Balog
November 18, 2003, 02:45 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians
Mass. strikes down gay marriage ban
If you enjoyed reading about "Mass. strikes down gay marriage ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mantispid
November 18, 2003, 03:25 PM
Eh... what they need to do is strike down state marriages altogether.. that's the only way to really make things 'fair'.
Marriage is best kept to the realm of religion and contract, not government.
Marriage is best kept to the realm of religion and contract, not government.
rock jock
November 18, 2003, 04:13 PM
Yet another reason I would never live in that abyssmal state, as if I needed one.
azthistletoe
November 18, 2003, 04:17 PM
Sounds like a good thing to me.
Gordon Fink
November 18, 2003, 04:33 PM
Yet another reason I would never live in that abyssmal state.…
So you don’t want the state telling you which guns you can own, but you’re happy to be told whom you can or cannot marry?
~G. Fink
So you don’t want the state telling you which guns you can own, but you’re happy to be told whom you can or cannot marry?
~G. Fink
rock jock
November 18, 2003, 04:46 PM
So you don’t want the state telling you which guns you can own, but you’re happy to be told whom you can or cannot marry?
I believe the citizens of every state have the right to make up their community standards, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. So, Mass. can do what they want, jost as long as they don't tell Texans how we must live.
I believe the citizens of every state have the right to make up their community standards, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. So, Mass. can do what they want, jost as long as they don't tell Texans how we must live.
MJRW
November 18, 2003, 04:49 PM
But its ok for Texas to tell Texans how they can live, right?
wenger
November 18, 2003, 04:49 PM
What if you want to marry a sheep? Is that ok?
John
John
Balog
November 18, 2003, 04:54 PM
I think Thomas Sowell has a good handle on the issue.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp
The issue of gay marriage is one of many signs of the sloppy thinking of our times. Centuries of laws, policies and traditions have grown up around marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Now the demand is that all those laws, policies and traditions simply be transferred automatically and en masse to an entirely different union that chooses to use the same word.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they argued that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Now they want to make it everybody's business by requiring others to acquiesce in their unions and treat them as they would other unions, both in law and in social practice.
Why is marriage a government concern in the first place? There are at least three reasons.
First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.
Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. The inescapable fact that only women become pregnant means that male and female situations are never going to be the same, no matter how much "gender neutral" language we use or how much fashionable talk there is about how "we" are going to have a baby. Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.
Third, time has very different effects on men and women. As the years pass and women lose their physical attraction, men are typically rising in income and occupational status. It is usually easier for a middle-aged man to abandon his wife and make a second marriage with a younger "trophy wife" than for a woman to remarry equally as advantageously. Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.
These and other differences between the sexes simply do not apply when the people in a domestic union are of the same sex. When they are simply "consenting adults," they can consent on whatever terms they choose to work out between themselves. It is nobody else's business and should not be the law's business.
If they choose to consider themselves married, that is wholly different from saying that a whole elaborate body of laws, policies and traditions -- which evolved from the experiences of innumerable generations of male and female unions -- should automatically apply to their very different circumstances. You can call yourself anything you want, including the queen of Sheba, but that does not give you the right to force other people to call you the queen of Sheba.
After years of dumbed-down education, it may be inevitable that we would now have a population which includes many people who cannot see beyond words to the realities that those words are supposed to convey. It is hard to imagine any previous generation of Americans who would have taken seriously the idea of making marriage laws apply to domestic unions which lack the very features that caused marriage laws to exist in the first place.
The issue of gay marriage is just one of many examples of the victim's ploy, which says: "I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands and let me walk over you like a doormat, it shows that you are a hate-filled, evil person." Whatever its failings as logic, this tactic has been a big success politically.
The only reward for giving in to unreasonable demands are more unreasonable demands. Having gotten far more money spent for AIDS than has been spent on other fatal diseases affecting far more people, gay activists are now demanding federal research on the kinds of recreational drugs used in night clubs by homosexuals, so as to make them safer. Imagine if alcoholics were to demand that the feds spend tax dollars to make drunkenness safer!
Homosexuals are not the only group to have played this game -- and won. Our vulnerability to such ploys is far more dangerous than any particular issue or any particular group, because it means that we are sitting ducks for any slick political demagogues who come along and choose to take away anything we have, including our freedom and everything else that makes this America.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp
The issue of gay marriage is one of many signs of the sloppy thinking of our times. Centuries of laws, policies and traditions have grown up around marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Now the demand is that all those laws, policies and traditions simply be transferred automatically and en masse to an entirely different union that chooses to use the same word.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they argued that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Now they want to make it everybody's business by requiring others to acquiesce in their unions and treat them as they would other unions, both in law and in social practice.
Why is marriage a government concern in the first place? There are at least three reasons.
First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.
Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. The inescapable fact that only women become pregnant means that male and female situations are never going to be the same, no matter how much "gender neutral" language we use or how much fashionable talk there is about how "we" are going to have a baby. Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.
Third, time has very different effects on men and women. As the years pass and women lose their physical attraction, men are typically rising in income and occupational status. It is usually easier for a middle-aged man to abandon his wife and make a second marriage with a younger "trophy wife" than for a woman to remarry equally as advantageously. Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.
These and other differences between the sexes simply do not apply when the people in a domestic union are of the same sex. When they are simply "consenting adults," they can consent on whatever terms they choose to work out between themselves. It is nobody else's business and should not be the law's business.
If they choose to consider themselves married, that is wholly different from saying that a whole elaborate body of laws, policies and traditions -- which evolved from the experiences of innumerable generations of male and female unions -- should automatically apply to their very different circumstances. You can call yourself anything you want, including the queen of Sheba, but that does not give you the right to force other people to call you the queen of Sheba.
After years of dumbed-down education, it may be inevitable that we would now have a population which includes many people who cannot see beyond words to the realities that those words are supposed to convey. It is hard to imagine any previous generation of Americans who would have taken seriously the idea of making marriage laws apply to domestic unions which lack the very features that caused marriage laws to exist in the first place.
The issue of gay marriage is just one of many examples of the victim's ploy, which says: "I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands and let me walk over you like a doormat, it shows that you are a hate-filled, evil person." Whatever its failings as logic, this tactic has been a big success politically.
The only reward for giving in to unreasonable demands are more unreasonable demands. Having gotten far more money spent for AIDS than has been spent on other fatal diseases affecting far more people, gay activists are now demanding federal research on the kinds of recreational drugs used in night clubs by homosexuals, so as to make them safer. Imagine if alcoholics were to demand that the feds spend tax dollars to make drunkenness safer!
Homosexuals are not the only group to have played this game -- and won. Our vulnerability to such ploys is far more dangerous than any particular issue or any particular group, because it means that we are sitting ducks for any slick political demagogues who come along and choose to take away anything we have, including our freedom and everything else that makes this America.
rock jock
November 18, 2003, 04:57 PM
But its ok for Texas to tell Texans how they can live, right?
Texas is a place. Your question should have been phrased "Can Texans set standards for themselves?" Answer: YUP!
Texas is a place. Your question should have been phrased "Can Texans set standards for themselves?" Answer: YUP!
rock jock
November 18, 2003, 05:07 PM
Balog,
Excellent article. The left has orchestrated one of the most effective PR campiagns in history on the issue of homosexuality. Over the years there has been consistent pressure to transform attitudes from condemnation to tolerance to acceptance to celebration. The whole "in the privacy of their own home" claim has been a sham. The are just now beginning to see the agenda of the PC crowd. YOU WILL CONFORM!
Excellent article. The left has orchestrated one of the most effective PR campiagns in history on the issue of homosexuality. Over the years there has been consistent pressure to transform attitudes from condemnation to tolerance to acceptance to celebration. The whole "in the privacy of their own home" claim has been a sham. The are just now beginning to see the agenda of the PC crowd. YOU WILL CONFORM!
tyme
November 18, 2003, 05:18 PM
Marriage is an artifact of religion. Any federal or state law talking about marriage is obviously unconstitutional. It seems to me pretty obvious that, philosophically at least, non-religious people cannot be married by the usual ceremony. Where would the "priest" get the authority to perform a marriage, even if he or she is licensed? A 3rd party that's important enough to a non-religious couple to be asked to mediate a ceremony is unlikely to be licensed. Such a ceremony is void as viewed by the State and leaves the couple at the mercy of common law marriage rules.
As for federalism, there's this often-overlooked piece of writing called the 14th amendment. :) Though no rights are explicitly stated in the 1st Amendment, I think it's clear to everyone (except maybe the Bush family) that that amendment is intended to guarantee personal freedom of religion or lack thereof by immunity from government interference. "Government interference" gets a broad reading these days, but such reading is not necessary to see problems with government-recognized marriage. If the State recognizes marriages but some religions don't provide for marriage, that's State interference in religion: If any State laws or codes regulate people differently based on marital status, the Government is judging people differently based on their religion.
That's the whole issue. I don't care whether governments, state or federal, "recognize" marriage in some general way, but marriage is linked to innumerable laws and regulations. Not the least of which is the Federal Tax Code.
It seems to me that these regulations are the reason Christian Republicans don't want gay marriage recognized. As far as they're concerned, marriage is a social construct designed for society purposes. That's why there are so many laws predicated on marital status. There's social benefit, or so they claim, from having men and women living together in a monogomous relationship.
Whether that used to be true or not, the institution of marriage these days doesn't have a lot to do with either living together or monogomous relationships. So I think it's fair to say that whatever social benefits may arise from marriage, they no longer provide a compelling reason to regulate, punish, or reward it via secular authority.
And if the Christian right is correct and marriage does have societal benefits, why does the IRS financially punish people for getting married if both people work? Maybe the IRS is run by liberal scumbags who are trying to destroy a great moral pillar of society! That's it! :banghead:
As for federalism, there's this often-overlooked piece of writing called the 14th amendment. :) Though no rights are explicitly stated in the 1st Amendment, I think it's clear to everyone (except maybe the Bush family) that that amendment is intended to guarantee personal freedom of religion or lack thereof by immunity from government interference. "Government interference" gets a broad reading these days, but such reading is not necessary to see problems with government-recognized marriage. If the State recognizes marriages but some religions don't provide for marriage, that's State interference in religion: If any State laws or codes regulate people differently based on marital status, the Government is judging people differently based on their religion.
That's the whole issue. I don't care whether governments, state or federal, "recognize" marriage in some general way, but marriage is linked to innumerable laws and regulations. Not the least of which is the Federal Tax Code.
It seems to me that these regulations are the reason Christian Republicans don't want gay marriage recognized. As far as they're concerned, marriage is a social construct designed for society purposes. That's why there are so many laws predicated on marital status. There's social benefit, or so they claim, from having men and women living together in a monogomous relationship.
Whether that used to be true or not, the institution of marriage these days doesn't have a lot to do with either living together or monogomous relationships. So I think it's fair to say that whatever social benefits may arise from marriage, they no longer provide a compelling reason to regulate, punish, or reward it via secular authority.
And if the Christian right is correct and marriage does have societal benefits, why does the IRS financially punish people for getting married if both people work? Maybe the IRS is run by liberal scumbags who are trying to destroy a great moral pillar of society! That's it! :banghead:
hillbilly
November 18, 2003, 05:19 PM
Pay no attention to those niggling little inconvenient details like biology, or thousands upon thousands of generations of human family structure.
We want our PC policy NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hillbilly
We want our PC policy NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hillbilly
hillbilly
November 18, 2003, 05:24 PM
Yo tyme....
Uh, if "marriage is an artifact of religion" then can you explain "common law marriages" wherein a man and woman are legally considered married after they have lived together for X number of years, depending on the state law?
There is a whole lot more to the entire "marriage" question than just religion.
There are questions of responsibilities.....legal, not just moral or religious responsibilities.
There are questions of property rights, insurance benefits, taxes, etc. etc. etc.
I am all for consenting adults for living with whomever or whatever consenting adults want to live with.
However, I am not for man-man, woman-woman, man-man-woman, or woman-transexual transvestite from Transylvania unions being declared "marriages" and thus coming under all the legal protections, rights, and responsibilities assigned to man-woman marriages that produce children.
hillbilly
Uh, if "marriage is an artifact of religion" then can you explain "common law marriages" wherein a man and woman are legally considered married after they have lived together for X number of years, depending on the state law?
There is a whole lot more to the entire "marriage" question than just religion.
There are questions of responsibilities.....legal, not just moral or religious responsibilities.
There are questions of property rights, insurance benefits, taxes, etc. etc. etc.
I am all for consenting adults for living with whomever or whatever consenting adults want to live with.
However, I am not for man-man, woman-woman, man-man-woman, or woman-transexual transvestite from Transylvania unions being declared "marriages" and thus coming under all the legal protections, rights, and responsibilities assigned to man-woman marriages that produce children.
hillbilly
hillbilly
November 18, 2003, 05:32 PM
One more point to make, especially to those who aren't married and thus do not know.
Marriage is much more a legal issue than a religious issue.
You can have or not have whatever sort of religious, a-religious, non-religious, pan-religious, atheist, Zorastrian ceremony you want at a wedding.
You can have naked wiccan priestesses bless your union with your beloved with a dance of the fertility nymph goddess if you want.
But the fact is, if you ain't got that "marriage license" signed by the appropirate government official, you ain't married.
Marriage is foremost a LEGAL contract, not a religious one.
And if you think otherwise, then I submit you've probably never had to file for a marraige license before.
That's why Justices of the Peace, ship's captains, and other so-designated legal or governmental authorities can perform LEGALLY binding weddings.
And, if you don't understand the legal responsibilities and property rights issues at the heart of marriage, then I submit to you that you've never been through a divorce, either.....................
Marriage is NOT "sharing your life of your own free will with whomever you choose with no consequences when you two decide to part."
Yeah, go ask some guy who's gotten a divorce and lost half his property, including probably his GUNS about the Legal aspects of marriage.
hillbilly
Marriage is much more a legal issue than a religious issue.
You can have or not have whatever sort of religious, a-religious, non-religious, pan-religious, atheist, Zorastrian ceremony you want at a wedding.
You can have naked wiccan priestesses bless your union with your beloved with a dance of the fertility nymph goddess if you want.
But the fact is, if you ain't got that "marriage license" signed by the appropirate government official, you ain't married.
Marriage is foremost a LEGAL contract, not a religious one.
And if you think otherwise, then I submit you've probably never had to file for a marraige license before.
