior building just as the situation is worse when homosexual relationships are segregated from marriage and they don't get all 1500 federal and state benefits. But, at the end of the day it's not just about the textbooks and the benefits. It's about the social repercussions of being a second class citizen. When all else is equal, that is the source of the inequality... it seems to me.

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

It all comes down to the word "marriage". What is already on the table, for the gays, is equality under the law, but with the requirement of using another term such as civil union. Citizens do not have equal access to all words, in terms of lawful gain. I can not use the word Microsoft to gain extra benefits which Microsoft currently gains. Separate but equal applies. I can do everything Microsoft does, if I use another term.

 

The same can be said of non copyrighted words. A white male could not use the word black or female to gain benefits targeted to blacks and females. One can get arrested for using these words to gain social benefits. The word Kosher has a certain differentiation based on ancient traditions. What the future will be once the can of worms is open, one will have a legal precedent to use words, like Kosher, to describe things that are not, since physical differentiation would discriminate.

 

If we open the door to zero word-physical differentiation, there could never be reverse discrimination. One would only need to use the correct term to be equal, and get all the benefits. It could have nothing to do with any type of traditional physical differentiation only the word use in the law. If a male wanted to go into a woman's locker room, they only have to use the buzz work "female" and that is all that would be required. It would then unlawful to discriminate, since they are now females, just like the wording in the law, without regards to physical distinctions.

 

I assume the lawyers have figured this one out, to increase future jobs within their profession, After that legal change, I could then use the word lawyer, allowing me to practice law and receive all the benefits, because there can be no physical differentiation based on words, or that would discriminate, if I am using the right word that is in the laws. I might also use the word, "Press" so I can say anything I want and be protected by the constitution under freedom of Press.

 

Let me change directions and show one possible compromise, that might help make this particular word-physical neutralization, a unique case. Although this is a stereo type, gays are often flamboyant in terms of their uniform. This style of loud dress is somewhere between Mardi Gras and Halloween. In other words, these two days are the two most likely days when the average straight person would dress in a similar way.

 

These two days are two Pagan festivals, that come just before two Christian traditions, which are Lent and All Saints Day. These festivals were included by the old Catholic Church, when the church was recruiting Pagans. Including these pagan traditions was needed to prevent totally uprooting the Pagans from their age old traditions, making the transition easier.

 

In my opinion, this Pagan uniform is what makes the church hesitant, since it appears to be a step backwards in church evolution. It suggests the gay desire for only the Pagan except when it is convenient, like marriage. One compromise are the gays, giving up the Pagan day-to-day lifestyle in exchange for the rights of marriage. Maybe they could limit the Pagan to the traditional pagan holidays, plus an extra they can create. The Church would see a progressive movement beyond the ancient Pagan, and may feel more inclined to be inclusive. There is church precedence for this, which the church lawyers can iron out.

 

One last thing, to help make this easier to see from the church's POV. Just as the body is built upon layers of evolving genetics, i.e,, body systems work the same but get upgrades, human consciousness is built upon evolution in the brain's operating system. This operating system turns the genetic based hardware into more advance versions of consciousness. The pagan was more like version 4.0-5.0, while the modern brain is moving toward 7.0.

 

In essence, the Church does not wish to go back to Windows 98 when Windows 7 is almost ready to be introduced. There is nothing in the Mardi Gras or Halloween lifestyle that could not be performed with far earlier brain operating systems; even a caveman could do it. Gays are ready for 7.0 and the church will welcome them. Science does not help, since they don't know what consciousness is, never mind the direction of the future operating system is not 2.0-4.0; animals.

[Larv]

Well, out here in the Evergreen State and Octopus Garden the laws governing same-sex domestic partnerships are entirely equal to those governing marriage (you know, “heterosexual marriage”?).

As shown: not true.

 

The law you're talking about was described like so by its House sponsor:

 

Wash. mulls major expansion of gay partner law | News Story on 365gay.com

Did you read the article? Here’s quote from it:

 

Both bills are sponsored by Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Pedersen, both Democrats and openly gay.

Vested interest, that’s all.

 

Oh, btw, we have Indian reservations out here. How does that settle with your anti-separate-but-equal agenda?

Indian reservations are not equal to the state of Washington.

Actually, they are more equal that the state would like them to be. Indian reservations can do things that the state cannot, such as run gambling casinos and sell tax-free cigarettes and illegal (off reservations) fireworks.

[Larv]

OK. Then there is nothing to argue about here. Gay marriage has persisted and is traditional. Books have been written about gay marriages throughout civilizations. Civilizations rest on gay marriage. We as humans can not survive without it. It is in the fabric of every society. There is nothing to change.

Great irony, lawcat! Show me a civilization that rests on "gay marriage" and I'll show you an extinct civilization.

[InfiniteNow]

But the notion, the meaning of "Separate but equal" was one of physical space. It was specifically about separating races. Separate schools, separate train cars, separate waiting rooms, separate rest rooms, separate parks, separate swimming pools, etc. It was always about physical space.

Modest has already handily dismantled this particular suggestion of yours, and I only comment in support of his point which is a solid and valid rebuttal of your position.

 

@ Modest: +1.

 

 

 

The argument of "Separate but equal" as used in the same sex marriage argument is an equivocation and misuse of the established meaning of "Separate but equal".

You cannot simply assert this by fiat and expect us to accept your argument. Since your argument that "separate, but equal" only applied to physical spaces has been flatly debunked, you are left to describe why separate, but equal does not apply to same sex couples.

 

You also continue to fail sharing a relevant secular reason for treating or naming them differently. I've been asking for a relevant secular reason since the start of this thread. Those which have been put forth have all been shown to be inapplicable, grounded in false premises and logical fallacies, and very often informed by nothing other than segregationist desires.

 

So, I will ask again. What is your relevant secular reason for naming same sex couples anything other than a marriage? What harm does it cause you and your family, and why do you want this marital segregation codified into our laws?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you read the article? Here’s quote from it:

 

Vested interest, that’s all.

 

This is completely irrelevant to the context of the quote. You said that same sex couples had ALL of the same rights and protections and privileges as opposite sex couples in Washington. Modest shared information indicating that your assertion was plainly false. The sexual preference of the congressmen, and what their vested interest may be is COMPLETELY unrelated to the context in which the quote was shared, and completely misses the point of the discussion.

 

 

As for your jab that "show me a society where same sex partnerships are the norm and I'll show you an extinct civilizatoin"... It only shows how faulty your logic on this topic is, and how weak your argument has truly become. The simple fact is that we LIVE IN that civilization, as do at least 1500 other animals in the animal kingdom.

 

This information has been shared with you on more than one occasion before. If you do not understand it, or you do not realize how cleanly it decapitates your point, then it speaks very poorly of your stance in this thread. Your point (in essense) is that homosexuality cannot be spread genetically, and this assertion is not only demonstrably false and wholly inaccurate, but it is also ABSOLUTELY unrelated to the discussion at hand regarding equality in marriage despite sexual preference.