To the extent that same sex marriage is an experimentation that will change human evolution, it should be considered more seriously by all parties that ponder on such matters.

As things are, the request for change is an emotional one which seems to fit. However the structural changes that it will ensue have not yet been examined thoroughly.

zedd: "To the extent that same sex marriage is an experimentation that will change human evolution, it should be considered more seriously by all parties that ponder on such matters."

not sure if i'm just not getting you here, zedd, but... the "same sex" kind of kills off any idea of changing "human evolution," doesn't it?

"Would adverse legal consequences attach to such refusals?"

Churches have the right to discriminate if that discrimination is based on religious belief. For example, If a church refuses to hire females as priests, it is discriminating based on religious belief.

Dan,

"...it is very poorly reasoned and more than likely fraught with unintended consequences."

I think, judging by what the court itself said, it is unlikely to be disturbed if the effect of its ruling is that people were granted their basic civil rights in other states or through federal law.

I don't see any poor reasoning in the decision myself.

Zedd,

What is it with you and gays? Every time the subject comes up you start typing things that don't make much sense.

Cindy,

I don't see any poor reasoning in the decision myself.

Are you an experienced lawyer, familiar with interpreting court decisions and their language?

Dan is.

Acquiescing again Clav?

Well, Clav, actually no.

I do, however, have years of experience dealing with contract law. It has been a part of my employment to both construe and write numerous legal contracts, for example, (and at one point I worked with a lawyer on retainer for about 5 years, thus availing me of many hours of engagement with concepts and elements of law in general). I have some experience in the following as well: divorce law, real estate law, criminal law, and civil law.

I can write you up a will, promissory note, mortgage, lease, or what have you and if you give me a day, I will tailor it to the laws in your state.

So, I would consider myself fairly competent (not an expert) in construing some reasonably simple to understand, straightforward decisions.

And if that isn't enough, my mother thinks I'd make a great lawyer! :)

So, I am not an experienced lawyer. Nor, am I am experienced cardiologist, I did recently, however, manage to diagnose my husband's CHF, despite arguments from his "experienced cardiologist" (who I fired just in time as it turns out.)

The point is, Clav, what does that have to do with anything? Four supreme court judges (who themselves likely think their decision was well-reasoned) trump Dan's experience. So, is Dan a Supreme Court judge? And since he isn't should he just shut up?

I think I was challenging Cindy, Zedd.

A most informative and interesting analysis of the decision, Dan.

All hell (for some, quite literally) will inevitably be breaking loose over this case, and much charged rhetoric will no doubt be flying back and forth*.

Your piece will serve for me as a commonsensical** anchor point as the debate continues to rage. Many thanks in advance.


<sub>* Did you know today is National Mixed Metaphor Day?

** Did you know tomorrow is National Coin Your Own Word Day?</sub>

BTW Dan, no reflection on your article is intended in anything I said to Clav.

That was a separate argument. (And speaking of metaphors.) My example about the cardiologist, for example, was not intended as a metaphor relating to your article.

So, you understand, I am not arguing with your analysis--just with your opinion about whether the decision was "poorly reasoned" based on the idea that the potential consequences are "unintended" (at least by the 4 in favor, who obviously heard dissension from the other 3).

Cindy,

I agree that anyone reasonably competent should be able to understand judicial decisions. That is not necessarily true of contracts or, particularly, multi page loan documents in small print, purposely written so as not to be understood; borrowers are frequently in technical default the moment they sign the documents, leaving the lender substantial discretion on what to do in the event of a default which it deems material and which makes it seem advantages for the lender to foreclose.

Here, the California decision was probably intended to be understood. The problem, as I see it, is that it will be understood quite differently by many readers, and that things which the Court left unsaid are likely to pointed to as indicating what the Court actually meant.

I found very puzzling the Court's omission to reference the historically religious nature of marriage, while focusing extensively upon the societal advantages of marriage. If you will look at the lengthy listing of parties arguing the case, you will find a substantial number of religious organizations. Surely, they must have had something to say beyond "duh." Was the Court's omission intentional? I'm not a mind reader, and don't really know. It is possible that the Court didn't wish to interfere in the way churches do things, and accordingly did not discuss the point. However, you can take to the bank the notion that it will in future be argued that the omission was not only intentional, but that the Court implicitly decided that the right to marry trumps the rights of churches to decline to marry those who are unqualified to do so based on religious doctrine. I hope that I am wrong, and that subsequent decisions won't stretch the decision to reach that conclusion. Unfortunately, that's the way in which the judicial process often works, sometimes for good, and sometimes for ill.

An appellate court has to be very careful lest the law of unintended consequences prevail, and grossly over-extend whatever the court set out to do.

Dan

Unintended being the infringement on freedom of religion. Yeah, that would be unintended. (at least i hope it would) my bad (is 47 too old to say that?) woops!!!

Cindy,

What's not to understand. Are you saying that opening society for people to marry whatever human they chose regarding of gender, is NOT a massive change in our social structure?

You would agree at this point.

I would then add that it is these massive changes in a species behavior that affect the evolution of the species. In this case, the change will be social.

Because I don't believe that people are born gay but that they choose to live a gay lifestyle, I believe more people will be open to mating with the same gender. Over time there will be no such thing as sexual orientation. Mating rituals will be altered tremendously which means that human behavior will be altered immensely.

Just a few simple things:

Think about movies

Think about dating rituals

Think about fashion

All marketing

These off course are minute examples of what will cease to exist in the form that we know. Human society has been molded by the male/female dynamic. If that dynamic ceases to exist, then society will change tremendously.

Dan, I've read the decision, and while I'm not a lawyer I've taken rhetoric classes and it sure doesn't seem purely reasoned to me. It's actually remarkably clear, by the numbers reasoning. The only place I see a possibility of disagreeing with it is in rejecting the assumption that gay marriages should be treated like interracial marriages, which it all descends from. I think that comparison is right, but it's at least arguable.

Dave

Human society has been molded by the male/female dynamic. If that dynamic ceases to exist, then society will change tremendously.

My nominee for Unintentionally Funniest Line of the Year

I would say that Dan has clearly laid out just what a convoluted mess this all may become.

But, of course, had the original law banning same sex marriages never been enacted, none of this would now be of concern.

I think Zedd's fears are disproportionately reactionary. I don't see a major change in dating, mating & co-habitating (ooh, that rhymes) habits in the offing. To suggest that this court decision or homosexuality in general will have evolutionary consequences is nonsense in the extreme.

There have been some reported instances of homosexual behaviour amongst some primates (other than homo sapien sapien, er sapien, etc., etc.) The last I heard, there was no shortage of baboons, and certainly not manly, hard drinkin', truck drivin', gun totin' baboons.

Some declared homosexuals may have "decided" to take up their mating proclivities. But, while no expert, I am quite willing to believe what most gays and lesbians say regarding their being hard wired (as it were) with their particular sexuality. I don't know what Zedd's expertise is on this matter, but gays and lesbians are far more intimate with their particular reality than she.

Regardless, whether one becomes a homosexual by conscious decision, or is so via genetic predisposition, should be of no consequence as a legal matter. There is obviously a belief by many that homosexuality is by its nature bad - a sin, the work of the devil, or whatever the hell. It is rather, as I see it, essentially benign, and in the end, nobodys damn business!

There are no extant serious or conclusive sociological or phsychological studies of which I am aware that even suggest any deleterious effects of homosexual behaviour, or same sex unions on either the individual or society at large. Typically, the worst effects of a gay lifestyle have come at the hands of Neanderthalic, supposedly god fearin', christian redneck assholes who have taken it upon themselves to beat the living shit out of any "limp wristed faggots" they come across.

Again, as I've stated here and elsewhere on a number of occasions, the law should stay the hell out of people's bedrooms.

While, I certainly am no lawyer, the situation as Dan has elucidated it here could wind up being one hell of a rat's nest, with possible entanglements no one (except perhaps, Dan) anticipated. We might need Bear Grylls to lead us out of this wilderness. Anyone up for eating scorpions?

