A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[spantol]

It's an internal stimulus, actually. The current biological theory involves too much or too little of a certain hormone being released into the brain during the first five days of life. The cause of this hormonal over- or under-saturation is certainly genetic.

It could be said, then, that you're born with a level of genetic predisposition to be gay, which will manifest itself within the first week of life.

Originally posted by Butterfingers


I agree... There is somthing that triggers the expression of this gay gene... However all Im trying to say is you arent born gay... Some external stimuli must INDUCE this gene to express itself.

Just like people arent born liking automags or timmies... Some external stimuli causes the biochemistry in your brain to like automags and timmies.

[jdev]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


I can prove you wrong in one word:

Jordache!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



No strait man would wear those!!!!!

hahahah, good one gay jeans.. plfft.

[spantol]

I had another thought on this last night.

Rather than amending the Consitution to explicitly forbid gay marriage, why not amend it to modify the full faith and credit clause of Article IV? This would keep DOMA constitutional, and allow the states to handle the issue however they choose to.

[Albinonewt]

Rather then replying to individuals let me just weigh in with my thoughts:

First, marriage is between a man and a woman, period end of story. That's the way its been in civilization since the beginning of time. There is nothing more fundamental civilization then this point. It isn't a "social norm". Its the way things are.

The biggest problem with the whole gay marriage thing is that the gay community is trying to make marriage into something that it isn't. One of the central arguements is that gay marriage will promote fidelity. That, more then any other statement, clearly demostrates the gay community's intent to change the nature of marriage in this country. Marriage is univerally understood as something a couple participates in AFTER forsaking all others, etc. If you need marriage to be faithful, then you don't need marriage.

Marriage as an institution exists to facilitate child rearing. When I took my vows to get married one of the things you promise God is that you will have children and raise them as Catholics. A gay couple CANNOT make that promise to God, and that's a very important thing. Now, I know a lot of people remark that not all straight couples have kids and that some actually can't. While that is true, they are statistical outliers, and you can't base policy on what the fringe of a group do. There are some couples that are willing to lie to God when they take their vows, and some that really mean to have children and later find out they cannot. That is unfortunate and there's not really any way of knowing this ahead of time or doing anything about it (except in really rare cases).

Now, that's my philosophical objection to gay marriage. My legal objection that if gay marriage is upheld as a constitutional right that opens the doors for all kinds of other problems. Once the constitutional arguement has been made, and won, that we cannot deny the right to marry based on gender then polygamy is next, and who knows what's after that. If gay marriage is something that America ends up having (which i think won't happen) it cannot be because of the courts. That will cause more social problems then anyone is even cosidering now.

As for making marriage a state issue, not a good idea. I'm a federalist, so in most cases I prefer the states handle their own issues. The only time i think things should be a federal issue is when they are not contained to the state, and marriage is one of those time. We can't actually have laws that say we're married in Massachusetts, Vermot, and California, but not Utah or Texas, and maybe in Virginia, but we're not sure yet. That just can't happen.

So what do we do with gay people? Do we deny them any rights as couples? I think the answer to that is a resounding no, of course not. Civil unions are a prefectly reasonable alternative so long as they encompass all the legal marriage rights (taxes, property, inheritance, etc). Bush wants to allow the states to do that, and I suppose that's kind of ok, but I still think that's better on a federal level, to avoid confusion.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Rather then replying to individuals let me just weigh in with my thoughts:

First, marriage is between a man and a woman, period end of story. That's the way its been in civilization since the beginning of time. There is nothing more fundamental civilization then this point. It isn't a "social norm". Its the way things are.

The biggest problem with the whole gay marriage thing is that the gay community is trying to make marriage into something that it isn't. One of the central arguements is that gay marriage will promote fidelity. That, more then any other statement, clearly demostrates the gay community's intent to change the nature of marriage in this country. Marriage is univerally understood as something a couple participates in AFTER forsaking all others, etc. If you need marriage to be faithful, then you don't need marriage.

Marriage as an institution exists to facilitate child rearing. When I took my vows to get married one of the things you promise God is that you will have children and raise them as Catholics. A gay couple CANNOT make that promise to God, and that's a very important thing. Now, I know a lot of people remark that not all straight couples have kids and that some actually can't. While that is true, they are statistical outliers, and you can't base policy on what the fringe of a group do. There are some couples that are willing to lie to God when they take their vows, and some that really mean to have children and later find out they cannot. That is unfortunate and there's not really any way of knowing this ahead of time or doing anything about it (except in really rare cases).

