Gay Marriage

[Larv]

After >300 posts on this thread, and after many more on other threads, one solution to this dilemma remains the best option: get the government out of the business of marriage. That means completely expunging the word 'marriage" from all laws. Governments don't need to use that word when "civil union" or "domestic partnership" are entirely adequate for legal purposes. Who cares is two members of the same sex get civilly united by law? I don't. I don't even care if one them is dead, sub-human, or a sibling of the other. It's already been forcefully argued here that sex doesn't matter, and neither do other traditional conditions that usually preclude a civil union.

 

THEN if you want to get married to your lover, any lover, you can go to a church, casino, gypsy parlor, or pet cemetery to get that coveted title. And best of all, the government doesn't need to poke its nose into your affairs.

 

Done deal. Now let's move on to something else more important, like legalizing weed or requiring uniforms in public schools.

[InfiniteNow]

That to me appears to be an unrealistic goal. Governmental involvement in marriage isn't going anywhere anytime soon, for the reasons I presented on the first few pages of this thread in response to GAHD.

 

I fail to understand why people think it would be easier to get government completely out of marriage than it would be to ensure equality in our laws for citizens regardless of sexual preference. The mind just boggles...

[jackson33]

dannieyankee quotes;

 

I must protest. I NEVER SPECIFIED THE UNITED STATES AND I AM BECOMING INCREASINGLY INSULTED AT HOW MUCH YOU PEOPLE INSIST THIS IS ALL ABOUT AMERICA. I am not American, and I NEVER mentioned anything about the Constitution or DOMA. This is becoming frustrated. This has NOTHING to do with the States, yet it has become what this entire topic is about.

 

You did join in...

 

The beliefs of the fathers are not how the law is ruled. Most of the fathers were religious. Should their religious beliefs be law? No. They frowned upon homosexuality. Yet didn't they specify the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Homosexuality is a pursuit of happiness; the pursuit to be able to love whomever you naturally favour

 

The Churches do not need to be forced to do anything. This is not the same as a church not allowing black people into their church; there is nothing in the bible or various religious documents that say 'Thou shalt not be black'. Most religions DO have religious doctrines forbidding homosexuality, so the government would NOT need to tax them. (I personally believe they should be taxed anyways, but this is unrelated.)

 

 

dannie; While I am sure you didn't want this to go one Country, in this case many of the arguments are the same. Being a "Free Country" to most of your responses, has nothing to do with the "Sexual Orientation" and is a private issue. The arguments IMO, are over governments and law into the issue. It's been my argument, believe a couple others, that the issue being private, marriage itself a traditionally religious premise, that Democratic Governments that declare human rights, have no business in private matters. This includes specific laws and or recognition.

 

Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Marriage laws vary across the United Kingdom however no country of the United Kingdom currently offers same-sex marriage. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples that provide the legal consequences of marriage went into effect in 2005. The current government has stated they have no plans to legalise same-sex marriage.[1][2]

 

Partnership laws, in the UK, the US and many nations around the world have existed since commercial business began... Civil unions are an off branch of these laws allowing a means for individuals (any sexual orientation) to join under law/commitments, as do the traditionals do under their separate religious understandings. In California in fact the laws thats have been used for Civil Unions are also used for Corporate Partnerships.

 

Additionally, even in UK today, government is and should be tolerant of all religious activity, which in the US in forbidden.

 

I don't truly understand your point, other than your 'FREE' has a different meaning than myself with regards to 'RIGHTS'. We and I mean all 'WE"S, just can't be allowed to do anything we want in our specific society....In my opinion.

 

I would agree if your suggesting your thread was high jacked, however 'Infinite' is kind of a favorite son on this forum and is passionate on this issue, but the discussions have not ventured very far from you original points....Since I have not read every post or care to, I could be incorrect in my assessment.

[InfiniteNow]

The arguments IMO, are over governments and law into the issue. It's been my argument, believe a couple others, that the issue being private, marriage itself a traditionally religious premise, that Democratic Governments that declare human rights, have no business in private matters. This includes specific laws and or recognition.

You suggest that marriage is a religious premise, and yet atheists have been getting married for centuries and all without challenge or opposition. That sort of speaks poorly of the veracity of your suggestion.

 

 

 

I would agree if your suggesting your thread was high jacked, however 'Infinite' is kind of a favorite son on this forum and is passionate on this issue

 

And yet, my arguments stand on their merits. Fancy that.

