Gay Marriage -- FACTS ONLY





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Gay Marriage -- FACTS ONLY
By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit

I'm making this thread more for my benefit than anything else. I see no reason for legalizing gay marriage -- it just seems pointless. But, on the contrary, there are strong arguments against it.

Please nobody say that gays are discriminated against -- that's a ridiculous argument, considering they have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Not to mention you can argue that people attracted to parrots are also discriminated against.

Can someone give me FACTS that make a valid case for legalizing gay marriage?

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit

NOTE: I know gay marriage is legal in MA, but I want to hear arguments supporting gay marriage, and saying why it's the right thing to do (nationwide).

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Homosexuals are a recognized, protected sub-group of our society. Most people recognize that one cannot chose to be homosexual or heterosexual. Therefore, under current laws, a heterosexual has the right to marry someone of his/her choosing - that being someone of the opposite gender. Gays cannot marry the person (legal, rational, consenting, non-related adult)of their choosing.

I will compare your argument to the Loving v. Virginia case. Once, interracial marriage was illegal in 40 states. One could argue that any person still retained the right to marry - that person just had to be of the same race. Likewise, you are saying that people still have the right to marry, just someone of a different gender. Ultimately, both court decisions maintain that people should have the right to marry a person of their own choosing. Using your argument, we could ban interracial marriage again; we could also ban marriage between people of different ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic backgrounds.

To take it out of technical language and into more emotional language, many of the gay couples in MA who married had been together for decades. They cannot simply "marry one person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else." (Side note: "everybody else" includes 90% of the population.) It is apparent that they are choosing another rational, consenting, non-related adult to share their lives with, and often, to build a family with. It is utterly irrational to suggest that they simply "marry someone else" for the convenience of benefits. Would you want to marry someone who had no attraction to you, and in fact, would rather have married someone of his/her own gender? Probably not! If a couple has been together for 10 years (the average of those who wed on 18 May in MA), is it rational to suggest that they simply find someone else, of a different gender?

The rights and protections of a married couple are numerous, and very few of them really have anything to do with both people being of different genders. In an age in which many gays adopt, use artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or other means of having children, their families very much resemble heterosexual families. However, they do not have the same protections as heterosexual families - such as having both parents in the hospital if their adopted child is hurt, passing inheritances to each other without taxation, having partnership benefits from a company, getting social security benefits, you name it. These families then are being discriminated against, and facing problems because of, simply by being homosexual. I do think that, in about 30 or 40 years, most people will feel the same way about gay marriage as they do about interracial marriage.

My personal, non-factual, view is that this country will never suffer, only become stronger, by expanding rights enjoyed by a select population to the entire population. I think that we became stronger by allowing interracial marriage (and personally, I have benefitted from taht, as I've been able to date people of different races), by allowing women to vote, minorities to vote, eradicting Jim Crow laws - essentially, giving everyone access to the best that the country has to offer. Your argument against gay marriage can be applied to interracial marriage (the closest parallel), segregation ("they have the right to ride a bus, just in the back"), employees ("They can be promoted; they'll just have to endure harassment from their boss that isn't dealt to everyone") - essentially, anything: "You can have this right/privilege, you'll just have to do x," when x is something that one group of people are opposed to, and another group do not mind. (I use group in the "women/racial minorities/disabled/elderly/pregnant" sense: that of an easily definable group, that, by definition, would have separate issues.) Marrying someone of the opposite gender, hearing crude comments at work meetings, climbing stairs to get to an interview are all things which one group (heterosexuals, men, those of sound body) are able to do without much problem, while other groups (homosexuals, women, the disabled) will not be able to do. As I said though... I do think that our nation will become stronger by extending rights and privliges to all of its citizens rather than selectively excluding some.

By Scee3 (Scee3) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Yes, interracial and gay marriages are often paralleled, but one thing has to be satisfied in order for them to be: that being gay is something that you are born with, just as a person is born a certain race. And that's a controversial point: whether there is a "gay gene".

There is no proof for such a gene. Nothing has been found.
And, considering that homosexual's cannot reproduce naturally and pass on their genes (ie the "gay gene"), such a gene would have died out.
The whole concept of a gay gene is just an excuse, something to blame ("Oh, I can't help it, it's my DNA's fault").

So no, gay marriage cannot be compared like that to interracial marriage.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

here we go again...it would allow couples to unify their financial situations without spending thousands of dollars on lawyers to make contracts that stipulate who has/owns what.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Flawed reasoning.

One does not need a gene to be a certain way. The nature/nurture debate will live forever - and 'random variables' is a part of nurture.

A gay gene would not have died out. Prior to the late twentieth century, many of those people who were gay did marry and reproduce - not happily, but they did. Ergo, gay genes could have passed on. They could be recessive and pass on fairly easily; they could be common mutations and pass on. Cancer genes, weak heart, you name it genes get passed on - why not gay? There is the possibility that a combination of genes could trigger someone to be gay - ones that, by themselves, would not. Using your logic, why does infertility exist? Certainly, it should have been genetically eradicated! There is, simply put, no reason to assume that evolution has worked in such a way so that all evolutionarily undesirable genes have been wiped out as of now.

Finally, a study was conducted to see if gays could, through therapy, become straight. Only 1% were able to - which suggests that, overwhelmingly, people are naturally gay. Are you suggesting the absurd - that someone would choose to be gay? Most people describe the realization of not being straight as difficult, isolating, and anything but a choice. Suicide rates among gay teens are 2 to 6 times higher than among heterosexual teens. 26% of gay children have been kicked out of their homes. Choice - excuses and blame? Sorry, Scee.

A "gay gene" is a controversial point - as is an alcoholism gene, cancer gene (though some links have been found), a lazy gene, thin gene, an obese gene, or an intelligence gene. However, the choice to be gay is hardly controversial - it is innate.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Random question: I know I'm more conservative than most people on these boards? Why am I arguing the liberal side?

By Scee3 (Scee3) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

For the sake of argument.

You've got a point, but it remains that the gene has not been discovered. Therapy studies--I'm not so sure how valid stuff like that is; what kind of therapies were used?
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty, I say. No proof, no gene.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit

There's no point of arguining if homosexuality is genetic or not. There are a broad range of theories; if you're interested, read stuff by Edward Miller of the University of New Orleans, J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern, Richard Green of UCLA, or Gregory M. Cochran of the University of Utah.

There are gay people, and that's what matters. Now lets get back on topic.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:04 pm: Edit

The fact that the gene hasn't been discovered means nothing. Scientists cheer when they discover a gene for breast cancer - do you think that anyone is even seriously looking for a gay gene? There is an arsenal of science searching for genes which might determine immunity to AIDS, chances of getting a heart attack, or any other medical issue - and they are largely not successful yet. There are many things which cannot be proven or done for lack of sufficient technology, grant money for a study, scientists, engineers, you name it. Lack of a gay gene, which has hardly been searched for, means nothing.

Your logic simply requires us to wait until someone has the time, money, and resources to search out a gay gene - which could be years from now. Forgive me for being all logic-snobby, but are there similar arguments which are not dependent on our state of technology? An argument which could be legitimate now but (should said gene be found) be illegitimate 20 years from now is hardly a solid, rational point.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

Ariesathena, there are actually some animals who are gay -- that's proof enough (at least for me) that there's a gay gene. The idea that something as important as sexual preference can be easily modified by a persons environment is absurd.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Anyone else want to give me FACTS that make a valid case for legalizing gay marriage?

Ariesathena may have put up a good argument, but it didn't have enough facts to make me consider changing my position on this issue.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Goodchocolate (quite a redundancy, by the way! :) ) -

A few things. Many thanks for being rational and not letting this post degrade. :)

While I did say "nurture," I did not mean "modified by environment." Any combination of variables that do not have to do with genes (environment in the womb combined with diet, proteins, etc serve to activate a gene which is often dormant; it was raining on the day of conception; you name your chaotic variables, somehow they influenced who the person is) would suffice. Note that identical twins are hardly personality matches. There are far too many variables at work in shaping who we are to ever begin to quantify them.

I've made most of my points - I do believe that you should read Goodridge v Health and Justice Marshall's opinion. From a legal standpoint, they say that in order to exclude a group (gays) from a right or privilege (marriage), you must have a strong rational basis (termed rational-basis-plus) for denying rights to them which are accorded to others. The five justices said that the defense did not present a rational basis for the exclusion, so it would not stand. Whether or not one believes rational basis to be a valid analytical tool, whether it applied in Goodridge, and whether it should have been used the other way (the "there is no rational basis to give gays these rights") is a matter of opinion.

Again, thank you for being logical and mature about this. :)

By Kluge (Kluge) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 12:59 am: Edit

Here you go: Without gay marriage, you can't have gay divorce. I'm a lawyer, and I don't do family law, because it's messy, ugly, and unpleasant. Having said that, I have a lot of admiration for the family law lawyers and judges who have to deal with people when they're, uh, not at their best. The system has been developed over many years to address the problems that arise when people who were in love, and living together, and sharing their income and assets, stop doing all of those things - and a lot of the time, start wanting to hurt each other any way they can. Family court is as a good a system for dealing with a bad situation as we have been able to develop. (And trust me, the elaborate contracts drawn up for some homosexual couples in lieu of a simple marriage ceremony do not actually solve the problem.)

So why should marriage, and hence divorce, be limited to heterosexuals?

And while I'm at it, I'm a fan of marriage when it's working well, too. I think that the acceptance, ratification and reinforcement of the idea of two adults making that big contract - the one that is sealed with the words "I do" - is a good thing - for the people involved, for their families (up and down the line) and for the community and society as a whole.

Again - why deny all of us the benefits of this excellent social invention when the couple is homosexual?

People seem to think that marriage is a "benefit" to the two people involved. That's true (usually), but it's also a benefit to society, and a benefit to others who may find themselves in a situation where they need to rely on marriages **responsibilities** - like the one that says you have to provide for your spouse.

All told, I think that marriage has been a good thing for people. And I can't for the life of me see any rational argument at all for why anyone is better off by requiring that one of the people involved be a man, and the other a woman.

By Nutriamorada (Nutriamorada) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit

equal rights, such as being able to adopt.
it seems pretty straightforward.
seriously, I can't see why someone would argue against it.

"I see no reason for legalizing gay marriage -- it just seems pointless."

tell that to the gay people who can't marry each other.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:10 am: Edit

quote" However, they do not have the same protections as heterosexual families - such as having both parents in the hospital if their adopted child is hurt, passing inheritances to each other without taxation, having partnership benefits from a company, getting social security benefits, you name it."