B-tone

Baritone,

But, of course, had the original law banning same sex marriages never been enacted, none of this would now be of concern. . . . [Homosexuality] . . . should be of no consequence as a legal matter. . . .It is rather, as I see it, essentially benign, and in the end, nobodys damn business!

"quoted for truth;" i.e., I agree completely.

There have been some reported instances of homosexual behaviour amongst some primates (other than homo sapien sapien, er sapien, etc., etc.)

I have noticed that among our five dogs, three females and two males, all of whom we had "fixed" long enough ago that they should have no vestigial sexual urges, there is behavior which looks very much like mating; but two of the females do it to the males. I think it's a dominance thing, since the two females are quite dominant and one of the males is about as non-dominant as they get. The other male is less so, but still yields to the two dominant females about ninety percent of the time.

So much for animal psychology for this morning.

Dan

Dan, I've seen dogs hump cats to prove their dominance, which the cats really don't appreciate at all.

Dave

...I have it on good authority that baboons were slated to be the dominant earthly species but that their indiscriminate intra-gender fucking brought them low

but in any case: 500,000,000 or bust

Dave,

Have you considered sensitivity training?

For the cats, I mean.

Dan

Zedd,

What's not to understand. Are you saying that opening society for people to marry whatever human they chose regarding of gender, is NOT a massive change in our social structure?

You would agree at this point.

So far, so good. Yes I would agree at this point. But, maybe for a different reason? I would agree because people are gay whether they can marry or not. I don't see where this change comes from.

Your state your beliefs as being:

Because I don't believe that people are born gay but that they choose to live a gay lifestyle, I believe more people will be open to mating with the same gender. Over time there will be no such thing as sexual orientation. Mating rituals will be altered tremendously which means that human behavior will be altered immensely.

Okay,

First: Do you think you could choose to be gay Zedd? This is a serious question. Think about it. I know I can't choose to be gay. Because if I could have, there was a time when I would have preferred to be gay.

Second: I will play the devil's advocate. Let's say sexual preference is a choice. Let's also say that if gay people can get married more people will choose to be gay.

Okay, the way I see it, this would be a benefit to humankind worldwide. And in a number of ways:

1) We have a serious overpopulation problem. We have limited resources, yet our world population is growing exponentially. If more people turned gay, that would mean less couples could procreate. What an excellent way to help the environment.

Gay is Green!

2) We have numerous unloved, uncared for children around the world. The more gay people the more homes for unwanted children.

So Zedd, if I did think gayness was a choice, I surely would hope more people would choose it.

Yeah Dan, dogs may not be a particularly good example. I witnessed a little Daschund of mine vigorously humping a rock. A rock, for cripe's sake! And he still possessed his little jewels. I don't know if it had anything to do with dominance. It probably had more to do with the fact that the rock provided something against which to... well you get the picture (and I apologize for that, by the way.)

I suppose long neutered animals don't really have any idea which way to turn as it were. They probably receive a mish-mash of mixed hormonal signals which turn off and/or on any number of "switches" in their little minds.

I would note, though, the fact that apparently such "switches" likely do exist lends credence to the claims made by most homosexuals regarding the source of their sexual alignment.

Cindy may also make some valid points. My wife brought up the over population issue last nite.

However, if we accept that most gays and lesbians are so not by choice, but by heredity or some other genetic mechanism, one would expect to see no significant jump in their numbers even if all laws and social taboos were lifted. There would be some, I suppose. Some still closeted might bust out into the open, but the numbers would, I believe, remain fairly constant. There might be a spike in bi-sexual behaviour, but that certainly would have no particular ramifications to our evolutionary status.

In the end (and at this juncture, it doesn't matter which end) it being that there are those who find homosexual behaviour repugnant, they are entitled to their opinion, and they certainly are under no obligation or set of expectations to participate in such behaviour. But for such people to seek and demand legal sanctions against those who are not of their mind is, IMO far more repugnant. Tend to your own damn knittin'.

B-tone

"Because I don't believe that people are born gay but that they choose to live a gay lifestyle,"

I have yet to meet a gay person who chose that lifestyle. What's interesting is that you don't know, but "believe" based on who knows what. Possibly your own denied homosexual or bisexual feelings, perhaps?

Look the Supreme Court is not going to retroactively nullify all heterosexual marriages and force everyone to marry someone of the same sex.

What's truly hysterical is this Chicken Little mentality you display, although it does explain why you are concerned about humans evolving as your way of thinking approaches extinction.

"Over time there will be no such thing as sexual orientation."

So in your imaginary world more people "choosing" to be gay will somehow evolve the species into asexual beings and wipe out both homo and hetero?

If you think fashion is going to change with more gay people, you don't know anything about fashion. Check out Project Runway.

"Possibly your own denied homosexual or bisexual feelings, perhaps?"

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!

This is as dependable as Godwin's Law. If you question homosexual activity online, it is inevitable that you'll be accused of anti-gay violence, supressed homosexual desire, or most likely anti-gay violence driven by supressed homosexual desire.

However, if we accept that most gays and lesbians are so not by choice, but by heredity or some other genetic mechanism, one would expect to see no significant jump in their numbers even if all laws and social taboos were lifted. There would be some, I suppose. Some still closeted might bust out into the open, but the numbers would, I believe, remain fairly constant.

An important point, borne out by the historical data, which seems to indicate that the ratio of homosexuals to heteros in the world's population remains fairly constant (and low; most scientists put it at something below 10%).

Jeeze someone call the grammar police.

This is what I meant to say:

I'm from the great state of NH and I think we've done it right here.

Civil unions are legal, same sex marriages are not.

That's a reasonable compromise from the all or nothing positions on both sides. It's one that I can live with.

How about you?

Yeah....you

El Bicho,

"I have yet to meet a gay person who chose that lifestyle."

I think we can say that about everything that people do. Fat people, procrastinators, bad money managers, philanderers, all addicts...

Not a good argument. You didn't think about that did you?

Its just that we don't know what makes people gay so we need to stop saying that they ARE born that way. WE DONT KNOW. You don't know.

As to the rest of your comments, you missed it all together...

Fashion: We dress to attract one another. I wont go further. Hopefully you don't need further help in putting things together.

As for my extinction, you'd be surprised. A lot of people are scratching their heads about this thing. They go along because its not important enough to them to debate but they are like "what the heck is that all about?" Tis true. Even those who try to be open minded. They are just going along because they are supposed to be open minded but they really don't get it.

"I think we can say that about everything that people do. Fat people, procrastinators, bad money managers, philanderers, all addicts..."

I have never heard of a child who wants to be a bad money manager...

I think that one's physical attraction to the same or the opposite sex is not a "choice" that the child makes. It's just the way they are.

You can try to talk 'em out of it, or beat it out of 'em, or pray it out of 'em, but all you get are repressed, twisted, and very frustrated people.

What's the point of that?

Bennet,

You sorta made my point.

You may not want to be a bad money manager but you like to spend willy-nilly. You may not want to be tagged as gay but you want to boink a boy (if you are a boy).

Most compulsions cant be talked or beaten out, especially sexual ones. You know that right?

Most compulsions cant be talked or beaten out, especially sexual ones

Maybe. I don't know enough about compulsions to say one way or the other.

However compulsion is a mental disorder, and is listed as such in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (of mental disorders) published by the American Psychiatric Association.

But homosexuality is not a "compulsion," any more than heterosexuality is.

It's a sexual orientation.

And it is no longer listed in the DSM.

"This is as dependable as Godwin's Law."

What's dependable, Baronius, if you paid attention to the world, is that those who scream the loudest against homosexuality are those fighting off those desires within themselves or family members. Senator Larry E. Craig, Ted Haggard, etc. Zedd has yet to provide a basis for her belief, so she leaves the door wide open for speculation. She responded yet didn't answer the question when a simple "no" would have sufficed.

"Not a good argument."

Well, you got one thing right, Zedd. You don't have a good argument.

"Fat people, procrastinators, bad money managers, philanderers, all addicts..."

I have met people who choose to over eat and not exercise, who choose to put off getting things done, who choose to spend willy-nilly, who choose to cheat, who choose to take drugs, so that doesn't equate at all.

"Its just that we don't know what makes people gay so we need to stop saying that they ARE born that way."

