Gays should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. To take one brand of sexuality public no doubt invites others to do the same, and they would have a point if they did.

CP

What's so abhorrent about two non-reproducing consenting adults having sex and wishing the same rights as any other hetero couple? Are you discriminating against these people just because they just happen to be blood relatives?

Until a few days ago, this seemed to be an abstract motion to me. But no longer. SCOTUS provided gay rights a staggering victory that opens the way to all these next levels. The day after that ruling, at least two law suits were filed to begin legalizing gay marriage. I cannot fathom how gay marriages can be prevented now.

As soon as gay marriages are legalized, the ACLU will begin eliminating all discriminatory behavior related to marriage. So, what happens to our health care costs associated with an entire new formula for insurance coverage when everybody starts marrying anybody they want?

Will premiums go higher because there is a much greater risk our spouse will get HIV? Will premiums go higher because of phychological issues surrounding same sex relationships and incestual relationships? Will premiums go higher for family coverage because we can create families of any size we want now without having to actually give birth?

Then with marriages, come the divorces. Our courts can't handle the load now, so who will be paying to have our civil court size not only doubled, but probably tripled (when you account for me deciding to divorce my mom)?

This is a huge can of worms that does make homosexual relationships our business. To assume there are lawyers who will not try to get a piece of this financial pie as a result of this premise is ridiculous.

And all of us will be paying for it.

Marriage does not force an ideal on others. That you would allow your own opinions to be swayed by a single institution reveals you to be a person of weak moral conviction. This is not meant to be taken as an insult, but if you can't stand your ground against the mere opinion of other people, what kind of conviction is that?

And what kind of logic are you using to say that you respect homosexuals for enduring prejudice in society, only to then say you're going to support maintaining some of the prejudice they're forced to endure?

Yeah, and black people should be allowed to drink out of any faucet they want to at home, so long as they remember which water fountain is theirs when they go out in public...

Their "brand of sexuality" is already public, it's been public for over two millenia... do you think it's going to go away if you refuse to acknowledge it? The institution of marriage is just that, an institution. It has no mind control powers as you seem to believe it does. Just because two people get married does not mean people have to accept it, does not mean people are going to view homosexuality any differently and does not mean they're going to ever realize the injustices they are perpetrating against their fellow human beings in the face of years of similar prejudice and unjustified hatred.

Please! People would laugh in the face of child molesters if they attempted to "go public" with it. Not only that, but investigations and charges would most likely be brought against them. They wouldn't have a chance. For instance, bestiality: Animals have no legal rights. What case would people that practice bestiality have to get married? Would the sheep say "Baaaaaaaaaa" instead of "I Do?" silliness. No way relevant to gay rights. Two consenting HUMAN adults on the other hand shouldn't be denied tax cuts, and other legal rights just because their relationship isn't recognized or condoned by a certain faction of America.

If it's not a crime to be gay in this country (yeah Texas!) than it should be legal for gays to get married.

Abs, how do we know that heterosexuality is the norm, because most people aren't gay, how do we know that, because heterosexuals get married, and we accept this. And please don't compare African Americans' situation with gays, I never said that gays couldn't be gay, just to endorse it by making it public is not a good thing.

CP

I find it funny, Pat, that you would allow institutionalizing marriage to change your opinions of homosexuality when on a separate thread you said...(legalizing marijuana thread)

It's the majority, not the norm, Pat. Heterosexuals getting married has nothing to do with heterosexuality being normal... homosexuals would get married but you won't allow them to. It's a ridiculous argument.

Nobody said black people couldn't drink out of any faucet in the privacy of their own homes either, Pat. They just had to drink out of special water fountains in public and sit in certain seats. "Making it public" wasn't considered to be a good thing...

First of all, yep, I did say that, but if I'm the only one who finds something wrong with a lifestyle, I'll be forced to accept it, not like it, but accept it, two different things. And Abs, again to give one group rights while deny others is hypocritical, so why should we only give one groups special rights. This has no connection to what happen to black people, come on.

CP

Do you even think about what you say?

You're advocating heterosexuals having the right to marry while denying homosexuals that same right, and you're talking about hypocrisy?

In what way does something in the open mean that you have to accept it? And in what context are you acceptin it? In the context that it happened? Big deal. If it's not wrong, because marriage is predominately an act of love, why would you care whether or not it happened? Or, do you mean that you have to accept it as being right since it's in the open? You don't. You can complain, moan, or even stay quiet about it, and nobody will care, because it's going to happen anyway. So you don't have to accept it. Unless you make a big deal about it, and go around publicly denouncing it, nobody's going to care whether or not you approve of it.