THESE "rights" were designed for a marriage between a man and a woman when a man "worked" and a woman was fully "dependent". Non-working moms/wives needed legal protection to ensure they were given access to the benefits of the spousal relationship and family. The legal arrangement of marriage protected a fully dependent spouse- who had no means of providing her own support.

Gay couples, who both work, do not need these protections. period. Frankly, most modern couples do not need them either, what with the advent of the two income earner family. But, marriage, as a legal institution persists, not becuase of need, but because of a romantic notion. If gay couples wish to "unify" in a romantic manner, plenty of churches will give them a spiritual unity. As for passing on inheritance, or parenting rights, etc... those issues are EASILY addressed through OTHER means of legal documention... no problem.

Thus, specific "Marriage" is not neccesary.

As for the right to a gay partner's Social security or other government "entitlements", I am not sure anyone in modern society deserves these rights any longer--- UNLESS said partner is a non-woking dependent partner.

I have no problem with gay persons, or legal arrangments to protect domestic partnerships... I think thats all fine and well! =) But, I DO believe "marriage" is a sacred institution between man and woman according to natural law. It deserves *special recognition and priviledge*. And, that is not a crime... it is a joy to acknowledge it.

Hmm, flame me.

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:15 am: Edit

"Please nobody say that gays are discriminated against -- that's a ridiculous argument, considering they have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else."

All I can say to that is WTF? What good does it do for gay people to be able to marry people of the opposite sex? That is the most retarded thing I have ever seen. While I don't see why the importance of calling it marriage or not is such a big issue on either side (I can sort of see the emotional and symbolic importance for gay people of calling it marriage, but why is it devaluing the sacred bond between a man and a woman any more than the exploits of Britney Spears and J. Lo? Regardless of the name most people will call it marriage because really who gets civil unionized or whatever you would have to call it?), you can't argue that gay couples should be denied the rights of their straight counterparts (especially if you see homosexuality as something you are born with). I love it when people criticize gay people for being promiscuous but then turn around and prevent them from settling down and getting married. What all these people are afraid of is that by doing this that more gay people will realize that is OK to be themselves and come out of the closet because they will have hope of a more normal life than they could ever have expected before. I think that there is no way anyone can argue against gay marriage/civil unions unless they come up with something better than what they have now. The point is that giving gay people the right to marry (or civil unionify or whatever) hurts no one and it makes a lot of people happy.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:24 am: Edit

I hate this topic. WHY DOES EVERYONE KEEP CALLING THIS A "RIGHT" TO MARRY? Take a law class, its not a civil right! Period. the end. This is not about equal rights, it is about demanding special priviledge where no need for privildge exists. The legal institution of marriage is a *priviledge*-- the state grants a LICENSE to marry. They do not have to grant a LICENSE to anyone if they don't wish to. They don't have to give you a driver's license, a hunting license, or even a dog license if you are not fit to have such. Again, these are *priviledges*... (They don't grant Licenses to first cousins, or siblings or inanimate objects). NO one has the "right" to marry the person of thier choosing. You have the RIGHT to *apply* for a license, and if deemed fit, you may get one... or NOT. Obviously, most of us do.

Now, in the interest of fairness: ANYONE can have a marriage *ceremony*, civil or religious... ANYONE. And that's cool. Anyone can have a legal arragment with protections.. and thats cool too. No prob. But, as for the specific legal arragement of "marriage": again, a privildege, not a right. And that is the case for ALL of us.

NO discrimination here!!!



BTW: to another poster:
**Infertility is not usually genetic. It can be age, stress, disease... etc. Bad example to cite.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit

ps: iI am all for civil unions... domestic partnerships... and ANY legal arrangements. 100% Also, I am for religious ceremonies if you find the right Church...

But, I am set against the privildedge of specific and actual "marriage" being exetnded to gay couples.

By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:32 am: Edit

Just curious what is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Because if it is just a name, then both sides are being really semantic. (Can one be semantic? Who cares.) I mean if I were a gay person I would just be all like screw it I want my rights you could call them whatever the hell you want I don't care I'll worry about the symbolic stuff later.

By Gidget (Gidget) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 09:12 am: Edit

I think we are missing the main point, Yes you have the right to apply for a licencese and be deemed fit to marry. The point is should they be denied becaue they are gay. I have many gay freinds ( I work in theatre) and I have seen gay couples that love and care for each other more than some straight married/single couples I know. They love each other, thats the way it is and why should they be denied the opportunity to be joined together financially and in love by a ceremony to show their loved ones how commited they are to each other.

By Jdm2004 (Jdm2004) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 09:48 am: Edit

Smhop- You use the analogy of other licenses but if in fact gay people or any other minority were denied a driver's license because they were gay it would be discrimination and would be illegal.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 10:48 am: Edit

I found it humorous that at Harvard there was a big banner on the church (Church Street) calling for people to support marriage equality...yeah they don't have an agenda...(although, meh, don't care about their politics, still great school I'm going to apply to).

This, like abortion, is something I prefer not to get into. States rights, let them decide. Notice I said STATES rights, not 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rights when the mayor of SanFran leagalized it (didn't the whole state) against the wishes of the people (according to a previous law). The radical court upheld it of course, althoug I just thought it was terrible how blatantly they went against the whim of the people.

However, if the people choose to allow it (ie. in a law), then I would have no problem with it. This was just an instance that got me a bit upset.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit

People in this country get married for all sorts of reasons
To make their offspring "legal",
for publicity,
for financial "security",
for "love",
to make their parents happy,
to make their parents unhappy
to share insurance & other benefits,
because their religion dictates they marry,
so they don't have to look for a date on New Year's Eve.

We are a country of choice right? Land of opportunity?
Why should we limit the opportunity of making the person you love a member of your family to a section of society?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

-- the courts in this country are getting way to "powerful" IMO. Interpretting existing law should not preclude going against the will of the people, SF was a fiasco.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:49 am: Edit

Using that rationale, Brown v Board would never have happened; Plessy would have stood. Ditto for Loving v Virginia and countless other landmark civil rights cases. It is not the job of the courts to interpret public opinion; in fact, judges are often elected for life to preclude that from happening.

By Philntex (Philntex) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Bravo, Aries. I was just about to post that.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit

SMhop, I'm sorry, but your post displays a tremendous degree of naivete. True "equality" - particularly economic equality - between the two people in a marriage (or gay couple) is extraordinarily rare. It's far more common that one person makes more money, and the other takes on more domestic responsibilities - and that's true with many gay couples, too. The laws which were enacted to protect the weaker member of the union are still very much needed. And there's no less need for that legal protection when a gay couple splits up than when a marriage dissolves. It's for the benefit of society as a whole not to let the economically dominant member of a couple abandon his or her mate, keep all the assets, and waltz off into the sunset. Who do you think will end up supporting the previously economically supported "spouse" if that happens?

My take on marriage comes from a completely different perspective than yours. For your religious "sacred institution" you can make any rules you want - I'm not going to force your church to recognize gay marriage (or interracial marriage, for that matter, if you're against it.) But as a matter of **law**, marriage should be designed for the good of the society as a whole. And it's a terrific social invention, which I think should be available to anyone who's willing to make that deal with another person. Because we are all better off if they do it.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit

"no less need for that legal protection when a gay couple splits up than when a marriage dissolves. It's for the benefit of society as a whole not to let the economically dominant member of a couple abandon his or her mate, keep all the assets, and waltz off into the sunset.


Obviously, there is that need... I agree. In fact, I said exactly that myself, go re-read my post!!! = )

As for the martital asset protection which you brought up-- it is so easily addressed by proper legal documentation of the relationship (civil union, or whatnot).

BUT: I do NOT think two *working* adults have any right to one another's social security or other gov't benefits... this is where the issue of the dependent spouse comes in... a dependent wife DOES need her hubbie's soc sec check or health insurance or etc... but a working spouse DOES NOT. Yet, this is half the issue... gay folks are demanding rights to thier partner's Soc sec entitlements etc... Sheesh, I am not even sure that in modern day society with two working spouses that husband or wife should get the other's social security.. it is no longer neccesary with two income earner families. SO why extend it out when we should be fazing it out?

As for churches, plenty will recognize a gay relationship... no issue there... this is commonplace.

You and I do not disagree that protection is needed... we just disagree that 'marriage' is the only answer. Its not.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Sheesh, I am not even sure that in modern day society with two working spouses that husband or wife should get the other's social security.. it is no longer neccesary with two income earner families. SO why extend it out when we should be fazing it out?

So should we mandate two worker families?
What about spouses who make significantly less than their sig other because of time out to care for children or the glass ceiling?

By Justperfect (Justperfect) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit

GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

The title of this thread is Gay Marriage -- FACTS ONLY. Opinions have nothing to do with what's right and wrong, and that's the entire point of this thread, so please, PLEASE just post facts!

By Digmedia (Digmedia) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Ariesathena - you were meant for law school. Best of luck. Based on all this, I think you'll do just fine.

-digi (aka Bob)

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

My biggest problem with this is that religion is playing such a huge role in this issue. Religion really ought to stay out as much as possible, but I think it's creeping into politics lately.

Secondly, this may seem overly simplistic but it what way is anyone or anything harmed by allowing gay marriage? I don't see how there is any harm, so why do you care?

My last thought is that at a minimum the Constitution shouldn't be desecrated with something that abolishes gay marriage -- if it is unbelievably controversial (which I don't think it is b/c of the harm issue) then why not just leave it to the states?

By Kluge (Kluge) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit

>>>>>THESE "rights" were designed for a marriage between a man and a woman when a man "worked" and a woman was fully "dependent". Non-working moms/wives needed legal protection to ensure they were given access to the benefits of the spousal relationship and family. The legal arrangement of marriage protected a fully dependent spouse- who had no means of providing her own support.

Gay couples, who both work, do not need these protections. period. Frankly, most modern couples do not need them either, what with the advent of the two income earner family.<<<<<

That's what you said, and that's what I read. Look - my wife is a capable, smart, educated, hard working adult. But over the past 18 years she has earned less than 20% of what I have - because **we** agreed that she would work less while our children were (are) growing up, which gave her a bulletproof glass ceiling. Neither of us have any regrets, because as a team it has worked for our entire family. So, my wife is a "working spouse", but if you divide us up economically - well, "her" social security benefit is tiny. "Her" savings are small. And I think our situation is pretty common.

It really seems to come down to your belief that government should give money to heterosexuals, and not to homosexuals who are in the same situation. Why?

Justperfect - I hate to break it to you, but God created Steve, too. And He made Steve gay.

By Digmedia (Digmedia) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit

goodchocolate - not quite sure what you mean by "facts only." When you say that there are strong arguments against gay marriage, what facts would support those arguments?

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Thank you, Digmedia (aka Bob).