That's why Justices of the Peace, ship's captains, and other so-designated legal or governmental authorities can perform LEGALLY binding weddings.
And, if you don't understand the legal responsibilities and property rights issues at the heart of marriage, then I submit to you that you've never been through a divorce, either.....................
Marriage is NOT "sharing your life of your own free will with whomever you choose with no consequences when you two decide to part."
Yeah, go ask some guy who's gotten a divorce and lost half his property, including probably his GUNS about the Legal aspects of marriage.
hillbilly
azthistletoe
November 18, 2003, 05:39 PM
So what exactly is wrong with having two homosexuals enter that legal contract? I'm not really getting that part of the argument...
Marko Kloos
November 18, 2003, 05:41 PM
However, I am not for man-man, woman-woman, man-man-woman, or woman-transexual transvestite from Transylvania unions being declared "marriages" and thus coming under all the legal protections, rights, and responsibilities assigned to man-woman marriages that produce children.
Oh? Should we require fertility tests, then, to make sure only fertile couples can legally get married?
The "marriage is for procreation" argument is a weak one. Not even the most rabid Christian fundamentalists propose that marriage should be exclusive to fertile men and women. Problem is, if you concede that infertile couples have the right to get married, you've already chopped one leg off your argument.
I, for one, do not understand the inconsistency of the religious argument against civil gay marriages. They complain about the breakdown of family structure, supposed gay promiscuity, and so on...and then refuse to let gays commit themselves to each other legally, with all the rights and responsibilties of straight married couples, which would serve to legally affirm their commitment to each other and make their relationship a legally binding act.
Face it, the only opposition to gay marriages comes from religious reservations. If you don't want gay marriages in your church, then don't have them. Trouble is, a marriage is a civil contract, and religion should have no say in who gets to engage in it.
I have no issue with gays committing themselves to their partners legally and financially.
Oh? Should we require fertility tests, then, to make sure only fertile couples can legally get married?
The "marriage is for procreation" argument is a weak one. Not even the most rabid Christian fundamentalists propose that marriage should be exclusive to fertile men and women. Problem is, if you concede that infertile couples have the right to get married, you've already chopped one leg off your argument.
I, for one, do not understand the inconsistency of the religious argument against civil gay marriages. They complain about the breakdown of family structure, supposed gay promiscuity, and so on...and then refuse to let gays commit themselves to each other legally, with all the rights and responsibilties of straight married couples, which would serve to legally affirm their commitment to each other and make their relationship a legally binding act.
Face it, the only opposition to gay marriages comes from religious reservations. If you don't want gay marriages in your church, then don't have them. Trouble is, a marriage is a civil contract, and religion should have no say in who gets to engage in it.
I have no issue with gays committing themselves to their partners legally and financially.
rock jock
November 18, 2003, 05:51 PM
Marriage is an artifact of religion.
Marriage is a consequence of both biology and societal stability. Most societies moved to the standard of the one woman-one man relationship because it benefitted the family and, consequently, society. Religions codified the marriage ceremony only because the judiciary and religion were so closely linked in history, but marriage as an institution is by no means rooted in religion.
Any federal or state law talking about marriage is obviously unconstitutional.
Oh right, obviously. Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes: I guess all those other prohibitions we have in our society, like laws aganist rape, since they are also tied to moral standards, are unconstitutional too, eh?
There's social benefit, or so they claim, from having men and women living together in a monogomous relationship.
Not just "they", but also every social scientist worth their weight. I guess you conveniently choose to ignore every peer-reviewed and indepedently researched study showing how children benefit the most from a home with both a mother and father, not two mommies.
Whether that used to be true or not, the institution of marriage these days doesn't have a lot to do with either living together or monogomous relationships.
You base this on WHAT exactly?
And if the Christian right is correct and marriage does have societal benefits, why does the IRS financially punish people for getting married if both people work?
You're asking why the govt. has a policy that is morally wrong? Are you serious? Hello???
Marriage is a consequence of both biology and societal stability. Most societies moved to the standard of the one woman-one man relationship because it benefitted the family and, consequently, society. Religions codified the marriage ceremony only because the judiciary and religion were so closely linked in history, but marriage as an institution is by no means rooted in religion.
Any federal or state law talking about marriage is obviously unconstitutional.
Oh right, obviously. Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes: I guess all those other prohibitions we have in our society, like laws aganist rape, since they are also tied to moral standards, are unconstitutional too, eh?
There's social benefit, or so they claim, from having men and women living together in a monogomous relationship.
Not just "they", but also every social scientist worth their weight. I guess you conveniently choose to ignore every peer-reviewed and indepedently researched study showing how children benefit the most from a home with both a mother and father, not two mommies.
Whether that used to be true or not, the institution of marriage these days doesn't have a lot to do with either living together or monogomous relationships.
You base this on WHAT exactly?
And if the Christian right is correct and marriage does have societal benefits, why does the IRS financially punish people for getting married if both people work?
You're asking why the govt. has a policy that is morally wrong? Are you serious? Hello???
Don Galt
November 18, 2003, 05:53 PM
Yeah! What Hillbilly said!
Pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that biologically we are designed to sleep around!
:neener:
And as for the christian argument, the marriage cerremony was created in the catholic church way back in the past as a ceremony between priests and alterboys.
Its only recently (eg 500 years) that you socialists have gotten it to be for the commoners to marry their "wives".
:neener:
And wenger, I know your awnser to that question-- I've seen your wife! :D (j/k)
:neener:
Oh, and finally, when are you guys going to get around to telling us how the bible condemns all these unholy interracial marriages? :banghead:
No SPECIAL RIGHTS for HETEROsexuals! :rolleyes:
Pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that biologically we are designed to sleep around!
:neener:
And as for the christian argument, the marriage cerremony was created in the catholic church way back in the past as a ceremony between priests and alterboys.
Its only recently (eg 500 years) that you socialists have gotten it to be for the commoners to marry their "wives".
:neener:
And wenger, I know your awnser to that question-- I've seen your wife! :D (j/k)
:neener:
Oh, and finally, when are you guys going to get around to telling us how the bible condemns all these unholy interracial marriages? :banghead:
No SPECIAL RIGHTS for HETEROsexuals! :rolleyes:
Don Galt
November 18, 2003, 06:00 PM
ot just "they", but also every social scientist worth their weight. I guess you conveniently choose to ignore every peer-reviewed and indepedently researched study showing how children benefit the most from a home with both a mother and father, not two mommies.
Actually, I've never seen one. Have you got a citation? And remember-- we're talking "peer-reviewed" and I will also add the criteria that the study must have been published in a legitimate scientific journal-- eg: one that publishes other kinds of studies in the subject areas, not one of those who only publishes this study over and over.
Did this study appear in Nature? JAMA? NEJM? Which journal was it?
But I did hear of a study, that I think appeared in Nature, that found the opposite-- that children of gay homes grew up better off than children of heterosexual homes. But I could be wrong-- I didn't read the article.
So, rock jock, please provide a citation to scientific article backing your claims. After all, since you say "Every... study" came to these conclusions, it should be easy for you to fine one, right?
Actually, I've never seen one. Have you got a citation? And remember-- we're talking "peer-reviewed" and I will also add the criteria that the study must have been published in a legitimate scientific journal-- eg: one that publishes other kinds of studies in the subject areas, not one of those who only publishes this study over and over.
Did this study appear in Nature? JAMA? NEJM? Which journal was it?
But I did hear of a study, that I think appeared in Nature, that found the opposite-- that children of gay homes grew up better off than children of heterosexual homes. But I could be wrong-- I didn't read the article.
So, rock jock, please provide a citation to scientific article backing your claims. After all, since you say "Every... study" came to these conclusions, it should be easy for you to fine one, right?
Mastrogiacomo
November 18, 2003, 06:14 PM
France has had a sort of marriage for gays where they enjoy protection under law as a recognized couple that binds them like a marriage without the actual church service. It's also very confidental and apparently popular. A lot of hetrosexual couples have been getting hitched this way so that can somewhat commit without going all out. I think to each his own. I've no right to tell people who to love or how to live. Some gay couples have been together far longer than most hetrosexual couples I know...and power to them. If a church wants to prohibit the union, it's their right but states should allow a similar civil service. Discrimination is wrong no matter who it's directed at. You don't have to understand everyone but you should at least respect....
tyme
November 18, 2003, 06:28 PM
rockjock,
There's a distinction between sex and marriage. Marriage is a religion-motivated construct. Sex, whether monogamous or not, has nothing to do with it.
Marriage is a consequence of both biology and societal stability.
That statement is absurd. Marriage is not a consequence of biology; sex is. Social stability may be caused by marriage, but arguing the reverse, that social stability causes marriage, is really a stretch, and at any rate does nothing for your argument.
Oh right, obviously. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess all those other prohibitions we have in our society, like laws aganist rape, since they are also tied to moral standards, are unconstitutional too, eh?
Well, if marriage were mandated, that would be one thing (though I would say it would be just as morally wrong). There are direct regulations on marriage, but the main problem (as should have been obvious from the remainder of my post) I have is that many other laws, or at least their application, depend on marital status. Does the IRS tax ex-felons differently, for instance? Tax law, and probably corporate law as well, is full of regulation differences based on marital status.
You base [claims of instability of marriage] on WHAT exactly?
Uhh, perhaps the divorce rate?
You're asking why the govt. has a policy that is morally wrong? Are you serious? Hello???
Uhh, I was just pointing out that the government contradicts its own position on the sacrament of marriage. On one hand many in government screech about the importance of traditional marriage (or any kind of marriage, for that matter). On the other it hits married couples with the "marriage penalty."
There's actually a hit that liberals (non-standard usage, here meaning anti-marriage-recognition) take when arguing against state recognition of anything related to marriage. The spousal testimony exception in court is in doubt if we do away with state recognition of marriage. And since all liberals are criminals, this affects us very much. :o
There's a distinction between sex and marriage. Marriage is a religion-motivated construct. Sex, whether monogamous or not, has nothing to do with it.
Marriage is a consequence of both biology and societal stability.
That statement is absurd. Marriage is not a consequence of biology; sex is. Social stability may be caused by marriage, but arguing the reverse, that social stability causes marriage, is really a stretch, and at any rate does nothing for your argument.
Oh right, obviously. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess all those other prohibitions we have in our society, like laws aganist rape, since they are also tied to moral standards, are unconstitutional too, eh?
Well, if marriage were mandated, that would be one thing (though I would say it would be just as morally wrong). There are direct regulations on marriage, but the main problem (as should have been obvious from the remainder of my post) I have is that many other laws, or at least their application, depend on marital status. Does the IRS tax ex-felons differently, for instance? Tax law, and probably corporate law as well, is full of regulation differences based on marital status.
You base [claims of instability of marriage] on WHAT exactly?
Uhh, perhaps the divorce rate?
You're asking why the govt. has a policy that is morally wrong? Are you serious? Hello???
Uhh, I was just pointing out that the government contradicts its own position on the sacrament of marriage. On one hand many in government screech about the importance of traditional marriage (or any kind of marriage, for that matter). On the other it hits married couples with the "marriage penalty."
There's actually a hit that liberals (non-standard usage, here meaning anti-marriage-recognition) take when arguing against state recognition of anything related to marriage. The spousal testimony exception in court is in doubt if we do away with state recognition of marriage. And since all liberals are criminals, this affects us very much. :o
TallPine
November 18, 2003, 06:43 PM
You can have naked wiccan priestesses bless your union with your beloved with a dance of the fertility nymph goddess if you want.
Unfortunately, I didn't know that when I got married
:D
Unfortunately, I didn't know that when I got married
:D
Gordon Fink
November 18, 2003, 06:48 PM
Do a little research on anti-miscegenation laws before you decide to let the government pick whom you can marry.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm
~G. Fink
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm
~G. Fink
Barbara
November 18, 2003, 06:52 PM
Third, time has very different effects on men and women. As the years pass and women lose their physical attraction, men are typically rising in income and occupational status. It is usually easier for a middle-aged man to abandon his wife and make a second marriage with a younger "trophy wife" than for a woman to remarry equally as advantageously. Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.
Can I just snorkle at this a little bit?
Gay people shouldn't get married so if I get old, fat & ugly, I won't be abandoned? I dunno if thats a worse deal for them or for me.
Can I just snorkle at this a little bit?
Gay people shouldn't get married so if I get old, fat & ugly, I won't be abandoned? I dunno if thats a worse deal for them or for me.
GSB
November 18, 2003, 06:54 PM
I was watching Fox and they were talking about whether the Supreme Court would force the other states to recognize these marriages under the Full Faith and Credit clause.
I'm curious -- if they do rule that way, wouldn't that be grounds for applying the same reasoning to CCW?
I'm curious -- if they do rule that way, wouldn't that be grounds for applying the same reasoning to CCW?
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 06:55 PM
1. Consummation. Recently, a judge told a man who had caught his wife in bed with another woman, and sued for adultery, that two women cannot be adulterous as there is no consummation of the relationship.
If a marriage is inconsummate, the marriage can be annulled rather that having to go thru that pesky divorce thing. Homosexuals insist that they want only equal protection under the law, but heterosexual marriages, once consummated, cannot be annulled. They have to get a divorce.
2. Biology. Heterosexuals are precluded from intermarriage between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, or even first cousins, aunts or uncles. This is because the offspring of those marriages can have serious physiological and psychological problems.
Since there is no threat of these anomalies, in a marriage which cannot produce natural children, there would be no problem with two brothers, two sisters, mother and daughter, or father and son marrying.
Homosexuals insist that they want only equal protection under the law, but heterosexual marriages are beset by limitations on relationships from which homosexuals are exempt.
3. Genealogy. What will happen to genealogy when the family tree starts leaning to one side or the other; especially when the union is between two brothers, two sisters, father and son, or mother and daughter?
If a marriage is inconsummate, the marriage can be annulled rather that having to go thru that pesky divorce thing. Homosexuals insist that they want only equal protection under the law, but heterosexual marriages, once consummated, cannot be annulled. They have to get a divorce.
2. Biology. Heterosexuals are precluded from intermarriage between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, or even first cousins, aunts or uncles. This is because the offspring of those marriages can have serious physiological and psychological problems.
Since there is no threat of these anomalies, in a marriage which cannot produce natural children, there would be no problem with two brothers, two sisters, mother and daughter, or father and son marrying.
Homosexuals insist that they want only equal protection under the law, but heterosexual marriages are beset by limitations on relationships from which homosexuals are exempt.