I am going by what I am told by those who are gay. No one has ever told me they chose to be gay. Has anyone told you that? Are you telling us you made a conscious choice to be a heterosexual? Please explain when and what informed your decision.

I dunno.

All this isn't my business except that we have a hard lined politically correct "supreme" court of "justice" trying to do everything by America's most "liberal" courts here, which means imitating all of its stupid ideas including legalizing homosexual marriage here.

I think Bing has got it right. New Hampshire has the right idea, and I think that Israel should follow New Hampshire's example.

As for Dan's article, I agree with his analysis of the California decision - it is pregnant with unintended circumstances.

Clavos, Dan (perhaps you can help too)

I think we've been through this before (Clav). There is no scientific proof that homosexuals are born homosexual. There is no scientific proof that sexual orientation is an inborn trait.

Humanity has been engaging in heterosexual sex because "things" fit that way. There is no biological orifice for male to male sex. You know that.

Just as we cant say that people are BORN for oral sex, just because they enjoy it most or even to the extent that they don't engage in sex which involves the sexual organs, we cant say that people are BORN to do it in the rear. Its stupid.

All sexual addictions or proclivities(for lack of better terms, categorized by shrinks or not, politicized or not) are very difficult to "cure" or stop. Homosexuality is no different. What makes it political is that it is between consenting adults and is now in vogue. But it is no more scientifically proven to be biological than pedophilia or bestiality or purse "lovers" or male stocking wearers (for sexual pleasure), flashers or any other sexual addiction/compulsion/must do. It's just out of style to find it distasteful or to say "what the...".

Personally, I get that people will boink anything; each other, inanimate objects, other animals, ANYTHING and any way. I just don't want to be told that I have to jump on the band wagon of "they are born that way", they MUST boink a purse or a butt or a pig. Its stupid and funny and kinda archaic (in a blood letting or elixir of the week sort of way). Let's just say, they like boinking pigs or butts or purses and call it a day... not try to claim some scientific proof.

Its starts to sound like creationists trying to link their beliefs with science.

Now the question then becomes, if some was in love with a purse and wanted it in the hospital when he was ill, should it be allowed in the hospital? Should the person be allowed to leave his fortune and possessions to the purse? Since he is an adult who is consenting to this, should the legal system be used to accommodate his wishes. Some may say he is insane because they don't understand his need to be with this purse and to engage in sexual activities with this particular purse, but other purse lovers may say that those who oppose the love, just don't get it, that they were born loving purses and that society should accommodate their proclivity.
Is it madness or is it a type of love that we don't understand?

Should this person be declared mad and his wishes ignored?

Is not all madness not understandable to the sane?

Are not some "madness-es" inborn?

Do we allow some madness-es or peculiarities to cross the threshold because they are popular?

Will ADD become a norm and we cease to try to cure it because so many kids have it?

I realise that this will be too much to ponder upon and you will dismiss it Clav. But those who enjoy thinking may find this something to consider or debate.

Ruvy,

it is pregnant with unintended circumstances.

Sure is, but I'm not sure that pregnant is a socially acceptable word in this context.

Dan

...it is pregnant with unintended circumstances.

Sure is, but I'm not sure that pregnant is a socially acceptable word in this context.

It is the precise word, Dan - it makes you stop and think what it really is you are talking about. Of course, that may be exactly why it is socially unacceptable for some. Thinking, beyond the most surfacy of thoughts may be very scary - not to mention intellectually unacceptable.

Zedd,

I am afraid that I can't help much, but here goes.

First, I have no idea whether homosexuals/heterosexuals are born that way, or if not, what sociological factors may be involved. Opinions on the subject tend to be based on what one hopes may be the case; ditto as to whether either situation is curable. Who was it who said that celibacy is the worst perversion? Most likely, it was not the Pope.

Second, I think that whatever consenting adult humans want to do between (or among) themselves is pretty much OK, provided that whatever they do doesn't intersect excessively with the rights of others. I don't see any valid reason for granting tax or other benefits to people who marry/cohabit with others of the same or different sex. They will do it anyhow, so no encouragement is needed.

Third, note that para 2 above is limited to consenting adult humans. Cows, horses, pigs, etc. are incapable of such consent, and cruelty to animals is and should be criminal -- probably to a far greater extent than it is.

Fourth, if someone wants his purse in hospital with him, that's fine. I can have my wrist watch and other stuff, so why not a purse? However, the legal problem involving in leaving all of one's worldly possessions to one's purse, or dog or house would be monumental. What, for example, is one's purse (or dog, or house) going to do with money, securities, or even a trust fund? The legal system in the area of trusts and estates is already enough of a pig's breakfast without imposing additional burdens on it. True, some people have left their stuff to cats, through trusts. That requires a trustee, but if that's what they want to do and can find an appropriate trustee, the laws provide for it and so what? Realistically, if Mr. Jones were to leave his worldly goods to his purse (or to his house) he would probably have to do so through a will; I have no idea whether a trust would work, and don't know of any instance in which it has been attempted (I hasten to add that the subject is one of many as to which my opinion is totally worthless). Such a will would, almost certainly, be determined to be invalid and his assets would pass to whatever heirs his state's laws of intestate succession dictate.

I agree with your basic premise that our views tend to be extraordinarily twisted by the god of political correctness, and am very happy to live in a place where political correctness is hardly noticeable.

Dan

Ruvy,

You probably got my modest attempt at humor, but just in case it was unclear, the article deals with homosexual marriage; marriage has historically been associated with reproduction of the species. Pregnancy is very difficult to achieve between folks of the same sex, even though with modern technology, I suppose it is possible.

Dan

I realise that this will be too much to ponder upon and you will dismiss it Clav. But those who enjoy thinking may find this something to consider or debate.

Thank you, Zedd for showing everyone on the board unequivocally why I do not discuss ideas on an adult level with you.

Zedd assembled perhaps the most specious argument I've ever read.

What Zedd fails to address is that homosexuality as regards most people - particularly those who have long standing relationships, are in it for more than the boink.

There are both heteros and homos who just want to get laid or get a blow job or whatever. But as with heteros, a homosexual relationship which goes to the extent of co-habitation and then to a legal union - marriage, or whatever the hell you want to call it - is a relationship, likely a loving relationship. It is not based solely upon what particular holes the two people have.

Frankly, nobody gives a damn, Zedd, whether you "get on board" or not. No one is asking you. Just don't presume that you or anyone should have the right to enact laws designed to prevent two people who love each other regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, from forming a legal bond and enjoying the same rights as everybody else.

Your argument regarding the purse is just dumb. The notion that if someone is gay, that the natural next step is farm animals and inanimate objects is ludicrous in the extreme. Why in the hell shouldn't a man who loves a man (or a woman a woman) have the same right to live with, love with and yes, marry him? Why shouldn't he be allowed to visit his lover/spouse in the hospital? Why shouldn't he be allowed to make critical decisions for his love when called for just as happens with hetero marriages? Why shouldn't he be considered the other's natural heir just as with hetero marriages? The list goes on and on.

Zedd, such matters are simply none of your damn business. Your assumption of some kind of moral superiority just doesn't hold any water.

Christians and other religious folks hold onto the word "marriage" like a jealous five year old fiercely clutching some toy or other, stamping his or her feet in rage when asked to share, screaming, No! It's mine! It's mine, mine, mine! You can't have it! Get over yourselves.

B-tone

Dan,

Thank you for entertaining my "madness".

So what I read you saying is: what we desire isn't good enough. Our wishes must have a FUNCTION in order for them to be deemed important enough to be mandated (legally) by society? Wanting to give the purse everything you own is not enough. What is the purse going to do with the house or money? What is the PURPOSE for the action. We know that the purse cant do anything with the "inheritance" so the court would probably not give it to the purse. We know that inheritance has a PURPOSE. It contributes to society by perpetuating wealth. The purse wont be able to spend and support the economy. So there is no benefit to society in granting the purse the money. While it may make the benefactor happy to leave the money to the purse, his pleasure is not the responsibility of the legal system.

Side note: I didn't get a tax break when my husband and I had no children. Did I do my taxes wrong?

