Can someone PLEASE tell me.....

[personalegend]

...what the argument is against gay marriage? I really am trying to understand why people fear it so much. Is it just because of the bible?
I was just living in San Francisco which is so liberal, that sometiems it is hard to find another strong viewpoint on this. All of my friends and colleagues are for granting equal rights to gay people. And I do think it is important to truly understand the other arguments in order to make progress. All I see right now is fear on the other side about this issue. Just fearing that civilization is all going to go to hell or something, I dunno.....
So i would love to hear, in a calm discussion, what these people believe that banned gay marriage, or that voted for Bush based on this issue......
Any ideas??

[Crimson King II]

Two Arguments:

1) tradition alone...some people like marriage how it is.

2) states rights vs. judicial autonomy. Judges in America are not law makers by right. They should therefore not usurp that role. If they MAKE a law, instead of interpret it, they are power-grabbing and the people do not have a say. There has NEVER been ANY Federal Marriage law. It has ALWAYS been a domain of the state. It should remain a domain of the state, and the people should decide if they want gay marriage. Until they do, it should not be forced upon them by 1) judges in another state, or 2) judges at any level. The people should decide. If judges get to decide, then where do they stop? Do they get to make tax law? What about defense policy? What about intelligence issues? Wait...who elected THEM??? Oh...nobody.....goodbye democracy....


If we go to the polls in our respective state, and the people choose gay marriage, or if their elected representatives do....fine....that's the way policy should be made....and I'd have NO problem with it...

[tartytwenty]

While I do agree, it needs to stay at the state level, that isn't an argument for or against gay marriage, just who should decide it.

Tradition. That seems like a weak argument. It's "just always how it's been done" thinking. What we need to know is why it's tradition, the basis to stick to tradition, more so than "just because". What are the benefits of tradition? What are the downfalls of allowing gay marriage?

I support gay marriage, and also would like to know the deeper reasoning on why people are so opposed to it. It's none of your damn beeswax, I say (that's not to offend anyone) if two males or females want to marry.

[personalegend]

thanks tartytwenty, that is what i was trying to get at. I would like to know the thinking behind it, the reasons......i hear the state level thing, but that is not what i am getting at.

[and1grad]

I feel the same way. I dont see a reason. So it makes me wonder...do we make changes out of necessity and is this a necessary change? Maybe thats where the other side is coming from. I'm like you, personal, I just want to understand...w/o the useless "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by and1grad
w/o the useless "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric.
No, and1...it was that we weren't being "logical." Remember? ;)

[Crimson King II]

Well tarty and personal...that's fine...you didn't ask for "the argument that will persuade you." But people DO believe those arguments and that they're important, and if you and your candidate want to keep lecturing them that their position is weak or invalid, then fine. They will continue to feel unrepresented by you and they will continue to vote against you in elections. I suggest you work harder on giving them an argument "for" gay marriage when they can go into the street and upon looks alone not identify anyone gay as they would a racial minority or a visibly disabled person or an old person. They don't buy that it's discrimination or equal rights, especially when you're against a constitutional amendment that makes the status of the law entirely equal and entirely democratic for the people to decide...

[and1grad]

To be honest with you...thats aimed at both "sides" of this board.

[Crimson King II]

And I'm not saying I am smarter.

But my analysis all year brought me to a conclusion wherein I predicted the exact electoral vote total.

Maybe I'm not smarter. But I was right. For that...no apologies.

[WeirdBrake]

...what the argument is against gay marriage? I really am trying to understand why people fear it so much. Is it just because of the bible?

Yes, it's just because of the Bible. It's because of religion and conservative religious mindsets. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Christian theologian of the 13th century (whose ideas shaped much of western Christian thought and attitudes), argued that everything in nature has a purpose. That purpose is set by God. He went on to argue that to our body parts, too, have a purpose, and to use those body parts for anything other than God's designed purpose is immoral and sinful.

So he argued that the purpose of the sex organs is only to procreate within a holy marriage. Thus, any sexual activity outside of procreation within marriage is deemed immoral and contrary to God's will. This includes not only homosexuality but also masturbation and recreational sex. This is the basis for why the Catholic Church and other Christian sects are against those activities.

Ultimately, this argument boils down to "God said so" because it's predicated on certain notions of God and what God expects. As an atheist, the argument obviously doesn't work on me because I reject the notion of God (let alone all these other assumptions about what God expects), and I'm more likely to be sympathetic to the notion of equality, which can be a secular ideal and doesn't necessarily entail a belief in God.

But other people, who DO find these religious belief systems convincing, are likely to be against homosexuality for that reason.

[wordsmith]

***(Just a quick reminder that not every Christian sect condemns homosexuality - or gay marriage, for that matter. Sorry to keep beating it into the ground, but it merits repeating of late.)***

[natbumpo]

...gay marriage is issue #72 out of 73 on my list, I could never base a decision for voting on where someone stands on this issue.

[tartytwenty]

Well, I don't know how the election crap got into the mix......

But I think we were just simply trying to understand this one issue of gay marriage. If tradition is the argument, based of religion, then there will never be any means to an end on this. For this argument to be won decisively, you'd have to prove of God's existence. Then, you would have to prove that God, does, in fact, send you to hell if you are gay. God may exist, but with different rules than we are fed.

Logically, I have to disagree with you. This is an equal right issue as well. If a couple chooses to marry, they get certain privileges for doing so. A gay couple does not. We could make it equal by banning all marriage, or banning all sinners from marrying, or allowing all marriage.

[tartytwenty]

Originally posted by wordsmith
***(Just a quick reminder that not every Christian sect condemns homosexuality - or gay marriage, for that matter. Sorry to keep beating it into the ground, but it merits repeating of late.)***

Yes, that's why I state God. Not sure what other religions think on this issue, they may be against or pro too.

I'm also sure not all anti-gay marriage folk are religious. Some people are agaisnt it without religious reasoning.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
It should remain a domain of the state, and the people should decide if they want gay marriage. Until they do, it should not be forced upon them by 1) judges in another state, or 2) judges at any level. The people should decide. Okay, what confuses me about this issue is the fact that it's referred to as "forcing" it on people. Because you're saying that we shouldn't "force" straight people to accept gay marriages. But how does it affect straight people? Why do straight people get to decide on behalf of homosexuals? Shouldn't they get to decide for themselves? And what is the harm?

I want to know why heteros care if gay people get married. Can someone please explain this to me?? The reason it affects my life by them not being able to get married is that I see my friends who have committed relationships have to have fake ceremonies to profess their commitment. And I see them feel like 2nd class citizens because the majority gets to decide that their lifestyle is unacceptable.

As a silly hypothetical, what if men said they wanted a law to enable them to wear dresses? There's no law defining men's clothes right now, but I bet if a man came to my office in a skirt there would be problems. As a woman I would think it's silly and I don't especially want to see it, but is it up to women to decide what men can wear or not? No.

[WeirdBrake]

For this argument to be won decisively

I studied philosophy for 4 years, and I can tell you that no political, religious, or moral argument is ever won decisively. Decisions are made by those in power, but it's not like these issues are ever "resolved" or "won" by one side over another. People have their differences of opinions, and they go back and forth with their sophistry and rhetoric and appeals to different mentalities and perspectives. That's the way it's been for thousands of years, and that's probably how it'll continue to be for thousands of years. That's the way political and religious and moral argumentation works. That's what distinguishes it from math and science.

Logically, I have to disagree with you. This is an equal right issue as well.

Who are you disagreeing with? I agree it's an equal rights issue.

[tartytwenty]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
They don't buy that it's discrimination or equal rights, especially when you're against a constitutional amendment that makes the status of the law entirely equal and entirely democratic for the people to decide...

I misread this as CK not buying it was an Equal Rights issue. I'm not the best debater.

I said "For this argument to be won decisively, you'd have to prove of God's existence."

...and I understand that proving God's existence will never happen, so I agree, the argument can never be won decisively.

Now for my crazy thought:

But if a God did show up one day, and started killing off all the gay people... then we wouldn't have to worry about our humanly decisions or them getting married, they'd be dead. Until then, we(humans) all disagree, and I think it's healthy. It allows for more ideas.

[WeirdBrake]

Ah, ok. Actually, you're right. CK does not buy that it's an equal rights issue, at least from a constitutional standpoint.

But if a God did show up one day, and started killing off all the gay people... then we wouldn't have to worry about our humanly decisions or them getting married, they'd be dead. Until then, we(humans) all disagree, and I think it's healthy. It allows for more ideas.

That's no crazier a thought than many things that have been articulated in the history of philosophy. :)

[joneshen]

I want to know why heteros care if gay people get married.

I was wondering the same thing this week.

Here's a question: How would gay marriage affect society negatively? (I'm assuming that this is one reason why people are so against it .)

To go further, how would you react when your hypothetical kid asks you why his/her classmater has two mommies, or you find out that his playmate has two daddies?

[WeirdBrake]

Here's a question: How would gay marriage affect society negatively? (I'm assuming that this is one reason why people are so against it .)

Again, the people who are against gay marriage are against it for religious reasons. They believe God frowns on homosexuality, so they wouldn't want a law that gives legitimacy to something they believe is contrary to God's will. How do they believe it will affect society negatively? Well, to them, just the legitimacy of homosexuality through legal marriages is a negative effect because it gives a legal stamp of approval to something they believe is contrary to God's will.

If you truly want to understand the ones who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality, you have to understand their first two premises:

1) God exists.

2) Morality comes from God.

Without appreciating how those are their first two premises from which their opposition to gay marriage follows, you won't really understand. If you're not religious-- or atheistic like I am-- you won't accept those two premises. You may argue that morality does not come from God. You may argue that certain principles of equality and justice and right and wrong exist independently of any religious worldview. However, for the ones who oppose gay marriage, that's how they think and feel.

And as for the ones who oppose gay marriage without being overtly religious themselves, let's remember that these conservative religious ideas have a huge influence over culture in general. They affect many people's mindsets and feelings, even if they aren't specifically aware of it. No doubt most homophobia in general stems from religion's influence on our cultural attitudes.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by joneshen


Here's a question: How would gay marriage affect society negatively? (I'm assuming that this is one reason why people are so against it .)


Well, since I don't hold these beliefs, I'm not speaking from personal philosophy, but I also have my work inbox flooded by spam from Rev. Louis Sheldon and the Traditional Values Coalition. In these mailings, they have indicated that they believe gay marriage would affect society negativlely, because gay people corrupt and abuse youth, and try to talk them into converting to sinful lifestyles. I'm sure there are others besides the good Reverend who feel that "desecrating the sacred family bond" is a negative societal aspect of accepted homosexuality, for sure.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by wordsmith
In these mailings, they have indicated that they believe gay marriage would affect society negativlely, because gay people corrupt and abuse youth, and try to talk them into converting to sinful lifestyles. I'm sure there are others besides the good Reverend who feel that "desecrating the sacred family bond" is a negative societal aspect of accepted homosexuality, for sure. That's disgusting. Where do these people get these things from?

[WeirdBrake]

Carol... they get these ideas from religion. Haven't you read everything I wrote? I share your disgust with these worldviews, but that's exactly where they come from.

[joneshen]

gay people corrupt and abuse youth, and try to talk them into converting to sinful lifestyles.

I can understand the first part of the argument (that somehow hanging around gay people would somehow corrupt you), but I don't think that gay people actively try to make other people gay (unless they think they're really hot. Just kidding.)

[goldenlinestate]

argument #3:

the adopted children wouldnt have a chance to have both a mother and father.

[wordsmith]

WB, but then why doesn't every churchgoer hold these views?

[wordsmith]

Oh, that's right...because some devout Christians actually DO choose to embrace the "unconditional compassion, love, tolerance, and acceptance" end of bibical teachings.

[WeirdBrake]

WB, but then why doesn't every churchgoer hold these views?

Because, WS, as I've explained before in previous posts on this thread, I'm talking about general religious mindsets. Not once did I say that everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian holds these exact views. And I don't think I ever asserted anything that would necessarily lead to that conclusion. Some people, of course, take certain religious ideas and go in completely different directions. But the influence of conservative Judeo-Christian religion (key word is conservative) on the homophobia in western society is undeniable.

Oh, that's right...because some devout Christians actually DO choose to embrace the "unconditional compassion, love, tolerance, and acceptance" end of bibical teachings.

Sarcasm aside, those who disagree with you would argue that God's love and compassion is compatible with a moral judgment against the behaviors of homosexuality.

Again, I share your complete disgust/disbelief/disagreement with this way of thinking, but you're going to have to face up to the fact that many people simply don't think and feel the same way you do. The thread starter-- and others-- wanted an explanation of the perspective of those who oppose gay marriage. It's clear you don't like the perspective. I don't either. But if you don't at least accept that many people DO buy into this perspective, you're doing nothing to advance your understanding or appreciation of how the other side thinks and feels.

[Benwa]

The problem seems to be is we can't define the issue. For CK its more gov't rules and regulation. But for others its a more broad issue. An issue of civil rights. So first I think it needs to be decided what exactly it is we're talking about.

I feel religion and tradition and gov't regulation are tools used to rationalise someone opinion. But they aren't the cause of the opinion. People in amerika (particularly older) have an aversion to homosexuals. It's easy to search the bible and find an ideology that corresponds with that aversion. Then it is used to justify their aversion. "Oh, see god said its wrong, there it is, its wrong. Ah... I feel better now. Obviously I'm living the right way the good way." Proof of this is theres big chunks of the bible which contradict this. Compassion for all, don't judge only god can. So morality/religion is a pretty flimsy argument because you can decipher the bible as you wish and make it fit what you want it to fit.

Tradition is hardly a reason. Tradition means "I fear change". And Gov't regulation is a poor excuse because it is similar to the bible excuse, you can shape it and make it fit as you wish.