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit

If I am not mistaken, allowing spouses to get a portion of the social security check has several benefits to society.

Kluge gave a good example of one with he and his wife; she is not economically compensated for her contribution to the household, so SS doesn't take that into account. However, with her (or anyone in that situation), a part of the spouse's SS check can go to the person who lives longer. Generally, women outlive men and are outearned by men, so it makes complete sense to give women an adequate income upon retirement, but that is beside the point. A gay couple with unequal incomes, especially where one takes time off for child-rearing, should be entitled to the same protections as a straight couple which does the same thing, given that the same sacrifices are made and the same benefit to society exists. It then makes sense that the government would want to facilitate that contribution to child-rearing in the same manner as it does for straight couples.

That brings me to another point. When people marry, regardless of gender, they are, in part, pledging to take care of the other. The government facilitates that by giving Social Security benefits to the survivor, allowing assets to transfer, allowing them to hold assets in both their names (homes, cars, bank accounts) quite easily, and, in terms of companies, allowing one spouse the retirement benefits of the other. In short, the government is no longer responsible for taking care of those two people: they are. I do believe that it is a good thing for our society, as we have fewer people who would be poor or without a home in their elder years or dependent upon the government. That social aim can be (and, IMO, should be) accomplished regardless of the gender of the people involved.

Smhop: If I'm not mistaken, you posted on another thread about how you think that mothers should spend more time with their children. If they, as you state here, should not be entitled to their husband's retirement benefits, how on earth do you propose to deal with these women once they reach old age, are widowed (roughly 4 out of 5 people in their 70s are women), and cannot support themselves?

By Magoo (Magoo) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Ariesathena...you are very good at proving a point...no one needs to wish you luck at law school, you have what it takes. :)

just curious...goodchocolate: has your opinion changed at all by these wonderful arguments; has it...solidified?...weakened?...still the same?

By Kluge (Kluge) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

ariesathena - I wish could have said it as well. Let me second Magoo and Dig's kudos.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

I have been a non-working mom for 4 1/2 years. I have been a dependent wife for many years more than that. For the person who posted about his wife making 20% of his income; she too, is a dependent spouse. I do not believe we need to extend this gov benefit to those who do not fall under the defination of dependency.
Gay couples are generally not dependent upon one another to the extent that wives (historically) are upon thier husbands-- yes, I am stereotyping... but I imagine it holds true for most gay couples. Double income, no kids... etc.

Anyway, this is a digression from the main subject. I brought it up bc gov enetitlements and other fringe benefits of marriage are often cited as 'valid reasons' to allow gay marriage-- and I am trying to say that IMO, it is not a solid enough reason.

I also brought up other commonly given reasons, and refuted them as well. Many confuse the marriage ceremony with the civil marriage/license. They are disctinct and separate. You can one, the other, or both. Most hetero couples have both. The word MARRIAGE denotes having had both the civil and the ceremonial.

Gay couples can have the ceremonial, no one prevents this. They can even have the religious ceremonial if they wish. No one debates these issues. The question remains as to whether they should be allowed to have the civil/license... part.

Many arguments are produced as to why Gay couples should have the civil/license... as stated above, one such argument is the 'need' to garner the partners entitlements... (see above) Now, as for other reasons commonly cited, they are (as I have stated) quite easily dealt with through alternate legal means other than the legal institution (civil license of) marriage.

SO the last argument that can possibly be presented For/pro gay marriage is the is the "well, why not, argument?" It is a weak argument at best, for it begs the question. And, furthermore, it can be answered with many reasons why not... so maybe we should start a thread of "why not" .

But, this thread deals with "why be in suport of" and I have done my best to point out the flaws in some of the more common "why yes" arguments.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

QUOTE: "Can someone give me FACTS that make a valid case for legalizing gay marriage?"

I don't think we are giving you opinions.. we are giving you "facts" (or reasons, in any event) and then merely debating whe validity of said reasons.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit

I am still curious as to the reasons why not, and I don't think anyone would object to using this thread.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Lastly, quote: "Brown v Board would never have happened; Plessy would have stood. Ditto for Loving v Virginia and countless other landmark civil rights cases."

Marriage is not a *civil right* for anyone... its a privildege... a licensed priviledge. I though that had been established here. You got to stick to the facts, not twist 'em up as you see fit to make an argument.

A great book, which I wish I could recall the name of, but it slips my mind....... anywho, a book was recently published about the power of the courts in recent history.. how they have gone from interpretting standing law, to pratically creating new law... dangerous ground. If I can recall what it is, I will post it. Its a must read.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 12:20 am: Edit

A few things: GoodChocolate started this thread, and, out of respect for the purposes of it, would anyone mind moving the (quite vibrant) debate over to another thread, while allowing this one to remain for its original purpose?

GoodChocolate: could you clarify what you are looking for?

Kluge, Dig, Magoo - my quite humble thanks. As a native Bostonian, I've heard many of the arguments, going both ways.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

Marriage is not a *civil right* for anyone... its a privildege... a licensed priviledge. I though that had been established here. You got to stick to the facts, not twist 'em up as you see fit to make an argument.


I must have missed where it was established marriage is a privilege. Could you explain to me why hetero people regardless of intent can marry but homosexuals cannot? How is this privilege earned?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:46 am: Edit

These are states rights: to issue licenses for limited freedoms. It has *nothing* to due with the fed gov system.

Therefore marriage (a limited and licensed freedom) is a priviledge offered by the state to individuals to marry... or not. States have denied licenses to people, not just gay people, but other people as well. For example: some states require a blood test to determine if you are "eligible" and "approvable" for a marriage license... A state can deny the license. To answer you ques: ***This is why it is deemed a Privildge, not a Right.***

Marriage IS NOT a federally guaranteed civil right in our constitution or federal law etc... that is why it is not a federal issue... See?

This is basic law/government... !


BTW: Other issues which are states rights: drivers license, hunting license, age of consent to marry!, whether or not marijuanna, prostitution, or gambling is legal... Etc.Etc. These are not federal gauranteed "rights". They are priviledges offered by the states, and different states have different rules/laws. Therefore: different states will have different rules concerning marriage eligibility.

Now, the courts, when challenged in a given state, may say it is "unconstitutional" to deny marriage license on grounds of being gay.. but that is determined in that state according to TO THAT STATE AND ITS CONSTITUTION and its laws defining marriage.

But, the courts do not make the law, they only interpret it... thus, a law can be passed in future legislature further defining marriage in that state. That could change the status of whether or not gays are allowed to marry in that state in the future... and could negate any marriages already performed.

It gets stickerier to: there is the question of whether one state has to acknowledge a 'marriage' performed in another state. IE: just bc Nevada has legal prositution does not mean Maryland has to let one ply that trade... Even if one is a nevda native, Maryland will deny you that right to be a prostitute-- you may have had that right as a NV citizen, but you no longer have it as a MD citizen. Same with marriage: some states feel they have to recognize a marriage outside the state, others do not.

Until such time as a federal defination is applied, this is a state issue.

So, you see, this question is A LOT bigger than just "should we allow gays to marry"....

Anywho, this is pretty basic background on how the american civil system is set up... you should know this stuff. How can one be a knowledgable debater of any subject if you haven't even the basic understanding of our laws and legal sytem, or the set-up of our gov?

NOT knocking you, nothing personal.. just.. it struck me as such an odd question "how is this a privildge?" I mean, its obviously a priviledge... its obviously not a "Civil Right".




Maybe we should remove the word "gay" from the question and debate on what the age of consentual sex or consent to marry should be.. you would have the ALL the SAME issues as gay marriage... (legal/moral/etc) But no one has an agenda on that. Yet.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Smhop:

Actually, you're wrong.

I checked my Black's Law Dictionary for the legal definitions of both "civil right" and "privilege." The former encompasses rights and privileges granted under the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments.

So, let's check out the 14th Amendment.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Black's def. of privilege includes rights and certain legal privileges which are extended to people of certain groups, i.e. attorney-client, physician-patient, spousal immunity.

So, we can see that privileges are included among our civil rights (by being a subset of the 14th Amendment). The 14th and a similar law under the MA state constitution were used to justify the Massachusetts decision (as we also have an Equal Protection Clause in our laws; Vermont does not and can therefore have the separate civil union system).

It is inaccurate to describe marriage as a privilege similar to a driver's license. A definite right cannot be taken away by the government, once granted; the government requires someone to act in a certain manner to retain a privilege. One only needs to be of a certain age and in sound mind in order to marry; once granted, it cannot be taken away by the government. The individuals can choose to end it, and the courts do facilitate it, but the right to marry remains. Also, even after a divorce, both parties retain their right to marry. A driver's license, on the other hand, requires not only one to be of a certain age, in sound mind, but also to adhere to a myriad of rules, pass two tests (written for a permit; road for driving) and may be revoked by the state when abused. Voting, which is clearly a civil right, requires only one to be of a certain age and to register; we also acknowledge that the government cannot remove that right once it has been granted (i.e. when one turns 18) except in the case of incarceration. Funny though - even in jail, one can marry, which would seem to make marriage more of a fundamental right than voting.

Finally, about "activist judges" and all... I thought (and anyone, Kluge might know more about this than I, can correct me) that our common law system requires the courts to not only interpret laws and statues (as they apply to a certain case) but to also advance the law through that interpretation. A civil law system, on the other hand, is much closer to what Smhop describes - but the US and 49 of the states are exclusively common law. Am I confused, or have judges been helping to make (or void) law by interpreting the Constitution since Marbury v Madison?

By Smhop (Smhop) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit

You are hysterical-- talk about miscontruing what you read. "States cannot revoke privelidege of US citizens" ... and this has what to do with the subject at hand? Basically, that paragraph says the states cannot revoke federal laws and protections. Again, nothing to do with marriages/licenses/limited freedoms.

I am absolutely laughing. You are a riot.

Kid, you need a law class. For real.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:13 pm: Edit

I notice that the US federal government is giving asylum to immigrants who are persecuted in their own countries for being homosexual/
the freedom to marry just seems a natural continuation of civil rights that should be available to all.
http://www.hrc.org/

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit

...and you just need class.

By Conker (Conker) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Smhop is just playing with semantics. Marriage is the legal recognition of the bond between two persons. And if it's a privilege and not a right, then so be it. But why should some people be more privileged then others, especially when we can help it?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Therein lies the rub. Marbury v. Madison (circa 1804?) was a rather controversial case where the Supreme Court decided that it had the authority to not only interpret the constitution but to also mold and shape it as it saw fit. This new found power, however, was never exercised again until another brilliant Supreme Court decision decided around 1857 or so that black people were not really people at all, and that congress didn't have the constitutional authority to prohibit slavery. And the Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review has remained controversial ever since.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

P.S. In discussing "why not", the first gay couple married by the State of Massachusetts comes to mind. After being solemnly joined together forever in a state of wedded bliss, they announced that they didn't believe in monogamy, that they intended to continue have "outside" relationships with others, and that they didn't necessarily believe in "forever". Sounds like grounds for annulment, to me.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
You are going to stereotype all gay marriages with this -- plus it isn't any of our business. I'm actually astounded.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

...though the average length of a pre-marriage relationship of those wedded on 18 May is 10 years. That is more committment than you'll see out of many straight couples.