This is the point I've been waiting for someone to make, so if we're both advocating allowing one group to marry and not another, isn't your idea just as descriminatory as mine, what's the diffference? Bean, things that the gov't says is okay, most people are going to think "Well, it's okay by the gov't then it must be okay by me." What we're doing is politicizing sex, and what we should do is leave this subject as is because once one sexual preference is politicized, they all are.

CP

WTF!? How is heterosexual marriage NOT politicized?! "It's", as conservatives would say, "the cornerstone of family values". Republicans use FAMILY VALUES as a political tool CONSTANTLY.

You are dividing the country into the have's and the have nots, over what ONE group considers immoral by BIBLICAL standards! I thought America was about "Freedom of\from religion"? Why is it that YOU(being conservatives in general) can tell me I don't have the right to something YOU get to take for granted?

I have already said that, that's what the whole thread is about. If I'm from a different sexual preference as you, but not straight, and gay marriage is legal, I can say the same thing to you, why can't I get those rights? There would be a domino effect that would crush the moral fiber of our country, we're supposed to have morals in this country and they would deteriorate if some of the other sexual groups had their way.

CP

I haven't said anything about other groups not being allowed to marry, Pat. I support the right of any group of consentual adults to marry.

And that is the problem, if all sex is politicized, this is what political parties will deteriorate to Sex-related parties. People who have truly sick sexual preferences will want the same rights that gays have, and again, won't they have a point, it will then be them that will be descriminated against.

CP

Not necessarily; that would be the fallacy of accident (close relative of the slippery slope with which you should be familiar by now). Should murderers and child molesters have the same freedom of association as everyone else? Do we grant them such freedom? It's only hypocritical if no distinction can be made between homosexual marriage and other kinds of marriage that we disallow, and I believe people have made such distinctions.

It would be deemed by some that some of the other sexual preferences are not bad or evil.

CP

And that still does not validate your misplaced charge of hypocrisy.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. My point is that wouldn't it be hypocritical to deny other people of diverse sexual preference the same rights given to gays?

CP

There are already political parties based on sexuality and rights for those with different sexual preferences. Other parties not associated with those parties will not necessarily deteriorate into sex-related parties. If you'd argue otherwise, provide some support for it.

Whether sexual preferences are sick to you or not is subjective. It isn't the government's job to legislate morality. If two consenting adults want to get married they should have the right to do so. Discrimination and bigotry is discrimination and bigotry no matter who you're applying it to.

You can't say that the gov't can't regulate morality, they already do, laws, laws are a set guide of state decided morals, of course the gov't has the right, if the gov't doesn't regulate moralities who would?

CP

The government establishes laws based on the welfare of society. They don't go around banning blowjobs because it's not a reproductive sexual practice. Gay marriage poses no threat to society for the government to have legislation prohibiting it. Morality can be without reason while reason can reflect on the morals of society.

until the emancipation proclamation, slavery was considered moral and even a Right to OWN another human. There are moral standards upheld when it comes to protecting one unwilling person from another instigator who treads on that persons rights. Then there are intrusive government inforced morals between what two consenting adults do. A BIG difference.

And the morals of people should probably tell a person that to allow other groups of sexual orientation should not be allowed to marry, homosexuality is not such a bad thing, IMO, but allowing homosexual marriages would show that no matter who you are you should be able to marry, and frankly some groups of people should not be allowed to wed, no matter what.

edited to add: That was then, this is now BJ. You can't compare the past to the present, to much has changed.

CP

How about the prisoners serving time in our prisons? They can get married as it is. And in some cases, they have conjugal visits. So, prisoners would be allowed to marry their cellmates, have unprotected sex in their cells without fear of persecution, and have the ACLU get them everything they want that other married couples have.

This will be the first group standing in line to get everything they can if they are allowed to marry.

In fact, I wonder how the ruling in Texas affects homosexual sex in our prisons? Is it lawful conduct now if the two adults agree?

Why can't I? I'm showing the progression of the intellect and changing moral standards of Americans.

"If you do not know your history, you are damned to repeat it"

History is what we learn from, the mistakes and triumphs of mankind!

So let's learn from it and disallow sick sexual groups from getting married [I'm not talking about gays, BTW].

CP

So WHO are you talking about!? This thread is about GAY MARRIAGE. And what have we learned about allowing gay people to have rights in this country and letting tollerance start to take root?