So I figure it comes down to this. People think fags are yucky. thats it. And why do people think fags are yucky and scary? Here's the beautiful part. the part that really pisses off the homophobes. We all have a little bit of homosexual tendencies in us! And really big hate and fear are usually reflections of what we aren't comfortable with in ourselves. Homosexual behavior is pretty common in the animal kingdom, meaning it must serve some purpose, if simply just for recreation. Why are we any different?

I'm not too worried about gay marriage. As we get older and the crusty old heads fade away, we will shape our future accordingly. And we've grown up around homosexuals. Almost all of us know gay people and enjoy their company. Besides, let gay people have a crack at it. It isn't like straight people are doing that great of a job in the marriage department. It isn't like "Marriage was going good until them there gay folks muscled in."

[Crimson King II]

ALL religion aside, there is a real power/role of government issue involved. Imagine we're here with NO laws, and we decide to create a government...who makes the laws? We agree the people do. Okay...now let's make some....we'll elect a legislature and a President...they will make our laws, and if we don't like them, then we'll vote them out of office.

Fine...so we're making laws....but the laws need some interpretation....we need judges....the President can appoint them, the congress can approve them....but the people can never vote on them...fine....now we're making and interpreting laws and we're happy.....

The people want MARRIAGE LAWS. Okay! The federal government says...."Eh...that's sort of a piddly issue...and it's equally piddly for men and women (equal rights).....States!!! Make the people some marriage laws!" Ok! The states make marriage laws...men can marry women...we're happy!

Oops. Ed and Steve want to marry. No state allows that. Hmmmm...what do we do? Judge Burnt Orange says, "Ok! Massachusetts MUST let Ed and Steve marry." But the people do not say that. Who elected Burnt Orange? No one in Massachusetts...no one in Texas...no one anywhere. But, ok....Massachusetts is ok with that. And Ed and Steve get married. Fine......

Ed and Steve move to Texas. Steve dies. Ed has an estate and Texas claims the bulk of it. Steve claims the other bulk of it. There is a dispute. Who wins??? The Constitution, through the full faith and credit clause, requires Texas to recognize that marriage and give Ed Steve's estate...Texas has now lost some tax revenue which would have let Lisa Everybody buy an extra textbook for math. But the people didn't decide that for Texas...Judge Burnt Orange did...and he wasn't elected....nor can he be removed...he's got a lifetime appointment. Texas is sad. Even the people Texas DID elect to Congress can't help them....

Enter President Godsgift. He supports a same-sex marriage ban. If it passes, then Texas gets to decide its marriage recognition law (protecting it from Burnt Orange-made law). Texas' people vote to not recognize his law because even the people of Massachusetts didn't make that law. Now, when Ed and Steve, Jr. move to Texas after getting married, that estate money may go to Texas. Steve can still give that money to Ed through a living trust, however. Further, that law is not unconstitutional because it applies equally to gay men, gay women, straight men, and straight women...

None of that has anything to do with morals. Judges should not make laws. Congress and legislatures and votes of the people should. Moreover, there are some, though small and marginal, real effects of these laws...such as loss/gain of tax revenue...

Judges should not do the jobs of legislatures of the people, one state should not determine the laws of another state, marriage should not be the domain of the federal government at any time, men and women are treated equally under this system, and if the PEOPLE decide gay marriage is what they want they can still do so. It is NOT the same as slavery...all anti-slave laws were validated by acts of Congress or Constitutional Amendments, which mean the PEOPLE chose those policies, not judges (though judges were instrumental in the civil rights movement).

I don't see why it's so difficult to grasp.

[Crimson King II]

Why isn't it a civil rights issue?

1) It has NO bearing on the fundamental ability of any people to participate in government. Racial issues did...as slaves, people could neither participate in government and they had to forego their natural right to liberty and property...not so today with gays.

2) Homosexuality is not immutable. Just like you can't see me on the street and tell whether I'm gay on sight alone, I can't tell if someone is gay. This can not be said of African-Americans (color of skin), old people (wrinkledness of skin?), disabled people (skin in wheelchairs), women (skin shaped like breasts), etc.

To liken the gay-marriage issue, I think, is insulting to blacks who suffered beatings, torturing, maiming, and systematic democratic disenfranchisement for years.

[WeirdBrake]

let gay people have a crack at it.

Oh, Benwa, you really do have a way with words. :eek:

I don't see why it's so difficult to grasp.

To be fair, CK, you're making a fairly complicated argument involving political philosophy, which is difficult to understand for those who are unfamiliar with the underlying principles of American constitutional law.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake

Again, I share your complete disgust/disbelief/disagreement with this way of thinking, but you're going to have to face up to the fact that many people simply don't think and feel the same way you do.

Oh, I DO face up to it...believe me, where I live, I'm confronted with it every day, nearly. That's why I brought up the good reverend and his followers.

[Crimson King II]

I don't believe I am Brake.

We elect Congressmen and Legislators to make laws.

We do not elect Federal judges, nor do we elect judges in other states.

Judges, therefore should not make laws when they are not directly accountable to the people.

Very basic stuff. I even tried to put it in story form. People, I think, claim not to understand it because to do so and take the opposite position puts them in the position of defending "elitist" rule, or rule by those other than the people...which has never been American.

[WeirdBrake]

CK is essentially arguing that allowing gay marriage in practice has the ultimate legal effect of depriving people of their right of democratic self-governance. As a political argument, it's simple. However, to understand WHY it has that ultimate effect, it takes some understanding of ConLaw. Which can make it a little more complicated. That's all I meant.

[Crimson King II]

Self government....tax revenue.....insurance premiums are potentially higher when 10% of the population has a higher risk of STD's and their spouses now must be covered in certain situations.....there are economic AND socio-political residual ramifications.

Things don't happen in a vacuum.

[gluegun]

these mailings, they have indicated that they believe gay marriage would affect society negativlely, because gay people corrupt and abuse youth, and try to talk them into converting to sinful lifestyles.

I know this is why the mormons are against it. See, the mormons believe that the "sinful lifestlye" that is homosexuality is a CHOICE. They don't believe that anybody is born gay. Therefore, the reason why people choose the sinful lifestyle is that they have been coerced by other gays/lesbians. If you make gay marriage legal then you are legitimizing the gay lifestyle. You are sending a message to their sons and daughters that it is OK to choose a sinful and immoral lifestyle.

[Crimson King II]

AND...FYI everyone.....the mailings, etc. which gluegun discusses....I don't subscribe to that. Gay people are people first, and there are many who are good and noble and productive and wonderful. The "gays are evil demons" talk is nonsense. I condemn that for those far-righties who may think that's true.

[WeirdBrake]

I know this is why the mormons are against it. See, the mormons believe that the "sinful lifestlye" that is homosexuality is a CHOICE. They don't believe that anybody is born gay.

Yep. This is their belief system in that regard:

Premise: God gave everyone free will, the freedom to choose between right and wrong.

Premise: Homosexual behavior is wrong.

Conclusion: Those who engage in homosexuality are freely choosing to do so and are morally culpable.

[tartytwenty]

Okay, you two are making my brain hurt, but I have a question:

If there is no law banning gay marriage.
But there is a law not to discriminate people on their current rights.

When a judge decides that not allowing gay marriage violates the discrimination law, and allows the gay marriage, he's only interpreting, right? He's not creating a law. However, if there is a law specifically banning gay marriage, then he'd be making laws and in big trouble....right? CK keeps saying they are making laws, and I saw it as interpreting current laws (their job), but I could be wrong.

Well, I hope you lawyers aren't laughing at me right now. Time to go home for the day, however! Weekend fun time!

[Crimson King II]

I would contend, though, that whether they do so by choice or not is not the issue. They're not doing it in the streets or in my office. Were it not discussed publicly, then it would never be an issue. An African-American cannot similarly conceal their behavior.
Choice is one thing...behavior another. WHO you are is one thing, how you BEHAVE is another. An immutable characteristic goes to WHO you are. BEHAVIOR does not. As such, it is not an equal rights type of issue (See #2 in my previous post)

[Benwa]

CK, I hope you were using the Ed and Steve estate taking tax dollars from the children as just an example. That would be such a small dollar amount. Why don't we stop allowing giant corporations to hide their would be tax dollars in the shell games they all play. That seems like a substantial dollar amount.

You make all sorts of logical arguments which seem to make sense. But do you think the average joe gives it that much thought. Hell no! Maybe a small percentage of those who vote against gay marriage have spent the mental effort to rationalise it through judicial elements and define all the legal parameters. Face it, most of the people who don't like the idea of gay marriage think its just plain gross or somehow the SkyDad doesn't approve (nod to WB for the SkyDad, its becoming a favorite of mine)

Edit: WB I didn't even think about my "crack at it" being a pun. Good eye.

[Crimson King II]

Well, tarty...there is not such a law. There is no federal law (and in many states, no state law) that says "do not discriminate on the basis of current rights." The ADA protects "disabled" persons. The ADEA protects against "older people over 40 years old." The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of "gender, sex (not sexual preference...this means male/female), color, race, and national origin."

State laws are similar. Absent a SPECIFIC law against discrimination for sexual preference, any such "interpretation" is unfounded and, I would argue, unconstitutional.

[gluegun]

Oh, yes, lets not leave out the "gross factor". There are plenty of people who vote against gay marriage just because "those people make me sick".

[Crimson King II]

You're right Benwa...it would be an incredibly small amount. But there would be similar economic effects in insurance premiums, corporate subsidies to married individuals, tax payments and breaks on the basis of marriage, etc. All small amounts, but cumulative nonetheless.......


And you're right that most think of it in simpler terms. It's why I'm here to enlighten them. I think those reasons are weak. But similarly, people are for it for weak and simple reasons, too....right?

I think the gross factor, though, is equally weak when standing next to the "it's an equal rights" factor.

[personalegend]

See, there is no way to take discrimination out of it! Religious or not......the fact that this is even an issue, the fact that states even had to put it on the ballot and would consider it an issue, is at the base level, mass discrimination and inequality! Someone loves someone else. They decide to marry. Period. End of story. No different than when I decide to get married to a man (i am female, mind you). So whether it comes down to being against the bible, or thinking homosexuality is evil, it comes down to discrimination. Even if you believe that they can't raise children. It is always saying at the base level that there is something missing or wrong with gay people and that a gay couple is inferior and deserves inferior rights to straight people. A white dude marrying a black girl, a black girl marrying a latino girl, a chinese guy marrying a white guy....where does the difference lay other than what hole they put it in??

Of course, it is an issue that will not dissolve just because I wish it so.....I now have a better understanding of the reasons people may have religiously, etc. THanks to everyone who have helped brainstorm this with me. Of course, I would love to talk to someone who actually believes these things so as to get a first-hand perspective. I understand intellectually.....cannot possibly agree with it. Only hope that it is not a lost cause just due to religion. I would love to see the actual part of the bible that deems it as wrong. Does anyone know what part?

[lostindc]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Two Arguments:
2) states rights vs. judicial autonomy. Judges in America are not law makers by right. They should therefore not usurp that role. If they MAKE a law, instead of interpret it, they are power-grabbing and the people do not have a say. There has NEVER been ANY Federal Marriage law. It has ALWAYS been a domain of the state. It should remain a domain of the state, and the people should decide if they want gay marriage. Until they do, it should not be forced upon them by 1) judges in another state, or 2) judges at any level. The people should decide. If judges get to decide, then where do they stop? Do they get to make tax law? What about defense policy? What about intelligence issues? Wait...who elected THEM??? Oh...nobody.....goodbye democracy....


Federal judges to the best of my knowledge haven't made any decisions on gay marriage yet so it seems that the states rights aspect has always been protected. Second Massachusetts judges decided that gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts based on the Massachusetts constitution. Considering that I doubt that anyone on these boards is an expert on the Massachusetts constitution I don't see how anyone here can accuse these judges of making law instead of interpreting it.

Lastly I find it ironic how conservatives complain about the government taking away freedoms (as in the case of gun control) and yet they want it to be illegal for people to have the freedom to marry whomever they choose.

I can only image the culture shock for George W to see rainbow flags flying from the chuch steeples in the towns of Massachusetts.

(and yes Barney Frank represents my hometown)

[Deadend]

You know, the exact same thing happens in Canada. The right wing party complains that the courts are making laws and tries to stir up a frenzy about it. What it really shows is ignorance of the system. No judge in Canada, or Massachus....however you spell it has ever made a law. If this is what you are trying to say: You're wrong.

All laws must be consistent with the constitution. That's the judges job. Not to create, but to ensure consistency. Just like if there was a law that said you can only cross the road on wednesdays, and then another law says you can only cross the road on thursdays, the jusdge could strike down the second law.

In the case of gay marriage, it has been seen that telling people who they can and cannot marry based upon gender is descriminating somehow that is specifically not allowed due to another law. That's inconsistancey, and that's exactly what they're supposed to correct.

[cheshrcarol]

CK, I think you're missing a bigger picture here. Using your story as an example, why doesn't Texas want to recognize Steve and Ed's marriage? If Steve married Elizabeth instead of Ed, Texas has no problem recognizing that marriage, even though they were married in Massachussetts.

You can't tell me that all the Texans (and other states) that oppose recognizing gay marriage are doing so only out of fear of loss of tax revenue or higher insurance premiums. Which by the way, is there any factual evidence that gay men in a committed relationship have a higher risk of STD's than the general population?

The answer is that it comes down to prejudice. They oppose it because they think homosexuality is wrong. And why are we letting people decide for others what lifestyle is right or wrong between 2 consenting adults?

[and1grad]

Question for the legal minds of this thread: Can not allowing a woman to marry another woman be argued as gender discrimination? I realize that being gay, in and of itself, will not qualify as a discrimination case but what about this angle? Just wondering.