3. Genealogy. What will happen to genealogy when the family tree starts leaning to one side or the other; especially when the union is between two brothers, two sisters, father and son, or mother and daughter?
hillbilly
November 18, 2003, 06:57 PM
Okay, since when did France become a good example of jurisprudence for the US to follow?
Even if male-female unions do not produce children, there is still the biological potential that they could.
That's part of the rationale behind all the legally binding decisions concerning adoption of children.
Adoption usually happens when a male-female couple are medically unable to produce children, but the same laws apply to those children because if the couple did not have an abnormal medical situation, they could produce their own children.
If a female-female couple are both perfectly healthy and normal, there is no possibility or potential whatsoever for children to be produced by that couple...............ever, under any circumstances. Producing a child would require absolutely a third person, at least.
The laws concerning marriage......the property rights conferred, the legal responsibilities to spouses and children, the legal benefits given to families for paternity leave, medical insurance, tax breaks, etc. etc are all predicated on the biological potential for married couples to produce children.
The same laws apply to elderly people getting married because at one time they had the potential to produce children, and usually have produced children in other marriages before getting married at an advanced age.
Okay, so if Bob and Steve "marry" and adopt a kid, which one of them gets the Family Leave Act maternity leave????????
Does Bob take it one week, and Steve take it the next week?
You are either Bob's or Steve's employer. You want to deal with that mess? Or do you want to show how cosmopolitan and urbane and sophisticated you are and take that on?
Not even the uber liberal John Kerry along with Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, etc, are in favor of gay "marriage."
But to go with the French legal example offered earlier, even in France, there is a legal difference between a married couple and a couple in a "civil union."
Somebody else made the sarcastic remark that we are biologically programmed to sleep around.
If that is true, isn't that even more reason for all the laws surrounding marriage???????
When kids are conceived and born, men and women are not legal equals nor are they biological equals.
Men can impregnate and leave at will.
Once a woman is pregnant, she's sort of busy for a long time, even if she gives up the child for adoption at birth, she's out of comission for months, at least. If she decides to keep the child after the man has left, she's really busy for a much longer time.
That's why "child support" laws exist.
hilllbilly
Even if male-female unions do not produce children, there is still the biological potential that they could.
That's part of the rationale behind all the legally binding decisions concerning adoption of children.
Adoption usually happens when a male-female couple are medically unable to produce children, but the same laws apply to those children because if the couple did not have an abnormal medical situation, they could produce their own children.
If a female-female couple are both perfectly healthy and normal, there is no possibility or potential whatsoever for children to be produced by that couple...............ever, under any circumstances. Producing a child would require absolutely a third person, at least.
The laws concerning marriage......the property rights conferred, the legal responsibilities to spouses and children, the legal benefits given to families for paternity leave, medical insurance, tax breaks, etc. etc are all predicated on the biological potential for married couples to produce children.
The same laws apply to elderly people getting married because at one time they had the potential to produce children, and usually have produced children in other marriages before getting married at an advanced age.
Okay, so if Bob and Steve "marry" and adopt a kid, which one of them gets the Family Leave Act maternity leave????????
Does Bob take it one week, and Steve take it the next week?
You are either Bob's or Steve's employer. You want to deal with that mess? Or do you want to show how cosmopolitan and urbane and sophisticated you are and take that on?
Not even the uber liberal John Kerry along with Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, etc, are in favor of gay "marriage."
But to go with the French legal example offered earlier, even in France, there is a legal difference between a married couple and a couple in a "civil union."
Somebody else made the sarcastic remark that we are biologically programmed to sleep around.
If that is true, isn't that even more reason for all the laws surrounding marriage???????
When kids are conceived and born, men and women are not legal equals nor are they biological equals.
Men can impregnate and leave at will.
Once a woman is pregnant, she's sort of busy for a long time, even if she gives up the child for adoption at birth, she's out of comission for months, at least. If she decides to keep the child after the man has left, she's really busy for a much longer time.
That's why "child support" laws exist.
hilllbilly
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 07:04 PM
I was watching Fox and they were talking about whether the Supreme Court would force the other states to recognize these marriages under the Full Faith and Credit clause. The USSC may not get involved at all. This is a state constitution issue on the state level. There are 37 states which have a "protection of marriage" law that states that they are exempt from the recognition of other state's homosexual marriage laws.
If they try to push this to the national level via a Constitutional Amendment, it takes 34 states to ratify. Note the 37 figure above, though. It'll never fly unless at least four of these states are willing to repeal their law and vote to ratify.
If they try to push this to the national level via a Constitutional Amendment, it takes 34 states to ratify. Note the 37 figure above, though. It'll never fly unless at least four of these states are willing to repeal their law and vote to ratify.
hillbilly
November 18, 2003, 07:11 PM
Don Galt.......
If you really think that "marriage" was created by the Catholic church only about 500 years ago, then you are smoking some serious crack.
Same for all you folks citing those whacky Christian Right Republicans as big meanies.
Every civilization, including every single Non-Christian, non-European civilization, have had all sorts of laws, regulations, and very strict taboos on whom you could and could not marry.
Ever heard of "bride price" before? Many, many, many non-Christian, non-Western cultures have the concept of "bride price" along with all sorts of other very complex, intricate laws, customs, regulations, and taboos about marriage.
Bride prices were put into effect in all sorts of non-Christian and pre-Christian civilizations because the people in those societies recognized the social and legal complexities produced by a marriage between a man and woman.
The man was taking away a woman who would more than likely produce other human beings, and who herself was the product of another previous marriage, etc. etc. And that legal and economic transaction had to recognized by some transfer of wealth, or some other means of recognizing those legal and economic rights and responsibilities with that marriage union.
Marriage is not solely a Christian institution. It's a lot older than Christianity.
All civilizations have had all sorts of laws, rules, regulations, taboos, etc. on who you could and could not marry for all kinds of good reasons.
But hey, not us enlightened, urbane, sophisticated, worldy Western intellectual types, right? We don't need no steeking laws to restict whom we may or may not marry, or even what marriage itself is, right?
I swear.......the result of post-modernism is, in my opinion, that many times self-styled worldly, urbane, sophisticated, Western intellectuals subscribe to some of the most idiotic ideas out there........But that's a whole series of other posts........so I won't go there.
hillbilly
If you really think that "marriage" was created by the Catholic church only about 500 years ago, then you are smoking some serious crack.
Same for all you folks citing those whacky Christian Right Republicans as big meanies.
Every civilization, including every single Non-Christian, non-European civilization, have had all sorts of laws, regulations, and very strict taboos on whom you could and could not marry.
Ever heard of "bride price" before? Many, many, many non-Christian, non-Western cultures have the concept of "bride price" along with all sorts of other very complex, intricate laws, customs, regulations, and taboos about marriage.
Bride prices were put into effect in all sorts of non-Christian and pre-Christian civilizations because the people in those societies recognized the social and legal complexities produced by a marriage between a man and woman.
The man was taking away a woman who would more than likely produce other human beings, and who herself was the product of another previous marriage, etc. etc. And that legal and economic transaction had to recognized by some transfer of wealth, or some other means of recognizing those legal and economic rights and responsibilities with that marriage union.
Marriage is not solely a Christian institution. It's a lot older than Christianity.
All civilizations have had all sorts of laws, rules, regulations, taboos, etc. on who you could and could not marry for all kinds of good reasons.
But hey, not us enlightened, urbane, sophisticated, worldy Western intellectual types, right? We don't need no steeking laws to restict whom we may or may not marry, or even what marriage itself is, right?
I swear.......the result of post-modernism is, in my opinion, that many times self-styled worldly, urbane, sophisticated, Western intellectuals subscribe to some of the most idiotic ideas out there........But that's a whole series of other posts........so I won't go there.
hillbilly
GSB
November 18, 2003, 07:13 PM
This is a state constitution issue on the state level
I realize that. The thinking on the news was that if someone brought a case to the USSC, they might rule that the other 49 States would have to recognize the gay marriage certificates from Mass. under a Full Faith and Credit argument. I was wondering if this same reasoning would apply to State-issued CCW permits, since they are state-issued licenses just like a marriage license.
I realize that. The thinking on the news was that if someone brought a case to the USSC, they might rule that the other 49 States would have to recognize the gay marriage certificates from Mass. under a Full Faith and Credit argument. I was wondering if this same reasoning would apply to State-issued CCW permits, since they are state-issued licenses just like a marriage license.
Marko Kloos
November 18, 2003, 07:16 PM
Now there's an interesting question for the traditionalist crowd....would you accept the legitimization of gay marriages via the Full Faith and Credit Clause, if your CCW was valid in all 50 states in return?
2dogs
November 18, 2003, 07:20 PM
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm
There doesn't seem to be anything in the MA constitution providing for the "right" of gay marriage. Of course, I didn't see anything prohibiting it either.
There was however (somewhat related) this:
"Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. "
And (unrelated) this:
"Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
Oh well.
Anyone seen the court's decision to see what in their constitution they based it on? My guess, another of those elusive/invisible parts similiar to what the SCOTUS uses for one of their all too often ventures into assaninity.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the MA constitution providing for the "right" of gay marriage. Of course, I didn't see anything prohibiting it either.
There was however (somewhat related) this:
"Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. "
And (unrelated) this:
"Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
Oh well.
Anyone seen the court's decision to see what in their constitution they based it on? My guess, another of those elusive/invisible parts similiar to what the SCOTUS uses for one of their all too often ventures into assaninity.
Wildalaska
November 18, 2003, 07:22 PM
Divorce lawyers have a simple name for gay marraige...
"Creating Inventory"
WildhahaAlaska
"Creating Inventory"
WildhahaAlaska
Don Galt
November 18, 2003, 07:24 PM
Its really amazing the number of excuses and justifications that come up when people try to force their religious views on everyone else-- but are in denial that such is what they are doing.
jimpeels claim that this is wrong because fathers and sons would be getting married takes the cake!
And is easy to answer-- ok, so for gay marriages, you can't have interfamily marriages either. And we can have the same consumation laws as heterosexsuals have.
There, we got a deal?
Frankly, there is no moral justification for interfering with the inealienable human right of free association.
Free association is the basis of capitalism-- you have the right to do business with whom you like, form buyers clubs, or not do business with whom you like.
In socialist countries, like this one, the government says you don't have the right of free association-- or they restrict the right. You can't have a club that doesn't allow women in it. You can't refuse to rent a room to christians. You can't marry whom you like.
The anti-gay marriage position is an anti-right of free association position.
It is socialist.
jimpeels claim that this is wrong because fathers and sons would be getting married takes the cake!
And is easy to answer-- ok, so for gay marriages, you can't have interfamily marriages either. And we can have the same consumation laws as heterosexsuals have.
There, we got a deal?
Frankly, there is no moral justification for interfering with the inealienable human right of free association.
Free association is the basis of capitalism-- you have the right to do business with whom you like, form buyers clubs, or not do business with whom you like.
In socialist countries, like this one, the government says you don't have the right of free association-- or they restrict the right. You can't have a club that doesn't allow women in it. You can't refuse to rent a room to christians. You can't marry whom you like.
The anti-gay marriage position is an anti-right of free association position.
It is socialist.
Dex Sinister
November 18, 2003, 07:45 PM
While I normally have a vast amount of respect for Thomas Sewell, it seems to me that his argument here is very weak. State marriage laws, which are of course ostensibly civil in nature, did not occur apart from religion.
To understand the evolution, it is necessary to look into the history of the ecleciastical courts, and the civil enforcement of their pronouncements (a method by which the Catholic church formed its own ¡§internal¡¨ courts, but fawned off enforcement to civil authorities) as well as to the legal structure of the Church of England, where Cathlocism was replaced by English civil authority, with the King at the head of the Anglican (to us Episcopalian) Church.
We explicitly adopted much of English common law with the foundation of America. Thus, it is a perfectly true statement that, ¡§Centuries of laws, policies and traditions have grown up around marriage¡¨ ¡V running in an unbroken line back to the Eclesiastical Courts of England and beyond. But by the same token, the reason that WE have them as laws, is because the Church of England was part of the English government, and the religious laws that were incorporated in England for religious reasons were adopted by the American states because they already existed in England, and because America had adopted English common law.
invented[/b] marriage, one presumes. So, that leaves one with the conclusion that the state is either; a) enforcing the pre-defined legal and civil aspects of a religious ceremony, or b) administering and then enforcing the pre-defined legal and civil aspects of a non-religious ceremony, modeled (or based) on a religious ceremony.
In the case of a), it is hard to imagine why a non-religious state should particularly care what people in a given religion do ¡V as long as some religion has given its blessing to that behavior. If a non-religious state did care what religious doctrines it was enforcing [for convenience we can assume between two mutually consenting partners of age to make legally-binding decisions] then it would be powerful evidence that the state was, in fact not acting in a non-religious way, but was in fact enforcing some religious dogma.
In this case, a truly non-religious state would merely apply the same impartial standards to any marriage santified by a religion, and any gays who convinced a religion to marry them should be treated by a non-religious state in exactly the same way, and with exactly the same indifference as the state treats the question of enforcing a contract between any other two parties - completely impartially.
In the case of b), it is quite hard to see why, absent a hidden and denied religious motive, why a secular state should particularly care which two parties entered into a purely civil defined legal relationship, should the people, for reasons of their own, wish to enter into it. The state, after all, being non-religious, is merely acting in the capacity of an impartial referee between parties, and does not have an inherent interest in the ¡§content¡¨ of a given agreement.
Let¡¦s look at some of Sewell¡¦s other points:
[i]¡§First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.¡¨
This describes the additional state function of protection of children, principly in the event of the failure of marriage. But where is the objection? A failure of having to assess child support or child custody as a result of childless unions is not a burden on the State! This would be like the state wanting a guarantee that hetrosexual marriages will break up, so that the state could have children¡¦s lives to meddle with.
[i] Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. [...] Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.¡¨
Again, as above, where is the objection? The fact that there is less work for the state is not a justification for anything, unless we are arguing for ¡§workfare for civil servants¡¨? Not all legal measures and complications arise in all corporations either, but we don¡¦t argue that the less complicated ones ¡§don¡¦t need the corporate structure,¡¨ do we?