Conker: as I pointed out, "civil rights," by definition, include privileges. I'm with you.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 03:21 pm: Edit

"Smhop is just playing with semantics. Marriage is the legal recognition of the bond between two persons."

Herein lies the rub, actually. The state (federal and state gov't) ought to stay out of marriage, entirely. The state should sanction civil unions, with all legal benefits entailed, for all couples, and leave churches to deal with "marriage." The two should be separated. The state shouldn't be in the business of sanctifying anything.

AriesAthena has outlined some wonderful stuff in earlier posts, so I won't belabor this.

Two guys/gals getting married doesn't hurt anyone in the least. Sounds like the pursuit of happiness to me.

For any idiot who claims that marriage is about procreation, I'd ask whether they'd like to ban marriage between the elderly or between infertile couples.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

It is no secret that gay men are prone to promiscuity in the extreme. Why do you think their expected life span is so short? And don't try to tell me I'm prejudiced. I'm talking well known facts here. And yes, I'm one of those idiots who thinks marriage should be primarily about procreation. The institution was originally developed to protect women and children, seeing as how men don't quite have the same attraction to monogamy and stability. Notice how in our society, with no-fault divorce and marriages falling apart right and left, we're becoming a society of largely single mother households. I know, this isn't true in all cases. I'm just pointing out general trends. No, two guys/gals getting married doesn't hurt any other individuals directly (except for the children they bring in to the relationship), but it will further hurt society and marriage as an institution. Yes, I understand you know lots of children raised by gay or lesbian couples and they turned out just fine. But they don't always realize what they missed out on, not having both a mother and a father. I'm just saying, everything else being equal, it's better for children to have a mother and a father, rather than one or the other, or two of one or the other.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Their promiscuity or lack thereof doesn't matter. Also, you really aren't supporting any of your well know "facts" at all besides stating them. I hope I am not the only one offended by that first comment by the way -- I know of a gay couple that has been together for 20+ years and your stereotypes are unbelievably unfair. And you are prejudiced by the way; there really is no way around that. But it shouldn't even matter -- it simply should not even be considered in making the decision because NO ONE IS HURT by it.

Also you didn't say why gay marriage would hurt society. Probably because it doesn't.

Really it is hopeless in dealing with reactionaries like Chavi though. That's the reason this country cannot progress like it should. And just so you know that last post will probably discredit just about everything you've said before about anything.

By Meth5400 (Meth5400) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:30 pm: Edit

I think gay couples should be afforded legal and economic protections under civil unions not "marriage" However, someone brought up the topic of adoption and two men/women bringing up a child. Do you think that it was simply an oversight that the Lord did not grant two males or two females the capacity to have children?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Religion should not be considered at all in this to answer your question.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

The raising of children by groups of women to the exclusion of men has been commonplace throughout history. While I think it's generally preferable for a child to have a mother and a father, I'd say two Moms or two Dads is better that one of either. So whether "the Lord" or Darwin is responsible, either way I have a hard time figuring out how gay marriage will, on the whole, be bad for kids.

What I'm even more stumped by, though, is the casual assertion - invariable stated without explanation - that gay marriage will somehow "hurt" marriage between men and women. Why? I'm not gay. It's not like I'm going to dump my wife to marry some guy. Gay people getting married doesn't threaten my marriage. (I always thought that the "Defense of Marriage Act" should be something which outlawed Spandex and silicone, not gay marriage.) So if you think that "hurting the institution of marriage" is a reason for outlawing gay marriage, please explain why that is.

Honest, I'm sincerely baffled by that one.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Psycholgical tests have proven that children with two different gendered parents grow up healthier and more well adjusted. This is becuase the parents fill different roles in the development of the child. The commonly cited example is of a child on a playground, Mom is there saying "be careful honey" and dad is there saying "go, go, you can do it!" This is not conjecture, it is established studied fact: Gender differences are valid, and obvious, and these differences help support various aspects of the developing child, creating a balanced being. OBVIOUSLY, there will be exceptions. But the definition of exception is that they are not the norm... and therefore no reasonable argument should be based on exceptions, ever!

Which brings me to the use of stereotypes in arguing. It is only the foolish who say "dont give me your stereotypes". For stereotypes are significant in that they DO represent the norm, the average, and the commonplace. We are better to make our decisions and discernments based upon what is common, and never based upon what is uncommon/exception/unusual or even rare.

Gay men are promiscous. A sereotype, yes. A valid one, yes. But we have to make our determinations on *likely* outcomes, and not on the *exceptions*. Be gay, no problem. Be promiscous, no problem. Be monogamous if you are the exception to the rule, no problem. I could care less what goes on between people's sheets. But, marry? Sorry, that is where I draw the line.


Most Americans are against gay marriage. Fact. The courts may push it through anyway... is it for the good of society?... in my opinion, NO. To substantiate that opinion, I offer all the previous posts I have made.

For the user who accused chavi of not supporting her facts: Facts, by their very nature, never need "support". The only thing she can do is document them, which is hardly neccesary in a chat forum. It is only opinions that need to be "supported", backed up, or substantiated. FACT is fact, and it stands alone. Any agument based on fact has greater validity than an argument based upon opinion, period. The art of persuasion, as some of you may learn in a writing class, is to substatiate opinion and/or provide facts to back up your beliefs. Chavi has not failed in this, many others here have.


I have presented many facts here- and also given many substantiated opinions. The repsonses I get are mostly unsubstantiated oppposite opinion. I am willing to listen to anyone who can present valid reasons FOR gay marriage, but as this entire thread has shown... there really aren't any good reasons... and as for the few reasons that were cited, they are too easily refuted. A weak reason for doing something is as good as no reason at all.

LETS turn the tables and argue the other way for a moment: Why deny a certain group special privildege??? There are many groups who get various special priviledge that others do not get. Why cannot a man and a woman have a special privildge, in this case that of marriage ? Maybe we should look at it this way-- everyone has the "right" to civil union. Gays and heteros, alike. But, only heteros have the privildge of marriage. OR, for example: Everyone has the "right' to municipal parking. But, only handicapped have the privildege of close spaces. It does not hurt the able-bodied to grant the priv to handicapped folks. It does not hurt the gays to grant the priv of 'marriage' to straight cpls. If we all have the right to park or the right to legal protection in our relationships, then we are all being treated equally and w/o discrimination! Marriage is just gravy. CLose parking spaces are just gravy. LICENSED GRAVY.

By Jeffman85 (Jeffman85) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Some people on this post deeply worry me. In twenty years, I have no doubt that these discussions will not exist because we will realize how incredibly ignorant we all were to deny gay couples from getting married. Mark my word, this will become a silly blurp in our history and our children will be outraged at the way we treated homosexuals. I'm 18 years old and I have faith that my generation will make this situation right. Our parents sure did screw us over and we have a whole hell of a lot of stuff to fix in the world. This should be the least of our worries...and we should not dabble over others lives but rather treat all people equally. Can you not see that?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:39 pm: Edit

My thoughts exactly Jeffman85. I still just cannot believe some of the things Smhop says. I sincerely didn't believe anyone actually thought like that.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Which brings me to the use of stereotypes in arguing. It is only the foolish who say "dont give me your stereotypes". For stereotypes are significant in that they DO represent the norm, the average, and the commonplace.

give_me_a_break!!!

if this were true i would be violent, eating watermelon, and illiterate...that thought process is exactly the kind which will become archiac and somewhat vulgar a few decades from now...i can see it now an episode of VH1 i love the early 2000's how so many people were opposed to allowing gays to get married...

im just curious, would you rather have a gay lovinf couple raise a child or allow a child to live foster home to foster home or with a single parent...what is the difference

and please i would love to see that study.

By August (August) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:04 pm: Edit

Chavi: "The institution was originally developed to protect women and children, seeing as how men don't quite have the same attraction to monogamy and stability."

Are you kidding me? Heterosexual marriage has both benefits and drawbacks for both sexes. Yes, women benefit by having a man who will stay around and raise their children. Men ALSO benefit significantly by forcing women to be monogamous so that the men don't invest resources in children that might not even be theirs biologically! People of both sexes gain from the monogamy and stability of their partners.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Eloquent reasoning, Smhop.

Kluge -

The primary purpose of marriage has been and should remain that of creating an optimum environment for the raising of children. That is good for society. Children are our future, no? Marriage between a man and a woman is by far the more optimum environment for child rearing. Marriage as an institution has already been hard hit by the skyrocketing divorce rate, let's not cause further damage by extending it to folks who can't procreate (at least not in the natural way) and shouldn't be adopting children (other than maybe special needs kids where a heterosexual home cannot be found). Further, given the previously discussed tendency to promiscuity among gay men, that would make a bit of a mockery of the institution. Sorry, but I'm old fashioned in believing that marriage is a committment not just to be in love for the moment, but to perform the action of loving another person exclusively for life, and to be open to raising children together and be committed to those children. I should hope it is self-evident that this is good for society. This is at least the standard we should set. Face it, gay couples don't have the same cement that binds heterosexual couples. Unfortunately, hetero couples lately haven't been very cemented, either. But that can and must be corrected. The raising of children together makes a big difference in giving a married couple a focus in life above and beyond themselves. If gays want to live with and love each other, the government should have no say in that. But gays have no business demanding the right to marry for the purpose of gaining greater acceptance of their lifestyle from others. They can make out wills, health care surrogate designations, powers of attorney, etc. to accomplish whatever legal relationships they need. But seeing as how child rearing in this country has been screwed up enough already by the extremes of feminism, I don't think we can afford any more social experiments.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:27 pm: Edit

But seeing as how child rearing in this country has been screwed up enough already by the extremes of feminism, I don't think we can afford any more social experiments...

how so...