[WeirdBrake]

It wouldn't be gender discrimination because the prohibition on same-sex marriage would apply equally to both genders. Men can't marry men; women can't marry women. No gender would be affected by the law worse than the other.

Now if men were the only ones who couldn't marry men, but women were allowed to marry women, then that would be gender discrimination.

[and1grad]

Ahh....good point. My excuse for not thinking of that...none.

[WeirdBrake]

My excuse for not thinking of that...

...you haven't studied law. ;)

[lostindc]

but if laws that prohibit african americans from marrying whites be racial discimination, wouldn't it follow that prohibiting men from marrying men be gender discrimination?

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by lostindc
but if laws that prohibit african americans from marrying whites be racial discimination, wouldn't it follow that prohibiting men from marrying men be gender discrimination? That's a really good point. Why doesn't the law see it from that perspective?

[WeirdBrake]

There is a legal answer to the question you just asked, but I forget what it is. I think CK would know.

It's times like these when I wish I'd attended ConLaw class more often...... or at least read the cases.

[personalegend]

Originally posted by lostindc
but if laws that prohibit african americans from marrying whites be racial discimination, wouldn't it follow that prohibiting men from marrying men be gender discrimination?

Good question! CK or other lawyers--can you answer this for us?

[and1grad]

Could it have something to do with African Americans being the only race that couldnt marry whites? I see why it cant be considered gender discrimination but maybe it should be something else.

[Crimson King II]

It would be discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Gender deals more with sexual roles played by a person. Brake's got it...it's as simple as the law applies equally to people of male and female gender and is therefore not gender discriminatory.

As for Massachusetts law, Massachusetts judges ruled in accord with the Massachusetts constitution's equal protection clause, which is identical to that in the US constitution. There was no interpretation of any statute, but there was creation of law by judges. The Massachusetts ruling puts Massachusetts gay-marriages in direct conflict with other states' laws, giving the federal court jurisdiction. The president does not want the federal judiciary to have any opportunity to resolve a dispute, which would have to be ruled on in Federal Court. It's preemptive.

[cheshrcarol]

As for Massachusetts law, Massachusetts judges ruled in accord with the Massachusetts constitution's equal protection clause, which is identical to that in the US constitution. There was no interpretation of any statute, but there was creation of law by judges. The Massachusetts ruling puts Massachusetts gay-marriages in direct conflict with other states' laws, giving the federal court jurisdiction. The president does not want the federal judiciary to have any opportunity to resolve a dispute, which would have to be ruled on in Federal Court. It's preemptive.Was this supposed to be in response to my Steve marrying Ed/Elizabeth post? Because if it is, you still haven't addressed my point that at the heart of the matter is predjudice.

[Crimson King II]

No....see that's why Kerry lost. The dems paint it as an issue of gay marriage is good, and those who oppose it are prejudiced intolerants. When really, people think that America is by and large not a prejudiced place, 60-65% of Americans disagree with gay marriage (none of whom like to be told they are prejudiced and think they are not), and believe merely in tradition, rather than in carving out laws that create more than equal protection for a small minority when the people themselves don't get to make such laws.

When you ask how I account for good law when that law is based upon prejudice, I merely reply that it isn't merely based on prejudice. Moreover...even if it is...how far should the law go to prevent prejudice...some are prejudiced against the wealthy, or against the poor, against people with blonde hair, against dumb people or overly smart people....THAT's why the discrimination argument is important...because to grant rights on the basis of mutable characteristics all of a sudden (when currently ALL anti-discrimination law is based upon immutable ones) opens up a slew of potential protected "minorities" who want to get married or take advantage of some available protection of some sort....

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
No....see that's why Kerry lost. The dems paint it as an issue of gay marriage is good, and those who oppose it are prejudiced intolerants. When really, people think that America is by and large not a prejudiced place, 60-65% of Americans disagree with gay marriage (none of whom like to be told they are prejudiced and think they are not), and believe merely in tradition, rather than in carving out laws that create more than equal protection for a small minority when the people themselves don't get to make such laws. I don't especially care if those people like hearing that they're prejudiced or not, because the hard truth is that they are. At one time it wasn't "tradition" for women to vote. Does that mean that tradition was right? NO. This country is supposed to be about progress. And the issue isn't about "protection" it's about equal rights. A person should be be able to marry whoever they want.

I merely reply that it isn't merely based on prejudice. Moreover...even if it is...how far should the law go to prevent prejudice...How far?? My God, how is that even a question? There is a big difference between being blond or rich or non-intelligent and being prejudiced against. And to even draw a parallel is insulting to the people who struggle with being homosexual. There are no laws preventing blonds from marrying eachother. Or rich people from marrying eachother. There are no people discriminated against from adopting a child because they're blond.

You can deny it all you want, and for you maybe it's true. But in the end it's not some higher cause about who gets to create laws, it's about bigotry.

[kitalyn414]

Originally posted by goldenlinestate
argument #3:

the adopted children wouldnt have a chance to have both a mother and father. i was thinking about this thread this weekend when someone offered this as the reason why they oppose gay marriage, while favoring civil unions. the following is what this person explained to me & does not reflect my personal opinion:

the best possible situation for a child is to be raised by a married male and female. provided that they are good parents, this is the ideal that all families should strive for. if gay couples are allowed to marry, then they would, by law, be given the same adoptive rights as married couples. being raised by 2 dads or 2 moms, would likely be stressful for the child (ie. taunting from other kids) and could possibly not give them the same balanced upbringing that a kid would get by having 1 male and 1 female parent. my friend argued that the government should always help society strive towards the ideal and paving the way for children to be raised in a situation below the ideal would not be beneficial for society as a whole.

this is just one other perspective. of course, it would be better for a gay couple to raise a child than 2 abusive hetero parents or for the child to be bounced around in the foster system, but his argument is that straight, married couples, should have the first opportunity to adopt children because they have a higher chance of being able to provide the best situation.

[Benwa]

Good grief. Another honest to goodness "What about the children?!" argument. It's been my take that the children are fine. They are fun because they haven't been beaten down by life yet. The adults are the ones people should be concerned with.

It isn't the business of the gov't to push an ideal. You know there was this gov't in the 40's that pushed what they felt was an ideal. They were in germany and that crazy little bastard with the moustache was at the helm. There ideal was the arian race. People say "Oh thats racist." Yeah but it isn't any different than whats going on with this issue. A group of people are declared different (doesn't matter what the reason is), they are "not normal" and must be discouraged.

Sure they may get made fun of. But kids get made fun of for wearing the wrong kind of jeans or wearing goofy glasses too.

I know the whole psychology argument that its important to have male and female in the picture. But strangely in many homosexual relationships there is on person who is more masculine while the other is more feminine. Besides no one says you have to get your male or female roles fom parents. New evidence is saying alot of development occurs outside of family contact. One reason children of immigrant don't speak with their parents accent, but rather have american accents. alot of development occurs outside of your parents.

Seems like another flimsy rationalisation to me. More denial about the real reasons they oppose gay marriage.

[Deadend]

Originally posted by kitalyn414
i was thinking about this thread this weekend when someone offered this as the reason why they oppose gay marriage, while favoring civil unions. the following is what this person explained to me & does not reflect my personal opinion:

the best possible situation for a child is to be raised by a married male and female. [/i]

Really? Why? Pure conjecture.



provided that they are good parents,

Well duh, nobody's posing to adopt to couples, gay or straight, that don't appear to be good parents.



this is the ideal that all families should strive for.

Because of conjecture, and blind faith, of course.


if gay couples are allowed to marry, then they would, by law, be given the same adoptive rights as married couples.

Yes, that would be the point.


being raised by 2 dads or 2 moms, would likely be stressful for the child (ie. taunting from other kids)

There was a time when the same thing would happen to Black kids, but we don't say "oh well, then we'll just have to tell black couples not to have kids". Oh no no no, we don't bow to bigotry like that.


and could possibly not give them the same balanced upbringing that a kid would get by having 1 male and 1 female parent.


Oh no! Not possibly! More conjecture.


my friend argued that the government should always help society strive towards the ideal and paving the way for children to be raised in a situation below the ideal would not be beneficial for society as a whole.

An argument which justifies everything so as long as you reserve the right to define your own ideals.

[i]
this is just one other perspective. of course, it would be better for a gay couple to raise a child than 2 abusive hetero parents or for the child to be bounced around in the foster system, but his argument is that straight, married couples, should have the first opportunity to adopt children because they have a higher chance of being able to provide the best situation.

Mostly conjecture. A whole lot more to parenting then just gender.

[Crimson King II]

Well carol, fine! Keep telling them they're bigoted and prejudiced, and keep conveying to them that you and the far left are the keepers of what is right and moral and good and decent, and they will continue to defeat you in elections...that's my whole point...and it's why Kerry lost.


I KNOW there aren't laws against blonde people marrying, etc., but homosexual marriage laws, because homosexuality is a mutable, rather than immutable characteristic, would carve out a legal anti discrimination law that would likely make any mutable characteristic grounds for anti-discrimination laws. In other words, to legally grant gay marriage anti-discrimination status would almost REQUIRE you to do so with things such as eye color, hair color, etc.


Also, you KEEP citing things like slavery and women't right to vote as comparable...they aren't. Those things took away access to natural rights...liberty, property, freedom. There is no such oppression associated with gay marriage. Marriage (even between a man and woman) is not raised to the status of a RIGHT. A freedom? Perhaps. A privilege? Perhaps. Not a right. You're comparing apples and oranges.

The issue is not as simple as you'd like to make it, and your view accounts for no other possibility apart from comparing those opposed to slave masters and opressors. They don't see it that way. They don't like being judged that way. AND they comprise a majority and believe the people, not judges, should rule. A HUGE component of their belief comes from that judge/people power dichotomy. Were you to submit say, civil unions, to a ballot, but not marriage...unions would pass 55-45. Yet are those supporters of unions but not marriage bigots?

Tell them they are...they'll continue to vote red...

[WeirdBrake]

I, too, don't buy the idea that a kid raised by a gay couple would have any serious problems. I mean... compared to WHAT? Let's look at the reality here. Families are already so screwed up. There are parents who sexually abuse their kids, physically abuse their kids, emotionally abuse their kids, always work and never see their kids, don't respect their kids, never show affection with their kids, overly control their kids' lives. You're telling me we should worry about children being raised by a sensitive, decent, upstanding gay couple?!? Baloney! I don't even wanna hear it! Go soap off a pig with that hogwash.

However, on another note, CK does raise a valid point about defining what forms of prejudice should be legally prohibited. In the law, you can't just say "Prejudice is bad" and make a law against it. Whenever you set down a rule, there are consequences. There are enforceability issues. There are political and social and economic ramifications. The way the law is structured in America makes it this way. So I don't think CK is totally out of line in arguing that there's a logistical problem in having an anti-discrimination law for every possible characteristic and trait that it's possible to be prejudiced against. And so CK has a point in arguing, "If we allow homosexuality under the umbrella of our anti-discrimination laws, where do we draw the line?"

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Well carol, fine! Keep telling them they're bigoted and prejudiced, and keep conveying to them that you and the far left are the keepers of what is right and moral and good and decent, and they will continue to defeat you in elections...that's my whole point...and it's why Kerry lost.
I will keep telling people that for as long as they discriminate based on sexual preference. Did you read Kita's post above? People in general DON'T CARE about the legal intricacies and who makes the laws, they think the homosexual lifestyle is bad and should not be validated by the government.

And Kerry didn't lose because he told the country that democrats were the keepers of morals, he lost because he spent so much time concentrating on why Bush was the bad choice instead of why he was the right one.

[Deadend]

CK

Not a right? So it's the States business to sanction what kind of commitment two people want to make to each other? I don't think so.

[kitalyn414]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
I, too, don't buy the idea that a kid raised by a gay couple would have any serious problems. I mean... compared to WHAT? Let's look at the reality here. Families are already so screwed up. There are parents who sexually abuse their kids, physically abuse their kids, emotionally abuse their kids, always work and never see their kids, don't respect their kids, never show affection with their kids, overly control their kids' lives. You're telling me we should worry about children being raised by a sensitive, decent, upstanding gay couple?!? Baloney! I don't even wanna hear it! Go soap off a pig with that hogwash.we are aware that there are lots of terrible parents and tons of less-than-ideal family situations in this country. however, should the government pass a law that does not strive to the actual ideal?

AGAIN - I AM JUST PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE!

also, i am interested if everyone thinks that, all else being equal, having straight married parents is better than having gay married parents?

[WeirdBrake]

also, i am interested if everyone thinks that, all else being equal, having straight married parents is better than having gay married parents?

I can make a great argument that, all things being equal (love, support, financial stability, no abusiveness or trauma or big-time problems), having gay married parents is actually better for children than having straight married parents because in the former scenario, they get to experience diversity directly, and they're a LOT less likely to be narrow-minded, bigoted, or especially homophobic (unless they become homophobic in order to rebel against their parents LOL).

[Benwa]

It can also be argued that gay parents may make better parents because of the rigors of adopting a child. You got to have your act together. You must demonstrate you can afford it, go thru a battery of tests. In other words a gay couple having a child isn't just going to happen after a night of having too much wine. It's calculated. It requires a decision process "Do we want a child?" It take a more substantial emotional and intelectual commitment. So when baby does come, its better. They are prepared.

[Crimson King II]

You guys are great...you walk right into the strength of the argument.

1) First, DEADEND....Marriage law is NOT a right. For homosexuals OR heterosexuals. Show me where in any natural law doctrine or democratic government treatise there is ANY mention of the "Right to Marry." Marriage has NEVER been considered a legal or natural right, and it wasn't until the state GRANTED marriage authority that it became part of any legal structure. As such...a state created privilege is subject to state regulation and determination. It's ENTIRELY a governmental granted privilege and ENTIRELY the state's domain to sanction it. And that's completely equal to both sexes and genders. Consider this....all the harping and crying about gay-marriage....what if the states wanted to eliminate ALL marriage law??? Perfectly equal in nature, no? It's entirely in it's purview to do so...for it is not a right...the state gave the privilege and it can also take it away...