Now, that's my philosophical objection to gay marriage. My legal objection that if gay marriage is upheld as a constitutional right that opens the doors for all kinds of other problems. Once the constitutional arguement has been made, and won, that we cannot deny the right to marry based on gender then polygamy is next, and who knows what's after that. If gay marriage is something that America ends up having (which i think won't happen) it cannot be because of the courts. That will cause more social problems then anyone is even cosidering now.

As for making marriage a state issue, not a good idea. I'm a federalist, so in most cases I prefer the states handle their own issues. The only time i think things should be a federal issue is when they are not contained to the state, and marriage is one of those time. We can't actually have laws that say we're married in Massachusetts, Vermot, and California, but not Utah or Texas, and maybe in Virginia, but we're not sure yet. That just can't happen.

So what do we do with gay people? Do we deny them any rights as couples? I think the answer to that is a resounding no, of course not. Civil unions are a prefectly reasonable alternative so long as they encompass all the legal marriage rights (taxes, property, inheritance, etc). Bush wants to allow the states to do that, and I suppose that's kind of ok, but I still think that's better on a federal level, to avoid confusion.

sorry this is going to be brief, but i have class very soon.

first thing...is one of the last things you mentioned. civil unions do NOT encompass all the legal marriage rights, and bush is doing nothing about making civil unions equal to marriages in legal terms.

next, as someone stated before, the polygamy argument is an argumental fallacy known as post hoc...you cannot say that one will lead to the other. for one, polygamy isn't legal! homosexuality IS legal! there's a HUGE difference between extending equal rights to two people engaging in a perfectly legal act, and giving rights to two criminals because of their crime.

finally, you brought up religion. you brought up vows that YOU had to make to YOUR god when getting married. i'm not about to debate religion because that's an absolutely pointless argument, but i will say one thing. just because your religion makes you promise to have children when getting married does not imply that ALL religions do.

not to mention, there are NON-religious marriages. because of this fact alone (and MANY others), religion needs to be kept out. your religion is not THE religion, so whatever beliefs your religion has is really quite irrelevant to the laws of our country. especially considering the first amendment, which is interpreted by virtually everyone as creating an invisible wall between the dealings of the church and the dealings of the government.

making laws against marriage on religious terms leaves those people whose religion disagrees with these terms completely disenfranchised. respecting no religion when making law is not only the law of the country, but it is incredibly dangerous to do otherwise.

so again, religion needs to stay out of the argument, because there is no right religion, and government dealings, by LAW, have to disregard religion. we are talking about the rights for gays to get married, and marriage is more legal than anything else nowadays.

[Rooster]

"polygamy isn't legal! homosexuality IS legal!"

Sodomy was a crime in most states. Its only a matter of time until group marriges if gays get the right to marry.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
"polygamy isn't legal! homosexuality IS legal!"

Sodomy was a crime in most states. Its only a matter of time until group marriges if gays get the right to marry.

correct me if i'm wrong, but that was to extend rape laws and not just normal sexual intercourse. it wasn't making it illegal for two consenting adults to have anal sex, but rather one force it upon someone else.

[spantol]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Now, that's my philosophical objection to gay marriage. My legal objection that if gay marriage is upheld as a constitutional right that opens the doors for all kinds of other problems. Once the constitutional arguement has been made, and won, that we cannot deny the right to marry based on gender then polygamy is next, and who knows what's after that. If gay marriage is something that America ends up having (which i think won't happen) it cannot be because of the courts. That will cause more social problems then anyone is even cosidering now.

This, again, is a type of post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Specifically, it's an example of a joint effect. Where, exactly, is the causal link; why do we need to allow other, unrelated activities if we allow gay marriage?

Social changes spring from an underlying change in the social current. What's happening here, similar to what happened with women's suffrage and slavery, is that our society is being asked to decide whether the stigma associated with certain activities is justified. Clearly, judging from poll results, society isn't going to accept gay marriage at the moment (or ever, if that's your position). If a polygamy movement were to (somehow) gain momentum and pose the same question, they would certainly meet with the same results, for the same reason--those activities aren't condoned by society. I see no reason why a society that condones gay marriage would necessarily become more likely to support polygamy, and that's what this argument reduces to. The slope simply isn't that slippery.

We can't actually have laws that say we're married in Massachusetts, Vermot, and California, but not Utah or Texas, and maybe in Virginia, but we're not sure yet. That just can't happen.