[jackson33]

Infinite; I don't know when the first government issued the first license to marry and I am not sure how many atheist were around in distant history. I am sure, at least in my mind that PEOPLE in societies have made a ritual out of joining a man and a woman probably since reasoning was achieved by our species, not necessarily 'Homo Sapians'. All religions with a written history have addressed the issue, seemingly with a purpose and under some religious ideology. What your suggesting and I agree, is that today and yesterdays societies are not the same and this is where we part...

 

Since a marriage means one thing to the Jewish, another to the Hindu, yet another thing to Catholics, different things over time to all including the Mormons or to the thousands of former, current or future religions and as your indicating nothing similar to Atheist, I see no reason ANY Government should install a religious uniform meaning to the word. If marriage truly meant something other than a union or joining of two individuals for whatever reason to you, you should embrace a secular mention to these unions. Let the States, Church's or the parties involved insert whatever wording they choose. The implication, whether from you or activist in this movement to me indicates a worry that somehow they are not mainstream, which in FACT they are not, at least currently.

 

I'm not sure then your arguments stand on anything. They are your opinions, few of which would stand up in 90% of the worlds courts or legal systems, even then probably being argued down. There are just to many other realistic solutions to what injustices are perceived toward G/L or their lifestyle, most of which in the US have been properly handled. IMO.

 

 

The following on DOMA, was not written for you, but I'll enter it now. It's not going to change your 'OPINION' but adds a couple points, I feel you or someone back on page 3,111, left out. We have discussed this someplace, I feel sure, but laws tend to follow social acceptance or not the reverse.

 

 

 

My two cents on this argument; Keep in mind those in law already strongly disagree according to their personal ideology. IMO, DOMA does NOT fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as DOMA is in essence is a guide line Act or clarification from Congress. There are very similar laws already in most States that are not required acceptance by all States, certainly just as critical to social activity, inheritance laws, tax laws, corporate laws just a few.

 

Obama's dilemma; Having campaigned on over turning this Act (does not have authority), had not considered the final arbiter of US LAW, Constitutional Amendment. The original vote count below may have changed a little, but if the SC actually did declare this act unconstitutional (not likely IMO 9/0 vote, legal), Congress would be forced to offer an amendment clarifying Marriage in the US for legal/benefit purposes, declaring the same thing. Once cleared of Committee (problem here) it would be passed in hours by both the House and Senate, sent to the States and ratified with in a month, especially if approaching a National Congressional Member Election, ie 2010. Once an Amendment, it would become the law of the land taking generations to get repealed, if ever. Neither side wants this, fearing social unrest, possible rioting or for certain the base of each party as it currently stands.

 

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

 

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

 

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

 

 

cle IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.[1] Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.[2] At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of law decision,[3] although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted differently.[4]

28 U.S.C. § 1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses, and extradition in crimes.

[InfiniteNow]

In our country, a majority cannot strip rights away from the minority unless they are doing so for some secular purpose, or to prevent some measurable harm. That is one of the most important underlying principles of our constitutional republic. Our system was built with protections against mob rule, but mob rule/tyranny of the majority is essentially what your post above suggests should inform our laws preventing same sex marriage.

 

I also suggest that you are misrepresenting my position by denigrating it as merely an "opinion." You said yourself that you haven't read this entire thread. I humbly request that you make sure you do before again casting aside so carelessly the arguments which I've put forth.

[Larv]

Has the heavy petting gone too far? Well, maybe it's time to marry your pet. If you love her then let her know that she doesn't need to live in sin.

 

Sorry, I know it's OT, unless your pet is gay.

[InfiniteNow]

Has the heavy petting gone too far? Well, maybe it's time to marry your pet. If you love her then let her know that she doesn't need to live in sin.

 

Sorry, I know it's OT, unless your pet is gay.

 

So, now you're equating homosexuality with bestiality. Nice.

Really... what can a guy say to that?

 

 

 

 

 

the idea of gay sticks in your craw like a chicken bone in a windpipe and you bring nothing to the op but hatefulness, intolerance, and mockery. The topic here is legitimate, your participation, not so much.

qft

[TheBigDog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your current position appears to be that you are against same sex marriage because you are FOR marriage between a father and his son.

 

Is that accurate?

 

If not, how about you take a stab at clarifying what your position truly is for all of us lesser mortals who are "basking in our glory" and who are just "mocking you" with our "unwillingness" and lack of "ability" to understand?