Now if marriage is an institution that was established culturally to sustain the species through procreation, nurturing and encoding. Although not all marriages lead to that end, the overwhelming majority of marriages do produce offspring. So we can say there is a PURPOSE behind society supporting or giving legal recognition to marriage.

What is the benefit to supporting same gender marriage? Are we back to the purse? We are creating this legal category for the pleasure of those who want to engage and nothing more. While they may be in a union without legal permission, they simply want the paperwork to be made?

Is that what the law is for?

A passerby would think you would be for the loosening of marriage restrictions, Zedd, as your arguments show a love of strawmen.

To equate the love between two adults with bestiality or masturbating with an inanimate object, such as a keybord, shows a keep lack of understanding on the subject matter.

Many people had similar fears and voiced similar arguments as yours in terms of interracial marriage, and yet the species miraculously has survived.

Baritone,

Your assumption of some kind of moral superiority just doesn't hold any water.

Que? What are you talking about? I don't have a moral view about homosexuality.

I'm afraid you jumped in too early. I am going somewhere with my questions.

You get a little hyped when you think that someone is coming from a religious perspective. Pull yourself together man.

Also, discussions such as those that we are having are rarely about the individuals that are having them. So off course this is not about me. WE are having a discussion. You may participate by discussing the merits or arguments that are presented and you can prove your points. Simply jumping on me because I don't buy the PC stance that is being made is not good enough Baritone. You are typically better than that. I think your assumption about the Christianity thing made you loose it. Calm down Budd.

Now do you have a point to make about this matter other than that IT SHOULD BE DONE? Because right now that's all that you have offered.

I was not giving an analogy. I was trying to understand how the law works. It's important to break things down to their simplest form in order to understand what we are talking about here. I am starting by asking what the law says about simply wanting to do something because of romantic sentiment. I am building on that. I know you want me to be comparing gays with perverts but that is not what I am doing. Slow down there cowboy.

As to the "need" to cohabit ate. I think gays can live together right now. They can also love one another... If we (you) go that route in your discussion, then marriage is not necessary.

Clav,

I'm sorry. I figured you were much too literal to get what I was doing with #35. I gave it a whirl though. I shouldn't have. Forget it happened.

Well, if your intent is to pursue an abstract discussion about the law as it pertains to marriage, then knock yourself out. I'll leave you to it.

Your last comment is interesting though. By that reasoning, marriage is unnecessary regardless of the sex of the participants. Why bother at all? Is marriage somehow inherently more "necessary" for straights than gays?

Hmmm. I've never considered myself as much of a cowboy, uh well except around when I was 9 or 10 flashing my Nichols twin "Stallion 38" pistol & holster set. That was boss.

B-tone

I said this in the other discussion a long time back about homosexual marriage and I'll say it here again.

Homosexual marriage is necessary under the codes of laws in the United States because there are over a thousand legal provisions under the law that apply to heterosexual married couples and not to same-sex unions. These legal differences range from hospital visitation rights to rights to own property.

In my view, the best national decision the United States can make (or any other nation facing this "debate") is to remove the government from marriage entirely. Create unions of couples recognized by states for their legal status and have those unions sign contracts that will enable ALL unions to have ALL benefits afforded to couples.

Following that, couples who wish to receive marriage ceremonies or titles through various means (religious or otherwise) can do so. The government has no role in marriage, period. Surely the opposition to affording the same couples rights to all would meet little to no opposition, as I don't think anyone in their right mind wants to remove the right for a loving gay couple of either gender to be able to organize proper funeral provisions for a lost partner. Under the current provisions of the legal differences between same-sex civil unions and homosexual marriage, such a thing is a very real problem.

So when Zedd asks about the benefit to supporting same sex marriage, the answer is the same as it always is when one supports equal rights for all human beings. Unless the law changes, as it is in some states relatively slowly but surely, the reason to support gay marriage as opposed to other union types is so that homosexual can be afforded the some 1138 (give or take, my numbers might be outdated by ten or so) rights they are not currently afforded. If that sits well with Zedd, I think people are right to question the sanity of the poster.

As a straight male, I feel compelled to weigh in on this subject.

Tell that to the supreme court justices.

Zedd - I suspect that all traditional societies have dealt with the issue of same sex relationships...does your knowledge of your Zulu ancestors include info on how they differentiated marriage from same sex unions - ?

a quick jaunt on the net yields 'internet info' that the early court records in SA include cases covering the division of property following the dissolution of same sex 'marriages' among Zulus

troll,

Actually in Zulu culture there was no same sex marriage but there has been a group in the Zulu people's region who live in a community of homosexuals, going back perhaps 60yrs. They have been marrying each other but not according to the law and certainly not the culture. They were sort of a curiosity. Not sure about other ethnic groups. Now there is a word for gay men in Zulu but I don't know if it was originally coined to describe an effeminate male or a person who partook in homosexual acts. Could be wrong but knowing Zulus my guess is that open homosexuals would not have survived that long in that culture. So they were probably tagging a "soft" male. Zulu culture is driven by "masculine" attributes (valor, logic, protocol, etc.). Mix Vikings with the British and you get the picture.... While a lot of conversation is tongue in cheek innuendo and persistent subtle ribbing is pervasive in interaction(I suppose like a typical warrior culture) a flamboyant persona would seem irrational and perhaps frivolous and they would perhaps want to "whup" it out of a person. I am sure that homosexual acts did exist just as bestiality has existed and other sex practices in human societies.

As you've said, South Africa does make a provision for civil unions now. This is because of the charter that was written by those who were designing the society prior to the end of Apartheid. Off course in today's world gays are prevalent. South Africa is very cosmopolitan.

In one African ethnic group (not sure which one), either East or West Africa, they USED to permit unmarried men who were going through the initiation ritual to have sex with the younger men (freshmen). Because they were away from their community for so long (years), it was thought to temper the youth until they could go back and take on wives. Its thought that some men would sneak even after they were married to continue the same sex "activities". Don't know the group though but that's what a Sociology background will get you. Shoooow dont pay the bills ;o(

Jordon,

I am not sure what you meant about questioning the sanity of the poster...

I am hoping that you are not saying that by posing a question in modern times which challenges convention, one would SHOULD be rendered insane. If that is the case, I would sadly have to awaken you from your intellectual slumber by reminding you that we regularly chime about the dummying down of our society. It is precisely that type of thinking (if that is what you meant) which contributes to the mental malaise that is so pervasive. Most people on these boards don't have the capacity to recognize the dialectic method. Would you be among them? We are stuck simply making minute calculations about the obvious then patting ourselves on the back for being engaged in substantive dialogue. If it boggles your mind to be asked simple yet pertinent questions regarding events which will change our society drastically, then there is not much more to be discussed, is there. Are you perhaps more stimulated by who is a "flip flopper"? Is the extent of your political curiosity relegated to who used the word bitter last?

Perk up bud, it's time to use that brain of yours.

Now...
What rights are these that you speak of? We are not talking about the right to love. We are not talking about the right to cohabit. If you are speaking of the rights to have whomever you want to visit you in a hospital or be a beneficiary, or other property rights, marriage is not the only way to attain them or dispense them. What rights are you speaking of?

I think that the only right that is truly desired is the one to be CALLED married. I would ask if that is a civil right?

Baritone,

I'm sorry, I just read #17.

Considering that this is the first decade that same gender marriage has been opened up world wide (to this extent) I would say that your comments about there not being any social or evolutionary change don't make sense.

Comparing apes, who have not made much advancement in their societies over the past 5000yrs (at least) that we've been aware of them, to humans, who make giant leaps every week, is odd at best. Mr. "B", think of the changes in social behavior that have taken place since your childhood.

Are you serious????????

Didn't think that one through did you.

Humans WILL take this change in society to the next level(s). Thats how we do it. Didn't say it is a bad thing, just pointed out that we are opening up something HUGE.

Baritone,

"By that reasoning, marriage is unnecessary regardless of the sex of the participants."

Is it NECESSARY? If two individuals have no intentions to produce off spring and will not produce off spring, in a secular world, why marry legally?