2) Old School! YES...my sexuality is entirely mutable. If I do not speak of my sexuality or perform sex acts in public, there is no reason, apart from anyone's hunch or curiosity, that my sexuality would ever truly be known. I think EVERYONE should shut up about sex in public and the prejudice against homosexuals would disappear. That said...ANY form of sexuality is entirely MUTABLE! Woo-hoooo.

[WeirdBrake]

YES...my sexuality is entirely mutable. If I do not speak of my sexuality or perform sex acts in public, there is no reason, apart from anyone's hunch or curiosity, that my sexuality would ever truly be known. I think EVERYONE should shut up about sex in public and the prejudice against homosexuals would disappear. That said...ANY form of sexuality is entirely MUTABLE!

Doesn't mutable mean changeable?

[paiger81]

Main Entry: mu·ta·ble
Pronunciation: 'myü-t&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mutabilis, from mutare to change; akin to Old English mIthan to conceal, Sanskrit minAti he exchanges, deceives
1 : prone to change : INCONSTANT
2 a : capable of change or of being changed b : capable of or liable to mutation

[Crimson King II]

Not in the legal sense. A mutable characteristic is one that does not need be readily identified upon sight alone. For instance, being black is immutable. Being gay is mutable. Being a woman is immutable. Being left-handed is mutable.

[WeirdBrake]

Well, um... CK... on a message board of nonlawyers, might it not be a good idea to avoid legal terms of art whenever you can? There's a great alternative phrase you could have used to communicate something that isn't readily identified by sight alone. That phrase is "not visible." ;)

[Crimson King II]

We're all smart and enlightened folks...just trying not to talk down to people...my bad....

[WeirdBrake]

You can be smart and enlightened and still have no idea about legal terms of art because you didn't have that specific training. :p

[WeirdBrake]

By the way, CK, I meant to ask you what you think of my first signature quote.

[tartytwenty]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
Well, um... CK... on a message board of nonlawyers, might it not be a good idea to avoid legal terms of art whenever you can? There's a great alternative phrase you could have used to communicate something that isn't readily identified by sight alone. That phrase is "not visible." ;)

Hey! I like learning new words!

[Crimson King II]

Very nice! I skipped over it before....but....very nice!!! We had to watch that in first year...

[Benwa]

I had to look up mutable. At first I was thinking (and really hoping) that it had something to do with being muted. Then I get the image in my head of the scene in Pulp fiction with Marcelus wearing the ball gag an getting raped. That would be mutable sex!

Does a differentiating characteristic have to be visually apparent for it to be discrimination? I would hope not. And in alot of cases, yes you can tell someone is gay by observing them. Gay-dar isn't 100% accurate but usually you get a pretty good suspicion.

If there is no right to marry, fine. But doesn't it become recognised when married couples receive benefits? To be fair, why not eliminate all state recognition of all marriage. I hear from the right side that they want gov't to stay out of their lives. So ban all marriage. But that would paint them as "anti-family" and OMG we can't have that! They want to be pro-family (whatever the hell that means) as long as that family meets what their predetermined vision of a family is. Everyone like the Brady Bunch (By the way Mr. Brady was gay, or rather the actor was)

[Crimson King II]

There's no requirement that anti-discrimination law be based only upon immutable characteristics....but EVERY such law in the history of America has been. That's why gay marriage would be such an anomoly. Plus...ALL marriage has been domain of individual states since time immemoriam....

[Benwa]

This is being nit picky, but since we were on the subject of words. Marriage hasn't been a state issue since "time immemoriam". 230 years ago our states didn't exist. Well maybe we did have them, but those pesky indians were living in our states. Just like those daggone Iraqi's built their country on our oil. Geez when will the indiginous people learn.

[personalegend]

I just found out that in the 11 states, it was not just an anti-gay marriage law that was passed, but also a law against gay civil unions. Isn't the law against civil unions unconstitutional?? Because it forbids the right to make a contract between two individuals? I am no lawyer, but grew up in a family of lawyers and am anxious to go discuss this with my father and sister.....

[WeirdBrake]

You grew up in a family of lawyers?

My condolences. :p

[personalegend]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
You grew up in a family of lawyers?

My condolences. :p

LOL....yeah tell me about it. Oh how fun it was to eat family dinners over discussions of tort reform. Maybe that is why I became an artist. It is a form of rebellion in my family!

[WeirdBrake]

Luckily, I don't have any lawyers in my family, so I can't say I grew up around them. Heard the rumors, though. ;)

[Crimson King II]

The ban here in Oklahoma was not so much a ban of anything, but merely a Constitutional defining of marriage as between a man and woman. We didn't ban any civil union. It is one of the 11 you speak of...check the facts on the other 10, though...I'm not familiar with those.

[personalegend]

So I looked it up and this is what I found:

"While the 11 referendums voted on yesterday have sometimes been lumped together, they are not all alike. In eight of the states -- all except Mississippi, Montana, and Oregon -- the measures also ban civil unions." --the boston globe

"While the amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon deal only with marriage, the measures in the other eight states also ban civil unions.
According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments — including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah" -MSNBC


So isn't banning civil unions unconstitutional since it violates the right to make a contract between two individuals?

[Crimson King II]

Where in the Constitution is there a Right to Contract? And pick your poison...if you say limiting the right of an individual to make a contract is unconstitutional, then say goodbye to every labor union everywhere....they do it all the time....as do prior contracts with non-compete clauses.


Not everything is a right, folks. We MUST understand that.

[personalegend]

I have no idea, that is why I was asking. A lawyer friend mentioned something about this to me so I was curious what the law said or did not say about making contracts.....(maybe state law, not federal law). I will get more info and then get back to you about what their train of thought is on this....

I was surprised though to find out that the wording of the laws passed posed danger to civil unions as well.

[Crimson King II]

I'm not...some states don't want either. America splits against gay marriage to the tune of about 65-70% to 30-35%....

Find out if your friend is a conservative or liberal too. They have very different thinking on rights as well....

[Crimson King II]

Here's another interesting consideration, that again illustrates the hypocritical double-standards as used by the left:

Would today's modern Democratic party disenfranchise and decry Martin Luther King, Jr.? You guys are screaming and hollering that gay marriage is equal or similar to the civil rights movement and that we should not make law according to religion, morals, traditional values, etc.

Who here knows how MLK, Jr. defined an "unjust law?"

Anyone?

Well, I'll tell you. In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," his most famous writing during the Civil Rights movement, King says you measure laws as they accord to God's law. He says expressly that an "Unjust Law" is one that does not comport with God's law...and, yes, he spoke of a Judeo-Christian God. Conversely, he stated a just law was only that law that did comport with God's law.


Fine...what does this mean?

It means the left either:
1. Will use religion to their advantage when necessary, and decry it when necessary to create a coalition for the purpose of winning elections ("Playing politics"), OR

2. It NOW would disagree with King and his philosophy.


It's an interesting bit of intellectual gymnastics they've found themselves in...

[Deadend]

While I will free to quote Martin Luthor King, certainly - I don't deify him.

I'm an agnostic, so when I'm arguing for gay marriage I'm not going to make any religios arguments. Doesn't mean I don't have an idea about what's "right".

A poor atempt to split hairs at best. Don't tell me what my dogma is, much less bring up a competly irrelavent factiod to try to prove some sort of notion of hypocrasy.

"well... well.... you love martin luthor king, but he got some of his ideas from religion, so yours have to jive with religion too!!"

Um.... no they don't. Just because I love orange juice doesn't mean I have to love the way it tastes after I brush my teeth.

[WeirdBrake]

Just a pre-emptive moderator attempt at short-circuiting ugliness...

Let's remember to be civil toward those who disagree with us! :)

[LyraDora]

first off, i have to say the children bs is just that. as long as children are loved & cared for, then the kids'll be alright. whether parents are of the same gender, different religions or different races, i believe that kids will be ok. the gay marriage issue is similiar to that of interracial marriage of our parent's & grandparent's generations. it was once outlawed & seen as appauling that people of different colors would marry. of course, people were concerned about the childen being confused etc. as a bi-racial individual raised by one black parent & one white, i am ok & i even have all 4 limbs.

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
And so CK has a point in arguing, "If we allow homosexuality under the umbrella of our anti-discrimination laws, where do we draw the line?"

when people are not treated as lesser human beings because of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, sexual preference, or gender.

yes, mlk jr was a civil rights hero from 40 years past. he was a man of the bible. doesn't mean i have to agree with his religious beliefs to know he was a great person & humanitarian. same goes for gandhi & mother teresa.

marriage is an antiquated, patriarchial arrangement that i could care less if outlawed.

i live in ohio & the gay marriage ban also included civil unions.

[personalegend]

Section 10: No state shall.... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."--The Constitution

-doesn't this mean it is illegal for the states to impair the contract of civil union?

"The framers of the United States Constitution recognized how essential the right to contract is to freedom and economic prosperity. They expressly prohibited interference with private contracts in the original Constitution, prior even to passage of the Bill of Rights.(1) The Bill of Rights themselves likewise included such protection in the Fifth Amendment.(2) In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress and the States once again affirmed this right by including it in the Fourteenth Amendment.(3)

Historically, the judiciary had opposed efforts by government to interfere with the private right to contract. Between 1899 and 1937 --- which includes the depths of the Great Depression --- the Supreme Court invalidated 197 separate state or federal regulations based on their interference with contractually-related rights.(4) The judiciary rightly viewed its role as a defender of the fundamental right to contract.

Relentless pressure towards government control, coupled with unanswered academic attacks on free enterprise, has resulted in abandonment by the judiciary of the right to contract. "--from an article written by a lawyer...

Again, I am no lawyer and have taken no law classes. Just looked up the constitution and am trying to figure this all out.....civil unions are contracts and the states passed a law saying they cannot contract. So can gay couples appeal to the federal gov. based on this?

[Crimson King II]

That section has largely gone untouched by courts. Any civil union ban does not so much apply to contract law as it does to inheritance and entitlement law. Two gay people can contract for anything, still, but no one can contract away their inheritance and kinship status except in a will or trust...which gay people can do as well.

LyraDora...your response is wholly circular. If we place sex preference as discriminatory class that's protected, then where do we draw the line? You respond that we draw the line when sex preference is included as a protected class. That's not really an answer...and it certainly does not take into account that race, gender, etc. are immutable, while sexual preference is not.

And Deadend...you entirely missed the point. I never said your beliefs must "jive with religion." I didn't tell you what your dogma is.

My point is simply that people here weep, and gnash their teeth over gay marriage, claiming it is somehow similar to the civil rights movement, and the decry anything remotely religious as "scary" or "just like the terrorists," but at the same time the left will go into black churches, sing the praises of MLK to secure black votes in November, overlook that he founded his fundamental philosophy of civil rights on the Christian religion, fail to similarly decry King as a fundamentalist who was somehow ignorant, weird, stupid, naive, not enlightened, and narrow-minded, and they fail to recognize that if gay-marriage truly is a civil rights issue, then it should compare favorably to civil rights philosophy and the arguments in support of it, and they further fail to acknowledge that it does not.

Agnostic yourself to death if you want....I don't care about your or my religion. But as an intellectual exercise of logic, the left's crying and wailing and angst over gay-marriage as a civil right does not pass the smell test. Or the logical one. And that failure to recognize the intellectual conflicts and weaknesses IS hypocritical, especially when Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman and others on the left are running around saying, "Oh, it is WE who are the enlightened, intellectual ones, not you silly, naive, ignorant, intolerant fools on the right." And while I realize Dowd and Friedman aren't posting here, that IS the attitude and undertone of many posts that are.

[Deadend]

Originally posted by Crimson King II

LyraDora...your response is wholly circular. If we place sex preference as discriminatory class that's protected, then where do we draw the line? You respond that we draw the line when sex preference is included as a protected class. That's not really an answer...and it certainly does not take into account that race, gender, etc. are immutable, while sexual preference is not.

Why does mutiablity matter? Sure you can't tell a gay person by looking at him. Does that sanction discrimination on sexual preferance? Just because they don't have to tell you they're gay. Gay people arn't obligated to keep it a secret.


And Deadend...you entirely missed the point. I never said your beliefs must "jive with religion." I didn't tell you what your dogma is.

And yet you're going to do it again:


My point is simply that people here weep, and gnash their teeth over gay marriage, claiming it is somehow similar to the civil rights movement,

Yes I did.

and the decry anything remotely religious as "scary" or "just like the terrorists,"

No I didn't.


but at the same time the left will go into black churches, sing the praises of MLK to secure black votes in November, overlook that he founded his fundamental philosophy of civil rights on the Christian religion,

Maybe because it has some good ideas?


fail to similarly decry King as a fundamentalist who was somehow ignorant, weird, stupid, naive, not enlightened, and narrow-minded, and they fail to recognize that if gay-marriage truly is a civil rights issue, then it should compare favorably to civil rights philosophy and the arguments in support of it, and they further fail to acknowledge that it does not.

See, what you're trying to do is get us to argue this on a religous basis. I won't. I could make the accusation that it is the favoirte dirty trick of THE RIGHT to goad you into fighting on their terms. But I won't. I won't because for the most part you're making wild accusations of THE LEFT does this! THE LEFT does that! Sounds like Limgaugh propaganda to me. I personally have never used black churches to my own political ends. So I really don't care for your accusations.

If chirstianity has egalitarian values which played thier part in the civil right movement, great, good for it. Seems pretty relavent to me. Frankly I think you belittle MLK be denying that his ideas are free standing on their own, but rather have to be packaged with the religion he drew them from.