We can't currently, thanks to the full faith and credit clause of Article IV. But since we're resigned to putting the Constitution under the knife one way or another, modifying that is certainly an option.

[spantol]

It's only a matter of time before a group of polygamy supporters tries to win some form of recogintion and tolerance. Society is not obligated to allow such a thing.

Originally posted by Rooster
"polygamy isn't legal! homosexuality IS legal!"

Sodomy was a crime in most states. Its only a matter of time until group marriges if gays get the right to marry.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


correct me if i'm wrong, but that was to extend rape laws and not just normal sexual intercourse. it wasn't making it illegal for two consenting adults to have anal sex, but rather one force it upon someone else.

You are wrong, but what else is new?

Sodomy is one of the original English Common Laws that we brought to America with us. Sodomy is any sexual act not for the purpose of reproduction, hence why all gay sex is sodomy. That is how sodomy was always illegal. Sodomy laws in Texas were recently struck down by the Supreme Court, but it was a crime and still is in someplaces, so be careful when you ask your girlfriend for a BJ, you might make her a felon!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by spantol

Social changes spring from an underlying change in the social current. What's happening here, similar to what happened with women's suffrage and slavery, is that our society is being asked to decide whether the stigma associated with certain activities is justified. Clearly, judging from poll results, society isn't going to accept gay marriage at the moment (or ever, if that's your position). If a polygamy movement were to (somehow) gain momentum and pose the same question, they would certainly meet with the same results, for the same reason--those activities aren't condoned by society. I see no reason why a society that condones gay marriage would necessarily become more likely to support polygamy, and that's what this argument reduces to. The slope simply isn't that slippery.


Here is my problem! How were women given the vote? How was slavery abolished?

BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS!!!!!!!!!!
No court stepped in and tried to promote social policy by making laws themselves. Until society is ready for Gay marriages, guess what? Gays are not "entitled" to that right.

DO IT THE RIGHT WAY!!!

BTW, I have many black friends who are outraged at the Gay community for trying to compare the "Gay Struggle" to the Civil Rights movement! Food for thought!

[spantol]

Yup. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that homesexuality isn't protected by equal protection. If gay marriage is ever to be legalized, an amendment extending equal protection will be required. Lobbying for such an amendment is, I feel, what gay marriage proponents ought to be doing. Judicial activism and half-hearted civil disobedience are only going to alienate people from their cause.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


You are wrong, but what else is new?

Sodomy is one of the original English Common Laws that we brought to America with us. Sodomy is any sexual act not for the purpose of reproduction, hence why all gay sex is sodomy. That is how sodomy was always illegal. Sodomy laws in Texas were recently struck down by the Supreme Court, but it was a crime and still is in someplaces, so be careful when you ask your girlfriend for a BJ, you might make her a felon!

i posted before looking it up, because i had to go to class. thanks for clarifying. after doing research, i must say i'm outraged. how can the government sit there and tell people what they can or cannot do behind closed doors? it boggles my mind, really. homosexual acts are perfectly legal, because if they tried to make it illegal, it would be an invasion of privacy.

i discovered a scary statistic, however...
"Sodomy originally was banned in every state, but since 1961 the laws have been repealed or ruled unconstitutional in 26 states. Nine states
have narrowed their laws to apply only to homosexuals."

NINE states apply their laws discriminatingly against homosexuals. HOW CAN THIS BE LEGAL!? how can they say a consenting man and woman can perform oral sex, but two consenting adults of the same sex cannot? THIS is far worse than what we're currently talking about. it's a blatant discriminatory law against homosexuals, and based on what? IT HAS TO BE BASED ON RELIGION! what other grounds could the government POSSIBLY have for making it illegal?!

the laws have even deeper implications: "The use of sodomy laws to justify not hiring homosexuals is only one
example of how the laws are used to discriminate against gay people, gay rights advocates say. The laws also are used as a rationale for statutes outlawing gay marriage and, in some places, gay adoption."

thankfully, most states are working on getting sodomy laws repealed. but until then, how can this sort of thing stand in this country!?

all quotes taken from <a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm">here</a>

[1stdeadeye]

So that is why Hugh Grant got in so much trouble. It wasn't the hooker, it was the sodomy!

[845]

I have a problem with it because George Bush is doing it for a religious reason. He may say to the contrary but I would not believe it. Kids getting made fun of isnt a valid reason.