After some consultation and reflection I see that you are indeed right, and I owe you an apology. My position is not adequately clear and requires restatement.

 

What sometimes happens to us is we see things from a unique perspective, one that is comprised of our own values, thoughts, and experience. It is natural for each of us to conclude that everyone is seeing things as we do, and what seems like a natural conclusion to me based on the words I am using is nothing more than a jumbled mess to those who do not have my same perspective. I think that this trap has affected most all of us who are participating in this thread and has contributed to the periodic escalations of rhetoric.

 

That said, let me begin...

 

My argument is simply put this:

 

Many in society believe that homosexuality is a taboo; an action that is somehow repugnant and should not be encouraged or promoted by the laws of the state. The reaction to those who object to homosexuality as a taboo is to call them homophobic, and to belittle their argument through painting their opinion as nothing but hatred. Demands are made to ignore the taboo and to rationally state the objection on any other grounds. Many of these arguments then countered by steering them back to a root based on the taboo, and therefore invalid hatred.

 

When I proposed that I should be able to marry my son you responded as though I had just made the most rash statement you had ever heard, even though I had spelled out in detail the reasoning for this; need for medical coverage that will be available if we are married, but is not available if we are not married. You reacted in apparent horror that I would dare to compare incest to homosexuality; I was not. I was stating that I was being denied benefits available to other couples, denied on the basis of incest. Both are taboos that result in laws preventing marriage. It appears that your intolerance of the taboo known as incest is a valid argument, while anyone's intolerance of the taboo of homosexuality is invalid hate. Now, we could go in circles on this, but there is no argument you can make that separates the acts associated with homosexuality with the acts of incest; just as you argue that there is no difference between the act of homosexual sex and the act of heterosexual sex. I would simply mirror your own arguments there.

 

You state very specifically that homosexuality is NOT incest.

First, issues of consent.

Second, measurable and demonstrable harm.

Third, homosexuality is NOT THE SAME as pedophilia and incest.

Fourth, I can't believe you actually just asked that... As if the marriage of two same sex individuals is somehow equivalent to a marriage between a father and his son.

You make this argument this way because incest is a taboo that you do NOT approve of. You are not personally bothered by homosexuality.

 

You challenge people to tell you how homosexual sex is different from heterosexual sex, and claim that any argument is only founded in fallacies and bigotry. I tell you the same thing; any argument you make about heterosexual or homosexual sex being different from incestuous sex is founded in the same fallacies and bigotry that you point out.

 

Besides genitals, in what way(s) do you suggest that the relationship of two same sex partners is NOT the same as the relationship of two opposite sex couples? Please, try to keep your reasons relevant, and recall that marriage is not contingent upon children or the ability to have them.

Your wording prevents the question from being answered other than to your own satisfaction.

 

It is the genitals. One is a heterosexual relationship of unrelated consenting adults of opposite gender: this relationship has no predominant social taboos. The other is a homosexual relationship of unrelated consenting adults of the same gender: this relationship is considered taboo by the current majority of the population.

 

I went so far as to repeatedly specify that I was talking about a non-sexual relationship, I gave you every opportunity to absorb that but it still enraged you. Is your rage somehow more relevant than a heterosexual wanting to stipulate that their relationship is specifically different than homosexuality with nothing more to base it on than the genders and social norms? Should I paint you as a bigot to invalidate your argument that homosexuality or heterosexuality is different from incest?

 

This brings us back to the "traditional meaning of marriage". I stipulated that I did not need a universal meaning, I just needed one that was traditionally true to the US prior to the DOMA; I probably should have excluded the DOMA, because I am not looking for the "Legal definition" I am demonstrating the meaning as understood by the general population who's collective values, experience, and understanding defines social norms and taboos. To the vast majority of men and women of America (sorry dannie) the meaning of marriage has and does mean "between a man and a woman". And that traditionally understood meaning is what drives elected officials to write and vote for laws as they do. These laws can then be challenged in the court system and so goes the process. And I submit that this "public opinion" valid, even when it appears to be unfair to a select group in society. It is this same mechanism that makes the idea that "incest is just wrong" a valid argument, even though in clever debate that can be trounced.

