Kerry Concedes

Originally posted by Azred: I don't think the Gay Rights Activists would want that, because one of those lifestyle choices might be "I choose to actively discriminate against homosexuals".

Don't be so sure till you have checked out just how tight the Gay and Lesbian comminties/groups are with organizations such as NAMBLA.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: When you start to try and threaten their sensibilities and force things on them...thats when you run into problems. [/QB]

What is being forced on them?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: Don't be so sure till you have checked out just how tight the Gay and Lesbian comminties/groups are with organizations such as NAMBLA.

Eh??? What is implied here, that generally Gay and Lesbian organizations support pedophilia, is simply incorrect, not to mention quite disgusting and shameful.

I notice the claimed being made, but no proof offered to back it up. It is plainly clear that it is a claim made for no other reason than to incite ill-will.

[ 11-04-2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Actually, Mr. Harris does NOT have a point. A 3-legged dog ban in Texas shows that the State is free from the intrusion of the federal government, but the society's freedom in Texas is lessened by the rule. The State government is not being oppressed, but it in turn is oppressing the people with its rule. A free society is free from government intrusion, whatever level they may be on. In Cook County, I am less free than others in Illinois, because the City of Chicago and the County of Cook place additional rules on me: how I must ride my bike, where I can walk my dog, a handgun ban, requirement to have a parking sticker, etc. etc. The society here is less free than in, say, Peoria.

Thanks for backing my point, which was that each of the States, counties, and cities are free to make their own laws and impose or alow actiona, activities. The Federal Gov't insures that we the people are free to move if we don't want to live under the rules our State, County, City has legaly passed. Each State is a seperate intity(sp?) not bound to follow the laws/rules of another State. We are a highly orginized Confederation of seperate States joined together for the greater good of all, yet free to ban/alow inside our own borders what we the people of each State believes should be baned/alowed. Maine is not bound to follow the laws of Alabama, Alabama dosen't have to listen to Iowa. A States gov't is made up of the people that live in the State and are legaly elected.

Society's freedom is lessened by any laws that are passed, a natural born murderer like Ted Bundy had his freedom lessened by laws that make murder illegal. The vast majority of people wouldn't have a problem with lessening a natural murder's freedom. but what happens when the legal process is followed and all of a sudden one our pet freedoms is outlawed? Do we accept it, do we try and change it legally, or do we become outlaws? questions we must each ask and answer for ourselves.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Azred: This is the bottom line: in some states the ballots asked "do you want to disallow marriage between two people of the same gender?" and a majority of the people said "yes, we want marriage to be a legal union of one male and one female". These referenda were legally placed on the ballots, a proper election was held, and the referenda were defeated. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and is not--must not--be defined as a "civil right". If it is, then every lifestyle choice would then, by extension, be defined as a "civil right", even if that lifestyle normally breaks the law. I don't think the Gay Rights Activists would want that, because one of those lifestyle choices might be "I choose to actively discriminate against homosexuals".

What proof do you have that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"? Even if you could prove it were a lifestyle choice ( I have seen many try and fail) how can you reconcile the fact that we protect the civil rights of people based on thier religion- which is certainly and unequivocially a lifestyle choice?

We also do protect civil rights based on gender- which is what the gay marrigae issue is really about. If two people of different genders can marry, than to be equal for all, two people of the same gender can marry as well. It is basic logic.

[ 11-04-2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: What proof do you have that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"? Even if you could prove it were a lifestyle choice ( I have seen many try and fail) how can you reconcile the fact that we protect the civil rights of people based on thier religion- which is certainly and unequivocially a lifestyle choice? We also do protect civil rights based on gender- which is what the gay marrigae issue is really about. If two people of different genders can marry, than to be equal for all, two people of the same gender can marry as well. It is basic logic.

Because homosexuality is not genetically encoded and no one holds a gun to another's head forcing them to be homosexual. Were I to be homosexual, I would want my partner to love me because he wants to, not because he has to.
The difference between sexual preference and religious choice is due to the fact that freedom of religion is stated in the Constitution.

Marriage is a very ancient social contract between men and women so that heirs could be properly identified; a man's estate was divided among the offspring from his legal wife, not the offspring from any mistress or concubine. It was also a way to celebrate the continuation of the society.

Personally, I support homosexual marriages because if two people love each other then they should be allowed to show their relationship outwardly. However, I have still not heard any compelling argument as to why homosexual marriage should be legally enforced other than "gender equality"; unfortuntaely, there is no inequality issue here, at least until a male can bear children like a female.
If homosexual males want the same privilege to marry another male just like a female could, then to keep up the idea of "gender equality" shouldn't homosexual males be allowed full access to female restrooms and shower rooms?

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: We also do protect civil rights based on gender- which is what the gay marrigae issue is really about. If two people of different genders can marry, than to be equal for all, two people of the same gender can marry as well. It is basic logic.

No, Chewbacca, homosexual marriage is NOT about civil rights based on gender. It is about demanding equal rights based on sexual orientation. It is also about re-defining the term "marriage", which our society has decided should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.