Agnostic yourself to death if you want....I don't care about your or my religion. But as an intellectual exercise of logic, the left's crying and wailing and angst over gay-marriage as a civil right does not pass the smell test. Or the logical one.

Not with your flawed logic. Appherently we have to agree with christianity as a package deal, or discount all of it's teachings. Illogical ideas always seem logical when you work with false pretenses.


And that failure to recognize the intellectual conflicts and weaknesses IS hypocritical,

So what exactly would that conflict be? Pray tell me. Rants about THE LEFT! aside, that is.


especially when Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman and others on the left are running around saying, "Oh, it is WE who are the enlightened, intellectual ones, not you silly, naive, ignorant, intolerant fools on the right." And while I realize Dowd and Friedman aren't posting here, that IS the attitude and undertone of many posts that are.

People believe they're correct, no kidding. I could say the same thing about anybody you probably agree with. Big deal. Why does this matter?

So why don't you bring up some specific points, rather than ranting about how much you hate this supposed leftist dogma which you mistakenly precieve as such a unified front?

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by Deadend


I could make the accusation that it is the favoirte dirty trick of THE RIGHT to goad you into fighting on their terms. [/B]

Interesting point.

[WeirdBrake]

The temperature on this thread is spiking. Sometimes in these hot-button political discussions, there's a fine line between attacking ideas and attacking the one who's expressing them. It's a line that looks like it's about to be crossed now.

This is degenerating into a bunch of meaningless rhetorical nothingness. "Yes, you did." "No, I didn't." "Your logic is flawed." "No, YOUR logic is flawed." "The left is hypocritical." "No, the right is hypocritical."

This needs to stop. I want everyone to try expressing your ideas in the most polite, refined, courteous, diplomatic way possible. Stop telling the other side that it's wrong, misguided, illogical, elitist, hypocritical, or whatever the negative adjective is. It does absolutely nothing but encourage the other side to toss back the same accusations.

Maybe we should stick with debating actual specific issues rather than engaging in these overly broad arguments about the crimes of the left vs. the crimes of the right. The latter only encourages these types of partisan pissing contests.

[Crimson King II]

1. Mutability matters because it is THE foundation for ALL discrimination law in this country. If you toss out mutability, then ANY arbitrary characteristic (hair color, eye color, favorite football team) could become grounds for discrimination protection and frivolous lawsuits everywhere. It would also undermine traditional discrimination law...race, religion, sex, etc.


2. Which is it...does the Christian religion have good ideas, or is it dangerous? If it has good ideas, then the left should not complain because people vote accordingly.


3. I am NOT trying to get you to argue it on religious grounds...I don't care. I've repeatedly given many legal, social, economic and constitutional arguments against it. All are irrespective of any religious concerns.


4. I've made no accusations. I've merely deconstructed the arguments put forth.


5. I don't care for or against any thoughts on religion...I'm rather indifferent. I DO insist on intellectual honesty. My MLK point was merely to illustrate that those on the left such as Maher and Moore and Dowd and Friedman who think religion is naive, dangerous, and stupid also fail to recognize it played a HUGE role in developing one of their favorite, pet issues, Civil Rights, AND they continue to prey on it to swing black votes...it's hypocritical. It's not a matter of believing they are correct....what I don't like is them winning or losing and then following that up with calling the right naive, stupid, dangerous, terrorist-like, ignorant, etc., when it seems that, at minimum, intellectual honesty rests with the right and not the left.


6. I have made specific points. I've also explained them. Sorry if you failed to understand them.

[Crimson King II]

This sounds familiar...I've been saying this for a week.

Scarborough Blog (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851/)

[LostInGhent]

I am not sure how I feel about this whole debate.. I am so liberal on many issues but don't consider myself a Democrat and have no problem siding with Reps on some issues...I am all for civil rights and I definitely 100% support civil unions; I suppose it is the strong Christian background I have coming out in me when thinking that I can understand the point made about marriage being a sacred thing between men and women...I just don't know.

Anyway, CK has repeated mutability and the precedence it will make if they allow sexual preference to be protected..

I think the biggest debate judges would face is whether or not they believe homosexuality is mutable. There are very conflicting scientific opinions and research on whether some humans are born gay and this isn't just something that happens one day later in life. Of course, some gays dont realize it until later on but I can see the scientific point behind it. Perhaps, some nowadays aren't this case as the popularity of the gay culture has grown, but in Medieval times there were gays and that definitely was just because of the media and culture...

My point is and CK I'd like to hear your personal opinion as well as for you to acknowledge on a professional level the fact that ultimately it will come down to that: Whether homosexuality is a born trait like skin color, or whether it is a developed trait that is mutable....All moral viewpoints aside and whether it is right or wrong, I think that is the legal question they'd ultimately be faced with.

[LostInGhent]

Speaking of old Joe...He was with someone where they were talking about bias in the media and how it affects the election, etc.

Well there was an excellent point made that I feel is pretty accurate.

The print media (newspapers) is very liberal and their audiences quite liberal in majority (New York Times, etc.), however their audiences are very small and are only preaching to the choir...

Electronic media is much more conservative (Fox News) and this reaches so many more Americans than the Times, especially in the South.

So their point was that many, many people in the South don't go out and pick up a copy of the New York Times and read their editorials bashing Bush, but they sure as hell turn on the TV and will see Scarborough Country, Fox News, Crossfire (whatever) where it is definitely more conservative.

Thus, until liberals harness the power of television vs. the elitist newspapers they will not have the power in the South like conservatives currently do.

Pretty good analyzation in my mind..Just one of the many problems Democrats will have to face.

[Crimson King II]

This is where the discussion will break down...watch.

My personal opinion is that JUDGES SHOULD NOT GET TO DECIDE THAT DECISION AT ALL.

All other anti-discrim. law specifically has been written by statute to include only mutable characteristics, because judges have always held that equal protection is founded upon whether or not people are being discriminated against on such characteristics. Upon that suggestion, the legislatures and the Congress have written discrimination to be upon race, sex, gender, age, disability, etc. Fine. They have also protected one mutable characteristic, religion.

The judges are now saying, "the legislatures have protected other things on equal protection basis...they've protected on immutable characteristics....gay is also immutable...they should have protected gay....we declare it is protected."

Well....no. First...science seems mixed....nature/nurture/mix...is it mutable, is it not? Regardless, while the weight of protection on immutable characteristics is the norm, all of those were specifically written into law EVERY time, and one mutable characteristic was also written in. Here....judges are not waiting for the writing to be done, instead declaring that it is in there under the auspices of general "equal protection." The problem is, they also recognize that only congress has authority under §1981-1985 (statutes) to insert provisions to ensure equal protection. It's a power grab, and it's one contrary to the will of the people or their representatives.

If being gay is truly and scientifically shown to be 100% nature (NO nurture element), then write it into the law....no problem. Until it is, it must legally be considered mutable (and some courts have so declared that), and judges must not overstep their authority.

[WeirdBrake]

How the hell did you type out the section symbol?

[cheshrcarol]

Okay, I've been trying to stay away from the political stuff, but I have to ask this. If choice of religion is mutable, but protected by anit-discrimination laws, why can't homosexuality be also?

If being gay is truly and scientifically shown to be 100% nature (NO nurture element), then write it into the law....no problem. Until it is, it must legally be considered mutable (and some courts have so declared that), and judges must not overstep their authority.Now I'm very confused. If being gay isn't choice, then it's not mutable? According to you, the legal understanding of mutable is whether it is apparant by sight. So if they can't choose whether to be, but you can't tell by looking at someone, then it's not mutable. But if a person can choose to be gay, since you can't tell from their outward appearance if they are or not, then it is a mutable characteristic? Can you please tell me where in your definition of mutable does choice come in?

And even if homosexuality is a choice, does that mean that it shouldn't be protected from discrimination? If you don't believe homosexuality itself is a choice, then it comes down to an issue of lifestyle choice. Why is it not okay to discriminate based on one lifestyle choice (religion) but it is on another?

[WeirdBrake]

Carol... CK isn't saying that homosexuality should never be protected by anti-discrimination laws. He's only saying that if it is, it should be the elected legislators who decide to have it protected, not the unelected judges (whose only role in government is to interpret and apply the existing law to individual cases and not to make new laws). He's saying that when judges make new laws-- whether it's deciding that another group should be protected from discrimination or whatever-- they are essentially overstepping their proper boundaries as judges. He's also saying that when judges make new laws, those laws don't represent the "will of the people" because judges aren't elected by the people, whereas legislators are.

[Crimson King II]

Brake: Hold down the alt key, then hit 2, then 1 and release all three. §


Carol: My definition of mutable comes from reading tons of case law on the subject...various courts have discussed it. Before any civil rights law existed, there was just the constitution...it had NO mention of anything like this, it just said people should have "equal protection." That was the only law the courts had to interpret....they said in order to define who must be actively protected, they should look to mutable characteristics....roughly put, characteristics that are obvious and clear upon sight. Fine...the legislature feared courts would overreach and get silly and declare anything protected, so they gave them a guide...civil rights laws...specific language as to what they should decide.....they declared race, gender, and national origin. A little later came age, religion, and disability. Now the courts are looking at those laws and saying, "That's fine....but we want to include sexual preference, and we think that's required under the old equal protection analysis--mutable characteristics." The legislatures and congress are screaming, "Wait! We did not want you to do that...that's why we gave you the civil rights laws to look at! Article I gives us the power to do that, and Article III does not give you that power." The courts (well...the one in Massachusetts) are saying, "we don't care."

They are ignoring the laws in place, going back to a time when no laws existed, they aren't even abiding by their own rulings from that time(now all of a sudden equal protection includes immutable AND mutable characteristics) and the issue was only the courts, and they are overstepping their power, which was the reason the legislature made such laws in the first place.


Does that help?

[WeirdBrake]

§

[Crimson King II]

He's like a kid with a new toy...

[WeirdBrake]

Like banning powers? :twisted:

[WeirdBrake]

And, CK... I didn't get any props for simplifying your legalese into plain English. ;)

[cheshrcarol]

OK, I think I've got it.

[gia]

First, I will say that I have no problem with people who want to ban gay marriage because of tradition. However, I do have issues with people who want to ban gay civil unions.

I would like to know why someone would believe that being gay is a choice? Being homosexual is as much of a choice as being heterosexual. For any of the heterosexual people on this board, do you have to make a conscious decision to find the opposite sex attractive? Is it a choice? Homosexuality exists in many other species other than humans, it occurs naturally. Could someone please tell me how anyone could see it as a choice.

[Crimson King II]

That's a false dichotomy...it's not whether it's natural or not, it's whether it's entirely a natural trait. Science is mixed on whether it is entirely natural or whether it's equally a nurtured trait...in other words it's quite possible that something in someone's very formative years compelled them to homosexuality. I don't think anyone is out going, "Hmmmm....let me see....I think I'll be.......gay!"

But the science is rather mixed on nature vs. nurture. Nonetheless, it is still a mutable characteristic, and judges don't get to make the law.

[pisces2473]

CK, are you anti-gay?

I'll ask you blatantly, since I don't think anyone else has.

[kimmer23]

i am all for gay marriage, but i dont think a majority of the country is...sadly.

didnt 11 states vote on gay marriage and all 11 said NO? i may be wrong on this....

[Crimson King II]

Not to be whimsical, but what is "anti-gay?"

Am I against gay marriage? Yes, if it's implemented by a court. No, if the people support it and it is allowed by legislatures.

Am I against people being gay? Not at all...they can do as they please. And I can't get my fill of Queer Eye marathons on Bravo.

Am I against blatant public displays of affection by gay people? Yes. But I'm against that for straight people too...keep it at home, please.

Do I think gays should be ridiculed, tortured, eradicated from earth? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!! People who DO think that should probably be ridiculed, tortured, eradicated.....

Callie has a number of gay friends and one of my close friends from High School has recently revealed he's gay...and I still love the guy...he's one of the best people you'd find anywhere and I enjoy going and grabbing a beer with him on occasion.

That said, I LOVE South Park....making fun of gay people, or any other people, including people like myself, because of our caricatures is consistent with my sense of humor. I don't believe that's discriminatory...because it's equally applied and people are more resolute and strong enough to recognize that life has a lighter side and we can all be put in our place from time to time....nothing sinister about that.

Does that lend any insight into the mind and world of me?

[pisces2473]

Yes, thank you. It's just the way you talk about the courts...that led me to my question. That's all.

[gia]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
I don't think anyone is out going, "Hmmmm....let me see....I think I'll be.......gay!"



Then how is it a choice? If that is who they are because of nuture and/or nature?

How do we know someone didnt compell all the heterosexual people to heterosexuality in their formative years?

[Crimson King II]

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS A CHOICE.

I said science is unclear and mixed as to whether it is a natural occurrence or a nurtured one. Race is wholly natural. Being female is wholly natural. Being 75 years old is wholly natural. Those are not in dispute.

It is, however, in by all legal standard, a mutable characteristic. As is heterosexuality. It, too, is mutable.

[kimmer23]

Then how is it a choice? If that is who they are because of nuture and/or nature?

he didnt say it was a choice.

[gia]

Originally posted by gia

I would like to know why someone would believe that being gay is a choice? Being homosexual is as much of a choice as being heterosexual. For any of the heterosexual people on this board, do you have to make a conscious decision to find the opposite sex attractive? Is it a choice? Homosexuality exists in many other species other than humans, it occurs naturally. Could someone please tell me how anyone could see it as a choice.

I know CK did not say it was a choice. I am simply going back to my original question. I want to know how anyone could logically believe it is a choice.

[Crimson King II]

I think that's a dying belief...but some think that homosexuals are merely degenerates who choose to be that because of some immorality, impropriety, and desire to shock others. They suggest the sheer minority of homosexuals (somewhere between 5-10% of the population) demonstrates it's abhorrent and unnatural. Also, sexual preference is inextricably linked to behavior, which is always a choice for all of us. We choose to have sex with men or women...but we do not necessarily "choose" to be straight or gay.