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

August - I'm simply saying that men have a greater tendency to promiscuity than women. Without marriage, men would pretty much go from one woman to another, having kids with them but not really supporting any of them, except on occasion. Kind of like what is going on in parts of our culture now. Yes, the women would probably have kids by different guys, but only because none of them hang around for long. But the woman is the one stuck with the primary responsibility for the raising of the children. And this can be extremely difficult for one person to do a decent job. Therefore, MARRIAGE! A legal obligation on the part of the man to take at least financial care of the woman and the children. Yes, I believe there are benefits for the man, but cut me a break, it usually takes some convincing for him to realize that.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit

You can call yourself old fashion and everyone else can call you reactionary.
Why should this so-called promiscuity punish all gay men? I find the argument repulsive to be honest.
Your idea about marriage being about raising children begs this question -- does that mean people who don't want to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

By Magoo (Magoo) on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit

also what about those who cannot have children as dictitated by NATURE (those who are sterile) and what about those who are mentally disabled, what about them too...this is kinda moving to the eugenics argument...they aren't fit to raise kids they can't marry...give me a break.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit

"if this were true i would be violent, eating watermelon, and illiterate..."

That is no longer a current stereotype-- it, in fact, is a far-dated and wholly inacurate stereotype. A stereotype would be the "typical"... and that description you provided is typical of no one. You know that.

Now, as for the "concept of stereotyping" , I do not know why or when in history the word "stereotype" came to have such negative conontations: probably when the stereotypes themselves evolved, and the Archie Bunkers continued using the dated and unfortunately negative/inacurate concepts to typify someone... thus giving the "concept" of stereotyping itself a bad name.

We can, as reasonable thinking people, acknowledge that there is a norm for certain groups. A stereotype. Granted, true stereotypes are an oversimplification of the norm, but it is the norm nonetheless...

Now, drunken irishmen, crooked italians, tight-fisted jews, etc are all horribly negative, & horrible untrue. But, the very fact that they are untrue means they cannot fit the actual defination of the word sterotype. (They are not the norm by any means). Unfortunately, sometimes historically inacurate descriptions such as these some-how lead to mistaken stereotypes, and this perpetuates a negative cycle. All of that is bad, certainly. BUT: when used *responsibly* and *correctly*, stereotyping is a valid reasoning tool.

Therefore, please do not use historical inaccuracies to plead that the *concept* of a "stereotypical norm" is invalid in statistics or logical reasoning. Again, provided we use valid, based in numbers, true stereotypes, they are an excellent tool for determination. Ask any social-psychologist.

"In twenty years... these discussions will not exist.. we will realize how incredibly ignorant we all were.. our children will be outraged"

Doubtful. The largest population increases are occuring within the Catholic Hispanic and Latino communities. It is far more likely that within two generations we will have become not merely a re-christianized nation, but also a largely Catholic one... and many of current "social progressions" will be overturned or overlooked.

I am not saying this is good, or bad. I am merely saying it is likely so. Interesting to note, that many immigrating Sub-continent Asian Indians are also christian, though I believe they are more socially liberal than the Hispanic Catholics. As the baby-boomers begin to die out, their progeny will be outnumbered and the path of liberalization will have peaked, and begin to check itself.

Just food for thought.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

When you use the "marriage is for procreation," and try to bar gays from marrying, you are ignoring several realities. Reality is that we do not require people to declare their intent to raise children in a marriage before granting them a license. Couples who fail to produce children are not asked to separate; see my previous post about the state not recalling the right to marry. Infertile couples may marry; elderly couples who are clearly beyond procreation may marry. Gay couples (and single people) are legally allowed to adopt: they raise children regardless of marriage. Why bar them exclusively?

Regarding gay men and promiscuity: Um, what? The median time which gay couples who wed on the 18th of May in MA had been together is 10 years. I'm sorry, but that is more pre-marital committment than you'll see out of almost any straight couple. Furthermore, if we do presume (erroneously) that gay men are promiscuous, why would we not want to encourage them to settle down via marriage? Also, if women are so gung-ho about settling down, by your logic (i.e. only those who demonstrate committment should marry), a lesbian couple would be quite committed, and should marry. So, should we use the standard of non-promiscuity according to stereotypes to chose who should marry? If we do that, then we should naturally include lesbian couples (but not gay men), which is clearly some form of sex discrimination. If we allow marriage based on the social programming aim (encouraging men to settle down/giving their partners means to that end), then we should allow gay men to marry, in order to encourage them to settle down as a couple, but not do the same for lesbian women. Celebrities are notorious for having multiple marriages, each of which ends after a short time. Should we not allow celebrities to marry?

If we are going to argue that marriage should be limited to those groups which stereotypically are not promiscuous, why allow all straight marriages? We could certainly do much to preserve marriage by eliminating second marriages, celebrity nuptials, those who are not virgins, those who have not been a couple for a long time, or any other sort of nonsense that one could come up with.

When you follow your arguments to their logical ends, it is quite clear how illogical they are.

On parenting:
I'll take myself as a data point. I consider myself to be quite well-adjusted, as do most people who know me. I was raised by my dad from age two until he married my stepmom (during middle school). One loving parent of any gender, in my experience, is far better than two less caring parents. Anecdotally, I know a young girl who is being raised by two moms. Her uncle also has a very strong role in her life: he picks her up from an after-school programme nearly all the time. Of all the kids I taught in that programme, she is far and away the happiest, sanest, sweetest, and well-adjusted child. Truly an incredible kid. I spent this past weekend with a few kids whose mom passed away three years ago. Their father is devoted to them, and it shows. The kids are doing fine. I am using these examples to stress a common theme of parental involvement, caring, and dedication as the most important elements in a child's well-being. Number and gender of parents is secondary to the desire to be a good mom or a good dad in terms of benefit to children.

While a psychological study may have revealed the aforementioned result, it is most likely quite a flawed result. Children who have one parent usually arrive that way for one of two reasons: divorce or death, and both are quite traumatic. The devestation on ones emotional well-being from having a parent die at an early age are quite clear, I should hope. The trauma of divorce is not in the act, but entirely in how the parents treat each other afterwards. Many parents use the children as bargaining tools, say nasty things about the other parent to them, limit visitation, argue with the other in front of the child, blackmail or bribe the child to against the other parent... and the sad list continues. Of course the average child who has to living parents and does not have to deal with that mess will be more well-adjusted than kids who have lost a parent or who are caught in the crossfire of parental fighting. Why exclusively state that the result is because of having a parent of each gender? Why not say that it is because the kid has two parents to encourage him or two parents to help support him? For that matter, it could be the economic effect of two working parents, the effect of having slightly older parents (as young parents divorce more frequently) who may be more stable in their lives, or the effect of being twice as likely to have a parent who the kid agrees with? To even remotely suggest that such results are solely due to the presence of opposite-gendered parents is absurd. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics - and the stat mentioned in Smhop's post is a prime example.

It is certainly clear that gay and lesbian couples who adopt children clearly want them, which is different from straight couples, many of whom conceive by accident. Why is the often-by-accident conception and childrearing model so preferable to the gay paradigm, in which they actively seek out children?

One could just as easily argue that straight parents, through their lack of family planning, high rate of unplanned pregnancy, high rate of marital infidelity (40-50% of men have cheated; I believe it's approximately 30% of women), and high divorce rate, should not be permitted to marry. Straight couples have made a mess out of marriage; gay couples would like to marry for the conservative, old-fashioned reasons of familial stability, child-rearing, and devotion to their partner. This is in addition to the state's reasons for encouraging marriage as a means to shift care from the government to another person. So why allow all straight people the exclusive civil right of marriage and deny it to gays, save for pure homophobia?

Jeffman: Yes! Forty years from now, people will regard the gay marriage debate exactly as we look at interracial marriage - something that should be permitted in a free society.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:03 am: Edit

Actually, the stereotype of illiterate was quite true among blacks, as they often were not permitted to be educated (or were not educated as they had no need for it). That stereotype was quite valid years ago - would you have supported it then? Do you also understand that the stereotypes you are using may not be valid years from now? Why should stereotypes be used in the manner you suggest when many of them are so ephemeral?

Where are the studies and statistics to show that gay men are more promiscuous?

Stereotyping can be a valid reasoning tool, sure. Using stereotypes to perpetuate discrimination and deny basic civil rights, on the other hand, is just sick.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:15 am: Edit

Ariesathena....STOLE THE WORDS FROM MY MOUTH...OMG YOU ARE AMAZING!!! :)

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

Once again, pls do not call marriage a civil right. We have discussed that. Its not.

Two, as for those who keep saying gay men are not more promiscous than straight people.. you are citing certain gay "couples" have been together an avg of 10 years. Get what you said: you said gay COUPLES. Sure, those who actually become a couple may stay togther-- but the point you are missing is that most do not ever establish long-term couple-hood in the first place.

*****In any event, I do NOT... I REPEAT DO NOT... believe that the promiscuity argument is a good one. I think *all persons* can be/are promiscous, particularly males (but perhaps only because history has provided more acceptable opportunity for males, with women being so dependent).

****My posts have merely said I believe it is largely true (that gay men are promiscous)... but frankly,fact or not, I don't give a hoot about it. I personally feel that saying 'gay persons should not marry bc they are promiscous' is a weak, weak argument. !

My reasons against the legitimization of gay marriage are social, legal, and otherwise. A logical deduction of fact. As Ariesathena said in a much earlier post "Whether or not one believes rational basis to be a valid analytical tool, whether it applied in Goodridge, and whether it should have been used the other way (the "there is no rational basis to give gays these rights") is a matter of opinion"

So, In my opinion: Why extend this privildge uneccesarily? Gays have the same "right" to civil union as any American... but marriage, at least semantically, is different. There is no need, only demand, for it.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:29 am: Edit

Finally, It does not hurt the gays to grant the priv of 'marriage' to straight cpls.

Um... in this reality, no. No two ways about it.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:44 am: Edit

"" Why should stereotypes be used in the manner you suggest when many of them are so ephemeral? ""

Because we need something for "rational basis" as you put it. And provided a stereotype is currently true and valid... provided it is not dishonest, misleading, or falsely negative, provided it is based in current historic social fact, what better yardstick to use when determining an opinion or making a logical conclusion? Statistics are likewise ephemeral, but they are used in this context all the time.

But, I think you conceeded that point-- that stereotypes and statistical norms can be valid reasoning tools. Don't you think all the college admissions officers, for example, use them? Middle class white surburban kid, book smart, street stupid, educated parents, money in bank. Yeah, lets let him/her in. WHY? Bc Stereotypically, that type will do well. AH! Yes, stereotypes are used all the time. Its only the perspectively negative ones that scare us. AND, so, we should committ to being careful with them, yes? Valuable tools, albeit dangerous ones. =)

NOW more importantly than that tangent is this: I DID NOT write to justify the use of sterotyping promiscuity as a means of denying this particular priviledge. You are mixing up my peas and carrots! =)

*I wrote a post defending the concept and the validity of stereotypes, in general.
*Then I added that the one cited happens to be accurate.
***But, I never, never said that I believed it to be a good "rational basis" in THIS CASE. It is not. It is not a good enough reason, or enough of a reason, in this matter. I am sure you will agree.