¡¨ Third, time has very different effects on men and women. [...] Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.¡¨
Again, this is a targeted argument against a general type of civil protection. If it were true that in a homosexual marriage the partners were inherantly equal, they would not need civil enforcement of that aspect of marriage, but that does not justifiably argue against the application of the legal status - it merely makes less work for the state. Nor is the investment of ¡§homemaking¡¨ relegated exclusively to women: It is a logical function of any relationship where one partner ¡§tends house¡¨ while the other tends their career, quite regardless of sex or gender. In as much as the state properly judges that one person¡¦s success was aided by another¡¦s efforts, and that compensation is due thereby, this is no different regardless of the marriage participants.
And finally, in an area that Sewell didn¡¦t cover, the Constitution¡¦s ¡§Full faith and credit¡¨ clause does not give States the option of whether they would or would not ¡§prefer¡¨ to honor the legal arrangements of other States: It commands and demands that they will honor such arrangements, whether they like it or not. This is as applicable to concealed carry of weapons as it is to marriage, (or vice versa) and State's evasion of this Constitutional command in both instances is unconstitutional.
To understand the evolution, it is necessary to look into the history of the ecleciastical courts, and the civil enforcement of their pronouncements (a method by which the Catholic church formed its own ¡§internal¡¨ courts, but fawned off enforcement to civil authorities) as well as to the legal structure of the Church of England, where Cathlocism was replaced by English civil authority, with the King at the head of the Anglican (to us Episcopalian) Church.
We explicitly adopted much of English common law with the foundation of America. Thus, it is a perfectly true statement that, ¡§Centuries of laws, policies and traditions have grown up around marriage¡¨ ¡V running in an unbroken line back to the Eclesiastical Courts of England and beyond. But by the same token, the reason that WE have them as laws, is because the Church of England was part of the English government, and the religious laws that were incorporated in England for religious reasons were adopted by the American states because they already existed in England, and because America had adopted English common law.
invented[/b] marriage, one presumes. So, that leaves one with the conclusion that the state is either; a) enforcing the pre-defined legal and civil aspects of a religious ceremony, or b) administering and then enforcing the pre-defined legal and civil aspects of a non-religious ceremony, modeled (or based) on a religious ceremony.
In the case of a), it is hard to imagine why a non-religious state should particularly care what people in a given religion do ¡V as long as some religion has given its blessing to that behavior. If a non-religious state did care what religious doctrines it was enforcing [for convenience we can assume between two mutually consenting partners of age to make legally-binding decisions] then it would be powerful evidence that the state was, in fact not acting in a non-religious way, but was in fact enforcing some religious dogma.
In this case, a truly non-religious state would merely apply the same impartial standards to any marriage santified by a religion, and any gays who convinced a religion to marry them should be treated by a non-religious state in exactly the same way, and with exactly the same indifference as the state treats the question of enforcing a contract between any other two parties - completely impartially.
In the case of b), it is quite hard to see why, absent a hidden and denied religious motive, why a secular state should particularly care which two parties entered into a purely civil defined legal relationship, should the people, for reasons of their own, wish to enter into it. The state, after all, being non-religious, is merely acting in the capacity of an impartial referee between parties, and does not have an inherent interest in the ¡§content¡¨ of a given agreement.
Let¡¦s look at some of Sewell¡¦s other points:
[i]¡§First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.¡¨
This describes the additional state function of protection of children, principly in the event of the failure of marriage. But where is the objection? A failure of having to assess child support or child custody as a result of childless unions is not a burden on the State! This would be like the state wanting a guarantee that hetrosexual marriages will break up, so that the state could have children¡¦s lives to meddle with.
[i] Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. [...] Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.¡¨
Again, as above, where is the objection? The fact that there is less work for the state is not a justification for anything, unless we are arguing for ¡§workfare for civil servants¡¨? Not all legal measures and complications arise in all corporations either, but we don¡¦t argue that the less complicated ones ¡§don¡¦t need the corporate structure,¡¨ do we?
¡¨ Third, time has very different effects on men and women. [...] Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.¡¨
Again, this is a targeted argument against a general type of civil protection. If it were true that in a homosexual marriage the partners were inherantly equal, they would not need civil enforcement of that aspect of marriage, but that does not justifiably argue against the application of the legal status - it merely makes less work for the state. Nor is the investment of ¡§homemaking¡¨ relegated exclusively to women: It is a logical function of any relationship where one partner ¡§tends house¡¨ while the other tends their career, quite regardless of sex or gender. In as much as the state properly judges that one person¡¦s success was aided by another¡¦s efforts, and that compensation is due thereby, this is no different regardless of the marriage participants.
And finally, in an area that Sewell didn¡¦t cover, the Constitution¡¦s ¡§Full faith and credit¡¨ clause does not give States the option of whether they would or would not ¡§prefer¡¨ to honor the legal arrangements of other States: It commands and demands that they will honor such arrangements, whether they like it or not. This is as applicable to concealed carry of weapons as it is to marriage, (or vice versa) and State's evasion of this Constitutional command in both instances is unconstitutional.
Don Galt
November 18, 2003, 07:46 PM
I didn't say that Marriage had only existed for 500 years, and I was using rough figures anyway.
Here's a summary and citation:
"Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies. "
John Boswell, "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, New York, NY, (1994)
(thanks to the link someone supplied earlier that had this in it.)
Here's a summary and citation:
"Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies. "
John Boswell, "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, New York, NY, (1994)
(thanks to the link someone supplied earlier that had this in it.)
Cosmoline
November 18, 2003, 07:54 PM
I agree that all marriage laws should be stricken. It's a religious matter. As things stand now, the State in its wisdom will approve of a union between an Orthodox Jew and Non-Jew, or between an Orthodox Christian and a Pagan, no matter how offensive the faiths of these individuals may find that union. Indeed in some cases such marriages are seen as equivalent to murder by one or the other party's faith. I destest the notion that the State gets to overrule these ancient beliefs for its own purposes.
Moreover, what are official marriages for? Children's issues have long been controlled by systems and laws which don't have anything to do with marriage. Taxation should be neutral. ANd it's not like anyone requires you to show a family tree to them to prove you're not too closely related. Nor do most states even do the blood test anymore. The marriage license is just another tax, when you boil it down.
Moreover, what are official marriages for? Children's issues have long been controlled by systems and laws which don't have anything to do with marriage. Taxation should be neutral. ANd it's not like anyone requires you to show a family tree to them to prove you're not too closely related. Nor do most states even do the blood test anymore. The marriage license is just another tax, when you boil it down.
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 07:56 PM
jimpeels claim that this is wrong because fathers and sons would be getting married takes the cake!That small whispery sound and the slight breeze you felt was my point going right over your head!
I was making points of fact. I never said anything about "this is wrong". Those were your words that you conveniently placed into my mouth.
Re-read the post and this time read for comprehension.
And is easy to answer-- ok, so for gay marriages, you can't have interfamily marriages either. Why not? There is no valid reason for them to have that restriction. There will be no natural children to be stricken with genealogical defects.And we can have the same consumation laws as heterosexsuals have.And in the case of two women? What would you deem necessary to qualify as "consummation? Did you miss that part about "Recently, a judge told a man who had caught his wife in bed with another woman, and sued for adultery, that two women cannot be adulterous as there is no consummation of the relationship."?
Two men can achieve penetration, copulation, and ejaculation. How will women achieve same?
Would you require that two women use prostheses with a requirement of penetration or will mutual or singular cunnilingus be sufficient?
Its time to play "You are the Lawmaker", Don. Go for it.
I was making points of fact. I never said anything about "this is wrong". Those were your words that you conveniently placed into my mouth.
Re-read the post and this time read for comprehension.
And is easy to answer-- ok, so for gay marriages, you can't have interfamily marriages either. Why not? There is no valid reason for them to have that restriction. There will be no natural children to be stricken with genealogical defects.And we can have the same consumation laws as heterosexsuals have.And in the case of two women? What would you deem necessary to qualify as "consummation? Did you miss that part about "Recently, a judge told a man who had caught his wife in bed with another woman, and sued for adultery, that two women cannot be adulterous as there is no consummation of the relationship."?
Two men can achieve penetration, copulation, and ejaculation. How will women achieve same?
Would you require that two women use prostheses with a requirement of penetration or will mutual or singular cunnilingus be sufficient?
Its time to play "You are the Lawmaker", Don. Go for it.
Cosmoline
November 18, 2003, 07:59 PM
IMHO, by the time our laws degenerate into arcane discussions about who's probing who's orifices with what, it's time to take said laws and burn them. :D
Don Galt
November 18, 2003, 08:14 PM
Its time to play "You are the Lawmaker", Don. Go for it.
Fair enough.
Ok, let me get out my trusty guide to lawmaking. Lets see what it says.... hmmm.... shall make no law.... hmmm... establishement of religion. Gadzooks!
As Lawmaker, I hereby declare, after getting the advice and consent of the constitution-- that any law respecting establishment, condition, limitation, or setting requirements for marriage are hereby struck down, as unconstitutional.
Furthermore, since the rights of hte constitution have been extended to all citizens of the country, no state law shall violate said right.
If it isn't clear, any law that makes a distinction in how it treats people based on marriage, is unconstitutional. Any law that limits who can get married or who cannot is unconstitutional. Any law saying what marriage is-- what rights or responsibilities it confers is unconstitutional. (Everyone decides how to manage their own marriage-- if they get divorced, maybe *he* should raise the kids.)
Marriage is a private contract between individuals. Government has no right to say what it can and can't be. And any laws passed by government that restrict marriage based on religious grounds (like the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, everyone who voted for, or signed that act, who also took an oath to defend the constitution shall be drawn and quartered, at noon this next sunday on the washington mall.
Thus endith the lawmaking session.
PS- Sorry this was not as amusing as it would be in the hands of a better comedian.
Fair enough.
Ok, let me get out my trusty guide to lawmaking. Lets see what it says.... hmmm.... shall make no law.... hmmm... establishement of religion. Gadzooks!
As Lawmaker, I hereby declare, after getting the advice and consent of the constitution-- that any law respecting establishment, condition, limitation, or setting requirements for marriage are hereby struck down, as unconstitutional.
Furthermore, since the rights of hte constitution have been extended to all citizens of the country, no state law shall violate said right.
If it isn't clear, any law that makes a distinction in how it treats people based on marriage, is unconstitutional. Any law that limits who can get married or who cannot is unconstitutional. Any law saying what marriage is-- what rights or responsibilities it confers is unconstitutional. (Everyone decides how to manage their own marriage-- if they get divorced, maybe *he* should raise the kids.)
Marriage is a private contract between individuals. Government has no right to say what it can and can't be. And any laws passed by government that restrict marriage based on religious grounds (like the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, everyone who voted for, or signed that act, who also took an oath to defend the constitution shall be drawn and quartered, at noon this next sunday on the washington mall.
Thus endith the lawmaking session.
PS- Sorry this was not as amusing as it would be in the hands of a better comedian.
2dogs
November 18, 2003, 08:25 PM
As pointed out on FNC:
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege (like driving) granted by the state- hence you must obtain a license to enter legally into marriage. The state can therefore determine who can and cannot marry. If MA legislature defines marriage as between a man and woman, the MA supreme court decision will be reversed.
I think I got that right.
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege (like driving) granted by the state- hence you must obtain a license to enter legally into marriage. The state can therefore determine who can and cannot marry. If MA legislature defines marriage as between a man and woman, the MA supreme court decision will be reversed.
I think I got that right.
Don Galt
November 18, 2003, 08:30 PM
Ha!
Marriage is not a priviledge. It is a RIGHT.
It is an example of the right of free association.
If free association is a priviledge, then you would agree with the state saying they have the right to decide who gets the priviledge of participting in thehighroad.org, even though its a private forum?
You can't have it both ways-- your choice is free association, capitalism, and marriage as a right.
Or no right to free association, marriage is a priviledge, and socialism.
Either the government owns you, or it doesn't. Are we servants of the government? Do we have to ask permission from them for the priviledge of living as we like?
Seems we fought a revolution over that issue-- in part because people wanted the right to practice the religion they liked that the state did not approve.
And now people of that same faith claim the state has the right to only allow faiths they approve of to be practiced in this regard?
Ironic, eh?
Don
edited to add:
PS-- factually you're in error, 2dogs. A man and a woman living together in texas for 6 months are considered to be married-- no license or ceremony is necessary. If common law marriages are recognized by the state, then the state recognizes the right to get married without its license.
Marriage is not a priviledge. It is a RIGHT.
It is an example of the right of free association.
If free association is a priviledge, then you would agree with the state saying they have the right to decide who gets the priviledge of participting in thehighroad.org, even though its a private forum?
You can't have it both ways-- your choice is free association, capitalism, and marriage as a right.
Or no right to free association, marriage is a priviledge, and socialism.
Either the government owns you, or it doesn't. Are we servants of the government? Do we have to ask permission from them for the priviledge of living as we like?
Seems we fought a revolution over that issue-- in part because people wanted the right to practice the religion they liked that the state did not approve.
And now people of that same faith claim the state has the right to only allow faiths they approve of to be practiced in this regard?
Ironic, eh?
Don
edited to add:
PS-- factually you're in error, 2dogs. A man and a woman living together in texas for 6 months are considered to be married-- no license or ceremony is necessary. If common law marriages are recognized by the state, then the state recognizes the right to get married without its license.
mantispid
November 18, 2003, 08:31 PM
Here's a great article on marriage by a friend of mine:
Why I Am Against Marriage
by Joe Bartlett
No, it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm single. And no, I do not believe that marriage itself is a bad institution. Rather, I think that marriage is a meet, right and salutary estate for couples who desire it. I have no problem with the institution or marriage, per se. My problem, then, is with the institutionalization of marriage by the government. Simply put, we need no government recognition of marriages, nor do we need government limitations on marriages. Moreover, we certainly do not need government taxation of marriages. In fact, if we were to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty from our tax code, we could do away with government certification of marriages altogether. (Of course, as a libertarian, I'm in favor of eliminating the income tax altogether, but that's a topic for an altogether separate article.)
In lieu of marriages, I propose that we reduce the legal status of marriage to nothing more than contract law. (Notably, the government issued marriage certificate is, itself, little more than a contract, with needless bureaucracy and overhead attached.) I could, for example, draft a contract with any person or persons, for the purpose of establishing an exclusive domestic partnership, with all rights, responsibilities and privileges entailed by such an arrangement. While I, personally, would desire to enter into such a partnership only with a single female on a presumably permanent basis ("till death do us part"), I understand and expect that others would not want to place such a limitation on this contracted domestic partnership. Such a reduction of marriage to contract law would allow for domestic partnerships between members of the same sex, among groups of more than two persons, less than two persons (e.g., a self-imposed vow of celibacy, which would be foreseeable for a variety of reasons), on a time-limited basis, with a non-exclusivity clause, and any other permutation you may like. Or, it may allow such partnerships with any permutations you do not like, as what happens behind closed doors of another person's home is not your business anyway. (Who may and may not enter into such a binding contract is, again, a separate topic for another article. For the time being, I will limit such a contract to "consenting adults," i.e., those who are not dependent on others, such as parents. Further distinctions could almost certainly be drawn, which I will not elaborate upon here.)