If individuals want to make a public commitment to one another and don't intend to produce children, they can do so through whatever ceremony that they choose to have.

I think the legal contract for people who bring people into this planet should be recognized by the law. Its a huge thing. I think making the distinction between those who want to make babies together and commit permanently because of that, will make having children more meaningful. As it is now, having a child is like buying a sports car. Kids are an accessory. Based on stats that show the cost to society, I would say that those who have them willy nilly should pay some sort of tax (I just made this part up. Not sure if I really mean it, yet).

Zedd,

"...think of the changes in social behavior that have taken place since your childhood."

My comment had more to do with evolutionary or genetic changes, not simply social. Nevertheless, I still don't understand your concerns. As Clavos noted, pretty much throughout history, as nearly as can be determined, no more than around 10% of any populations have been considered as homosexuals.

My animal reference was more or less meant to be taken lightly. But, the point was that no animal populations have been known to suffer ill effects of any such behaviour.

At any rate, my comments were adequately "thought through."

Perhaps any couples intending to co-habitate shoule be required to declare their intent, sign a public record statement that they intend to have no children. Then, if they in fact do have children, they should be removed from the home and the parents be fined or jailed or both.

I mean, what the hell are you talking about? So you now suggest that only those intending to procreate should be required to form a legal union? Does it occur to you that a number of gay and lesbian couples intend to have children?

This discussion has become so convoluted I frankly don't know what your position is.

I simply say that no government should enact any laws which in any way restrict the right of anyone to form a union. What individual religious organizations elect to do in that regard should be their business. But it should not be the role of the government to define what is or is not a "marriage."

B-tone

I simply say that no government should enact any laws which in any way restrict the right of anyone to form a union.

Quoted for Truth.

Zedd @ #54:

That's all very well, but wouldn't it just be easier to give all same-sex couples the same conjugal rights as all heterosexual couples, rather than remove them from every couple that doesn't want children?

Moreover, have you seen the planet lately? We should be providing incentives for people not to have kids.

I agree with Baritone re "what the hell are you saying?"

Here: "Is it NECESSARY? If two individuals have no intentions to produce off spring and will not produce off spring, in a secular world, why marry legally?"

That's easy Zedd, shared property, earned equity, and inheritance.

"Didn't think that one through did you."

BTW, my wife had two children from a prior marriage. We got together (married) while not intending to have additional children.

Was marriage necessary in our case?

Of course!

Baritone, Clav, Doc, Bennett,

If I were to say that government should stick its nose out of marriage, you would agree. If I say that people who want to get tax breaks for having children need to be in a contractual situation you say INSANITY? I disagree. You (two) want to create more humans and you want us to help you financially to raise them then declare your commitment to the process. We will call it marriage. If you don't want to, then fine. Statistically kids who come from unwed situations cost society greatly.

Whats the problem? Neither of you have made arguments against it. You basically said, "its not fair". (????)

Who is it unfair to? If you want to declare your undying love to your partner, who is stopping you? Gather all of your friends and family and let them know, THIS IS THE ONE! Have your priest or Rabbi say a few words and call it a day but don't expect freebies from the citizenry because of it. What's wrong with that??? Write a will or affidavit allowing that individual access to whatever you want them to have access to. DONE!

As to the assertion that 10% of the population on Earth has always been gay. Considering that homosexuality is still a social taboo even in the most open societies, how is that determination made. Was this poll taken in all societies? Also, who did the polling 10,000 yrs ago? If it is genetic, wouldn't it be more likely that the gay gene would exist more in some societies than others? Since there is no gay gene or Haagen Das gene or Fuchsia gene or any other preference (or LOVE, Baritone) gene, how is this number determined? People say I have romantic feelings towards people of the same gender and voila! So among the Mapuche Indians, this poll was made or in the Trobriand Islands... uhh huh....

The more human beings interact with one another in a certain way the more accepting they become of that manner of interaction. The races weren't supposed to mix in this culture....

Baritone,


"Does it occur to you that a number of gay and lesbian couples intend to have children?"

Yes it has "B". Just waiting for you to get there.

Now....

WHY? If they are not wired to engage in sex with the opposite sex, why are they wired to produce off spring? Confusing to me. There must be some sort of glitch somewhere.

Would you agree???

Are they really born homosexual?

or

Is homosexuality a psychological glitch?

Which is it? Its gotta make sense somewhere. Haven't run across the SENSE part. Help me out here.

"Confusing to me. There must be some sort of glitch somewhere."

That's the whole problem with your thinking. Just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically mean there's a glitch or something is wrong. It more likely means you aren't as smart as you think you are.

WHY? If they are not wired to engage in sex with the opposite sex, why are they wired to produce off spring? Confusing to me. There must be some sort of glitch somewhere.

Why should there necessarily be a connection between the two impulses?

And you haven't answered my question. I agree that it would be theoretically fair to deny marriage to all couples who do not plan to have children... but wouldn't it just be easier - legislatively and logistically - to extend the current set of benefits to all who desire matrimony?

Zedd,

If you don't want to give people freedom then I think at a minimum you need to give them back their tax money. Why should gay people pay taxes while being denied freedom?

By the way Zedd, you never answered my question. It wasn't rhetorical. Could you personally choose to be gay?

BTW, I will remind you of our past tangle with this subject and how you preferred to ignore any science on the subject. You lost your credibility about deciding what evidence exists, or as you prefer to call it (in a typical unscientific fashion)--proof.

And to what "freebies" are you referring? I'm not talking about gaining any largess. What I and I believe those who agree are talking about are RIGHTS. Rights that have been discussed here.

And I certainly agree with Doc. The impulses you speak of can exist together or apart. They may be complimentary, but may also be mutually exclusive.

You are caught up with the notion that there is some about reproductive biology that also has some higher meaning or purpose.

I won't pose the question to you personally as it's let's see, uh, yeah, it's none of my damn business, but don't a great number of people have sex without any intent to procreate - whether within or without the confines of marriage? Would it be expected that non-procreating couples for them to abstain from sexual activity? Would they be expected to be neutered, or use contraceptives?

Whoops! Now we are getting into church business, aren't we? Only the first option would be acceptable by many religious organizations. Abstention. Now there's a few steps back to our Puritan forbears.

As you noted, social change is running rampant. What was taboo yesterday is considered passe' tomorrow. Your entire construct is based on antiquated notions of purpose. You are caught up with plumbing. Women can get their jollies with any number of vibrating tubular machinations. Guys can do it with one hand tied behind their backs. So why bother to couple at all?

B-tone

Considering that homosexuality is still a social taboo even in the most open societies...

Uh uh. Not in modern western societies; not any more.

Since there is no gay gene...

Not a true statement. The true statement is that no gene has been discovered so far.

In any case, homosexuality is universally claimed by those who are, to be part of them from earliest memory; it doesn't necessarily have to be genetic to be present at birth.

Are they really born homosexual?

They all say they are. Are they all lying? Is it one of Pablo's conspiracies?

Oh, God, Clav, please don't invoke Pablo. He lives in California. I'm sure he can see the machinations of the CFR, Chatham House, the Coors Brewing Company, the Muppets and goodness knows who else tied in some fantastically intricate way into this whole business.

Look Clavos,

I don't know how you base science. Feeling a certain way does not make you an expert on biology. We all know that through the ages humanity has held certain beliefs based on feeling and they certainly were not true. I feel tall doesn't mean I am. If we had no way to measure my height, I would argue with the best of them that I am tall.

Why are we even talking about this? I am so disapointed in you guys.

Tall is a relative term, Zedd. It's a very poor analogy. You might think you're tall compared to, say, Mickey Rooney. But you wouldn't say that you're gayer than Dr Laura or straighter than Madonna. That's ridiculous.

Baritone,

"Why should there necessarily be a connection between the two impulses?"

If you CAN'T reproduce why would you have the urge to reproduce?

If you cant hear at all and were born that way, why would you have the urge to cup your ear, and lean closer to listen to a conversation? Something odd or interesting would be taking place that needs some examination.

Saying you are born gay says that you are born NOT to procreate. Isn't it?

OK Doc,

I feel six foot tall.

Now what?