 

So we get back to "What does marriage mean?" It means that a man and a woman have entered a contract to share their lives, their assets, provide support, and have monogamous sexual relations. This is what it means to the voting public, this is what it means when people talk to one another in casual conversation. This is what it means when people plan for their lives. Getting married defines you, and among the things that it defines (like it or not) is your sexuality. In tradition that most do not keep anymore there was not to be sex outside of marriage; it was the only approved way to enter a sexual relationship. As men got older and were not married it was often insinuated that they might be *gasp* [whisper]gay![/whisper] Gay men would even enter marriage in order to help conceal their own homosexuality; getting married was and is a way for any man or woman to proclaim publicly their sexuality as being heterosexual.

 

By having marriages extend to include homosexuality you are taking away the sexual identity currently associated with being married. But hark back to the fact that homosexuality is widely considered taboo in the United States. This feeling is not based on hate, it is based upon established cultural norms. You have something that already has a meaning, a meaning that is important to many who are already members of that institution (marriage) and you want to remove than meaning, that definition of who they are and make it inclusive of a group defined by a taboo; do not be shocked when they are insulted by this, just as you are insulted when incest or pedophilia are lumped with homosexual.

 

I would support my conclusion above by the laws about same sex marriage that have been passed over the past few years. It is specifically illegal in 43 states by a mix of pubic referendums and legislative actions. This leads me to believe that same sex marriage is still widely considered taboo by the public, emphasizing the validity of the opinion that it is wrong because it is a social taboo.

 

Switch the viewpoint to one of rights. You stated in response to Pam...

The state already provides for benefits among blood relations. It's a false comparison. In roughly 86% of our nation, two same sex partners are NOT afforded the same benefits (nor ability to attain benefits) as are a parent/child or husband/wife pairing.

The fact is that a parent/child do not have the same benefits as a husband/wife, nor the ability to attain them, so they are just as oppressed as the same sex couples. But it is entirely disingenuous for you to even argue rights, because you will not take them when offered (civil unions, etc); you will only accept a redefinition of marriage to include same sex as the mechanism of getting your rights.

 

Summary? Don't accuse people of being hateful because they disagree with you. It is very poor form. I wonder when you will be arguing in favor of incest to prove that you are not a bigot.

 

Bill

[dannieyankee]

Has the heavy petting gone too far? Well, maybe it's time to marry your pet. If you love her then let her know that she doesn't need to live in sin.

 

Sorry, I know it's OT, unless your pet is gay.

 

Bestiality is not made in consent with the animal, and for that reason is considered abusive.

Homosexuality is 100% consented.

 

A son marrying his father will feel like he is required to obey his father and marry him, thus being manipulated, so the relationships is considered abusive.

Homosexuality is 100% optional.

 

A man marrying multiple wives is often placing competition in the wives, and does not satisfy the marriage requirements (two people devoted completely to each other), even though on rare occasions there are successful threesomes.

Homosexuality is 100% committed.

 

The three situations I have listed above have a high chance of including abuse or sadness, competition, and the lack of the ability to know your spouse loves you completely. Homosexuality has no known 'abuse' or 'misfortune'. Why should it be lumped with these taboo acts?

 

And this time, may someone please respond? I posted something last time in response the a question from TheBigDog and he never replied.

 

"This feeling is not based on hate, it is based upon established cultural norms."

And why should the government encourage cultural norms that discriminate?

[TheBigDog]

And this time, may someone please respond? I posted something last time in response the a question from TheBigDog and he never replied.

 

"This feeling is not based on hate, it is based upon established cultural norms."

And why should the government encourage cultural norms that discriminate?

Sorry, dannie. I am slow.

 

When the government is the will of the people then its laws reflect the discrimination that the people see as appropriate. The people of the US have voted over and over to not allow same-sex marriage because A) it represents a taboo that attacks their sexual identity, it has not been proven enough of a benefit to society. As the taboo disappears so will the resistance. As the benefits are made clear, the resistance will diminish.

 

Bill

[Moontanman]

I'm not sure how homosexual incest got into this but in my world a son living with me and dependent on me for his lively hood is included on my insurance no matter how old he is.

 

Now as far as marriage is concerned I think the idea of sex is interfering with the idea of taking care of a family member. The term incest implies a sexual relationship. I see no way a nonsexual relationship would be termed incest and since the idea of marriage implies sex (that's the rumor anyway) I can't see how a nonsexual relationship could be termed as marriage.

 

Now for the record as far as consenting adults are concerned I am good with you marrying anyone you want.