However, no matter,about the promiscuity or whomever brought it up in the first place. There are many other solid , more logical "rational basis" to deny priviledge in this case.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:55 am: Edit

Actually, we have discussed it but you seem to ignore reality... it is a civil right in every place in the US save your own opinion. Check out Blacks, which I listed before, and Goodridge, parts of which are below for your reading pleasure.

Noting that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,' " the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry a person of one's choice..." ~Justice Margaret Marshall

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/18/synopsis_of_sjc_decision_on_gay_marriage/

Gays do not have the right to civil unions, save in Vermont. Legally, as I stated earlier, Vermont can have a 'separate but equal' provision under its state laws which many other states cannot have due to the presence (or lack, in VT) of an equal protections clause. Regardless, 48 states do not permit any sort of legal acknowledgement of the committment of gay couples. Saying that "Gays have the same "right" to civil union as any American..." is irrelevant to reality at best and deceitful at worst.

Finally, please state sources for your "facts." Gay men have no more tendency towards promiscuous behaviour than straight men.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

Except for the promiscuity bs, which we've got through I guess, there still has not really been a reason for why not. Maybe I missed it -- a simple summary would be nice.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:06 am: Edit

You know, if you checked out an OED before posting, most of what you say wouldn't be written.

Stereotype:
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

or...

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Main Entry: 2stereotype
Function: noun
: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : an often oversimplified or biased mental picture held to characterize the typical individual of a group


Your conception of gays is based entirely upon stereotypes - oversimplified being the key term to note.

One would hardly term your hypothetical admissions officers' conception of a child's academic abilities and drive, based on prior record of that child's academic achievement, as a stereotype. A stereotype would more correctly be applied to someone who believes that the child of a physician is academically successful. There is a vast difference between that and seeing the grades of each individual and judging their academic success based upon that. Likewise, characterizing a gay person is the terms which you do is not legitimate; characterizing a chronic cheater as promiscuous and unlikely to settle down is quite different. Generally, using a bias to broadly condemn individuals based solely on their membership in a group (especially when they have little choice to belong to that group) is wrong; characterizing an individual by his own actions is rational.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:07 am: Edit

Goodchocolate what do you make of these arguments.
have you reached any conclusions... are you farther off now then you were before (in agree with gay marriage).

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit

You are so ready for argument that you do not read well. You said: "Gay men have no more tendency towards promiscuous behaviour than straight men." I just posted that all persons are promiscous... and etc... which I will not go through again, read the post.

And "long been termed a civil right'...

"long been termed"... is not the same as "IS" a civil right.

And as for "marry the person of your choosing"... until the courts define "marry", this is open-ended.

IE: if marry is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman: Then no person can "marry" the other sex. You can do many things with them, but this verb "marry" could not be done. Now, if "marry" is defined as "a legal union between two persons" than a man (can commit this verb'marry') with another man.

WOW, that is a very difficult concept for me to put across in text at this hour. If it is not clear... I apologize. But, basically, until we have a set federal (or individual states) defination of what "to marry" is defined by--- this act is open to interpretation.

Thats law, tricky, sticky, and full of lovely little BS loopholes =)

By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:19 am: Edit

Why dont we deny an ethnicity the right to marry or all people who are sterile and unable to procreate ?

If it gay marriage is legalized nobody is going to force you to be gay.

Smhop
"Gay couples, who both work, do not need these protections. period. Frankly, most modern couples do not need them either, what with the advent of the two income earner family. But, marriage, as a legal institution persists, not becuase of need, but because of a romantic notion"

If nobody needs them everyone or no one should have them.


but if gay people are given all their rights there shouldnt have to be all these gay parades, keep what you do at your home in your home.

By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:21 am: Edit

Since religious beliefs and civil rights came up, what ever happened to this old idea of separation of church and state

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Smhop:

First you mocked me when I said that marriage was a civil right. After I quoted a prominent state Supreme Court justice, you use sematic b.s. to wiggle your way out of admitting that you are a) wrong and b) owe me an apology. The b.s. is your own creation, one certainly not the intention of Margaret Marshall's eloquent reasoning.

In case you need reminding, that opinion in which Justice Marshall termed marriage a "civil right" was the one in which she defined marriage as not being exclusive to a man and a woman. Hence, her terming it a civil right is entirely legitimate in that circumstance. You are arguing (which you can, but not correctly), that marriage is only a civil right in the context of its definition; one could argue that voting is a civil right, but only in the context that whites or men or property owners can "do" it. We can use your same logic to say that the act of "voting" is defined as a white male property owner casting a ballot for representation. It's still a civil right, despite (the former) denial to other groups based on discrimination. Your argument is absurd.

Marshall's reasoning, if you read her opinion, was to say that
1. Marriage is a civil right. She evoked past precendent ("long been termed") as the courts frequently do in order to justify that statement
2. That civil right (here, marriage) is effectively being denied if it does not include other properties (here, the ability to marry the person of one's choosing)

It does not say that marriage could be a civil right, that it might be, that the justices woke up in the morning and decided over coffee that it would be. It has long been termed one, which, for the court, makes it one in the context of Goodridge. Just as voting is a civil right which is useless if one may not vote for the person of one's choosing (think Iraqi elections during SH's reign), the civil right of marriage is effectively being denied to people when they cannot marry the person of their choosing. Goodridge extends civil rights to gays in an entirely rational and legitimate manner. The fact that you disagree with it does not make it irrational nor illegitimate.

You just don't get it. You said earlier that I twist what I read - then you indulge yourself in semetic b.s. with no grounding on reality and invoke the subtleies of the law.

You are now trying to use that "difficult concept" to rationalize the fact that you do not want to believe that marriage is a civil right, because you don't want to follow that to its logical conclusion. It's called cognitive dissonance: holding two contradictory ideas in your head, simultaneously, without realizing the contradiction. In your case, you are doing everything in your power to avoid recognizing that you want to enshrine discrimination and homophobia in our laws, namely, by saying that it is not discimination nor denial of basic civil rights but a logical use of stereotypes or a twisted definition of a civil right aimed at excluding those who, under Equal Protection Clauses, should have access to it.

You spent quite some time telling us how gay men are, as a fact, quite promiscuous. Two, as for those who keep saying gay men are not more promiscous than straight people.. you are citing certain gay "couples" have been together an avg of 10 years. Get what you said: you said gay COUPLES. Sure, those who actually become a couple may stay togther-- but the point you are missing is that most do not ever establish long-term couple-hood in the first place.

Gay men are promiscous. A sereotype, yes. A valid one, yes. But we have to make our determinations on *likely* outcomes, and not on the *exceptions*. Be gay, no problem. Be promiscous, no problem. Be monogamous if you are the exception to the rule, no problem.

The implication that manogamous gays are the "exception to the rule" while presenting no such hestitations about straight people effectively, by omission, shows that you believe gay men to be more promiscuous than straight men. Only after a rebuttal did you begin to reverse yourself.

Well, you did say that gay men are promiscuous; only when confronted with your homophobia did you even begin to back down. Eventually, you finally got it enough to tuck your tail between your legs and hide, pretending that you never used it as an argument.

I am not the one with difficulties in reading and reasoning - that would be you. There is the concept of being educated beyond one's intelligence, and you are prime example.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 12:25 pm: Edit

For anyone interested in FACTS, this is an excellent analysis of the effects of gay marriage in Scandinavia: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=2

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

For anyone interested in reading about the owner of the WeeklyStandard
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/fallows.htm

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:34 pm: Edit

I don't know... Gays getting married and having children(adopted) just doesn't seem natural.

But then there are people out there that argue that two gay people have the right to marry each other if they truly love each other. But think about it this way. Recently on the news a 23year old teacher had sex with a 14 year old boy. If both of them say they love each other, is it okay for them to marry each other then because they "we don't have the right to interfere with other people's love affairs"?? I'm quoting that because many people in support of Gay Marriage always uses that same phrase to back themselves.

--Supporters of Gay-Marriage, please answer my question.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit

A pedophile is not the same as a homosexual.
Where did you get that idea?
Not only did the teacher abuse his role of authority, it would be equally inappropriate for a college professor or high school teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student, but this teachers preyed on someone who was a minor
Children cannot make adult decisions ( like when to have a sexual relationship,) people in a dominating role, like a counselor or a priest also abuse their position when they have an emotional &/or sexual relationship with someone they come in contact with through their position, even if they are an adult

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit

I'm with Emerald.

There is a vast difference between consenting, rational, sound-minded adults and children or those in relationships where someone is dominant.

Professional ethics forbids physicians to date their patients, psychiatrists to make passes at their patients, professors to hit on their students, and bosses to pressure their subordinates for dates. The example you give of a 14-year-old and an older teacher is different from gay marriage for many reasons. The 14-year-old, as Emerald pointed out, is not an adult. The marriage age is there for a reason; it does not exclude anyone permenently, but imposes a delay so that one may prudently wed. There is the issue of power, where professional ethics forbid the person in power from abusing it to get a date. While the two might enjoy each other's company now, it most likely will not continue (welcome to the world of dating) - and the subordinate person lacks the authority and position to break off the relationship. Hell, he does not have the standing in the relationship to ensure that what occurs is satisfactory to him; the person in a position of power has all of the power in the relationship.

That is vastly different from gay couples, who, like most straight couples, are equal partners in the marriage, sane, and of age to wed.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:15 pm: Edit

AT:

Arguing subtleties of the law is what lawyers do--if you are the person going to law school, you will either get that, or you will be one of the large margin who drops out. =(

Further, you are still mixing up my peas and carrots, dear. A and B do not equal C... A is A. You take one post of mine, add it to another, and then make assumptions. Wrongful assumptions. I have been very clear, and never contradictory. IN fact, All I have done is add more info to clarify when you did not understand, or misconstrued an earlier post... yet you still do not see clearly. I suspect you are doing it on purpose,,, but whatever floats your boat, hon.

Anyway, I have grown tired of this-- you're too young, and too concerned with hype and feeling to consider anything factual. Oh, and for the one point you keep depserately trying to make: I am sorry, but the state court juctice is/was/always will be wrong, and further, SHE has no jusridiction beyond the scope of her home court... That subset is meaningless in the big picture.

Note this too: Most Americans are opposed to gay "marriage". Yet, most Americans are currently for domestic partnership or even civil union. Most Americans are not homophobic, btw. Most Americans feel the term 'marriage' should be reserved as what it has been throughout the history of mankind-- It implies something intrinsic to most, and people do not want this word redefined. These statistics and many, many more are available on google. And, I am part of the majority... you, on the other hand, are a loud, sqealing minority-- fight all you want. What does it get you?