And your "basic logic" about providing "equality for all" is flawed, because it incorrectly assumes that "same gender marriages" is the only addition needed to the definition of "marriage" to provide equality for all. But what if a person wants to marry two people instead of one? What right do you have to say that 3 people can not love each other as deeply and meaningfully as two people? But if you limit the definition of marriage to just two people, then by your own argument, you are violating the civil rights of those who love two people equally and don't feel they should be forced to choose one over the other as their life partner.

And once you change the definition of marriage to include that sub-group, the door is opened for even more additions and revisions to the definition of marriage.

[ 11-04-2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: We also do protect civil rights based on gender- which is what the gay marrigae issue is really about. If two people of different genders can marry, than to be equal for all, two people of the same gender can marry as well. It is basic logic.

No, Chewbacca, homosexual marriage is NOT about civil rights based on gender. It is about demanding equal rights based on sexual orientation. It is also about re-defining the term "marriage", which our society has decided should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.

And your "basic logic" about providing "equality for all" is flawed, because it incorrectly assumes that "same gender marriages" is the only addition needed to the definition of "marriage" to provide equality for all. But what if a person wants to marry two people instead of one? What right do you have to say that 3 people can not love each other as deeply and meaningfully as two people? But if you limit the definition of marriage to just two people, then by your own argument, you are violating the civil rights of those who love two people equally and don't feel they should be forced to choose one over the other as their life partner.

And once you change the definition of marriage to include that sub-group, the door is opened for even more additions and revisions to the definition of marriage. [/QUOTE]The logic becomes flawed only when the equation is changed - like you have done by including unions of more than two people into the mix.

And whats this about "our society"? Two people of the same gender can freely marry here in Massachussetts where I live and many dictionaries include same-gender marriage as one of the defintions of marriage. Sorry, but "our" society hasnt made the last word yet.

And for this catastrophic redefining of the word marriage, well I have done the research on the history of marriage, it has been redefined before and that hasn't caused the end of the world. Recently Vermont added a new sub-defintion called "Civil Unions". They are called that, but civil unions are really just marriages- the lawful union of two people. So it really boils down to either a semantics game, OR we toss out the semantics and just let same-gender marriages, OR we create a situation where certain citizens are relegated to a second-class unequal status, a limitation of rights by law ,like several states have done just this week.

[Lucern]

I found a link that goes through some of the science that's been done on homosexuality. It had this general bit to say after it discusses some research.

The issue of genetic or other physiological determinants as the basis of homosexuality is a highly politicised issue. Recent studies have demonstrated that public acceptance towards homosexuality would increase significantly if scientific proof emerged that sexual orientation had a genetic cause or otherwise innate cause. Therefore, both sides have a lot to gain or lose depending on results in this area. Most objections to the idea of a genetic or innate cause of homosexuality come from religious groups and others in the anti-gay lobby. They seek scientific proof that homosexuality is not determined by genetics or other innate means and interpret scientific results warily. They believe that homosexuality is determined by purely psychological factors, and, more so, that a person's sexuality is a matter of personal choice or of poor upbringing. Similarly, many gay rights advocates seek scientific proof that homosexuality is determined by genetics or other innate means. However, many do not actually believe the cause(s) of homosexuality to be purely genetic, and instead believe a collection of various factors, including genetics, to be the cause. Most agree that homosexuality is innate. Many research scientists find themselves in the center of these two camps. They see themselves as neutral observers merely publishing their results as they find them. They often have little control over the public dissemination of their findings. A few scientists capitalise on the large media interest in the subject, publishing dubious or meritless findings with large press conferences, frequently with little or no peer review - in other words, science by press conference.

http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/genet...sexuality.html

I'd say it, like anything else related to sexuality, is pretty complex, but has a significant biological component, which will be elaborated upon in the coming years. Note that psychologists used to identify homosexuality as a type of identity confusion. This is no longer the case.

Azred said:

Marriage is a very ancient social contract between men and women so that heirs could be properly identified

There is truth to this, but it's more broad. Not only are the terms 'man' and 'woman' differently defined (ie, not always based upon biological sex) across cultural boundaries, but marriage is certainly rife with variety. Marriage is a universal trait, and gender is usually mimetic (sex=gender) in societies, but I just wanted to point out that any one definition of marriage isn't universal. You're right on that marriage is most often about property and lineage as far as I've read. I think it's interesting that it's even controlled by the state, and I do not think this would be the case if it weren't for the property aspect of marriage.

[Timber Loftis]

Note that no one here has refuted the illegality of some of the state constitutional amendments, such as Kentucky's, that not only ban recognizing gay marriage, but also ban giving any rights similar to marriage to any unmarried couples. That is where the real problem lies. Gays in Vermont do not complain, by and large, that the "civil union" is different from "marriage," they are content with the two being more-or-less equal, if different in nomenclature. As you may have seen from my previous posts, I think the gay groups went off the mark with their to-may-to, to-mah-to issue, and as far as the constitution is concerned, nomenclature is unimportant so long as substantive rights are guaranteed. And, I even outlined how the Bush/Cheney plan could allow for this.

But, banning the state from giving "similar" rights of marriage to unmarried couples (such as gays) does in fact offend the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution. And, I predict that even our conservative Supreme Court will prove me right on this in due time. Wait and see. And remember that I told you so.