 

But as I said marriage implies a sexual relationship, anything but a sexual relationship would not qualify as marriage so I think we can stop with the false image of someone marrying their son so he can get insurance benefits. If that is the problem there should be another way to insure that outcome. See Social Security benefits.....

[InfiniteNow]

When I proposed that I should be able to marry my son you responded as though I had just made the most rash statement you had ever heard, even though I had spelled out in detail the reasoning for this; need for medical coverage that will be available if we are married, but is not available if we are not married. You reacted in apparent horror that I would dare to compare incest to homosexuality; I was not. I was stating that I was being denied benefits available to other couples, denied on the basis of incest.

The relationship of you and your son is not equal to the relationship of two intimate partners. You are equivocating.

 

Your relationship with your son cannot legitimately be compared to a relationship with a lover, an intimate partner, a potential spouse. This is why I find your argument fallacious... It is about much more than the extreme distaste I feel when people attempt to show some made-up equivalence between homosexuality and incest. It is also about the fact that the argument resides on a foundation of equivocation, and is hence rooted in poor and unsound logic.

 

 

 

Both are taboos that result in laws preventing marriage. It appears that your intolerance of the taboo known as incest is a valid argument, while anyone's intolerance of the taboo of homosexuality is invalid hate.

I appreciate the point you are making, but it is, in fact, a misrepresentation of my position. While I know it was not your intention to strawman my argument, you have. As I stated previously, my argument against incest is about MUCH more than taboo. It is also about the fact that it is not equivalent to homosexuality as you suggest. It is ALSO about the fact that there is measurable harm from incest, and hence good arguments (secular arguments) against it.

 

To suggest that my position is founded on "taboo" is to completely misrepresent it. Incest has demonstrable and measurable harm, both physical and psychological, and there are relevant secular reasons for being against it. However, homosexuality, and same sex marriage, do not have any measurable harm, neither physical nor psychological. This is why the two are not equivalent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what is and what is not taboo.

 

This is why I continue in my requests for relevant secular reasons why same sex partners should be denied the same rights and privileges granted to opposite sex couples.

 

I think you'll notice that NOT ONE SINGLE SECULAR REASON has yet been provided (at least, none that aren't irrelevant, based on false premises, or grounded in logical fallacies).

 

 

Now, we could go in circles on this, but there is no argument you can make that separates the acts associated with homosexuality with the acts of incest;

Actually, Bill... I just made the argument above, so your assertion here is plainly false and misguided. Please ask questions if you disagree or don't grasp my point about measurable harm.

 

 

You state very specifically that homosexuality is NOT incest.

That's not entirely true, as technically it could be. In fact, the father/son scenario to which you keep referring fits that criteria rather nicely. The larger point is that you are making a false comparison, and it's a false comparison for numerous reasons and on multiple fronts.

 

 

You make this argument this way because incest is a taboo that you do NOT approve of. You are not personally bothered by homosexuality.

As I've tried to make clear above, you seem to be completely misrepresenting my argument. I am NOT arguing against incest because it's taboo (hell, I haven't even argued against incest in this thread at all, so there's always that...). The difference here is in the measurable harm, the fact that the comparison is false, and that those who try to compare the two are equivocating.

 

It is a logical fallacy on your part to suggest that there is some similarity between homosexuality and incest. You are implicitly suggesting that a perfectly natural sexual orientation which causes no measurable harm is somehow the same as a sexual desire for blood relatives which does cause measurable harm. Further, your comment betrays your own bias and bigotry (however slight it may be) since you refuse to accept homosexuality as natural (despite the fact that every animal we've ever observed in the animal kingdom ALSO engages in homosexuality and homosexual partnerships).

 

 

You challenge people to tell you how homosexual sex is different from heterosexual sex, and claim that any argument is only founded in fallacies and bigotry.

Again, not quite.

 

I challenge people to provide relevant secular differences between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships since this discussion is directly impacted by the laws in our nation, and those laws must have a relevant secular purpose for existing.

 

Homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in every single way except genitals, and yet our laws treat them differently. I am asking for relevant secular differences since this differential treatment in our laws DEMANDS them.

 

Your suggestion that my argument suffers in the same way as the arguments coming from those who oppose same sex marriage is plainly wrong, as there are NUMEROUS relevant secular reasons demonstrating that incestuous relationships are harmful, both physically and mentally.