Look Zedd,

I never said anything about "feeling."

What I said was that they all say they it's "a part" of them. Most say they know from before puberty that they are homosexual; the reason most often given is that they experience NO attraction to the opposite sex, but plenty of attraction to their own.

Just because homosexuality goes against your archaic beliefs about taboos doesn't mean it isn't real, Zedd.

In fact, Zedd, in this whole discussion, (and previous similar ones) you have been the one who denies what is obvious to everyone else.

Get over it, Zedd.

No, no, no, Zedd, you're missing the point completely. You don't hear people saying 'I feel gay'. They say, 'I am gay'.

Baritone,

"You are caught up with the notion that there is some about reproductive biology that also has some higher meaning or purpose."

No I'm not. Let go of the religious thing and just simply use logic. You brought up the fact that some homosexuals want kids. That is where the discussion on reproduction and being born gay come in. My question was (I think you missed it), how can you be born not to have reproductive sex but want to reproduce. If that is the case, something is wrong with you. Your biology doesn't match your psychology. Its like people who believe that they were born to be the opposite gender. Something is wrong. They are not the opposite gender. There is a glitch.

So either homosexuals are born that way and therefore cant reproduce and wont. Or they are people who desire to live a gay lifestyle but want kids. Or they are homosexuals (born that way) and they are psychologically imbalanced, their biology does not match their psychology.

If this is difficult for you to grasp, we will leave this alone. It's not going to go anywhere.

You can't do an accurate Gaydar reading on a man who isn't even here. When it comes to liberal views on social issues, like abortion and the worthlessness of religion, as far as I've observed, Pablo has been a comrade in arms to most of the people who criticize him for his interest in conspiracy theories, Baronius being a salient exception. Which means by the theory of association, Y'ALL might as well be wearing tin hats...

I like CindyD's idea of giving the gays their tax money back if they relinquish the Mr. and Mrs. or Mr. and Mr. or...whatever titles. I'd get a divorce (just a civil one, I'd stay married in the religious sense) if the government were making that kind of deal.

The Imperial States of America's Seal of Approval on the sacred bond between my husband and me just isn't worth all that much to me anyway.

Zedd, the history of how the American Psychiatric Association in 1978 made the transition from the point of view you just expressed to the one it currently holds makes for some rather interesting reading. It was a decision based on politics not science. I don't know that what you are saying is really all that "out there."

I don't believe in forced "therapy" such as the kind the brilliant Alan Turing received, but there ARE some people who have homosexual impulses who would rather not have them, and their counselors used to be able to help them without fear of ridicule or exile from their profession.

Cindy D,

Not sure what science you are referring to. If it's those dadgum penguins, you must be joking. You remember that dialogue don't be disingenuous.

No I couldn't choose to be gay because I don't think there is such a thing as gayness per se. I think people have sex with all sorts of people, and even things, in all sorts of ways (flush). I think people have crushes or fall in love with different people for all sorts of reasons, not because of biology. I think that it is possible for ANYONE to have a crush on someone of the same gender. I don't think they do it because they were born to do so.

You saying the contrary does not make it so. THAT is my contention.

Cindy there is absolutely no science that narrows down taste or preference. We are far far far from making those types of conclusions about biological structure. You are a thinking woman, what the heck are you doing jumping on some bandwagon because you happen to like the political side.

As to the use of the word freedom.... you don't understand opression. No one prevents anyone from living with the person that they love. No one prevents anyone from loving whom they love. What liberty is being prevented???

Boys,

Help me out here. How do they KNOW they are gay if they don't feel gay.

Now lets see, I KNOW I'm Black because i have this lovely caramel complexion. I KNOW I'm female because I've got these beautiful curvy parts. I KNOW I m not six feet tall because I have been measured. I DON'T know if I am a carrier of some genetic anomaly, say Cystic fibrosis. I simply don't know because I
CANT just KNOW.

We simply don't KNOW what we carry genetically unless we have developed a way to detect it.

I found it interesting that a reputable news organization aired a piece on this subject and they showed little boys who were effeminate (3yr olds) and their Moms said that they thought they were gay. They pranced around flailing their hands. I was disturbed because it was being suggested that the stereotypical behavior was the indicator for sexual preference.

You may not understand what the big deal is about my observation and since I am getting tired (benedryl) I won't go into it. But I would pose the chicken or egg question. I would also include the notion of masculine gays.

Irene,

Shrinks had multitudes thinking that they were molested and just forgot because of repressed memories, a few years back. Day Care workers were arrested, fathers were accused, etc. It turns out that repressing memories to that extent is an extremely rare thing. We no longer hear about every celeb being molested as a child.

A couple of years ago ADHD was in vogue.

Soon the depression gig will be up and another diagnosis of the decade will pop up.

Psychology/psychiatry as it is being practiced right now is disturbing to say the least. There is so much quackery its unbelievable.

Right now many Psychiatrists are simply pushers. Well lets not get on that bandwagon.

Zedd,

Do you KNOW you're heterosexual?

How?

Irene #74: I don't think Clavos was trying to imply that Pablo is gay. He was simply making the observation that Zedd seemed to be implying a Pablo-esque conspiracy on the part of gays to suppress their true straightness.

Dead on, Doctor.

(But you knew that)

Clavos,

I know that I am female Clav. I know that because i can see that I am. I know that I am human (a mammal). I know that I can reproduce. I know that I have been socialized by humans(mammals) and have picked up on the cues and have lived like most humans (mammals), participating in mating rituals with the opposite sex.

I don't know what you want to get out of me. I would have to know what being gay feels like to know that i am heterosexual. I've got nothing to compare, just as those who believe themselves to be born gay don't have anything to compare to. Its as if they know what heterosexuality feels like and they KNOW that they are not that.

Its dumb Clav. All they KNOW is who they are, not what they are "made" to be. That is as stupid as an actor saying that they were born to act.

Zedd, what this all boils down to is your objection to legal recognition of gay marriage, on the grounds that same-sex couples do not procreate. When you realized that this criterion would also apply to heterosexual couples who do not want children - oops! - you decreed that the intent to reproduce should be the prerequisite for legal marriage. There are a legion of obvious difficulties with this argument, one of which I have asked you about more than once without an answer.

Meanwhile, you've been backpedalling yourself into a logical maze from which I must now conclude you can no longer find your way out.

Zedd #82:

You should consider a career in politics.

That was a classic politician's non-answer.

It was a simple question, Zedd.

You know you're heterosexual. In exactly the same way a gay woman knows she's homosexual.

"Saying you are born gay says that you are born NOT to procreate. Isn't it?

No! As much as you would like that to be the case, no!


If a young adolescent experiences an attraction to others of the same sex, and not of the opposite sex, then that may be a significant sign that they are, in fact, gay.

An impulse, or more importantly, a desire to reproduce, to be a parent is not connected to sexuality. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that there now exist a number means to become a parent without having traditonal male/female sex.

Years ago such things weren't available, but that does not preclude the probability that homosexuals still desired to be a parent. You are making connections between a variety of impulses and desires that don't necessarily exist.

You are so determined to disavow the possibility that homosexuality is a natural state for some, that you are grasping at straws.

There is certainly more evidence to support the likelihood of a genetic disposition to homosexuality than that it is no more than a social choice.

And I come back to one of the original questions. Why are you do intent upon interjecting your beliefs into the lives of people who just desire to live as they have chosen to? What is this compulsion? If your opposition to gays has no religious connection, that what the hell? Leave them the hell alone. Can't you get it that it's none of your business and I seriously doubt that anyone in the gay community will come knocking seeking your opinion?

Are you really so alarmed by homosexuals and homosexuality that you honestly feel that they represent some real danger to man's future? Do you really see the majority of whoopie making evolving to same sex boinking? Do you suppose that we will just stop procreating preferring rather to let our species die out because we will all become gay? I just don't get you.

B-tone

What silliness. Clavos didn't ask you how you know you are female, he asked you know you are heterosexual. You were asked before when you made the conscious decision and you failed to reply, which I am sure is only a coincidence. Or is it that you personally failed to choose, which opens the door that people don't choose.