Btw, Arieathena, should I apologize to you? Why, I was going to Thank You for being so incredibly entertaining, my dear.


thanks. =)

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Hey! Now don't get offended or anything, but this is to add some much needed levity to this thread:


I want to get married, actually, three of us do. Its me, another girl, and a guy. We want a threeway marriage. Here are the reasons we should get one:

If we have or adopt kids, we want to be legally equal parents... allowed to take part in all aspects of childrearing

If one of us dies or is diabled, we want to be sure the other two partners are taken care of.
We want to be sure that each partner has health ins, and access to gov benefits. And, equitable estate division.

Even though most people consider 3way sex uncommon and a bit risky, we are the excpetion and very much in love...

We deserve the same rights to marry whom we choose, and we happen to choose this group.

There's a 3way/bi gene, and we cannot help it, so do not discriminate against us.


If we "split up" we need the protection of marriage so that we can have a fair and equitable divorce.

Can anyone give me a reason we should NOT be allowed to marry? Seriously, why not?! Anyone??

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Divorce. What if the girl wants to divorce you but not the other guy? What if they both want to divorce you but stay together?

To be serious (hell, I'm an engineer, can't help it), polygamy rarely, if ever, involves more than two people who are all going into the marriage as equals. It is usually a man who wants multiple wives, and the current wives have little or no say in the matter. It is not a case of three people all marrying each other: Bob and Ann marry, Ann and Cindy marry, Cindy and Bob marry. It would be that Ann and Bob are married, then Bob decides that he wants another wife, so he marries Cindy. Ann has no say in this.

With the reality of polygamy, it's obvious why the government would not want to endorse it. Monogamy allows both Ann and Bob to retain power in the marriage. Now, for your hypothetical, well, why not? If people out there are really gung-ho about meeting two of their "better thirds," then let them stand up, be counted, and assert their rights.

Awfully quiet while you wait for that to happen!

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 02:41 pm: Edit

"better thirds' OMG! that was really clever of you! Funny =)

Anyway, I am not talking about traditional polygamy where Bob has two wives.. and thus, two marriages.

I am talking about one marriage between three parties equitably and eaually, I see no reason why one or more could not get a divorce... if the law was in place.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

As a practical thing, it would be tough for Ann to divorce Cindy (sorry to use the ABC names again) but remain married to Bob - as Bob would also be married to Cindy. Legally, it could happen, but I don't know how they would all work it out. Do Ann and Bob live together then? Do Cindy and Bob live together, but Bob visits Ann? Who gets the kids? The Ann-Bob couple or the Bob-Cindy couple?

By Appliedmath (Appliedmath) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Pretty soon people will try to marry pets, this has gotten too far. Understand that you can only strech the boundaries to a certain limit. I want to marry my laptop, can I get a certificate for it? If i don't i'll sue the government for violating my rights. THINK ABOUT IT YOU GUYS AND
GALS, THERES A CUT OFF POINT, OUR BUREACRACY CANT STAND YOUR TRASH.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Appliedmath, I agree.
It has gone too far, hasnt it?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Emeraldkitty4, did I miss something? Was that article supposed to trash Rupert Murdoch or something? Does it have any bearing on the veracity of the article I referred to in The Nation? Or were you just trying to be helpful?

By Kluge (Kluge) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

A. - I assume the 23 year old teacher who was having sex with a 14 year old boy referred to by Thunder77 was the recent story about an adult WOMAN teacher having sex with her teenaged male student. Notwithstanding that fact, I'm opposed to outlawing heterosexual marriage.

B. - The distinction between two adults involved in a relationship and one adult and one child, three or more adults, adults and non-humans, etc. is clear. People who drag this red herring into the discussion have exposed their desperation.

C. - SMHop - Ariesathena may be younger than you, but she's wiser and more honest in her arguments. The only basis for your argument that marriage is not a right but a "privilege" is your repeated assertion of that position. Ariesathena has taken the trouble to research actual legal precedent, and thinking about the question. In response, you've been condescending and rude ("Take a law class!") I've taken lots of law classes, and while I'm not ready to sign on to an unconditional position either way, Ariesathena is using legitimate arguments in support of her position. You're just using volume and repetition.

D. Chavi - I read the Weekly Standard article. Long on factual claims (generally lacking citation to sources) but none which actually support the basic thesis, that gay marriage somehow undemines heterosexual marriage. This statement is as close as the article comes:

"This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with."

That's an argument built with slippery "logic" based on extremely tenuous assumptions (which I find unpersuasive), and no "facts."

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Was that article supposed to trash Rupert Murdoch or something? Does it have any bearing on the veracity of the article I referred to in The Nation? Or were you just trying to be helpful?

I think that the media in this country is incredibly slanted, and getting worse all the time. Citizens need to be aware of the motivation behind what they read. Even our local city papers are full of errors. once you are involved with something that makes its way into the paper whether it be political or not, you will be dismayed to see just how much the media gets wrong, and even when every single word is technically correct , how careful editing can slant the event or interview to be unrecognizable.
We need to be aware of where we get our information and get it from a variety of sources.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Kluge, so you mean to say she is wiser in her 'argument'? Her sole argument being that marriage is a civil right- and then a bunch of opinion about how wrong I am.

I have presented numerous "pro" gay marriage arguments here, and then nicely refuted them.

As for the goofy, weak ones... promiscuity, etc.. I don't believe in those any more than you do, nor was I the person to bring them up. I just think all facets deserve equal debate. I think I have been pretty clear.

As for volume and repetition, I have not repeated myself except to the extent that was needed to clarify, when I was misunderstood or taken out of context. And, lastly, for the rudeness: 1) I find this whole thread rather comical so take it with a grain of salt 2) I did not begin with the personal attacks, that was someone else. But, someone ought not cite laws if they cannot understand what they read, nor possess the background to put it into context. Law is largely semantics, thats why its so darn fun. =)

Anyway-- the OP asked for good reasons PRO gay marriage. What he/she has rec'd is many reasons against (some flawed, some not) and many opinions for...

I any event, this issue may come to a head this fall; it will be interesting to see how it plays out: the will of the people, or the power of the courts or ???

Though this is a heavily debated matter; I do not feel it is an overly important one. Death panalty, abortion, physician assisted suicide, the over-prescibing of drugs in this country, etc; those are matters of some seriousness. Gay marriage... eh... Frankly, I don't see it as ever becoming a reality... but this is a chat forum, its hardly the place to take others too seriously.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Fine, maybe my example of the teacher-student scandal was a bad example

But what about this, what if an adult and a minor fell in love with each other and wanted to get married.How can you deny that they both aren't in love with each other? Teenagers have girlsfriends/boyfriends, so it is naturally that they will have feelings to find a partner of the opposite sex. Should we then allow an adult and a minor to be together and have a sexual relationship and legalize that? Should we let them marry? In fact, I think this will be much more natural than Gay-Marriage because the teenager is only a minor in our society, but in reality he/she is an adult because he/she is capable of producing children. So should we legalize marriage between a teenager and an adult?

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

smhop
since you are a mother I have a ? for you from one mother to another.
What if one of your children was gay and wanted to be married to their sig other?

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit

So should we legalize marriage between a teenager and an adult?

Uh, no.
Recent research has shown that the decision making part of the brain does not fully mature till early twenties, children cannot make fully informed decisons.
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=news-in-rev/teen-frontal

Now in some circumstances two people may find themselves attracted to one another even though one is an adult and one is not, in this case the adult will have to be the mature party and give the younger time to reach maturity and make their own decision about later involvement.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:33 pm: Edit

You are really reaching Thunder77. Really reaching.

So you're saying that TWO legal adults getting married is equivalent somehow to ONE legal adult marrying a minor.

If you ask me, I would say that you have some sort of problem with gay relationships to begin with based on your "natural" comment and you're just looking for some sort of justification.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Thunder77 - a minor can't legally buy a car. Minors can't enter into legally binding contracts. They can't vote. They can't legally buy cigarettes or alcohol. We protect minors from their own lack of good judgment in lots of ways. Interestingly enough, though, a minor can marry an adult of the opposite sex, as long as his or her parents consent. So the 14 year old could have married his teacher....

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 08:36 pm: Edit

kludge.. is that really true? ?

Fine, my example is bad. How about incest marriages between brothers and sisters? Since their children will be genetically defected, they can Adopt children like gay couples. Should incest marriages be allowed? Again, the two love each other and "it is not up to you to decide how their love should be." How are you going to argue against that? If Gay-Marriage is acceptable, then I don't see why Incest Marriage isn't as long as the children are adopted and the couple earnestly love each other.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit

People are born predisposed to their sexuality, although environment can inhibit or enhance the "natural" tendencies, everyone is on a spectrum with Strict homosexuality at one end and heterosexuality at other, but most fall somewhere inbetween.

We are not born with the genes that will make us attracted to our father, our brother, our sister, but we are destined to be more attracted to men or women or both. In our society, the physical relationship between close relations, between humans and animals, or between adults and children, is against both our spoken and unspoken laws.
The comparision of a man who always has been attracted to other males, who finds as an adult his life partner in another adult male, cannot be compared to someone who was born attracted to the opposite sex but for whatever reason, persists in having a physical relationship with a sibling.Healthy adults do not have sexual relationships with close relatives.

By Jeffman85 (Jeffman85) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit

This is a sad sad sad day when I must read this crap coming from the minds of so many people. I commend those of you on this post who have stood up and attempted to put some compassion and intellect into the minds of a few of the ignorant and stubborn people in this post. I am a gay man and am deeply unsettled about the way so many people choose to express themselves. Honestly, you all sound silly when you try to make up arguments against gay marriage. I have not doubt in my mind that gays will be allowed to marry within the next few years, so I won't bother wasting my energy on you. There is no way this country will outlaw gay marriage--and if it ever did, I would be too ashamed to live here. I just wish we were at the point where we didn't have to argue about this anymore. This shouldn't even be up for discussion--it should be clear to allow equal rights to every person. I WILL get married one day and I WILL have children. And my children will be accepting and understanding and WILL NOT ignorantly go around speaking to a topic they know NOTHING about. I cannot WAIT to be a father. I will be the BEST father in the world! You cannot argue that.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit

I have not doubt in my mind that gays will be allowed to marry within the next few years

I doubt it will ever be a constitutional ammendment, so states like Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming will probably never legalize it.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

So reactionary.

By Efilsiertaeht (Efilsiertaeht) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 03:45 am: Edit

www.hrc.com <-human rights commission. take a look, it's a very interesting site.

By Techieguy (Techieguy) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 04:48 am: Edit

I have one question: for those of you who are not gay, why are you helping homosexuals out? As an analog, why would someone White help someone who was Hispanic gain Hispanic rights?