Lest anyone worry that such contracts would become costly, I point to the marriage tax as an example of just how costly marriage under our current system already is. In addition, I foresee a "standard domestic partnership contract," not unlike a standard lease, which varies very little from realtor to realtor. The existent of such a standard form for such partnership contracts would assure that couples (or groups or individuals) wishing to enter into this estate would not incur exorbitant legal costs. I also foresee those who enter into such an estate reaping a financial gain from such a contract, in the form of reduced costs of health and life insurance and other services that are generally made available to married couples at a cost lower than would be available to two separate individuals.
Some may be concerned about how such domestic partnerships would influence such matters as health insurance. "I don't want to pay my premiums to an insurance provider who provides service to polygamists," someone may object. Morally, this is certainly a viable objection. There are many such domestic partnership arrangements that would certainly violate the morals of many (and, in some cases, the majority of) Americans. This, however, still does not make the existence of such partnerships the concern of such morally minded Americans. Just as today Americans have the freedom to select insurance providers who do not provide benefits for abortion services, there would certainly be no shortage of insurance providers who would cater to this large segment of the population by providing insurance to individuals and to couples in "traditional" domestic partnerships only.
This freedom of association would extend, not only to insurance providers, but to religious affiliations as well. Same-sex and multiple-partner domestic arrangements will never be accepted by many religious bodies. Under the current system, however, should such partnerships be "legalized" (i.e., granted the same legal status as opposite-sex marriages), such bodies could eventually find themselves forced into accepting such arrangements that are contrary to their doctrinal positions. For example, a church may wish to excommunicate a homosexual couple who practice against the teachings of that church, but may face certain obstacles to doing so, on the grounds of the legal status of that partnership. Agree or disagree with the legitimacy of such an excommunication, the principle of freedom of association still holds. Such a church should be free to choose who may (and who may not) be a member and have the privileges of membership in that private organization. On the contractual basis I propose, churches would have the option of recognizing, for religious purposes, certain partnership arrangements, while rejection others without concern for the potential of any future legal entanglements. (Churches could, for example, recognize as "valid" only those domestic partnerships that have been confirmed by a public religious ceremony.)
Sadly, even in our society that is so heavily biased toward these traditional domestic arrangements, many marriages do end before death do the couple part. Such endings are rarely clean and tidy, but rather almost always quite messy and painful. Replacing marriage with domestic partnership contracts ensures that, at least insofar as the division of property is concerned, such proceedings would be somewhat simplified. (In no way do I mean to imply that there is any way to make divorce entirely painless.) Just as in the case of a prenuptial agreement, couples would be free to make agreements on how such situations would be handled ahead of time, in anticipation of the occurrence of this sad but common possibility. For example, a couple may agree that they will split all assets according to respective salaries, or they may prefer an arrangement that favors the innocent party by awarding a majority (by some pre-defined ratio) of assets to that member who did not breach the domestic contract. Such breaches could, according to the terms of the agreement, consist of behaviors such as infidelity, domestic abuse, substance abuse, negligence of parental duty, etc. (In such cases, matters of child custody could also be pre-determined to favor the innocent party to the dispute.) Such matters could, then, be settled by much more easily arbitration rather than by means of the court system.
There are, then, no further grounds upon which the continuation of state-sponsored marriages may be justified. The principle of "caveat emptor" would prevail; those who voluntarily enter into such arrangements would do so with full knowledge of the consequences, not only in terms of the rights and responsibilities of the arrangement, but also in terms of the conditions of its termination. The state would have no role to play in such matters whatsoever, which is as it should be. After all, such matters really are nobody's business, and government involvement (with its associated taxation to support the bureaucrats who oversee such matters on the government's behalf) wrongly makes such private matters everybody's business.
Why I Am Against Marriage
by Joe Bartlett
No, it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm single. And no, I do not believe that marriage itself is a bad institution. Rather, I think that marriage is a meet, right and salutary estate for couples who desire it. I have no problem with the institution or marriage, per se. My problem, then, is with the institutionalization of marriage by the government. Simply put, we need no government recognition of marriages, nor do we need government limitations on marriages. Moreover, we certainly do not need government taxation of marriages. In fact, if we were to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty from our tax code, we could do away with government certification of marriages altogether. (Of course, as a libertarian, I'm in favor of eliminating the income tax altogether, but that's a topic for an altogether separate article.)
In lieu of marriages, I propose that we reduce the legal status of marriage to nothing more than contract law. (Notably, the government issued marriage certificate is, itself, little more than a contract, with needless bureaucracy and overhead attached.) I could, for example, draft a contract with any person or persons, for the purpose of establishing an exclusive domestic partnership, with all rights, responsibilities and privileges entailed by such an arrangement. While I, personally, would desire to enter into such a partnership only with a single female on a presumably permanent basis ("till death do us part"), I understand and expect that others would not want to place such a limitation on this contracted domestic partnership. Such a reduction of marriage to contract law would allow for domestic partnerships between members of the same sex, among groups of more than two persons, less than two persons (e.g., a self-imposed vow of celibacy, which would be foreseeable for a variety of reasons), on a time-limited basis, with a non-exclusivity clause, and any other permutation you may like. Or, it may allow such partnerships with any permutations you do not like, as what happens behind closed doors of another person's home is not your business anyway. (Who may and may not enter into such a binding contract is, again, a separate topic for another article. For the time being, I will limit such a contract to "consenting adults," i.e., those who are not dependent on others, such as parents. Further distinctions could almost certainly be drawn, which I will not elaborate upon here.)
Lest anyone worry that such contracts would become costly, I point to the marriage tax as an example of just how costly marriage under our current system already is. In addition, I foresee a "standard domestic partnership contract," not unlike a standard lease, which varies very little from realtor to realtor. The existent of such a standard form for such partnership contracts would assure that couples (or groups or individuals) wishing to enter into this estate would not incur exorbitant legal costs. I also foresee those who enter into such an estate reaping a financial gain from such a contract, in the form of reduced costs of health and life insurance and other services that are generally made available to married couples at a cost lower than would be available to two separate individuals.
Some may be concerned about how such domestic partnerships would influence such matters as health insurance. "I don't want to pay my premiums to an insurance provider who provides service to polygamists," someone may object. Morally, this is certainly a viable objection. There are many such domestic partnership arrangements that would certainly violate the morals of many (and, in some cases, the majority of) Americans. This, however, still does not make the existence of such partnerships the concern of such morally minded Americans. Just as today Americans have the freedom to select insurance providers who do not provide benefits for abortion services, there would certainly be no shortage of insurance providers who would cater to this large segment of the population by providing insurance to individuals and to couples in "traditional" domestic partnerships only.
This freedom of association would extend, not only to insurance providers, but to religious affiliations as well. Same-sex and multiple-partner domestic arrangements will never be accepted by many religious bodies. Under the current system, however, should such partnerships be "legalized" (i.e., granted the same legal status as opposite-sex marriages), such bodies could eventually find themselves forced into accepting such arrangements that are contrary to their doctrinal positions. For example, a church may wish to excommunicate a homosexual couple who practice against the teachings of that church, but may face certain obstacles to doing so, on the grounds of the legal status of that partnership. Agree or disagree with the legitimacy of such an excommunication, the principle of freedom of association still holds. Such a church should be free to choose who may (and who may not) be a member and have the privileges of membership in that private organization. On the contractual basis I propose, churches would have the option of recognizing, for religious purposes, certain partnership arrangements, while rejection others without concern for the potential of any future legal entanglements. (Churches could, for example, recognize as "valid" only those domestic partnerships that have been confirmed by a public religious ceremony.)
Sadly, even in our society that is so heavily biased toward these traditional domestic arrangements, many marriages do end before death do the couple part. Such endings are rarely clean and tidy, but rather almost always quite messy and painful. Replacing marriage with domestic partnership contracts ensures that, at least insofar as the division of property is concerned, such proceedings would be somewhat simplified. (In no way do I mean to imply that there is any way to make divorce entirely painless.) Just as in the case of a prenuptial agreement, couples would be free to make agreements on how such situations would be handled ahead of time, in anticipation of the occurrence of this sad but common possibility. For example, a couple may agree that they will split all assets according to respective salaries, or they may prefer an arrangement that favors the innocent party by awarding a majority (by some pre-defined ratio) of assets to that member who did not breach the domestic contract. Such breaches could, according to the terms of the agreement, consist of behaviors such as infidelity, domestic abuse, substance abuse, negligence of parental duty, etc. (In such cases, matters of child custody could also be pre-determined to favor the innocent party to the dispute.) Such matters could, then, be settled by much more easily arbitration rather than by means of the court system.
There are, then, no further grounds upon which the continuation of state-sponsored marriages may be justified. The principle of "caveat emptor" would prevail; those who voluntarily enter into such arrangements would do so with full knowledge of the consequences, not only in terms of the rights and responsibilities of the arrangement, but also in terms of the conditions of its termination. The state would have no role to play in such matters whatsoever, which is as it should be. After all, such matters really are nobody's business, and government involvement (with its associated taxation to support the bureaucrats who oversee such matters on the government's behalf) wrongly makes such private matters everybody's business.
mantispid
November 18, 2003, 08:34 PM
Oh, and don't forget how marriage licenses started.... black folks had to apply for them if they wanted to marry white folks.
longeyes
November 18, 2003, 08:39 PM
The unintended consequence of this ruling will be that a whole lot of
gay relationships of long-standing will break up. Heretofore gays and
lesbians have had the cop-out that they couldn't get married. Now they
can. One partner will want to, with all the legal baggage that goes
with it. The other won't. Bye-bye.
gay relationships of long-standing will break up. Heretofore gays and
lesbians have had the cop-out that they couldn't get married. Now they
can. One partner will want to, with all the legal baggage that goes
with it. The other won't. Bye-bye.
Marko Kloos
November 18, 2003, 08:50 PM
Oh, and don't forget how marriage licenses started.... black folks had to apply for them if they wanted to marry white folks.
Heh.
Back in the oh-so-moral olden days, interracial marriage was plain and simply illegal.
In good old "Ten Commandments" Alabama, section 102, article 4 of the 1901 state constitution - a law prohibiting "any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro" - was finally repealed by a popular vote, in 2001. Even so, only 60% of the Alabamans who made it to the polls voted to repeal the law. A full 40% of them wanted interracial marriage to remain illegal.
Even though the 1967 Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia made State laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional and thereby unenforceable, the fact remains that they were on the books. The folks who pushed them used all the same reasons their descendants use against gay marriage, almost verbatim.
Marriage laws are a sham, an unconstitutional infringement of the State on the basic human right of free association. They are a sham and a perversion, when one group uses them as a tool to arbitrarily deny those rights to another group.
Argue against gay marrtiage all you want. I hold those arguments in the same regard as the retrograde prohibitions against "race mixing". It's nobody else's damn business if two people choose to enter in a civil union, and all the reasons anyone has ever brought against gay (or interracial) marriage has always been bigoted and religiously biased claptrap.
Heh.
Back in the oh-so-moral olden days, interracial marriage was plain and simply illegal.
In good old "Ten Commandments" Alabama, section 102, article 4 of the 1901 state constitution - a law prohibiting "any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro" - was finally repealed by a popular vote, in 2001. Even so, only 60% of the Alabamans who made it to the polls voted to repeal the law. A full 40% of them wanted interracial marriage to remain illegal.
Even though the 1967 Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia made State laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional and thereby unenforceable, the fact remains that they were on the books. The folks who pushed them used all the same reasons their descendants use against gay marriage, almost verbatim.
Marriage laws are a sham, an unconstitutional infringement of the State on the basic human right of free association. They are a sham and a perversion, when one group uses them as a tool to arbitrarily deny those rights to another group.
Argue against gay marrtiage all you want. I hold those arguments in the same regard as the retrograde prohibitions against "race mixing". It's nobody else's damn business if two people choose to enter in a civil union, and all the reasons anyone has ever brought against gay (or interracial) marriage has always been bigoted and religiously biased claptrap.
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 09:00 PM
If it isn't clear, any law that makes a distinction in how it treats people based on marriage, is unconstitutional. Any law saying what marriage is-- what rights or responsibilities it confers is unconstitutional. (Everyone decides how to manage their own marriage-- if they get divorced, maybe *he* should raise the kids.)
Marriage is a private contract between individuals. Government has no right to say what it can and can't be. And any laws passed by government that restrict marriage based on religious grounds (like the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) are unconstitutional.Great! Now what do we do with the idiot children produced by these couplings? After all, there are now no restrictions -- brothers and sisters and mothers and sons can now marry and to Hell with that Oedipus fellow.
Marriage is a private contract between individuals. Government has no right to say what it can and can't be. And any laws passed by government that restrict marriage based on religious grounds (like the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) are unconstitutional.Great! Now what do we do with the idiot children produced by these couplings? After all, there are now no restrictions -- brothers and sisters and mothers and sons can now marry and to Hell with that Oedipus fellow.
Marko Kloos
November 18, 2003, 09:07 PM
Great! Now what do we do with the idiot children produced by these couplings?
It is neither my right nor our responsibility to prevent people from having idiot children, if they choose to have them. Just don't ask me to pay for their upbringing or health care.
Besides, it's not that the presence of marriage laws is doing a terribly good job preventing the creation of idiot children.
It is neither my right nor our responsibility to prevent people from having idiot children, if they choose to have them. Just don't ask me to pay for their upbringing or health care.
Besides, it's not that the presence of marriage laws is doing a terribly good job preventing the creation of idiot children.
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 09:11 PM
Just don't ask me to pay for their upbringing or health care.Precisely; but they will not ask you, they will demand that you pay for them -- and you will.
pax
November 18, 2003, 09:21 PM
I'd get the government out of the marriage business entirely.
I'd make it illegal to take advantage of a child under the age of consent, whether she's related to you or not, and make it illegal for a man to impregnate his sister, aunt, mother, or cousin. I'd enforce civil unions as contract law, by whatever terms people had legally bound themselves.