 

 

It is the genitals. One is a heterosexual relationship of unrelated consenting adults of opposite gender: this relationship has no predominant social taboos. The other is a homosexual relationship of unrelated consenting adults of the same gender: this relationship is considered taboo by the current majority of the population.

As I said earlier to Jackson33, your argument is unfounded since it relies on appeal to popularity (yet another logical fallacy), and also suggests we govern based on mob rule and tyranny of the majority. Our nation was founded with explicit protections for minority groups, and our constitution was written with plain and clear rules about equality.

 

Majority acceptance of an issue is, of course, important in the court of public opinion, but it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the court of United States law (sorry dannieyankee... I know this thread was intended to be about more than just the US).

 

 

 

So we get back to "What does marriage mean?" It means that a man and a woman have entered a contract to share their lives, their assets, provide support, and have monogamous sexual relations. This is what it means to the voting public, this is what it means when people talk to one another in casual conversation. This is what it means when people plan for their lives. Getting married defines you, and among the things that it defines (like it or not) is your sexuality.

I see nothing in your statements which precludes homosexuals. There is nothing in what you've typed which applies only to opposite sex couples and not to same sex couples.

 

You continue to imply difference which doesn't exist. Same sex partners (if they were not being prevented from so doing) can enter contracts to share their lives, their assets, to provide support, and have monogamous sexual relations. Same sex partners can plan their lives, and can define themselves by marriage without issue. Again... You're making up differences which simply aren't there.

 

Also, I find your suggestion that "this is what it means when people talk to one another in casual conversation" to be incredibly myopic and inappropriately restrictive.

 

As I mentioned several times earlier, the marriage defines the relationship, not the gender of the participants in that relationship. You suggest that people wouldn't know what it meant if I said "Steve and Joe are married." You suggest that, merely because the more common "example" of marriage is a male and a female that we cannot use the same term "marriage" to refer to the relationship of two males or two females.

 

Marriage is a broad term, and it works just fine when applied to the relationship of same sex partners. I know plenty of people who define marriage in the same way I do, so your assertion that "this is what people mean by marriage" is another bald faced falsehood. Some people see it that way, but others do not, so I wouldn't suggest rooting your argument in that point.

 

The simple fact is that you are appealing to popularity, and further suggesting some universally accepted definition which is not universal at all.

 

 

By having marriages extend to include homosexuality you are taking away the sexual identity currently associated with being married.

Wow... That is quite a stretch, Bill. The same argument could be made that by including homosexuality we are making the concept of marriage much more profound and meaningful, to signify that it is about love and relationships, and not about gender.

 

Seriously, that is a rather silly comment, and it is hardly an objective truth. Extending marriage to homosexuals could just as likely provide greater identity to those associated with being married, and you know it. Again, you're building castles in the sand.

 

 

But hark back to the fact that homosexuality is widely considered taboo in the United States. This feeling is not based on hate, it is based upon established cultural norms.

So was miscegeny. That's not a valid argument whatsoever, Bill, and neither is your continued suggestion that the majority has the right to suppress the rights of the minority for no relevant secular purpose.

 

 

But it is entirely disingenuous for you to even argue rights, because you will not take them when offered (civil unions, etc); you will only accept a redefinition of marriage to include same sex as the mechanism of getting your rights.

Again, Bill... Close, but not quite.

 

I ABSOLUTELY am in favor of equal rights when provided. That is a HUGE step in the right direction. However, my stance is that this is about much more than just "equal rights." It is also about the larger concept of equality, and also about having relevant secular purposes when treating people differently... A legitimate reason for suggesting that those in same sex relationships be forced into some marital segregation and be viewed as different and separate from those in opposite sex relationships. Marriage defines the relationship, not the genitals required to be in that relationship.

 

Since the nature of the relationship of same sex couples is parallel in every way but genitals to the relationship of opposite sex couples, then it, too, should be described as a marriage. Despite the allowance of equal rights, you are still attempting to impose a segregationist practice, and all for no relevant secular reason.

 

The relationship is the same. It is a marriage, and it should be described as such. To do otherwise is to treat same sex couples as second class, as "not as good," as "inferior," and THAT is the problem to which I am attempting to draw attention, gather support, and ultimately defeat.

 

Equal rights is outstanding, but to stop there falls short. This is about more than just rights, it's also about recognizing that same sex partners are acting on the exact same desires and impulses as opposite sex partners, and there is no relevant secular reason to call them by a different name. It is merely an ignorant attempt to perpetuate the us/them mentality... a last ditch effort to ensure they remain viewed as "different," and I'll have none of it.