Is it a REASONABLE belief? Probably not. But that's the thinking that gets them there.

[cheshrcarol]

Wow, CK I am really impressed. I seem to remember an argument we had a few months ago where you said you really weren't sure if homosexuality was a choice or not and now you're saying that believing it's a dying belief. Maybe all of us liberals are having an effect on you :).

[gia]

It just upsets me when people say it is a choice. My co-worker says that his god wouldn't make people like that. That's his reason. I'm not a religious person so I wanted to know if there was any other argument someone could make. If god makes babies with an extra skull growing on their head, hermaphrodites and transexuals who will go to the extreme of having a sex change, why wouldn't he make gay people. My co-worker doesn't seem to have a problem with transexuals getting married, which confuses me. Anyhow, I am preaching to the choir, so I'll stop now.

[Crimson King II]

No change in my position, carol. I don't know if it's a choice or not. I believe it is a dying position that it is a choice. And I think most people still are not sure, even if it isn't a choice, if it is wholly natural or caused a great deal by nurturing.

I'm consistent.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
I think that's a dying belief...

I guess it all depends on where you live. Where I am, unfortunately, it doesn't really seem to be a dying belief.

[Crimson King II]

I think in the aggregate, even considering where you and I (Oklahoma), it is.

[pisces2473]

Yeah, why would someone "choose" to be something that is subjected to so much hate and violence?

Reminds me of a great movie...As Good As It Gets, when Jack Nicholson's character says to Greg Kinnear's character, "Don't you think it would be easier if you weren't gay?"

[Crimson King II]

With all that said, I think your construction is invalid, Pisces. I get irritated when people say that, "Why would anyone choose to be something that is subjected to so much hate and violence." Why?


Well:

1) Why would anyone choose to do anything that gets them put in prison for years and subject themselves to so much hate and violence? (But they do it all the time....in far greater numbers than there are gays)

2) Why would anyone choose to kill themselves? (Yet they do all the time)

3) Why would anyone choose to subject themselves to hate and scorn from the public at large by burning crosses and marching at "hate blacks and jews" rallies? (Yet they do it all the time)

4) Why would anyone choose to engage in violent or ignorant acts that could cause them or others to be killed violently? (Yet it's done all the time)


My point is that question is offered by lefties all the time in support of this issue and it proves absolutely NOTHING. It's a straw-man...those who knock it down look stupid because now they're on the side of (gasp!!!) actually believing people would knowingly choose to make a bad decision!

Why do junkies choose tons of heroin and a horrible death when they know the lesson of Belushi, Cobain, etc.? Because people sometimes make bad choices is all...it's really that simple. Because maybe they just like it so much it overtakes reason? It could be that simple. Why do people eat cheeseburgers when they know that doing so will make them fat tubs of grease? Because they're so damn good! It's that easy.

So, I really hate that suggestion as supportive of any issue.

[Crimson King II]

And that's also illustrative of the nature/nurture problem...

For instance, if growing up my parents gave me tons of tofu and I liked it, perhaps I don't discover cheeseburgers and don't have a tendency to eat them a lot and get fat in the winter. That has NOTHING to do with nature, it has a lot to do with NURTURE, and it results in voluntary behavior (which is not necessarily the same as a "choice") that cannot necessarily be controlled without some emotional cost (I sure would love a cheeseburger from time to time when I eat healthy). But is it NATURAL to eat meat (no puns, Brake!!!!)? Well....not in the purest sense of the word. As such...does it become grounds for discrimination protection? Probably not.

[cheshrcarol]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
With all that said, I think your construction is invalid, Pisces. I get irritated when people say that, "Why would anyone choose to be something that is subjected to so much hate and violence." Why?


Well:

1) Why would anyone choose to do anything that gets them put in prison for years and subject themselves to so much hate and violence? (But they do it all the time....in far greater numbers than there are gays)

2) Why would anyone choose to kill themselves? (Yet they do all the time)

3) Why would anyone choose to subject themselves to hate and scorn from the public at large by burning crosses and marching at "hate blacks and jews" rallies? (Yet they do it all the time)

4) Why would anyone choose to engage in violent or ignorant acts that could cause them or others to be killed violently? (Yet it's done all the time)
All of these are examples of an action. Anyone choose to do an act or not. Homosexuality is not an act, it's a state of existence. It's something you are, not something you do. Sex with someone of your own gender is a choice, but the desire to commit that act is not.

[Crimson King II]

Which is why I put up the cheeseburger example. What about Jeffrey Dahmer or similar killers? They too claim their desires led them to actions, but their desires were not of their own choosing.

Being a homosexual is probably a bit nature, a bit nurture.
Being a carnivore is probably a bit nature, a bit nurture.

The act of having sex with another male is a conscious action.
The act of eating a Quarter Pounder is a conscious action.

The desire to have sex with another male is not.
The desire to eat a Quarter Pounder is not.

The desire is caused a bit by nature and a bit by nurture.
The desire is caused a bit by nature and a bit by nurture.


Nonetheless...neither set of circumstances involve the repercussions of the desire or the conscious action, but merely the action itself...which is why I don't like Jen's question as evidence or support of ANY discussion topic.

[WeirdBrake]

Rule Number 1 is never throw out "why" questions when there's a crazy ex-philosophy major out there who may attempt to answer them.

1) Why would anyone choose to do anything that gets them put in prison for years and subject themselves to so much hate and violence?

It's quite possible that criminals do not have free will and that their "choice" to commit a crime was really the inevitable outcome of brain chemistry, environmental influences, and other circumstances at the exact time they made the choice. So it's quite possible-- even reasonable, given modern psychology and neuroscience-- to believe that people are powerless over their actions.

2) Why would anyone choose to kill themselves?

Simple. If you come to the conclusion that your life is mostly pain and suffering and will in all likelihood not improve, it is entirely rational and logical to kill yourself.

3) Why would anyone choose to subject themselves to hate and scorn from the public at large by burning crosses and marching at "hate blacks and jews" rallies?

There's probably a lot of psychological factors entering into that-- group solidarity with their white supremacist cohorts, an ideology that allows them to feel superior just by virtue of their race, a comforting scapegoat for all their problems, a sense of "righteousness" in their cause. For people with certain mental vulnerabilities, the white supremacist worldview is very satisfying.

4) Why would anyone choose to engage in violent or ignorant acts that could cause them or others to be killed violently?

Well, by definition, if they are "ignorant" acts, then the perpetrators are ignorant of how ignorant those acts are.

[WeirdBrake]

Btw... CK is making a very valid point here.

[wordsmith]

Which? I'm not trying to be snotty, I'm just getting a little bogged down, here.

[Crimson King II]

Thanks Brake....but I didn't actually want answers to my whys...I was only illustrating why that same question applied to virtually anything.....but thanks!

[cheshrcarol]

What about Jeffrey Dahmer or similar killers? They too claim their desires led them to actions, but their desires were not of their own choosing.So Dahmer couldn't control being a psychopath. Okay. He COULD choose whether or not to kill. He is not reviled for merely being psychopathic - it is because he killed people.

A homosexual is reviled both for their "desires" and for the acts they commit. You can be gay and never commit a homosexual act.

And you can debate the logic of the argument all you want to, but if you ask a gay person how much choice they have, I guarantee they will tell you they have none. They will tell you that if they had a choice they would not choose to be something that a large part of our society reviles and rejects. I have literally had friends say, "Why would I choose this?" So compare it all you want to committing a crime or eating a hamburger, it's not going to change the way they feel.

[WeirdBrake]

Which? I'm not trying to be snotty, I'm just getting a little bogged down, here.

He's making a good point that it's not as simple as saying "why would anyone choose to be gay?" as a few have said. In my opinion, this all relates to the philosophical question of free will. But regardless of my opinion, it's conceptually helpful to separate out the desire or inclination to do X and the ACT of doing X. One is a propensity; the other is a choice. One can't be "judged as wrong" in and of itself. The other can (depending on whether or not people consider the act to be wrong).

[Crimson King II]

Well...if you want a LAW on the subject, I assure you the Courts are going to look at the logic of the subject, not the emotional and anecdotal evidence about how they feel.

You can also be a psychopath and not kill people.

And your post comes full circle, bringing us right back to the hypothetical gay person's question, "why would I choose to be so reviled?" And as I've shown, it's a question that could be asked about many people who feel the same way, but it's not one that is determinative of whether or not they should be protected by anti discrimination law.

[pisces2473]

So is my question bad? I'm just curious as to what YOU believe, CK...I don't need a huge argument w/ points and shit.

[WeirdBrake]

And you can debate the logic of the argument all you want to, but if you ask a gay person how much choice they have, I guarantee they will tell you they have none. They will tell you that if they had a choice they would not choose to be something that a large part of our society reviles and rejects. I have literally had friends say, "Why would I choose this?" So compare it all you want to committing a crime or eating a hamburger, it's not going to change the way they feel.

But to play devil's advocate (because I am, after all, a devil), couldn't you say the same thing about violent psychopaths or serial killers in prison? I guarantee you if you ask many imprisoned convicts how much choice they had, they might say the same thing. Plus, CK's argument is still valid. You could, in all similarity, ask why they would "choose" to commit such crimes as to get them hated by society and sent to prison for life. But they do.

All I'm saying is that citing people's subjective experience is not that strong of an argument for or against their free will in doing X.

[WeirdBrake]

So is my question bad? I'm just curious as to what YOU believe, CK...I don't need a huge argument w/ points and shit.

Silly Jen.... you asked CK a question but didn't want a huge argument with points and shit? LOL

[WeirdBrake]

I think CK and Carol are approaching this whole issue in entirely different ways. Carol seems to be focusing purely on the issue of homosexuality itself. CK seems to be thinking in terms of how the resolution of such issues would translate into workable law. Two completely different ways to approach social issues. You can deal with an issue one way in the abstract but another way with regard to the law. For example, many people think abortion is morally wrong but still believe it should be legal.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
Silly Jen.... you asked CK a question but didn't want a huge argument with points and shit? LOL
Well, I feel he kinda sidestepped it and didn't head on answer it. I asked him blatantly if he was anti-gay, and then he launched into a dissertation.

Am I against gay marriage? Yes, if it's implemented by a court. No, if the people support it and it is allowed by legislatures.
WTF is this? It's yes or no, CK, as to what YOU believe, NOT what the law says. You are allowed to think differently than the law, you know.

Am I against people being gay? Not at all...they can do as they please. And I can't get my fill of Queer Eye marathons on Bravo.
CK, this doesn't answer the question either. Just b/c you watch "them" on TV doesn't mean you are pro or anti.

The way you talk about your friend who is gay and with whom you grab a beer on occassion--that sounds like he's your token gay friend.

So I retract my former statement of saying that I understood where you were coming from.

[Crimson King II]

Yes, Jen....it's a bad question. It's a valid one...but it doesn't support anything.

Brake is right...I don't give two whits about who's gay, why they're gay, and I don't care that there are gay people and if there's one in the room today....

But I DO care about good government, good law, and good Democracy. As those go, Carol's argument is the worst grounds for making law.

Also...as for how gays or psychos "feel." I'm a lawyer. And a conservative one....I don't care about feelings!!! Come on!

[pisces2473]

Well, I'm very sorry for you with the way you feel. I think that's a really shitty way to view something.

Have a nice day.

[Crimson King II]

WAIT!!! Just got your other post...


I told you I was not anti gay....I put that up earlier. I think the question about "Why would they choose to be reviled," was a bad one.

I AM allowed to think differently than the law...but I'm a man of Jefferson...I think emotions are ridiculous because they distort sound judgment and they weaken a person's judgment as well...as such, I always try to go by reason. So it's not a yes-no....I do not have feelings one way or the other about gays. I do not think they should be protected by discrimination laws, and I do think if the people believe they should, then that's ok with me, for Democracy should decide.

I DO only have one gay friend...true enough...but far from a token...he was at my birthday when we were in first grade...well before we knew who was or was not gay...he's a great friend...and I value him a lot.

Sorry for the confusion....I was referring to your SECOND question. The statement about not caring for feelings...in jest. But I don't think feelings make good and sound law. Didn't mean to be shitty....

[Crimson King II]

So, NO...I'm not anti-gay.
I am anti-making laws because of feelings.
I am pro-cheeseburgers.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
I think emotions are ridiculous because they distort sound judgment and they weaken a person's judgment as well...as such, I always try to go by reason.
Wow, the first automaton. Damn, I'm so shocked!

So it's not a yes-no....I do not have feelings one way or the other about gays. I do not think they should be protected by discrimination laws, and I do think if the people believe they should, then that's ok with me, for Democracy should decide.
How would you feel if someday, you and Callie had a baby who grew up and came out? Answer that one, Mr Cheney ;)

[WeirdBrake]

The way you talk about your friend who is gay and with whom you grab a beer on occassion--that sounds like he's your token gay friend.

Hey, as Ferris Bueller might say, I don't even have a token gay friend; I have to envy his. LOL

WTF is this? It's yes or no, CK, as to what YOU believe, NOT what the law says. You are allowed to think differently than the law, you know.

He IS answering the question, though. He's saying he's in favor of gay marriage only if it is allowed by the legislatures (which translates into gay marriage being "supported by the people" given that the legislatures are elected by the people). This IS his opinion on gay marriage, as distinct from whatever the law says.

Again, CK is addressing these questions from a larger political and legal standpoint. He's taking into account larger considerations about how laws should be made.

[WeirdBrake]

Holy crap, you guys wrote several posts while I was in the process of responding to Jen's first one on this page! Hold on, lemme read.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
Again, CK is addressing these questions from a larger political and legal standpoint. He's taking into account larger considerations about how laws should be made.
But that's not what I want--I want him to answer from a smaller, personal standpoint. Not this stoic, emotions in check garbage.