My 91-year-old grandmother can't reproduce and doesn't participate in mating rituals with the opposite sex, so either your definition is inaccurate or she is less of a female.

Wait, I just caught this response:

"I KNOW I'm female because I've got these beautiful curvy parts."

So how do skinny, flat-chested woman know they are female? Your definition of a female includes less and less people with each response.

"I know I'm female because I'm not logical???" :>)

It seems that it takes the viewing of only one word in an article's title to show the bias of the writer.

Gay vs homoSEXual.

The idea is to inspire that "ewwwww-icky" feeling in every hetrosexual.

If a hetrosexual man rapes a little girl-do the churches scream sermans about all straight men being evil??

There is so much more to gays than who we sleep with.

I've been attracted to and dated women in my life. The problem is who my hormones react to vs who my brain reacts to. It's a matter of biology not psychology. It's a matter of being honest with myself and not lying to others.

As for marriage-stop and think about it. Do you think of a straight "common law" married couple the same way you think of a church-married couple?

Someday people will stop using God as an excuse to hate. I hope I live to see it.

It seems that it takes the viewing of only one word in an article's title to show the bias of the writer. Gay vs homoSEXual

Don't be mad at Dan Miller for not buying your self labelling.

Dig it, Jet. When the "reform" Jews were trying to hustle their ideas, they invented the word "orthodox" to describe the enemy, the normative Judaism of the day. Thus the term "orthodox" Jew got invented. That so many observant Jews have been stupid enough to buy being labelled by the enemy shows how stupid they truly are.

The same goes with the South Syrian Arab refugees of the War of Independence here. The el-Husseinis, needing a way to sell their genocidal ideas of blaming the Jews for their own losing a war and legitimizing a campaign of terror against us, repackaged themselves as "Palestinians" and have invented all sorts of fairy tales to back up the original re-packaging. Most of their bullshit has been bought lock, stock and shakshuka by the media, American, Israeli and otherwise.

So homosexuals, determined to shed the "icky" image of the name "homosexual", push the term "gay" instead.

But what makes you what you are is not a label, Jet, it's your biology. To quote you, "the problem is who my hormones react to vs who my brain reacts to. It's a matter of biology not psychology. It's a matter of being honest with myself and not lying to others."

Dan Miller never bought the "gay" repackaging - and frankly neither did I. It's not a matter of bias - it's a matter of being honest with myself.

I'm be diplomatic and call you "gay"; you prefer it. This is not about being nasty. But homosexual marriage is an accurate description of the term - marriage between two individuals of the same sex. Calling it anything else is just polite - and dishonest - re-packaging.

Marriage is all about legitimizing sex and its intended fruit - children.

As for your question, a "common-law" marriage, shacking up, has the same legitimacy as a civil union does. It used to have less. I know. I've been there.

Baritone:

"Why are you do intent upon interjecting your beliefs into the lives of people who just desire to live as they have chosen to?"

What beliefs are you talking about? Basta man!

I am asking for the science. Simple. There is none. I have stated that those who live a gay lifestyle should do whatever they want to do. I'm simply bothered by the claims of the science, there is none. I find it annoying that we are being asked to go along with the quackery in this day and age. There is no gay diagnosis. It's craziness.

Whether mankind has developed a way to impregnate a woman without intercourse is mute. That would mean that all of the gay people born before that process, who wanted kids had an imbalance and those after did not.

The FOCUS is on the biology and not the technology. You cant say I CANT engage with men but I CAN have kids unless you admit that something is wrong. If I lacked the orifice to have sex but internally had all of the mechanics to reproduce, we would say, something is wrong with me. If I had all of the tools internally and externally to reproduce but couldn't because I COULDN'T make myself do it because of believing I was BORN not to do what it takes to reproduce, but desperately wanted a child, we would say, something is wrong.

You are right B you just don't get me. You don't get IT. You keep straying off topic to make emotional pleas or jabs that have nothing to do with what I have said. I see this matter is an emotional one for you (another one). It's difficult to stay focused when you are passionate. You are all over the map. Lets just walk away.


El Bicho:

You have no idea what is going on. Bless you. You are just commenting randomly Luv. Do read this interaction a few years from now. Perhaps you will understand what was going on. Or take a critical thinking class, then read.

Jet:

What was that all about? Who gets grossed out about the word homosexual? Gay seems frivolous and all prancy to me. I would welcome the term homosexual.


Clavos:

"I know I am male because I am dense"???? :oD

Since no one has anything of substance to add to this discussion lets call it a day fellows. Perhaps Cindy D will do some research and come at me with some obscure insect that's gay. Until then, I think we are done boys. Back to the "bitter" discussion :o).

Zedd, you have a wonderful gift for making absolutely no sense at all, matched only by your inability to understand the words of others. If anyone should call it a day, it must surely be you.

Ruvy, you seem to want to challenge Zedd for her title. I have no idea what this means "Marriage is all about legitimizing sex and its intended fruit - children".

Why does sex need legitimizing and who says that the point of marriage is having children?

I have no idea what this means "Marriage is all about legitimizing sex and its intended fruit - children".

What can I say, Chris? Even though you appear to be over forty years of age, you seem to have little understanding of what marriage has been about for thousands of generations, understanding it only in its latest "we-marry-for-love-and-fuck-whenever-we-want" permutation.

All I can say is that you are young at heart - and brain....

OK, Zedd. For the sake of argument let's say for the moment that gayness has no scientific basis; let's even say that gays deliberately choose to be gay for some unknown reason, though why anyone would deliberately choose a lifestyle that makes them the target of hate and prejudice is beyond me.

Nonetheless, they want to be able to be married and have society recognize those marriages, and neither you nor anyone else has come up with a valid reason yet (under the Constitution) for why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Zedd,

I know, I am a foolish emotional pig. So, let's talk science.

What science do you have supporting your stance? None. It is only your supposition that being gay is either a conscious decision OR that it invariably means that something is wrong with them. AND, you apparently think the biology or evolution has a mind, a separate consciousness (and I'm not talking god here) which assigns or somehow directs things. Actually, with regard to the evolution of the species, it's all done on the fly, it's all being made up as we go. There is no prescribed direction.It's all based upon what works NOW. Again, you take it back to the plumbing. If you don't have the pipes, then you shouldn't turn on the water. Your stance that people "shouldn't" engage in sexual activity if their parts aren't biologicaly compatible implies that you have a belief system about it - whether it stems from religion, reading tea leaves or just one that is conjured up in your mind.

You are welcome to walk away from this if you choose, I kinda wish you would, but you keep coming back for more constantly claiming to be mis-stated and/or misunderstood, or that we miss your points. The fact is, you haven't made coherent sense from the very beginning of this comment thread. What your point IS, I haven't a clue.

B-tone

Baritone,

Now you stop that. You are not a foolish emotional pig. I realized after I posted that, that that (can I do 3 thats) was unnecessary to say. You are adorable and passionate. Passion is good. We need more but don't tell Ruvy that. Any more passion and he'd explode into a million pieces and cause yet another international incident in the Middle East. Also you are not mean spirited which makes you a pleasure to dialogue with.

I have human biology and evolution to support my stance. We have kitties and ding dongs. They fit like a puzzle. They serve a purpose. Romance serves the purpose of perpetuating the species. Can't do a lesson on reproduction and evolution, google.

It seems to me that you are the one who has a belief about relationships and a greater meaning about LOVE. For an atheist, you sure are sappy or superstitious. Love feels good and it works but it serves to keep us alive (we care for one another and seek to be cared for) and to make us reproduce. Marriage licences are an aside. They are just a ritual that we have made up in our modern society to substantiate the seriousness of our love to others. Perhaps we can come up with other ways to make those declarations.

Zedd you have come to the conclusion that homosexuals should not marry for whatever reason, and you are grasping at anything you can to make others agree with you.

As far as your arguments and reasoning go, thanks to our constitution, the counter arguments can best be summed up by saying SO WHAT?

Heterosexuals marry and choose not to have kids and I see no national urge to deny them marriage.

Being homosexual may mean you have a screw loose. SO WHAT?
Should we kill them off so they don't infect the good (hetero) gene pool?