 

 

Summary? Don't accuse people of being hateful because they disagree with you. It is very poor form.

I don't call people hateful for disagreeing with me. I call them hateful because they are. In much the same way, I don't call people ignorant or bigoted for disagreeing with me. I call them that because it is made obvious by the arguments they are using to support their position.

[TheBigDog]

See Social Security benefits.....

That is the route we are going, it has its own high price for doing so.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

What sometimes happens to us is we see things from a unique perspective, one that is comprised of our own values, thoughts, and experience. It is natural for each of us to conclude that everyone is seeing things as we do, and what seems like a natural conclusion to me based on the words I am using is nothing more than a jumbled mess to those who do not have my same perspective. I think that this trap has affected most all of us who are participating in this thread and has contributed to the periodic escalations of rhetoric.

The importance of this observation – in short, a restatement of the principle of cultural relativism – in a thread like this one can’t, I think, be overstated. Each of us recognizing and understanding our individual perspective, formed of many practically unavoidable introjected and personal assumptions and preconceptions – or at least understanding that we all lave them – is critical to any truly scientific discussion of emotionally loaded issues such as gay marriage, or even seemingly easily verifiable questions such as “what does the word ‘marriage’ mean to most people?”

 

Once we’ve accepted that we have (and with rare exception, can’t easily wish away) “unique perspectives” – or, less postitive-sounding, cultural biases – we’re prepared to be truly scientific, by being carefully, rigorously objective. Such an approach tends to deliver many surprises – my personal rule-of-thumb is that, if I not surprised by a fair fraction of what I read to conclude through analysis, I either know a narrow subject very well – which is certainly not the case in this thread - or am not being sufficiently objective.

It is the genitals. One is a heterosexual relationship of unrelated consenting adults of opposite gender: this relationship has no predominant social taboos. The other is a homosexual relationship of unrelated consenting adults of the same gender: this relationship is considered taboo by the current majority of the population.

I agree with TBD’s defining homosexual relationships as being at least somewhat taboo in our culture, but think we need to be careful when using nuanced terms like “taboo” and statistically meaningful ones like “current majority” in the same sentence.

 

It’s practically impossible to objectively evaluate the fraction of a population that “considers taboo” a specific act, because, administered to statistically useful population sample, a survey question like “do you consider homosexual relationships taboo?” would be as much or more of a measure of the population’s comprehension and interpretation of the word “taboo” as of their attitude concerning homosexual relationships. Instead, well-designed polls use questions like “do you consider homosexual relations morally acceptable or morally wrong?”

 

Gallup’s “Values and Beliefs” poll includes this and many related questions asked over many decades (unfortunately, this Gallup poll surveys only Americans, but I’m confident that research could uncover comparable survey data for other countries). Its most current results cast doubt on the accuracy of the claim that homosexual relationships are considered taboo by the current majority of the American population.

 

As of May 2008, the “Perceptions of the Morality of Homosexual Relations” question produced 48% “morally acceptable”, 48% “morally wrong”, continuing an upward trend in “acceptable” and downward in “wrong” since the question appeared in the poll in 2001, producing 40% vs. 53% acceptable vs. wrong, and placing it just above “abortion” (40 vs. 48) and just below “doctor assisted suicide” (51 vs. 41) among the survey’s polled main topics. (

 

I suspect that this result is surprising to both people of self-identifying as “conservative” and “liberal”. Perhaps more surprising (it was to me, and I’ve read summaries of this poll several times in the last year) are responses to the survey’s “do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?”, recently at 55% “should be legal” vs. 40% “should not be legal”. This questions shows less clear trends, having started in 1977 at 43 vs. 43, hit 32 vs. 57 in 1986, and 60 vs. 35 in 2003, and appears to change strongly in response to court decisions and political discussions.

 

As I noted in an earlier post, this analysis, shows strong differences in attitudes toward homosexuality not only between years, but by age and residence, with the old (65+) and residents of the SouthEast least favoring, the young (18-29) and residents of the NorthEast being most.

[TheBigDog]

The importance of this observation – in short, a restatement of the principle of cultural relativism – in a thread like this one can’t, I think, be overstated. Each of us recognizing and understanding our individual perspective, formed of many practically unavoidable introjected and personal assumptions and preconceptions – or at least understanding that we all lave them – is critical to any truly scientific discussion of emotionally loaded issues such as gay marriage, or even seemingly easily verifiable questions such as “what does the word ‘marriage’ mean to most people?”