[Crimson King II]

Well...I'm not the first.....please folks...READ JEFFERSON. I find him to be a study in how man should be.

If me and Callie had a gay baby? We'd dress him up in cute dresses and put bows in his hair (or, if it were a girl, we'd put her in overalls and give her a flattop).

Seriously....I don't know how I'd feel...I've not had kids, nor do I intend to...but if I did, I'm sure I'd love him or her and we'd cross that bridge when we got there.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
I think emotions are ridiculous because they distort sound judgment and they weaken a person's judgment as well...as such, I always try to go by reason.

Wow.

Out of (and only out of) sheer dumbfounded curiosity, how does your girlfriend feel about your assertion that emotions are ridiculous?

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Well...I'm not the first.....please folks...READ JEFFERSON. I find him to be a study in how man should be.
CK--you HAVE to see the point that things have changed in the 200+ years since Jefferson! Things are not so cut and dry anymore. One cannot always have their emotions totally in check esp. when it comes to the law. Obviously Jefferson was able to remain unemotional--he was wealthy, a member of the ruling class (being a politician), etc. He knew things would go his way and he wouldn't have to be passionate b/c he and his friends were in charge.

[Crimson King II]

I answered it...I have NO visceral response to gay people...or straight people...my visceral reaction is to treat them as equals. I do not care...if someone came to me and said, "I'm Tom...I'm gay," or, "I'm Tom...I'm straight," I'd say, "Hi Tom, I'm CK, and I don't care and let's talk about something else."

I cannot be more clear than to say I am NOT anti gay, anymore than I am anti-blonde or anti-green eyes...I'm indifferent. It's the soul that matters more to me...the person and whether they are substantive.

[Crimson King II]

WAIT....LET ME GET ALL MY ANSWERS OUT ON THE NEXT POST...SO WE'RE NOT CROSSING POSTS....ONE SEC!!!!

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
It's the soul that matters more to me.

Wow - this borders eerily on dealing in emotionally-related matters... What is it about someone's soul that's logically quantifiable, Spock?

[Crimson King II]

WS...good point...I stated that unclearly. Emotions are ok...Jefferson was a VERY passionate person...but he cautioned that emotion should not be the foundation for any decision, certainly not of a government, unless supported by reason. As such, emotion alone is not my way to go.


Now...Jen...things HAVE changed in 200 years. That's fine. But...things are not THAT different...Jefferson did not know things would go his way. He was the author of the most treasonous document of the Western world at the time....he had fears, etc. England would have hung him if they'd found him in 1777. But still...reason was for him. It's my pattern as well..

[WeirdBrake]

But that's not what I want--I want him to answer from a smaller, personal standpoint. Not this stoic, emotions in check garbage.

I don't think it's fair to characterize CK's very valid points as "garbage." Maybe you don't understand because you haven't studied the law. You haven't been trained to see how it's not as simple as "liking X = making a law about X." CK is addressing the larger issues here, albeit from a conservative standpoint. He's already answered-- in more than one place-- about his personal feelings re: gay people.

[Crimson King II]

Well...WS...if you'd waited as I asked...

[Crimson King II]

I don't know why my "I have no problem with gay people and believe they are my equals" position is so murky.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
I don't think it's fair to characterize CK's very valid points as "garbage." Maybe you don't understand because you haven't studied the law. You haven't been trained to see how it's not as simple as "liking X = making a law about X." CK is addressing the larger issues here, albeit from a conservative standpoint. He's already answered-- in more than one place-- about his personal feelings re: gay people.
I didn't mean to call it garbage. I see, WB, so I'm a moron b/c I haven't studied the law. So I'm an idiot. Okay, well, thanks for the clue on that one.

I didn't want his personal opinions to be interwoven through his larger beliefs. That's all I was asking for. And I have it now. So if you'd like, I will go back and edit my previous statement.

Sorry we all can't be lawyers/law students.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Well...WS...if you'd waited as I asked...

Sorry, I got caught in the crossfire, too. Didn't see your caveat until I'd already posted.

I understand MUCH better now. Of course operating solely on emotions is not the way to go...that makes perfect sense.

[WeirdBrake]

What is this, Mod Fight Day? LOL

Jen, you're blowing this all out of proportion.

[Crimson King II]

Before you guys all go off fighting.....where am I at? Am I ok with everyone? Is my position understood and acceptable? Have I answered your question, Jen? Thoughts?

[WeirdBrake]

Your position is very clear to me. Not sure about the others.

[pisces2473]

I'm done w/ this thread but I'll answer your question, CK.

I do understand where you're coming from NOW, but after it took all of this fighting or whatever, was it worth it? Anyway...CK, I think sometimes your statements can appear to be over the top when you don't necessarily mean them to be that way. My suggestion to you is flesh out your ideas a little more so that all may understand, even the common people. That's all.

[wordsmith]

I understand, CK, and I haven't meant anything REMOTELY disrespectful to you on this thread, but I think you know that.

[Crimson King II]

Flesh them out MORE? MORE? Do I not ALREADY produce volumes for everyone to read?

For reference, which part were you specifically having trouble with?

[Crimson King II]

I didn't see any disrespect WS.

[pisces2473]

The first replies...about "if the law does it, no; if the people do it, yes." Some people would read that as you not having an opinion outside of the law. That's all.

[Crimson King II]

And which post crystallized it for you? Which one made it clear?

[pisces2473]

Mmmmm, I don't remember...hang on, I'll post in a sec.

[wordsmith]

Good, glad we're squared away on that, CK. You cleared up my only "WTF" moment straight away, so thanks.

Without trying to put words in Jen's mouth, I think she was just trying to delve into your personal feelings on things, not so much necessarily backing them up by legal theory. I can appreciate how it can be hard to seperate the man from the legal mind, but I think that was her main thing. Jen? Do I have that right?

[Crimson King II]

Oh my GOD! You two do NOT have "good cop" and "bad cop" under your names!

Dorks.

[pisces2473]

Okay...

When you said:
WAIT!!! Just got your other post...

I told you I was not anti gay....I put that up earlier. I think the question about "Why would they choose to be reviled," was a bad one.

I AM allowed to think differently than the law...but I'm a man of Jefferson...I think emotions are ridiculous because they distort sound judgment and they weaken a person's judgment as well...as such, I always try to go by reason. So it's not a yes-no....I do not have feelings one way or the other about gays. I do not think they should be protected by discrimination laws, and I do think if the people believe they should, then that's ok with me, for Democracy should decide.

I DO only have one gay friend...true enough...but far from a token...he was at my birthday when we were in first grade...well before we knew who was or was not gay...he's a great friend...and I value him a lot.

Sorry for the confusion....I was referring to your SECOND question. The statement about not caring for feelings...in jest. But I don't think feelings make good and sound law. Didn't mean to be shitty....

And when WB said:
He IS answering the question, though. He's saying he's in favor of gay marriage only if it is allowed by the legislatures (which translates into gay marriage being "supported by the people" given that the legislatures are elected by the people). This IS his opinion on gay marriage, as distinct from whatever the law says.

Again, CK is addressing these questions from a larger political and legal standpoint. He's taking into account larger considerations about how laws should be made.

All I wanted you to do after that was just share about your personal feelings, CK, without so much of the law in it. I understand that the law is your life, and it must be hard to separate the two, but I was more interested in your personal comments. That's all.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Oh my GOD! You two do NOT have "good cop" and "bad cop" under your names!

Dorks.
Dude, we've had it for a few days.

[Crimson King II]

But did I answer those questions as well for you?

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by wordsmith
Without trying to put words in Jen's mouth, I think she was just trying to delve into your personal feelings on things, not so much necessarily backing them up by legal theory. I can appreciate how it can be hard to seperate the man from the legal mind, but I think that was her main thing. Jen? Do I have that right?
I don't know if I should answer this...I don't want it to be seen that Jessie and I are ganging up on people. But yes, you have it right.

[WeirdBrake]

*sigh of relief* :D

[Crimson King II]

Yeah, Jen....you know I run off and hide and can't function if people here gang up on me....that never happens.....


.....at night.......

[cheshrcarol]

But I DO care about good government, good law, and good Democracy. As those go, Carol's argument is the worst grounds for making law.I didn't say anything about the law. The question was: "Why would people choose to be gay" - NOT: "Why would people choose to be gay, and if it's a choice should they still be able to marry eachother legally?". My argument is purely about opinion. But on that note, I do think that peoples' opinions and emotions drive the laws they want to pass. CK, maybe you have absolutely no opinion of your own on the subject and only care if passed as law, but you have to realize most people don't think like that. Most people care about their will, not the will of the people.

[Crimson King II]

Then you need to realize that "most" people's will is to not have gay marriage....to the tune of 65-70%. If you want to tell me how most people think, then you too should acknowledge how most people think...

I still assert that a question "why would they choose to be gay..." is invalid as supporting anything because it could be asked about any number of inexplicable things and actions people take.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
Then you need to realize that "most" people's will is to not have gay marriage....to the tune of 65-70%.
Just an innocent question. What population is being polled when they get the 65/70% against gay marriage? Old people? Conservative Christians? Who's being polled?

[Crimson King II]

Um.......likely voters?

[pisces2473]

Okay so we have no REAL idea who is and who isn't in favor, right?

[Crimson King II]

Well...we know 65% of likely voters are against it........


The total population numbers I've seen are about 55%....those polls tend to be cross sections of the national population breakdowns...but I'm not as familiar with that....

That said....the voters make the law....so let's go with 65%.

[pisces2473]

That's cool, but you never know who you'll get in each polling group, is all I'm trying to say.

[cheshrcarol]

Then you need to realize that "most" people's will is to not have gay marriage....to the tune of 65-70%. If you want to tell me how most people think, then you too should acknowledge how most people think...I do acknowledge it. And I think they're wrong. Anyone who wants to can disagree with me, and you can yell at me that the left will never elect leaders if they continue to tell people they're wrong. But I'm not talking about electing leaders, or about whether judges should get to decide - I'm talking about people who just plain think gay marriage is wrong and shouldn't be legalized. I think it's backwards, bigoted thinking and those people should take a good long look at themselves before they try to judge other people.

[Crimson King II]

Well, since you opened that door, I will tell you that you are wrong, that I resent being called bigoted, that I have repeatedly expressed to you that I have thought out my belief, that it is on far more than the basis of how I feel, that many, many others in America similarly feel that way, you're doing the judging, and to compare gay-marriage to the same treatment received by blacks and women throughout history is insulting to them and to their travails when the downside to disallowing gay-marriage is entirely of financial interest and inheritance rights, and that you are not the determinating force of what is right and what is wrong.

[Crimson King II]

And you're the epitomy of that hypocrisy of thought, as you cite MLK in your sig, who defined the only just law as that which comports with the law of god, and then have completely opposite justifications for this diatribe you're on related to gay-marriage. It's inconsistent.

[cheshrcarol]

CK, you've repeatedly said your position was that you don't believe judges should make the law, not that gay marriage is inherently wrong and I specifically did not include your view in my opinion of being wrong.

As for MLK, I do quote him. I liked the quote and it gives me hope for the future to see it. I also don't think anything religious is inherently wrong, I have repeatedly said that I have the utmost respect for people who lead lives of faith. And Wordsmith and Layback would definitely argue with you that God's law inarguably views homosexuality as a sin. That is a much debated topic in Christianity.

[kimmer23]

we have name calling again....

[Crimson King II]

If God's law inarguably views homosexuality as a sin, then why is it much debated in Christianity?

There's also a difference between 1) thinking gay marriage is wrong and 2) thinking being gay is a sin...you do not seem to separate those...instead painting with a broad brush...which is why I feel included in those comments...moreover, gay marriage is exclusively a legal context...it's an issue about what the law should be.

So who is bigoted...those who think gay marriage is wrong or those who think being gay is a sin?

[WeirdBrake]

We need to separate out (I've said this before in this thread) one's thoughts about X from one's thoughts about making a LAW about X. They have different implications.

CK is not anti-gay.

CK is anti gay marriage IF gay marriage is made into law by courts, contrary to the American method of democratic lawmaking.

[WeirdBrake]

LOL!! We wrote those posts at the same time!

[WeirdBrake]

If God's law inarguably views homosexuality as a sin, then why is it much debated in Christianity?

Wait, Carol is saying that God's law does NOT inarguably view homosexuality as a sin.

[cheshrcarol]

If God's law inarguably views homosexuality as a sin, then why is it much debated in Christianity? Your comments about inconsistency and MLK lead me to believe that you think all Christians think God's law is against homosexuality. I was trying to say there are religious people here who can tell you that it IS arguable that homosexuality is a sin and against God's law.

There's also a difference between 1) thinking gay marriage is wrong and 2) thinking being gay is a sin... What other reason to people have for thinking gay marriage is inherently wrong other than thinking it's sinful? Or "against tradition"? Again, I'm not talking about whether Texas should have to recognize a ruling from Massachussetts judge - just the inherent good/bad/indifferent attitude itself.

[wordsmith]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
We need to separate out (I've said this before in this thread) one's thoughts about X from one's thoughts about making a LAW about X. They have different implications.


I don't think the initial question posed on the thread WAS about making laws about X...it was asking for the average, non-law school educated member of the electorate's thoughts and feelings on what the argument is against gay marriage, and why it might be feared. The OP states, "What the argument is against gay marriage? I really am trying to understand why people fear it so much. Is it just because of the bible?" The question wasn't "What are the legal ramifications, etc.?"

The original post, and many subsequent posts since then have pointedly asked WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, not what viewpoints are or aren't qualified by the American legal and judicial systems, and it's gotten muddied up by making a point to justify every potential answer from a legal standpoint.

[Crimson King II]

See, you can't play this game, though. You're trying to limit the playing field so people tell you, "that's the ONLY reason."