I support Gay Marriage BTW.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 09:29 am: Edit

I have one question: for those of you who are not gay, why are you helping homosexuals out? As an analog, why would someone White help someone who was Hispanic gain Hispanic rights?

Would the civil rights movement have happened without blacks & whites working together?
Would women's rights mean anything if women were the only ones who gave it lip service?
Rights for GLBT citizens benefit everyone

By Gidget (Gidget) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 09:37 am: Edit

I am actually disapointed that young people on this board, the same age as me could be so close minded and say things like this. I was nieve to think our world had changed with this generation.

So far people have compared gay marriage to incest to statutory rape ( the adult and child) and to pets marrying. I don't know if you are trying to be funny but it's just sad.

Gay Marriage should be allowed, I have no doubt in my mind. They love each other, they are equals and adults who can make decisions and can enter into a life long bond together. They have the same feelings as everyone else, they feel pain and joy and just want to be happy. I think that denying them the same rights as other couples is no better than the Segregation of the past. We are not two sets of people with diffrent rights, we are all the same, skin colour, religion and sexual orrientation. Just because it is against the law doesn't mean it should be , the law is not always right. In Canada, my ancestors, Native Americans, did not have the right to vote until 1961. Was that right? , no , it was prejudice, as this is.

Jeffman, I wish you all the luck in the world to fight against the ignorace of others in this matter and wish you a happy marriage when it happens and it will.

Techie guy- to awnser you question I just want to say that I feel that someone white should help someone hispanic gain hispanice rights because they are open minded enough to see an injustice and try to right it. - If someone white had no rights, would they want help from those who did?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit

Emeraldkitty, we could really launch into a long discussion on media bias, but that would be a whole 'nother thread. You still haven't answered my question. What in your article on Rupert Murdoch cast any aspersions on the veracity of The Nation article I referred to?

One other point I want to make, I don't believe "Gay" people are always born gay. I think that the more our culture has accepted and even celebrated "gayness", the more otherwise heterosexual people have experimented with gayness. It is the "in" thing now in high schools, at least for the girls, to make out with each other just to see if they might be gay. I also firmly believe that a lot of kids (no, not necessarily all) become involved in homosexual relationships largely due to unresolved issues from their childhood. I'm saying this from personal observations of people I know well. I know this can be debated all day, even among mental health professionals, but just felt it needed to be pointed out since so many on this thread keep saying that gays are born gay and have no choice in the matter. I firmly believe many (but not all) do have a choice, and it is a choice often made from weakness in their psyche and encouragement from the culture at large. The more we legitimize gayness in our society, the more often such behavior will occur. I'm not advocating in any way hateful behavior towards gays, just pointing out that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to a larger percentage of people acting out that lifestyle. I don't think this is good for society (AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, even lower birthrate, increased promiscuity, more messed up families, etc.), although I'm sure those who have no problem with hedonistic behavior will find it perfectly acceptable.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 10:33 am: Edit

Chavi
My point since I need to spell it out is that we need to be aware of the bias behind the articles that we read, how much more clear can I get?


Was that article supposed to trash Rupert Murdoch or something? Does it have any bearing on the veracity of the article I referred to in The Nation? Or were you just trying to be helpful?

I think that the media in this country is incredibly slanted, and getting worse all the time. Citizens need to be aware of the motivation behind what they read. Even our local city papers are full of errors. once you are involved with something that makes its way into the paper whether it be political or not, you will be dismayed to see just how much the media gets wrong, and even when every single word is technically correct , how careful editing can slant the event or interview to be unrecognizable.
We need to be aware of where we get our information and get it from a variety of sources



additionally I don't think anyone has infered that all homosexuals are born homosexual anymore than anyone has implied that all heterosexuals are born hetero.
There are gays who have been married to the opposite sex and have children, there are even former gays who realize that the person is more important than their packaging and fall in love with the opposite sex.

Didn't you read this?
People are born predisposed to their sexuality, although environment can inhibit or enhance the "natural" tendencies, everyone is on a spectrum with Strict homosexuality at one end and heterosexuality at other, but most fall somewhere inbetween.
The amount of hormone at critical stages of development is probably what determines the predisposition.

Additionally, I am sure you know that someone who is expressing the outer appearance of male or female, may actually have the chromosomes of the opposite sex.
To decide who someone should fall in love with because of their outer packaging smacks of a futuristic society a la' the handmaids tale" or 1984 that I don't want to be part of

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Kluge: One question about the hypothetical 14-year old with parental permission to marry: wouldn't statutory rape laws prohibit something? Maybe? Over 18/under 16, at least in Massachusetts, is where they draw the line.

Emerald: Excellent way to put why we advocate for gays when we are not.

You could also look at in another way - that advocating for gays or women or minorities advocates for the type of society which we want to live in.

There was a poem which a high school history teacher had us read. (just found it online!)

By Maurice Ogden:
1.
Into our town the Hangman came.
Smelling of gold and blood and flame
and he paced our bricks with a diffident air
and built his frame on the courthouse square

The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
Only as wide as the door was wide;
A frame as tall, or little more,
Than the capping sill of the courthouse door

And we wondered, whenever we had the time.
Who the criminal, what the crime.
That Hangman judged with the yellow twist
of knotted hemp in his busy fist.

And innocent though we were, with dread,
We passed those eyes of buckshot lead:
Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he
For whom you raise the gallows-tree?"

Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
And he gave us a riddle instead of reply:
"He who serves me best," said he,
"Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree."

And he stepped down. and laid his hand
On a man who came from another land
And we breathed again, for another's grief
At the Hangman's hand was our relief

And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn
By tomorrow's sun would be struck and gone.
So we gave him way, and no one spoke.
Out of respect for his Hangman's cloak.

2.
The next day's sun looked mildly down
On roof and street in our quiet town
And stark and black in the morning air,
The gallows-tree on the courthouse square.

And the Hangman stood at his usual stand
With the yellow hemp in his busy hand;
With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike
And his air so knowing and business like.

And we cried, "Hangman, have you not done
Yesterday. with the alien one?"
Then we fell silent, and stood amazed,
"Oh, not for him was the gallows raised."

He laughed a laugh as he looked at us:
"...Did you think I'd gone to all this fuss
To hang one man? That's a thing I do
To stretch a rope when the rope is new."

Then one cried "Murder!" One cried "Shame!"
And into our midst the Hangman came
To that man's place. "Do you hold," said he,
"with him that was meant for the gallows-tree?"

And he laid his hand on that one's arm.
And we shrank back in quick alarm,
And we gave him way, and no one spoke
Out of fear of his Hangman's cloak.

That night we saw with dread surprise
The Hangman's scaffold had grown in size.
Fed by the blood beneath the chute
The gallows-tree had taken root;

Now as wide, or a little more,
Than the steps that led to the courthouse door,
As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall,
Halfway up on the courthouse wall.

3.
The third he took-we had all heard tell
Was a user and infidel, and
"What," said the Hangman "have you to do
With the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"

And we cried out, "Is this one he
Who has served you well and faithfully?"
The Hangman smiled: "It's a clever scheme
to try the strength of the gallows-beam."

The fourth man's dark, accusing song
Had scratched out comfort hard and long;
And what concern, he gave us back.
"Have you for the doomed--the doomed and black?"

The fifth. The sixth. And we cried again,
"Hangman, Hangman, is this the last?"
"It's a trick," he said. "that we hangmen know
For easing the trap when the trap springs slow.""

And so we ceased, and asked no more,
As the Hangman tallied his bloody score:
And sun by sun, and night by night,
The gallows grew to monstrous height.

The wings of the scaffold opened wide
Till they covered the square from side to side:
And the monster cross-beam, looking down.
Cast its shadow across the town.

4.
Then through the town the Hangman came
And called in the empty streets my name-
And I looked at the gallows soaring tall
And thought, "There is no one left at all

For hanging." And so he calls to me
To help pull down the gallows-tree.
And I went out with right good hope
To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.

He smiled at me as I came down
To the courthouse square through the silent town.
And supple and stretched in his busy hand
Was the yellow twist of the strand.

And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap
And it sprang down with a ready snap
And then with a smile of awful command
He laid his hand upon my hand.

"You tricked me. Hangman!," I shouted then.
"That your scaffold was built for other men...
And I no henchman of yours," I cried,
"You lied to me. Hangman. foully lied!"

Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
"Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I.
For I answered straight and I told you true"
The scaffold was raised for none but you.

For who has served me more faithfully
Then you with your coward's hope?" said he,
"And where are the others that might have stood
Side by your side in the common good?,"

"Dead," I whispered, and sadly
"Murdered," the Hangman corrected me:
"First the alien, then the Jew...
I did no more than you let me do."

Beneath the beam that blocked the sky.
None had stood so alone as I
And the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there
Cried "Stay!" for me in the empty square

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

PS Anyone up for a new thread? The hampster that runs my computer is complaining about having to work so hard to load this.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:24 pm: Edit

I can't vouch for the specifics cited, but in general I think this site has an accurate overview of the "age of consent" laws in thr U.S.

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

This thread got too long, so continue your chat here.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

OOPS! Here = http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus/messages/68281/78276.html

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit

I also want to add that I do have a personal interest in getting gays equal rights in this country ( they already do in many other countries)
My oldest daughter, which I have spoke of many times on CC, who has come through being born 10 weeks early, surgery when she weighed less than 2 lbs, who has given thousands of hours in volunteer time teaching other children including homeless and in the inner city, who is definitely a very feminine young woman, and who at 22 is plenty old enough to know which way she bends, is a lesbian.
I am very proud of my daughter, every bit of her.
My younger daughter who is just turned 14 and who definitely has never been interested in typical feminine things, hated pink even when she was 5, has worn a dress less than 5 times in her entire life, likes to snowboard, skateboard, surf, play soccer, rock climbs and would bungee jump if I let her, is definitely hetero if all the sighing about
Orlando and Usher is any indication.
My older daughter never, had any interest in boys as a boyfriend, plenty of male friends, but never interested in dating them.
My youngest is at the age, where I am afraid she never may be interested in anything but boys!
I didn't raise either one of them any differently, but one came out one way & one came out the other, it doesn't change them as people .
( I also had an at risk pregnancy where I recieved intermuscular injections of progesterone when I was pregnant with my older daughter. Some studies ahve shown that these children if female are more likely to be lesbian, interesting no?)

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Emeraldkity4...what? i thought you were my age...oops. :)
anyways, the relationships that you have with your daughters sound beautiful..:) good for u :) there is no reason why you shouldn't be proud or give less love to any of your children...u are a true mommy indeed! :)

sorry...last post!


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page