That's all.
Some of you know I'm a Christian, and I don't make any apology for that. As a Christian, I believe that the best union is "one Christian man, one Christian woman, one lifetime."
I also believe that it's not the business of Christians to worry about or judge those outside the church (see 1 Cor 5:13 -- that whole chapter speaks to this issue rather precisely). If someone inside the church sins egregiously, we can kick 'em out so that the church remains pure. But what business is it of ours what unbelievers do outside the church?
pax
I'd make it illegal to take advantage of a child under the age of consent, whether she's related to you or not, and make it illegal for a man to impregnate his sister, aunt, mother, or cousin. I'd enforce civil unions as contract law, by whatever terms people had legally bound themselves.
That's all.
Some of you know I'm a Christian, and I don't make any apology for that. As a Christian, I believe that the best union is "one Christian man, one Christian woman, one lifetime."
I also believe that it's not the business of Christians to worry about or judge those outside the church (see 1 Cor 5:13 -- that whole chapter speaks to this issue rather precisely). If someone inside the church sins egregiously, we can kick 'em out so that the church remains pure. But what business is it of ours what unbelievers do outside the church?
pax
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 09:30 PM
I'd enforce civil unions as contract law ... That's what we have now but it is not good enough for the people who are trying to push their agenda on everyone else while claiming that the agenda of the majority is being pushed on them.
Good ol' Barney Frank was on the TV tonight stating how he is proud to be from the state of MA where he is now a "full citizen". :barf:
If he's not a full citizen, what the Hell is he doing in our Congress?
Good ol' Barney Frank was on the TV tonight stating how he is proud to be from the state of MA where he is now a "full citizen". :barf:
If he's not a full citizen, what the Hell is he doing in our Congress?
Marko Kloos
November 18, 2003, 09:34 PM
jimpeel:
What kind of agenda is someone pushing, if they just want the same rights and privileges as the segment of the population who intentionally keeps those rights from them?
Did the blacks of 20th century Alabama "push an agenda" by opposing the law prohibiting them from marrying white people?
Gays, much like the black Americans of the 1950s, are not asking for one single right that you do not already have. They are not asking for "special rights", just those rights that you enjoy already. What legal or moral right do you have to advocate keeping these rights from them?
What kind of agenda is someone pushing, if they just want the same rights and privileges as the segment of the population who intentionally keeps those rights from them?
Did the blacks of 20th century Alabama "push an agenda" by opposing the law prohibiting them from marrying white people?
Gays, much like the black Americans of the 1950s, are not asking for one single right that you do not already have. They are not asking for "special rights", just those rights that you enjoy already. What legal or moral right do you have to advocate keeping these rights from them?
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 10:09 PM
Gays, much like the black Americans of the 1950s, are not asking for one single right that you do not already have. And they also have every one of those rights. What they want is more than any other American.
Where is my right to extra jail time for those who would assault me or kill me? There is no "hate crimes" legislation for me.
Where is my right to special government programs? There are no special programs directed to the Heterosexual male.
Where is my right to be the purveyor of an epidemic disease and have my identity sheltered? If I get an infectious deadly viral disease, I will be quarantined.
If I accepted other men's penises into my rectum, I would have all of the above. If I were someone who participated in analingus and fellatio I would have all of the above.
Because I choose not to participate in the above practices, I have fewer rights than they do.
Gays have a higher incidence of Hepatitis A due to the above actuivities -- analingus and post-coital fellatio. AIDS isn't the only disease that is predominantly "theirs". So the next time a Gay waiter serves you at the restaurant, just hope he washed his hands after he visited the restroom 5 minutes ago.
Where is my right to extra jail time for those who would assault me or kill me? There is no "hate crimes" legislation for me.
Where is my right to special government programs? There are no special programs directed to the Heterosexual male.
Where is my right to be the purveyor of an epidemic disease and have my identity sheltered? If I get an infectious deadly viral disease, I will be quarantined.
If I accepted other men's penises into my rectum, I would have all of the above. If I were someone who participated in analingus and fellatio I would have all of the above.
Because I choose not to participate in the above practices, I have fewer rights than they do.
Gays have a higher incidence of Hepatitis A due to the above actuivities -- analingus and post-coital fellatio. AIDS isn't the only disease that is predominantly "theirs". So the next time a Gay waiter serves you at the restaurant, just hope he washed his hands after he visited the restroom 5 minutes ago.
Intune
November 18, 2003, 10:12 PM
It's a contract between two people. Period. If you have parameters from a religious point of view, see Pax's post. It makes sense.
Where/when did being “gay” begin to be aberrant behavior? The responses, if any, should be interesting.
Where/when did being “gay” begin to be aberrant behavior? The responses, if any, should be interesting.
tyme
November 18, 2003, 10:33 PM
jimpeel, nobody's forcing you to be waited on by a gay waiter. But some of your implications are simply disgusting. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in the same sorts of activities. Hepatitis A isn't chronic; if you're that worried, go get vaccinated.
Don Galt
November 18, 2003, 10:40 PM
jimpeel--
You're trying to bring in a bunch of other issues to confuse this one.
You have asserted, but not made the case, that allowing gays to marry like heterosexuals is giving them a "special right" when pretty much everyone on this thread-- even the ones who oppose it for religious reasons-- see it as extending the same right.
As to your claims that gays are a diseased scourge on society, you're simply wrong... and I'm tempted to point out another incident in history where a class of people were claimed to be diseased as part of the argument justifying taking away human rights from them.
There are socialists who happen to be gay-- people who want, for instance, to remove the right of a property owner to rent to whom they chose. Those people are just as wrong as christians who want to be a protected class.
Oh, wait, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. Employers cannot refuse to hire someone on religious grounds, and that's wrong. That's a special right. Well, even though they are wrong, they are just asking for the same special rights christians have. If you support the right to discriminate in your dealings with gays (as I do, free association, remember) you should also support it for those who wish to discriminate against christians.
Otherwise you're saying christians deserve special rights.
You're trying to bring in a bunch of other issues to confuse this one.
You have asserted, but not made the case, that allowing gays to marry like heterosexuals is giving them a "special right" when pretty much everyone on this thread-- even the ones who oppose it for religious reasons-- see it as extending the same right.
As to your claims that gays are a diseased scourge on society, you're simply wrong... and I'm tempted to point out another incident in history where a class of people were claimed to be diseased as part of the argument justifying taking away human rights from them.
There are socialists who happen to be gay-- people who want, for instance, to remove the right of a property owner to rent to whom they chose. Those people are just as wrong as christians who want to be a protected class.
Oh, wait, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. Employers cannot refuse to hire someone on religious grounds, and that's wrong. That's a special right. Well, even though they are wrong, they are just asking for the same special rights christians have. If you support the right to discriminate in your dealings with gays (as I do, free association, remember) you should also support it for those who wish to discriminate against christians.
Otherwise you're saying christians deserve special rights.
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 11:28 PM
I'm trying to confuse the issue?
I didn't say a word about Christianity. You brought that up and placed the words in my mouth. (You seem to do that a lot, now, don't you?) I simply posted the fact that they already get special rights when I was told they merely wanted the same rights as me.
I posted the epidemiological aspects of homosexuality. I didn't say a thing about them being a scourge. (Again YOUR words attributed to me)
I am well aware of the German claim that the Jews were a diseased people so I will save you the temptation to point that out. (Again, you place comparisons before us that were not heretofore breached by me)There are socialists who happen to be gay-- people who want, for instance, to remove the right of a property owner to rent to whom they chose.The activist agendists have already covered that one. Christian landlords are required to rent to unmarried couples and others whom their faith says are sinful people; and they are required by law to accept that sinful behavior into their homes.Oh, wait, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. Employers cannot refuse to hire someone on religious grounds, and that's wrong. That's a special right. Right. An employer cannot discriminate against the religion of someone they hire, but the employer can be discriminated against by requiring them to hire those whom their faith shows them to be sinful. So there is no "special right" for the employer -- only the employed. This is not a "zero-sum-gain" proposition. The employer loses rights while the employee gains rights. In San Francisco, an employer is required to hire Transvestites even if the employer is religiously opposed. So there is no "special right" for the employer -- only the employed.If you support the right to discriminate in your dealings with gays (as I do, free association, remember) you should also support it for those who wish to discriminate against christians.
Otherwise you're saying christians deserve special rights.Anyone can discriminate against anyone or anything they wish. We discriminate every day. We shun Bikers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krisnas at the airport, John Birchers, Gays, Christians, Blacks, Whites, Dogs, Cats, Dawn dishwashing detergent, Mr. Clean, Ivory soap, Ford F-150s, Chevy Cavaliers, the Goodyear Blimp. You name it, we shun it; and that, Sir, is discrimination for discriminating tastes.
I didn't say a word about Christianity. You brought that up and placed the words in my mouth. (You seem to do that a lot, now, don't you?) I simply posted the fact that they already get special rights when I was told they merely wanted the same rights as me.
I posted the epidemiological aspects of homosexuality. I didn't say a thing about them being a scourge. (Again YOUR words attributed to me)
I am well aware of the German claim that the Jews were a diseased people so I will save you the temptation to point that out. (Again, you place comparisons before us that were not heretofore breached by me)There are socialists who happen to be gay-- people who want, for instance, to remove the right of a property owner to rent to whom they chose.The activist agendists have already covered that one. Christian landlords are required to rent to unmarried couples and others whom their faith says are sinful people; and they are required by law to accept that sinful behavior into their homes.Oh, wait, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. Employers cannot refuse to hire someone on religious grounds, and that's wrong. That's a special right. Right. An employer cannot discriminate against the religion of someone they hire, but the employer can be discriminated against by requiring them to hire those whom their faith shows them to be sinful. So there is no "special right" for the employer -- only the employed. This is not a "zero-sum-gain" proposition. The employer loses rights while the employee gains rights. In San Francisco, an employer is required to hire Transvestites even if the employer is religiously opposed. So there is no "special right" for the employer -- only the employed.If you support the right to discriminate in your dealings with gays (as I do, free association, remember) you should also support it for those who wish to discriminate against christians.
Otherwise you're saying christians deserve special rights.Anyone can discriminate against anyone or anything they wish. We discriminate every day. We shun Bikers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krisnas at the airport, John Birchers, Gays, Christians, Blacks, Whites, Dogs, Cats, Dawn dishwashing detergent, Mr. Clean, Ivory soap, Ford F-150s, Chevy Cavaliers, the Goodyear Blimp. You name it, we shun it; and that, Sir, is discrimination for discriminating tastes.
Nightfall
November 18, 2003, 11:45 PM
I posted the epidemiological aspects of homosexuality. I didn't say a thing about them being a scourge.
I think it's the way you applied those STDs and sexual acts to your argument against gay marriage that made it come off as if you see them as a scourge on society. This is mostly because the acts and diseases you mentioned are equally capable of being present in heterosexual partners as homosexual, and I for one certainly fail to see how a gay waiter possibly carrying an STD has to do with this thread, seeing as how a straight waiter can do the same as easily.
That said, Marko has pretty much said everything I was thinking of adding to this thread, so I'll step back out.
Edited for grammatical errors. Whoops! :)
I think it's the way you applied those STDs and sexual acts to your argument against gay marriage that made it come off as if you see them as a scourge on society. This is mostly because the acts and diseases you mentioned are equally capable of being present in heterosexual partners as homosexual, and I for one certainly fail to see how a gay waiter possibly carrying an STD has to do with this thread, seeing as how a straight waiter can do the same as easily.
That said, Marko has pretty much said everything I was thinking of adding to this thread, so I'll step back out.
Edited for grammatical errors. Whoops! :)
jimpeel
November 18, 2003, 11:48 PM
But some of your implications are simply disgusting.I didn't imply anything. I thought I was quite clear.There are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in the same sorts of activities.Heterosexuals have a choice of which orifice to place their mouth upon. Not so with Homosexuals. There is a vast difference in preparing a woman to accept an erect penis and preparing a man to accept one. Also, post coital fellatio in Heterosexuals usually does not involve fellating a penis that is covered in fecal matter.
From: http://www.immunizecanada.com/hepatitisa.aspHow is hepatitis A spread?
Hepatitis A is mainly spread by fecal contamination of water, ice and food (such as raw or under-cooked seafood, shellfish, fruits or vegetables) generally in areas of poor sanitation and hygiene. You may acquire the virus through direct contact with an infected person including sexual contact.
Symptoms usually don't appear for a month, time enough for an infected person to pass the virus to family members and co-workers.
From: http://www.immunizecanada.com/hepatitisa.aspHow is hepatitis A spread?
Hepatitis A is mainly spread by fecal contamination of water, ice and food (such as raw or under-cooked seafood, shellfish, fruits or vegetables) generally in areas of poor sanitation and hygiene. You may acquire the virus through direct contact with an infected person including sexual contact.
Symptoms usually don't appear for a month, time enough for an infected person to pass the virus to family members and co-workers.
azthistletoe
November 19, 2003, 12:02 AM
So the point of underlining and bolding that part of the text is... ? It says nothing about gays. Why does it even matter?
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 12:17 AM
I think it's the way you applied those STDs and sexual acts to your argument against gay marriage that made it come of as if you see them a scourge on society.That was not my intention. This is mostly because the acts and diseases you mentioned are equally capable of being present in heterosexual partners as homosexual, ... [quote]The reason AIDS crossed over into the Heterosexual community is because the original purveyors of the disease gave blood, used the same needles, had sex with bi-sexuals, etc. Of course, they didn't know at the time that they were doing this because the disease can take up to eleven years to incubate. BUT ...
After they found out what the source of the disease was, they still refused to take matters in hand. They still kept the bathhouses open for three years before the city of San Francisco shut them down. They have now reopened.
In the bathhouses, one could go to a "gloryhole" where a strange man on the other side of the partion would fellate the man on the other side anonymously; or he could present his penis through the hole for similar treatment. There were also "gloryholes" for one to back up to as well.
They had "barebacking" parties where part of the thrill was the possibility of contracting the disease.