Gay marriage is not inherently wrong.
It is inherently wrong, IF it is forced upon people by judges.
It is not inherently wrong, IF the people vote for it.
Being homosexual and marriage are not the same things.
No one is prohibiting gay relationships.
Marriage is not an issue, but for it not being current LAW.
Law and Marriage are intertwined and cannot be separated.
Traditional does not necessarily mean moral.
You've thrown out moral as a reason against it.
You've thrown out traditional as a reason against it.
You've thrown out legal considerations as a reason against it.

If you throw out enough reasons, you won't have any left and we'll say, "There IS no other reason against it except moral reasons."

[WeirdBrake]

The bigger question, wordsmith, is why you get to disregard other people's reasons as unimportant.

[Crimson King II]

But WS those reasons are a huge part of the reason against it. The problem I have with the left is this:

1. They want gay marriage.
2. They don't care if judges make the law.
3. People vote against gay marriage substantially because they do not want judges to make the law (LEGAL REASONS)
4. The left screams "What is the fear about gay marriage, you bigoted Christians?!?" (MORAL REASONS--ignoring others)
5. The right says, "It's not about being Christian, it's about the law AND other reasons, including being Christian, but not because we are Christian alone!" (OTHER Reasons plus moral)
6. The left says, "But aside from that, what reason is there?"
7. Right: "Tradition!" (OTHER Reason)
8. Left: And aside from that, "What reason is there?"
9. Somewhere down the line, all other reasons are exhausted.
10. Left: AHA!!! All you have is the religion and moral argument...we want to separate church and state and you are hypocritical bigots!!!

It's very self-affirming, it's not intellectually sound, and it denies all other reasons to be against an issue.

[personalegend]

Wow, this post has gone nuts since last i looked......

Originally posted by wordsmith


I don't think the initial question posed on the thread WAS about making laws about X...it was asking for the average, non-law school educated member of the electorate's thoughts and feelings on what the argument is against gay marriage, and why it might be feared. The OP states, "What the argument is against gay marriage? I really am trying to understand why people fear it so much. Is it just because of the bible?" The question wasn't "What are the legal ramifications, etc.?"
.

YES WS! This was my original intent of the post. I wanted to know if for the average person against gay marriage if it always came back to the bible, or if there were other reasons. Also, if people really feared it would destroy the reputation of marriage in some way. These were the reasons I had heard via media, but I wanted to see a person's individual reasoning.

But, also in support of CK, I had brought up one or two legal questions such as clauses in the constitution and how it could be argued in the supreme court that such bans were unconstitutional. That is where, I believe, we started getting into some legal stuff about the specificities of the laws and who makes them and on what basis, etc.....,

CK is the first person who I have heard to be against it for legal reasons....meaning he would be alright with it if passed by the people. Most people seem to have a strong moral and emotional connection to the issue and would still not support it if passed by the majority......I think a lot of people on this website are liberal, so no one has personally said or has been willing to say on the boards "I disagree with gay marriage because it is a sin, etc"....guess I might have to look elsewhere for such discussions.

The whole point of this thread was for me to try to come to an understanding of the other side and see if there would ever be a place to meet on this issue....but when it always comes down to religion (which i understand although disagree with), i don't see where else there is to go.....

[wordsmith]

I get that, CK. I'm just saying that the question posed was much more basic than that.

Oh...just saw that the original poster has responded. I'll let her take over from here.

WB...please stop.

[Crimson King II]

And, Personalegend, this needs to be said:

The President takes the same position.

He has said if the people support gay marriage legislatively, then fine. He has said government has no business telling people who to love or what relationships to have. He has said it is not for him to judge whether people have committed any sin or whether they are inherently wrong.

And I'll bet if he meets a homosexual, he would treat them as equals, too.

I don't understand why this draws so much ill will.

[personalegend]

umm.....I have a hard time believing that CK when I have heard the President speak countless times and he always mentions marriage being between a man and a woman and wanting to protect that. Going so far as wanting to amend the federal constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman kind of gives the impression that he is personally against the idea, not just legally. So obviously he does believe government should have a say in the types of relationships gays can have.....they can have a relationship as long as it is not a married relationship.
Hence, the ill will many feel towards his belief in the subject. Of course, if the entire country voted against gay marriage bans he wouldn't be able to do anything and would have to support their decision publicly even though he might secretly disagree.

[Crimson King II]

And that's the problem with the left.

You've just said you understand my position. It is the SAME position the President has had for four years. John Kerry also said repeatedly he thought marriage was between a man and a woman. When you're talking about a constitutional amendment, you are necessarily talking about protection of laws. You are talking about setting forth what the law is. It is a legal matter. That said, the left, as you did in your post, then turn to be concerned with what sort of "impression" it leaves, and somehow decide that a viable legal and political position is somehow a manifestation of "ill will." Do you even know what a gay marriage ban would entail? All it would be would be language that says "ALL MARRIAGE LAW" is reserved to the states. It is the left that has termed it a "GAY MARRIAGE" ban. It would NOT be a definition of that between a man and a woman, those are definitions that would be required to be adopted by each STATE.

You've GOT to get beyond the superficial in these discussions (not YOU personally). If you DON'T, you cannot see that a position you can recognize and be ok with is the same one you're disagreeing with on another turn.

[personalegend]

Originally posted by Crimson King II
And that's the problem with the left.

You've just said you understand my position. It is the SAME position the President has had for four years. John Kerry also said repeatedly he thought marriage was between a man and a woman. .

Actually, if Bush got the amendment passed that he wants, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, wouldn't that make it illegal for MA to allow gay marriage? It would be against the federal constitution. Therefore, he really doesn't want to leave it up to the states unless he has to (i.e. his amendment fails to gain enough support). Secondly, I know what John Kerry has said. And this thread for me was not "Oh look what a saint Kerry is on this issue." Rather, this is one issue I always felt more liberal than Kerry on......however, at least Kerry did not support amending the constitution. He said repeatedly that he had his personal beliefs but did not believe in imposing them on other people. that the states should decide..

[/B][/QUOTE] When you're talking about a constitutional amendment, you are necessarily talking about protection of laws. You are talking about setting forth what the law is. It is a legal matter. That said, the left, as you did in your post, then turn to be concerned with what sort of "impression" it leaves, and somehow decide that a viable legal and political position is somehow a manifestation of "ill will." [/B][/Quote]

Damn straight I get concerned about the "impression" our law leaves....or rather, I get concerned with the consequences of our laws. Just as you are concerned about what the absence of a certain law would mean....
Listen, I understand that it is a legal matter. I understand that, in your eyes, Bush is just doing his job trying to uphold the law of the land...protect what is there...and that we should be careful when we attempt to re-define laws since the semantics or implications can open a whole new can of worms.
However, does this mean that we should never question the justice in certain laws? That 'we on the left' should say "well, since Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act we should just give up since this is what the law says. It is a law. Period. Can't argue with that." Umm....I don't think so. And in my opinion that is because it is MORE than just a legal issue. For most people at lease, it is also a moral issue (on both sides right and left). So, yes, we on the left must look at it as a legal issue in terms of how we can appeal to the courts and come up with the semantics we need to face the semantics of the right....but ultimately, what motivates us to do such a thing is because of the deep moral implications we feel that such a law as "marriage between a man and a woman" raises....just as Bush is tied to his belief that he must protect the tradition of marriage, we are connected to our belief that we must protect the tradition of this country, as being equal for all, even in the state of marriage.
And you are right....it is not "ill will" that Bush feels for gay people. He does not hate them or want to punish them on purpose. I think what some of us are trying to say though, is that whether he intends it or not, he is pursuing something which will inhibit some people from having the same privledges and protections as others....and how can this not, by those people and by the friends that must see them suffer, be interpreted as an alienating act? I am sure many gay people might respect Bush's religious/moral beliefs and those of half the country, if they did not try to instill them on everyone else. If you do not believe in gay marriage, then fine - don't be gay and don't get married. WHy the need to tell other people how to live and to go out of your way to make a law that 'keeps them out'. See how this can produce a feeling of 'ill will'??

[Crimson King II]

Well...I do not mean to offend, but you do not understand the gay marriage ban, and now I have to explain it again.

1. There has NEVER been ANY FEDERAL marriage law. (Other than in the tax code).

2. The STATES have always decided ALL marriage law. The STATES have always defined what marriage is.

3. President Bush's "Gay Marriage Ban" (the popular term for the law....much like other laws are called Laci's Law, or Amber's Law, the popular term lends no insight into the language of the law) would reserve "ALL MARRIAGE LAW TO THE STATES, SUCH THAT THE FEDERAL LAW, AS HAS BEEN TRADITION, WILL NEVER BE TOUCHED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT." It will also say that the Federal government will not recognize ANY marriage declared by a judge without a vote of the people or their legislatures.

4. IT IS NOT AN AMENDMENT THAT WILL SAY "ALL GAY MARRIAGES ARE BANNED AND NOT RECOGNIZED."

5. If passed, then the STATE LAWS govern each state on marriage. Every person is free to convince their legislature or their people how to define marriage. Massachusetts can have gay marriage, Oklahoma does not have to. Regardless, their people or legislatures must vote on their own definition...not judges.

6. The STATES may also elect to recognize or not recognize marriages from other states....as they do already.



It is important you understand the President's position. His amendment would not define marriage as between a man and a woman....he says, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, that's why I support the defense of marriage act and a constitutional amendment to allow the states to protect marriage," meaning if the states believe as he does, they and their people can vote to so declare marriage as between a man and a woman. This is far less an issue of "Gays are yucky and immoral," than it is of "judges do not get to make laws in American because they are not elected and do not reflect the will of the people."

Moreover, you are NOT worried about the CONSEQUENCES of our laws, or you would recognize there is a SIGNIFICANT systematic concern that arises when judges DO get to make laws. You seem to worry about the consequences felt when some interpret the laws personally to have alienated them, which is fine, but completely ignores that under the current system, states such as Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, Florida, and others potentially must recognize and alter the enforcement of their legal system not because the people, the legislature, the congress, or even the people of Massachusetts say so, but only because a single judge, one man with a liberal bent, declares they must. Those are significant consequences, which would also allow judicial activism on any number of issues such that we could eventually have a nation in which judges are THE policy makers and THE lawmakers in not only the states, but for the nation as well........THAT would be a complete bastardization of the Constitution....

[Crimson King II]

Here's why the power/role of government issues are important. Let's say the gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts must be recognized by other states. If I'm a judge in Mississippi, I can say, "Oh really? Well then in this case before me, I'm going to say that any Mississippi person who kills a homosexual is immune from prosecution under common law, 2nd Degree Murder standards." (Criminal Law is a matter for the states....just like marriage law...)

Mississippi Mike goes to Massachusetts and stabs Carson Kressly to death, then burns his body.

Massachusetts has two options....1) Prosecute Mike and risk a legal action from the State of Mississippi asking for injunctive relief, to which they may be entitled since state immunities must be recognized by other states if they do not interfere with constitutional liberty interests, 2) recognize the Mississippi law and do NOT prosecute Mike...allowing him to kill gays everywhere, or 3) Prosecute him and declare their laws are mutual and independent, which would also overturn the Massachusetts gay-marriage ruling, no longer requiring other states to recognize their marriages, hence invalidating all Massachusetts gay marriages of couples who have since moved to other states.

This is obviously an extreme example....but it demonstrates how such rulings and subsequent recognition can complicate things for all types of issues.

[personalegend]

Actually, CK, I wasn't confused about the gay marriage ammendment. First of all, a specific amendment has not been written up and passed so we do not know EXACTLY what it is going to say. But from everything I have read and seen it has been made clear that what Bush really wants is an amendment that would say for the entire nation that marriage is between a man and a woman but that the states can decide civil unions. Where did you get your quote that the states legislatures will still be able to decide if they want same-sex marriage? This is what I found:


Bush: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements OTHER than marriage. "

CNN: "Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define 'legal arrangements other than marriage,' suggesting that such an amendment would allow states to establish civil unions for same-sex couples. "

Fox News: "Although Bush said he wanted the Constitution amended to preserve the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, he said that states should be allowed to craft laws that recognize other types of relationships"

Wash. Post:" Cheney went on to reiterate the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign -- that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide. He noted, however, that Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment preventing the states from recognizing such marriages. "

Allowing states to decide civil unions is differant than being allowed to decide marriage. I do not get from any of my reading that if such an amendment was passed, state legistlatures would still be able to pass laws saying gay marriage is legal and recognized. I would like to know what you are reading if this is the case....

Oh, and I completely understand why a ruling by a Massachusetts judge should not be recognized by another state. I absolutely agree. That is dangerous and also not the way our government runs. I never thought that should be the case....don't think many others think it should either. If it does remain as leaving it to the states, then each state should only recognize what their state passed. However, ideally what gay activist groups want is to take it to the federal supreme court and have it deemed unconstitutional for any state to ban gay marriage.....then no confusion. Same for all states. I know you don't agree it is unconstitutional, but it could be interpreted as both ways and will make for a very interesting and historical case.....

[Crimson King II]

Bush's amendment would then define marriage as between a man and woman, which is largely semantic. It would only mean the federal government would only legally recognize those traditional marriages. Cheney would likely support a more neutral amendment as I had previously described. Either way, the effect is the same, to leave marriage law with the states where it always has been. The states would then be free to address marriage/relationship law according to the needs and wishes of their people.

Moreover, what Bush wants is irrelevant, as the President would have NO role in the Constitutional Amendment process.

As for the other...what is the mechanism by which they get to the courts? Equal protection won't get them there. The Defense of Marriage act might, but at worst all that would do is hold that law unconstitutional....which is another need for an Amendment...the DOMA already defines federally recognized marriage as between a man and women...the gay marriage ban would effectively make that law untouchable by the courts....which is fine with me.