 

Once we’ve accepted that we have (and with rare exception, can’t easily wish away) “unique perspectives” – or, less postitive-sounding, cultural biases – we’re prepared to be truly scientific, by being carefully, rigorously objective. Such an approach tends to deliver many surprises – my personal rule-of-thumb is that, if I not surprised by a fair fraction of what I read to conclude through analysis, I either know a narrow subject very well – which is certainly not the case in this thread - or am not being sufficiently objective.

 

I agree with TBD’s defining homosexual relationships as being at least somewhat taboo in our culture, but think we need to be careful when using nuanced terms like “taboo” and statistically meaningful ones like “current majority” in the same sentence.

 

It’s practically impossible to objectively evaluate the fraction of a population that “considers taboo” a specific act, because, administered to statistically useful population sample, a survey question like “do you consider homosexual relationships taboo?” would be as much or more of a measure of the population’s comprehension and interpretation of the word “taboo” as of their attitude concerning homosexual relationships. Instead, well-designed polls use questions like “do you consider homosexual relations morally acceptable or morally wrong?”

 

Gallup’s “Values and Beliefs” poll includes this and many related questions asked over many decades (unfortunately, this Gallup poll surveys only Americans, but I’m confident that research could uncover comparable survey data for other countries). Its most current results cast doubt on the accuracy of the claim that homosexual relationships are considered taboo by the current majority of the American population.

 

As of May 2008, the “Perceptions of the Morality of Homosexual Relations” question produced 48% “morally acceptable”, 48% “morally wrong”, continuing an upward trend in “acceptable” and downward in “wrong” since the question appeared in the poll in 2001, producing 40% vs. 53% acceptable vs. wrong, and placing it just above “abortion” (40 vs. 48) and just below “doctor assisted suicide” (51 vs. 41) among the survey’s polled main topics. (

 

I suspect that this result is surprising to both people of self-identifying as “conservative” and “liberal”. Perhaps more surprising (it was to me, and I’ve read summaries of this poll several times in the last year) are responses to the survey’s “do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?”, recently at 55% “should be legal” vs. 40% “should not be legal”. This questions shows less clear trends, having started in 1977 at 43 vs. 43, hit 32 vs. 57 in 1986, and 60 vs. 35 in 2003, and appears to change strongly in response to court decisions and political discussions.

 

As I noted in an earlier post, this analysis, shows strong differences in attitudes toward homosexuality not only between years, but by age and residence, with the old (65+) and residents of the SouthEast least favoring, the young (18-29) and residents of the NorthEast being most.

That is the beauty of our government, and why I am against federalizing legislation. You don't need to do polls, you allow laws to be voted for, debated, changed, debated, and so on. Some places feel differently about issues that others, and their local laws can reflect their local sentiments. The Constitution and the Supreme Court are the methods by which the boundaries of laws are judged, and when a law has exceeded the boundaries it is corrected.

 

I see the same trend as Craig in the age demographics of the polls. I am interested to see how it actually translates over time; is it a trend, or is it a sign of how peoples attitudes change with age? My opinion is that it is a combination of both, and only time will tell which is the greater influence on the metric.

 

Bill

[Larv]

I see the same trend as Craig in the age demographics of the polls. I am interested to see how it actually translates over time; is it a trend, or is it a sign of how peoples attitudes change with age? My opinion is that it is a combination of both, and only time will tell which is the greater influence on the metric.

Craig’s posted poll & age demographics chart is quite interesting. I’m in the >65 group (I’m 70), and I suspect that TheBigDog’s suggestion is correct: that older people are more resistant to changing their minds about anything. We’ve lived longer and we know better. For me personally, I don’t like any group coming around and telling me that my values are wrong and that they need to be reversed for me to be acceptable. So, “gay marriage,” to me, is one of those modern ideas that sticks in my craw.

 

Why? Because I hate gay people? No. It’s because I don’t see the need to change tradition when the disaffected parties can get everything they need by merely legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships without changing the meaning of the word "marriage," just as we have done here in Washington state.

 

But the traditional marriage institution is already in shambles. Could it get any worse if we let gays, polygamists, necrophyliacs, and you-name–it into the fold of our disheveled covenant? On a statistical level I seriously doubt it.