From: http://www.managingdesire.org/scarcebtb.html
Back to Barebacking
-- Michael Scarce
Reprinted with permission from the NY Blade, August 21, 1998
Whereas some gay men have continued to engage in unprotected anal sex since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, only lately has there emerged a heightened eroticization, premeditation, and form of structured organizing devoted to the practice of unsafe sex. An abundance of Internet web sites, online chatrooms, e-mail listservs, personal ads, private parties, jargon and slang terminology, and even amateur and professional videos dedicated solely to barebacking have been created in the past two years. A few of these venues extol the pleasures of intentional infection with HIV as well as the open exchange of bodily fluids. Taking place against the current backdrop of sex controversies permeating gay male communities, barebacking has become a lightning rod of political contention in the United States.
...
It should come as no surprise that a cultural phenomenon of conscious and sometimes defiant resistance to safer sex has emerged among some gay men, both HIV-negative and -positive. Some barebackers discuss AIDS prevention workers as "latex-obsessed" and "condom Nazis." Perhaps most interesting is a cross-cultural comparison. In countries such as Australia where harm reduction and negotiated safety were instituted early in the epidemic, it seems that no culture of barebacking has emerged in the sense that gay men have not created social movements based on their unprotected sex.
...
Gay men bareback for a multitude of reasons, including increased physical sensation, a sense of greater connectedness or intimacy with their sex partner, excitement in transgressing the paternal proscriptions of many AIDS prevention campaigns, sharing semen as a symbolic act of bonding, and more.
...
Whether we like it or not, barebackers have organized around their sex.(Nightfall)and I for one certainly fail to see how a gay waiter possibly carrying an STD has to do with this thread, seeing as how a straight waiter can do the same as easily.Hepatitis A is not an STD. I know SDSs are not spread through casual contact, mosquitoes, or dirty toilet seats. However, Hepatitis A is spread through the Homosexual community by their behavior.
Felating a penis that has just finished anal intercourse is not exactly sanitary. Neither is analingus. Both have the potential to spread Hepatitis A.
Once one has Hepatitis A, however, it is easy to spread the disease through casual contact from someone who has not washed their hands after visiting the toilet. That comntact could come through shaking hands or having one's food handled by an infected person.
Due to their sexual activities, the incidence Hepatitis A is far greater in the Homosexual community than in the general community at large.
After they found out what the source of the disease was, they still refused to take matters in hand. They still kept the bathhouses open for three years before the city of San Francisco shut them down. They have now reopened.
In the bathhouses, one could go to a "gloryhole" where a strange man on the other side of the partion would fellate the man on the other side anonymously; or he could present his penis through the hole for similar treatment. There were also "gloryholes" for one to back up to as well.
They had "barebacking" parties where part of the thrill was the possibility of contracting the disease.
From: http://www.managingdesire.org/scarcebtb.html
Back to Barebacking
-- Michael Scarce
Reprinted with permission from the NY Blade, August 21, 1998
Whereas some gay men have continued to engage in unprotected anal sex since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, only lately has there emerged a heightened eroticization, premeditation, and form of structured organizing devoted to the practice of unsafe sex. An abundance of Internet web sites, online chatrooms, e-mail listservs, personal ads, private parties, jargon and slang terminology, and even amateur and professional videos dedicated solely to barebacking have been created in the past two years. A few of these venues extol the pleasures of intentional infection with HIV as well as the open exchange of bodily fluids. Taking place against the current backdrop of sex controversies permeating gay male communities, barebacking has become a lightning rod of political contention in the United States.
...
It should come as no surprise that a cultural phenomenon of conscious and sometimes defiant resistance to safer sex has emerged among some gay men, both HIV-negative and -positive. Some barebackers discuss AIDS prevention workers as "latex-obsessed" and "condom Nazis." Perhaps most interesting is a cross-cultural comparison. In countries such as Australia where harm reduction and negotiated safety were instituted early in the epidemic, it seems that no culture of barebacking has emerged in the sense that gay men have not created social movements based on their unprotected sex.
...
Gay men bareback for a multitude of reasons, including increased physical sensation, a sense of greater connectedness or intimacy with their sex partner, excitement in transgressing the paternal proscriptions of many AIDS prevention campaigns, sharing semen as a symbolic act of bonding, and more.
...
Whether we like it or not, barebackers have organized around their sex.(Nightfall)and I for one certainly fail to see how a gay waiter possibly carrying an STD has to do with this thread, seeing as how a straight waiter can do the same as easily.Hepatitis A is not an STD. I know SDSs are not spread through casual contact, mosquitoes, or dirty toilet seats. However, Hepatitis A is spread through the Homosexual community by their behavior.
Felating a penis that has just finished anal intercourse is not exactly sanitary. Neither is analingus. Both have the potential to spread Hepatitis A.
Once one has Hepatitis A, however, it is easy to spread the disease through casual contact from someone who has not washed their hands after visiting the toilet. That comntact could come through shaking hands or having one's food handled by an infected person.
Due to their sexual activities, the incidence Hepatitis A is far greater in the Homosexual community than in the general community at large.
Gray Peterson
November 19, 2003, 12:19 AM
Jim Peel, Rock Jock, and company, have made sexual practices, diseases, and such as a reason to deny people a marriage license. Isn't the point of the High Road to keep personal attacks out of it? Personal attacks also include attacks against entire groups of people.
We attack anti-gunners because of their illogical fallacies that being unarmed will protect them from gun wielding predators.
Essentially, what jim peel did was accuse me (as a gay person) of engaging in those rather vile and disgusting behaviors (which requires you to have a paraphilia as well).
Did you know that in the 19th and early 20th century, black people were accused of having higher disease rates? Being "dirty"? and such?
I suggest for the future, this thread attack the political positions of each other, not sling mud and accuse each other directly of being diseased.
Update: I suggest the moderators either edit or delete posts refering to the specific sexual practices of people in general, including the "glory holing" and "post coital fellatio". It has no place on THR and only serves to inflame the debate out of control.
We attack anti-gunners because of their illogical fallacies that being unarmed will protect them from gun wielding predators.
Essentially, what jim peel did was accuse me (as a gay person) of engaging in those rather vile and disgusting behaviors (which requires you to have a paraphilia as well).
Did you know that in the 19th and early 20th century, black people were accused of having higher disease rates? Being "dirty"? and such?
I suggest for the future, this thread attack the political positions of each other, not sling mud and accuse each other directly of being diseased.
Update: I suggest the moderators either edit or delete posts refering to the specific sexual practices of people in general, including the "glory holing" and "post coital fellatio". It has no place on THR and only serves to inflame the debate out of control.
azthistletoe
November 19, 2003, 12:23 AM
Due to their sexual activities, the incidence Hepatitis A is far greater in the Homosexual community than in the general community at large.
This is not what your quote said. It said sexual contact. Not homosexual contact.
This is not what your quote said. It said sexual contact. Not homosexual contact.
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 12:42 AM
Since you are quick on the draw, or type as the case may be, and you have two posts to answer I will answer both here.
As to your first post:So the point of underlining and bolding that part of the text is... ? Bolding is to call attention to a particular portion of a greater body of text. The underlining is to call the attention to a particular portion of the bolded text.It says nothing about gays. Why does it even matterIt has to do with the fact that sexual contact, especially sexual contact with the anal cavity, is one of the manners in which Hepatitis a is spread. Since Homosexual sex among men centers around the anal cavity, the relationship, and thus the implication, is inescapable.
As to your second post:This is not what your quote said. It said sexual contact. Not homosexual contact.For one, it is not my quote. It is a quote from http://www.immunizecanada.com/hepatitisa.asp which is clearly noted. That quote was about sexual contact in general without explicitly stating that anal contact was the primary culprit. That quote also stated: Hepatitis A is mainly spread by fecal contamination ... Fecal contamination implies something to do with the anal cavity as, unless the sexual partner is a real "s--- for brains", I doubt that it comes from any other source.
As to your first post:So the point of underlining and bolding that part of the text is... ? Bolding is to call attention to a particular portion of a greater body of text. The underlining is to call the attention to a particular portion of the bolded text.It says nothing about gays. Why does it even matterIt has to do with the fact that sexual contact, especially sexual contact with the anal cavity, is one of the manners in which Hepatitis a is spread. Since Homosexual sex among men centers around the anal cavity, the relationship, and thus the implication, is inescapable.
As to your second post:This is not what your quote said. It said sexual contact. Not homosexual contact.For one, it is not my quote. It is a quote from http://www.immunizecanada.com/hepatitisa.asp which is clearly noted. That quote was about sexual contact in general without explicitly stating that anal contact was the primary culprit. That quote also stated: Hepatitis A is mainly spread by fecal contamination ... Fecal contamination implies something to do with the anal cavity as, unless the sexual partner is a real "s--- for brains", I doubt that it comes from any other source.
stevelyn
November 19, 2003, 12:47 AM
......a man who had caught his wife in bed with another woman and sued for adultery...........
SUED? What the hay was this guy thinking? Squandered opportunity is more like it.:evil:
SUED? What the hay was this guy thinking? Squandered opportunity is more like it.:evil:
azthistletoe
November 19, 2003, 12:50 AM
If the disease is in your fecal matter, would it not also be in your semen? And I understand that you are trying to pin gays as "disease spreaders", but I do not understand to what avail. Homeless people have lots of diseases, too, should they not be allowed to get married?
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 12:52 AM
:evil:
rock jock
November 19, 2003, 12:56 AM
Did the blacks of 20th century Alabama "push an agenda" by opposing the law prohibiting them from marrying white people?
Once again missing the mark. You are comparing a group defined by a physiological characteristic with one defined by a behavior. You might as well compare minority groups to serial murderers, for the latter endure discrimination in many of the forms that the former once did, e.g., they are segregated in society, are portrayed negatively in popular media, are not allowed to vote or own firearms, and have minimal chance for career advancement, all because of a specific behavioral characteristic that they feel compelled to act on and which society feels uncomfortable with based on concepts of morality rooted in religious beliefs.
Once again missing the mark. You are comparing a group defined by a physiological characteristic with one defined by a behavior. You might as well compare minority groups to serial murderers, for the latter endure discrimination in many of the forms that the former once did, e.g., they are segregated in society, are portrayed negatively in popular media, are not allowed to vote or own firearms, and have minimal chance for career advancement, all because of a specific behavioral characteristic that they feel compelled to act on and which society feels uncomfortable with based on concepts of morality rooted in religious beliefs.
azthistletoe
November 19, 2003, 01:00 AM
The key difference being that one group (psycho killers) hurts people, and the other (gays) does not.
MJRW
November 19, 2003, 01:03 AM
rock jock,
In my earlier post, Texas = The State of Texas, the Government of, the Elected Officials. But take it how you want, I've been reading your posts and I really don't see a point in debating anything with you on this.
In my earlier post, Texas = The State of Texas, the Government of, the Elected Officials. But take it how you want, I've been reading your posts and I really don't see a point in debating anything with you on this.
rock jock
November 19, 2003, 01:06 AM
The key difference being that one group (psycho killers) hurts people, and the other (gays) does not.
Ah, but you are missing the point, both groups are defined by a behavior. I would also say that "not hurting anyone" is open to debate. Pushing their agenda of gay marriage will certainly hurt all of society.
Ah, but you are missing the point, both groups are defined by a behavior. I would also say that "not hurting anyone" is open to debate. Pushing their agenda of gay marriage will certainly hurt all of society.
rock jock
November 19, 2003, 01:08 AM
I've been reading your posts and I really don't see a point in debating anything with you on this.
Well, at last we have found something to agree on.
Well, at last we have found something to agree on.
Nightfall
November 19, 2003, 01:16 AM
The issue is that you seem to be condemning a community based on individual acts. For example, condemning all gun owners because somebody uses a gun in a murder; condemning all gays because some engage in risky or irresponsible sexual behavior.
Due to their sexual activities, the incidence Hepatitis A is far greater in the Homosexual community than in the general community at large.
And unwanted teen pregnancy, STDs, etc. are spread through heterosexual communities by their behavior. Again, individual behavior.
Due to their sexual activities, the incidence Hepatitis A is far greater in the Homosexual community than in the general community at large.
And unwanted teen pregnancy, STDs, etc. are spread through heterosexual communities by their behavior. Again, individual behavior.
azthistletoe
November 19, 2003, 01:17 AM
Pushing their agenda of gay marriage will certainly hurt all of society.
Right, all of soceity will crumble if two guys get married.
Ah, but you are missing the point, both groups are defined by a behavior.
As are all people religious. There are no laws preventing certain religions from marrying other certain religions.
Right, all of soceity will crumble if two guys get married.
Ah, but you are missing the point, both groups are defined by a behavior.
As are all people religious. There are no laws preventing certain religions from marrying other certain religions.
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 01:20 AM
If the disease is in your fecal matter, would it not also be in your semen?No. If you read the page at http://www.immunizecanada.com/hepatitisa.asp you will find that Hepatitis is a disease of the liver. The liver has nothing to do with the reproductive tract.What is hepatitis A virus?
Hepatitis A is a serious liver disease caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV). The severity of the disease ranges from sub-clinical infection to fulminant hepatitis and death. Hepatitis A can result in flu-like symptoms including weakness, headache and fever. Other symptoms may include stomach cramps, diarrhea and jaundice (yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes). These symptoms can last for several weeks and up to 25% of infected adults end up in the hospital. And I understand that you are trying to pin gays as "disease spreaders", but I do not understand to what avail.Bringing to your attention what risks and hazards are involved in this behavior is not "trying to pin gays as "disease spreaders"". The fact that their activities are a major cause of the spread of diseases within their community is germane to the discussion. these activities are outside of the mainstream although they would prefer that you thought they were. Homeless people have lots of diseases, too, should they not be allowed to get married?True; but we are not talking about homeless people.
Hepatitis A is a serious liver disease caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV). The severity of the disease ranges from sub-clinical infection to fulminant hepatitis and death. Hepatitis A can result in flu-like symptoms including weakness, headache and fever. Other symptoms may include stomach cramps, diarrhea and jaundice (yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes). These symptoms can last for several weeks and up to 25% of infected adults end up in the hospital. And I understand that you are trying to pin gays as "disease spreaders", but I do not understand to what avail.Bringing to your attention what risks and hazards are involved in this behavior is not "trying to pin gays as "disease spreaders"". The fact that their activities are a major cause of the spread of diseases within their community is germane to the discussion. these activities are outside of the mainstream although they would prefer that you thought they were. Homeless people have lots of diseases, too, should they not be allowed to get married?True; but we are not talking about homeless people.
mantispid
November 19, 2003, 01:22 AM
Hey, that's a good point... only heterosexuals cause unwanted pregnancies.. and unwanted pregnancies are quite a 'scourge' on society, aren't they?