As far as marriage being good for society, having offspring or not does not make marriage good. IMO marriage is about stability. Stability is good for society.

If wanting to have sex with members of either sex is a choice and not predetermined, then wanting offspring would also be a choice.

I really hate food that is good for me, but I eat it anyway. Is it out of line for someone to hate sex, but love children?

There are plenty of people out there that can have kids, but have no business raising them.

You are still avoiding the question regarding how you came to "choose" being heterosexual. You would have to tie me down or medicate me before I would engage in sexual acts with members of my same sex. But I will always get a hard on when looking at a naked female I find attractive, no matter how hard I choose to try not to.

Zedd, theres about as much science about being gay as there is about being left handed.

Over the years past it used to be a sign of evil possession for a child to be left-handed and they were punnished into using their right hand instead doing irreparable damage.

The fact that children are being taught not to trust science over the Bible is one of the reasons this world is in the mess its in.

I can force myself to have sex with a woman, but in the end I'll always be attracted to men.

I can force myself to write with my left hand, but in a moment of not thinking about it first I'll always reach for the pen with my right hand.

GAY IS NOT A LIFESTYLE
GAY IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CHOOSE anymore than being left handed or right handed.

Jet,

Thanks for jumping in. I was hoping someone who is directly concerned with this issue would have a go at this thread. I have no problem being an advocate, but since I'm not a member of the crew as it were, these arguments are less convincing coming from an outsider. And, no doubt, I've gotten some of it wrong.

B-tone

Look boys,

The hand analogy does not work.

A fitting analogy would be if you had hands that functioned and you felt like you were born to use your feet to write with. No matter what anyone said, you would insist that you were BORN to use your feet.

To take it further, you wanted gloves shaped like hands for your feet (the child part). Off course the response would be, but you have feet and you believe that you CANT use hands. Why would you want gloves. Gloves are for hands.

No prob. Thought I'd help. You are welcome.

...'kitties and ding dongs'....and all with such noble purpose

Zedd,

Many years ago I used to be a lobbyist in Minnesota. So here I am sitting in a legislative hearing (dog and pony show, for those in the business) listening to this state senator from Duluth talking about this bill on health insurance and discrimination that I was lobbying for.

I don't know what got him going on the subject, but he started in on what it was like to be a homosexual and how if he could be a heterosexual, he would much prefer it, but there was nothing he could do.

That was when I became convinced that whatever my feelings about homosexual relationships might be, this was a matter of biology. Every single person who has homosexual orientation that I've ever spoken to has said the same thing.

Are they ALL lying? Somehow, I do not think so. Perhaps a woman who has been so viciously sexually abused by men that she cannot stand to touch them anymore might choose to be a lesbian. I could see that.

But otherwise?

Why don't you take Jet as his word? This is something he understands better than you ever will, no matter how many courses in biology you've taken, and no matter how much you think you may know.

The problem with the term is the "sex" involved in it. It has connotations of that's the only thing we think about.

I'd have no problem with the term if it brought up the logic that the difference between us and straights is whom we sleep with. In otherwords gays are like anyone else but for that ONE difference. Then maybe they'd treat us like everyone else.

Why do we want to marry? So that we can have "NEXT OF KIN" rights of inheriting shared wealth, and hospital visits and stuff like that. Just as being a common law or Justice of the peace marriage being less than a church wedding

The problem with the right-wingers is that by them insisting that it's a "choice" then that puts us in the same catagory as devil worshipers, or people who chose to like suchi over a McDonald's filet o fish sandwich.

Oddly enough it's about the same percentage of left-handed people as it is for us faggots.

Now if we're talking behavior, I find myself prejudiced against swishy drag queens and "fairies" and that's not fair.

Why

Because the religious right has succeeded in lumping us all together as if we're all the same.

It's on the same par and just as unfair as hearing anyone with a southern accent, and automatically assuming that they all prefer/choose to marry their cousins, that their less intelligent than "normal" people and that they all eat grits and spit tobacco. Jeff Foxworthy makes a fortune exploiting that unfounded belief, and we all laugh because at one time or another we've actually thought it.

Zedd that's the most rediculous analagy(sic) I've ever read on this forum in a long time. It is exactly like the handedness example.

I hate people like you who if you disagree with something you dismiss it without a logical reason for doing so.

Zedd,

Do you think a public employer(say the City of Chicago) should be allowed to deny a job to someone because they are homosexual?

Druxx, a better example.
The U.S. Army is dismissing gay translators by the dozens because gays found a niche where they can serve their country without scaring the troops, who frankly could care less.

There are news stories all the time of how badly the military badly needs someone with a particular skill, only to dismiss them for something rediclous.

Why are people so afraid of "Homosexuals". Easy-with 99.9% of them you can't tell they're gay unless they tell you they are.

You fear what you don't understand, and it's even scarier when you can't sense the threat when it's standing in front of you.

...shit - but for the facts that it is an abominations and is responsible for such things as AIDS and Katrina and ultimately will cause the breakdown of civilization I have nothing against homosexuality...some of my best friends are gay

I just have to remember to whisper 'Get thee in front of me Satan' when around them

Druxx stop the drama.

Read my posts and figure it out.

I caused Katrina??? You'd think I'd have picked a male name, maybe she was a drag queen?

Ruvy, re your #92: that's a pretty bullshit response. Setting aside your meaningless statement about marriage, because marriage is different things to different people, it certainly hasn't been so for "thousands of generations".

Even going on a conservative estimate that a generation is only 20 years (though opinions vary all the way up to 100 years), that would be 20,000 years at a minimum, although as you said thousands of generations we could be talking anywhere up to millions of years ago, long before humans even formed stable societies, let alone the kind of cultural structures that would allow for marriage.

And, of course, the nature and meaning of marriage has changed many times over the years, as I would hoper you would be aware. Rather than trying to state definitively what marriage is, you really ought to limit yourself to what it is for you. Marriage can and should be what people want it to be.

I'd certainly rather be young at heart and mind if the only alternative is the calcified repetition of dogma you seem to prefer...

Zedd (way back on #52, sorry people):

First, for someone who wasn't sure about what I was referring to about the "sanity of the poster," you certainly had an awful lot to say about the subject. Thank you for proving my point, whatever it happened to be.

Second, your reference about the "dialectic model" only serves to trumpet your own lack of perspective. What does my recognizing the notion of exchanging arguments and counterarguments have to do with what I said? Ah, doesn't matter. It was a pretty odd point to make and only served to fill your post up with unrelated hodgepodge the likes of which I haven't seen in quite some time.

Third, perhaps as a Canadian I have a different perspective on this issue than you do. That's why my point lacks the realization of the weight of the "problem" as you see it. You consider homosexual marriage as an issue that will change the face of your time. I consider it an issue that would catch the world up on the relatively simple matter of human rights. As a Canadian, we've passed homosexual marriage without so much as a peep of public debate. There was very little national fanfare about the issue here and the broad majority of people agree that homosexual marriage should be legal and that's that. Surprisingly, our society hasn't crumbled for it and the institution of marriage is somehow remarkably still intact.

Fourth, as to what rights I'm speaking of, I gave you a few examples. Perhaps if you weren't so distracted by articulating your condescending tone ("Perk up, bud") you'd have noted what I was talking about and perhaps you would have actually addressed the rather lengthy alternative I issued as well. No matter, repetition is easy.

In the United States there are at least 1138 laws in which "marital status" is a factor. You can discover more about these laws by checking out "Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States" over on good ol' Wikipedia or you can head to the United States Government Accountability Office and ask for some documents. Either way works. Now when "marital status" is a factor in these laws, that means that marital status counts. You suggest that there are other ways for individuals to seek what these laws provide, which I suppose means you suggest that each same-sex couple heads out to various different places, files for various different laws, and spends enormous amounts of time and money to file for protection and application of these laws simply because they happen to be a same-sex couple. Does that seem like equality to you? A heterosexual couple can receive this legal protection without applying for anything other than one simple document: a marriage license.

These rights and laws include but are not limited to: Social Security pension of an ex- or deceased spouse, veteran's pensions, federal employee survivor benefits, public safety officer be