I think we need to ban heterosexual couplings without prior community consent. :neener: :barf:
I think we need to ban heterosexual couplings without prior community consent. :neener: :barf:
azthistletoe
November 19, 2003, 01:23 AM
We are talking about a different subject, but you can simply insert homeless for gay in your argument. Should homeless people be allowed to get married since they carry a lot of diseases?
Intune
November 19, 2003, 01:35 AM
Should Blacks because they jump higher? Should Jews because they have all the money? Should Church of Christ because they can't dance? See the trend? I love Black people... My daughter's gonna marry WHO??? See? Search your heart. I don't want my kids to read Larry Loves Joe or whatever the hell it is, in third or fourth grade. I also don't want them to read The Story of O in those grades either. Search yor heart. Find the REASON for your disagreement. I see none answered my earlier question. That says alot in its own right. Give me a caring queer over a fruitcake thumper any day. Too bad. We are NOT all the same.
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 01:41 AM
The issue is that you seem to be condemning a community based on individual acts. For example, condemning all gun owners because somebody uses a gun in a murder; condemning all gays because some engage in risky or irresponsible sexual behavior. You confuse criticism with condemnation.
Criticism is "I don't condone your behavior and I believe it is hurtful to others in your social group and society in general.
Condemnation is "You're all going to Hell if you don't change your ways!"
Know the difference.
And unwanted teen pregnancy, STDs, etc. are spread through heterosexual communities by their behavior. Again, individual behavior.Gay marriage will not have any effect on the number of teen pregnancies. Teen pregnancies will not cause death and the shortening of the lives of an entire social group.
Although STDs are spread by both groups, they are not spread at the same rate. As an example:
If you go to a Gay club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home, or at least to the parking lot, with someone.
If you go to a Straight club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home; but not necessarily with someone.
Criticism is "I don't condone your behavior and I believe it is hurtful to others in your social group and society in general.
Condemnation is "You're all going to Hell if you don't change your ways!"
Know the difference.
And unwanted teen pregnancy, STDs, etc. are spread through heterosexual communities by their behavior. Again, individual behavior.Gay marriage will not have any effect on the number of teen pregnancies. Teen pregnancies will not cause death and the shortening of the lives of an entire social group.
Although STDs are spread by both groups, they are not spread at the same rate. As an example:
If you go to a Gay club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home, or at least to the parking lot, with someone.
If you go to a Straight club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home; but not necessarily with someone.
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 01:43 AM
I think we need to ban heterosexual couplings without prior community consent. Already covered. There are agendists who are trying to make it the law that couples must take marriage counseling classes prior to the issuance of a marriage certificate. I wonder if Homosexuals will be willing to do that part of the marriage dance as well.
They also want couples to take parenting classes and in some jurisdictions this is already required.
They also want couples to take parenting classes and in some jurisdictions this is already required.
azthistletoe
November 19, 2003, 01:44 AM
So because they choose to put themselves at a greater risk (even though not even that's been established, really) they shouldn't be allowed to get married? What's your point, what are you agruing for anymore? You seem to be against the woes of promiscuity. Perhaps you should start a Gay Promiscuity Awarness program in SanFran, teach gay people that they should be more monogomous in their relationships? Like, say.... getting married?
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 01:48 AM
We are talking about a different subject, but you can simply insert homeless for gay in your argument.I didn't. You did. I merely responded in kind.Should homeless people be allowed to get married since they carry a lot of diseases?A specious question but one that deserves an answer.
The chances of homeless people getting married is nil. It would cause a decrease in their SSI payments plus they would not want to put out the money for a license, blood test, or a Justice of the Peace. Other than that, I have no problem with a homeless man and a homeless woman getting married.
The chances of homeless people getting married is nil. It would cause a decrease in their SSI payments plus they would not want to put out the money for a license, blood test, or a Justice of the Peace. Other than that, I have no problem with a homeless man and a homeless woman getting married.
Intune
November 19, 2003, 01:48 AM
What about classes to LOVE each other? Your previous post is sooo stereotypical that it made me laugh. Gays will give it up in a heartbeat? I knew girls like that too. So what. Would you not want your son or daughter to marry for love? If your son or daughter was gay would you disown them and cut them from your life or would you want them to be happy & enjoy the rights of hetros?
Nightfall
November 19, 2003, 02:04 AM
You confuse criticism with condemnation.
Criticize is a synonym for condemn. Condemn is criticism with an unfavorable ‘verdict', which is what you have posted. You're really, really splitting hairs here. :)
Although STDs are spread by both groups, they are not spread at the same rate. As an example:
If you go to a Gay club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home, or at least to the parking lot, with someone.
If you go to a Straight club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home; but not necessarily with someone.
You and I must have very different experiences with gay/bi/lesbian people. I know several gay or bi folks, and none are of the promiscuous, go home with whomever is available type. So you think that the gay community is more sexually irresponsible then the hetero community. Okay, so what does the gov't not allowing gay couples to legally bind themselves to one another have to do with disease here? If anything, would it not encourage monogamous relationships and reduce STD spread? What about lesbians? Since they often engage in less risky sexual behavior than what is allowed by the anatomy of their male counterparts, are they acceptable? If I missed where you pointed out how disease rate is a disqualifying factor for marriage in one of your previous posts, please show it to me. I fail to see what all this amounts to in the marriage argument.
Criticize is a synonym for condemn. Condemn is criticism with an unfavorable ‘verdict', which is what you have posted. You're really, really splitting hairs here. :)
Although STDs are spread by both groups, they are not spread at the same rate. As an example:
If you go to a Gay club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home, or at least to the parking lot, with someone.
If you go to a Straight club on any night looking for sex, I guarantee you that you will go home; but not necessarily with someone.
You and I must have very different experiences with gay/bi/lesbian people. I know several gay or bi folks, and none are of the promiscuous, go home with whomever is available type. So you think that the gay community is more sexually irresponsible then the hetero community. Okay, so what does the gov't not allowing gay couples to legally bind themselves to one another have to do with disease here? If anything, would it not encourage monogamous relationships and reduce STD spread? What about lesbians? Since they often engage in less risky sexual behavior than what is allowed by the anatomy of their male counterparts, are they acceptable? If I missed where you pointed out how disease rate is a disqualifying factor for marriage in one of your previous posts, please show it to me. I fail to see what all this amounts to in the marriage argument.
jimpeel
November 19, 2003, 02:23 AM
Okay, last post for the night. I have to get up early and fix an under-building water leak. I'll be back to dance in the flames late tomorrow.
What about classes to LOVE each other?Love is developed through a good relationship, not through taking a class. If that were so, I would be beating that drum for all I am worth. Your previous post is sooo stereotypical that it made me laugh. Gays will give it up in a heartbeat? Perhaps a bit of background is in order.
I grew up in So. Cal. in the heart of the Homosexual community, Hollywood. When I was in my mid-teens I used to hitchhike everywhere I went. I have been picked up and propositioned on literally hundreds -- and I do mean hundreds -- of occasions. I have been approached while walking on the street, in bars, in restaurants, etc. If I wanted to participate in these activities, there was no end of opportunities to do so.
Was I curious about such things? Of course. Any man who says he has never been curious is a liar. The heart and soul of our very sexuality, the prostate, is up our rectum.
I was taken by a Chicken Hawk, against my will, to Southeast Los Angeles one night. It was a bit tough to bail out of a car traveling 65MPH on the Harbor Freeway. He insisted that I go to his house because he wanted to "get something". The something, of course, was me.
When we arrived, he wanted me to come upstairs and offered me $20 if I would allow him to fellate me. I told him that I hadn't yet had a woman and I didn't want my first experience to be with a man. I also told him that he was frightening me and I wanted to go home. He then started the car and took me home. Whew!
Another time I was propositioned on the Golden State Freeway in a "put out or get out" scenario. I got out ... in the center divider ... and had to cross five lanes of 70MPH traffic to get off.
I have hung around and associated with homosexuals for many years. I find them to be good natured, talented, funny as Hell, and just plain nice. I have never been interested in them sexually, though.
I still carry a picture of Gene Moore, who performed at the Gay Cabarets in Orange County under the name Jean St. James. He performed in drag and was quite good. When he was a man he was quite handsome. When he was a woman, he was beautiful.
My wife and I would go to the club where he performed and I had no problem whatsoever taking to the dance floor with him. After all, he was a woman then. We liked the Gay clubs because they have the best dance floor, the best music, the best lighting, and the best sound systems. Try it some time, you'll really like it. You will just have to get past the dance floor being populated with nothing but guys; but don't worry, it'll pass.
Gene was promiscuous and flaunted it. He could go from casual to flaming depending on who he was with or where. Funny and capricious, Gene was a gem. He would tell us of his exploits and I still find myself using one of his favorite one liners "How Rude!"
Gene contracted AIDS and passed away. He is the only person I personally know who has died of the disease.
Gene was in the Marines and is buried at the Veteran's Cemetery in San Bernardino, CA. We miss him a lot.
So I have hung around with promiscuous people, I have been propositioned by promiscuous people, I have hung around at the clubs and watched the action. Been there, done that, really, truly, literally.
I know what I am talking about.
I knew girls like that too. So what. Would you not want your son or daughter to marry for love?My daughter married for love, my son is still waiting for the right woman to come around. They followed their parent's lead. We've been married for 33 years, together 34.
What about classes to LOVE each other?Love is developed through a good relationship, not through taking a class. If that were so, I would be beating that drum for all I am worth. Your previous post is sooo stereotypical that it made me laugh. Gays will give it up in a heartbeat? Perhaps a bit of background is in order.
I grew up in So. Cal. in the heart of the Homosexual community, Hollywood. When I was in my mid-teens I used to hitchhike everywhere I went. I have been picked up and propositioned on literally hundreds -- and I do mean hundreds -- of occasions. I have been approached while walking on the street, in bars, in restaurants, etc. If I wanted to participate in these activities, there was no end of opportunities to do so.
Was I curious about such things? Of course. Any man who says he has never been curious is a liar. The heart and soul of our very sexuality, the prostate, is up our rectum.
I was taken by a Chicken Hawk, against my will, to Southeast Los Angeles one night. It was a bit tough to bail out of a car traveling 65MPH on the Harbor Freeway. He insisted that I go to his house because he wanted to "get something". The something, of course, was me.
When we arrived, he wanted me to come upstairs and offered me $20 if I would allow him to fellate me. I told him that I hadn't yet had a woman and I didn't want my first experience to be with a man. I also told him that he was frightening me and I wanted to go home. He then started the car and took me home. Whew!
Another time I was propositioned on the Golden State Freeway in a "put out or get out" scenario. I got out ... in the center divider ... and had to cross five lanes of 70MPH traffic to get off.
I have hung around and associated with homosexuals for many years. I find them to be good natured, talented, funny as Hell, and just plain nice. I have never been interested in them sexually, though.
I still carry a picture of Gene Moore, who performed at the Gay Cabarets in Orange County under the name Jean St. James. He performed in drag and was quite good. When he was a man he was quite handsome. When he was a woman, he was beautiful.
My wife and I would go to the club where he performed and I had no problem whatsoever taking to the dance floor with him. After all, he was a woman then. We liked the Gay clubs because they have the best dance floor, the best music, the best lighting, and the best sound systems. Try it some time, you'll really like it. You will just have to get past the dance floor being populated with nothing but guys; but don't worry, it'll pass.
Gene was promiscuous and flaunted it. He could go from casual to flaming depending on who he was with or where. Funny and capricious, Gene was a gem. He would tell us of his exploits and I still find myself using one of his favorite one liners "How Rude!"
Gene contracted AIDS and passed away. He is the only person I personally know who has died of the disease.
Gene was in the Marines and is buried at the Veteran's Cemetery in San Bernardino, CA. We miss him a lot.
So I have hung around with promiscuous people, I have been propositioned by promiscuous people, I have hung around at the clubs and watched the action. Been there, done that, really, truly, literally.
I know what I am talking about.
I knew girls like that too. So what. Would you not want your son or daughter to marry for love?My daughter married for love, my son is still waiting for the right woman to come around. They followed their parent's lead. We've been married for 33 years, together 34.
tyme
November 19, 2003, 02:35 AM
jimpeel,
Herpes 1 and 2 are chronic, aren't curable, and have a prevalence of about 45% in blacks but only 17% in whites. I suppose we should prohibit interracial marriages? :rolleyes:
The only right at issue is the right to get married, since secular law differentiates married from non-married couples. What do you think about lesbian marriages? (I'm just trying to isolate that case, since "gay" doesn't imply a gender but you're only focusing on one.) Should they be permitted? If you'd like to judge them based on the percentage of lesbians engaging in anal sex, how do you intend to get that statistic?
Using marriage as a construct solely for rearing children marginalizes children of unwed or divorced parents. There's no reason for such child protection laws to be specific to marital status.
Herpes 1 and 2 are chronic, aren't curable, and have a prevalence of about 45% in blacks but only 17% in whites. I suppose we should prohibit interracial marriages? :rolleyes:
The only right at issue is the right to get married, since secular law differentiates married from non-married couples. What do you think about lesbian marriages? (I'm just trying to isolate that case, since "gay" doesn't imply a gender but you're only focusing on one.) Should they be permitted? If you'd like to judge them based on the percentage of lesbians engaging in anal sex, how do you intend to get that statistic?
Using marriage as a construct solely for rearing children marginalizes children of unwed or divorced parents. There's no reason for such child protection laws to be specific to marital status.
Preacherman
November 19, 2003, 02:46 AM
Folks, as you know, on THR we've long had a policy of not allowing discussions on religion, sex/sexuality, etc. to go on. The reason should be clear from this thread: these subjects inevitably lead to major clashes of opinion, the generation of rather more heat than light, and a lapse in the high standards of communication we try to maintain here.
We'd hoped that this discussion could have pursued the political and civil liberties issues involved in this matter. Certainly, some of you tried to do so: to you, our thanks. Others, however, took matters off at a tangent (well, several tangents, actually), and that led to seriously off-topic discussion.
In the interests of peace, quiet and the High Road, I think this one is done.
We'd hoped that this discussion could have pursued the political and civil liberties issues involved in this matter. Certainly, some of you tried to do so: to you, our thanks. Others, however, took matters off at a tangent (well, several tangents, actually), and that led to seriously off-topic discussion.
In the interests of peace, quiet and the High Road, I think this one is done.
If you enjoyed reading about "Mass. strikes down gay marriage ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.