1. lower teen suicide.

2. Better gay role models.

3. Lower amount of gay bashing.

4. Higher self esteem for gay people.

It seems to me that all the lessons to learn so far are all positive.

So, there you go, arguing FOR adult incest, bigamy and polygamy. Notice, the argument here is adult incest, not child molestation. What compelling reason would there be for banning these things, except the moral one?

Two consenting adults : it shouldn't matter if they are father and daughter or father and son, etc.
Bigamy: If TWO people can be married, why not three, why not 10? No moral reason can be used to prevent it because we cannot legislate morality (by this line of thinking).

By the way, the government has, does and WILL ALWAYS legislate morality.

Let's see:
Drug use/possession: It is not legal in the "privacy" of your home, even though you aren't harming anyone. All participants (ie, you) are willing.
Gambling: Ditto. Not legal just because it is in your house or that all the participants are willing.
Prostitution : Again, same argument. Both parties are willing, done in privacy.
Pornography: Ditto
Cock fights: Ditto (animals have no rights, see above)
Pit bull fights : Ditto
Bestiality: Ditto


The assertion that the government cannot make a law based on morality is, on its face, wrong. It is done all the time. The idea that you can't legislate what goes on behind closed doors with consenting adults is also false. That argument holds no water, unless we overturn a ton of other laws.

Care to provide a link? 2-4 seem to be very opinionated and I'm not sure what they're based on. Here's my point: How far are we to go allowing sexual groups to marry?

CP

Amlord, you know what I meant. Do chickens pay taxes? Do chickens retire and collect social security? Do chickens even have a social security number. Are chickens are a species mentioned ANYWHERE in our Constitution, Bill of Rights or declaration of independence? Would YOU deem chickens as your equal, entitling them to Citizenship of our great nation?

NO.

There are laws protecting animals and the treatment of animals, but animals DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS.

edited: One more, would you let a chicken vote or hold public office?

How in the world are you figuring legalizing gay marriage would lead prisoners to want to marry their cellmates?

You think a court ruling is going to persuade Bubba Gump in Cell Block D to wake up one morning and think, "You know... Jimmy over there in Cell Block C is a pretty tender guy. And those sparkling eyes... I wonder if he wouldn't mind taking care of me in sickness and in health, incarcerated and on parole..."?

Learn what lessons from history, Pat? What stands out for you that would lead you to believe we need to keep gay marriage, incestual marriage or bigamy illegal? Cite some examples if you don't mind too terribly. When and where exactly have "sick sexual groups" been allowed to marry, and when and where might it have been to the detriment of society?

I am arguing for adult incest, bigamy and polygamy. If it's consentual adults seeking to express their love in an institution such as marriage I believe it should be granted to them. And as I've already said, morality can (and often is) be lacking in reason.

I'm not sure what you mean to accomplish bringing up illegal drugs, gambling, prostitution and pornography. You yourself have argued in favor of legalizing marijuana on this Forum, and the rest are all already legal in the United States of America.

I never said the government didn't legislate morality, but rather that it isn't the government's job. There have been numerous laws "based on morality" in the history of this country which were overturned. It's worked for the better of equality and justice in the past, yet somehow you feel it won't be now?

What I said came out wrong, I mean learn from groups like NAMBLA and others, so we don't give them the chance to grow and be able to marrry.

CP

Okay. Time for me to respond. This is my argument: Who remembers that show "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" Anyone? For those who don't, the premise was this: Women lined up to pledge their "love" to a man that they had never met, never seen, and never spoken to, all based on the fact that this guy had a lot of money. Really, it was a form of legal prostitution. But the American people ate it up. Ratings for this program were unbelievably high. So . . .this type of marriage is okay. As ratings suggested, it was even encouraged. Two complete strangers could share a holy vow of matrimony based on money, and nothing else. However, if my partner, whom I love with every bit of my heart, mind, and body, wanted to get married to share a sacred bond, we would not be allowed to do so in today's society. Two women who have been together for years, or two men who have faced life's hardships together cannot be legally recognized as a married couple, yet, we allow such a sham and atrocity as the"Millionaire" marriage to take place, and we applaud, and we want more. Am I the only one on this site who sees something very wrong with this picture?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/932621.asp?cp1=1

Check it out now....my funk soul brotha....

NAMBLA isn't dealing with two consentual adults seeking to be married. Nobody is seeking to redefine the age at which people are adults or deemed responsible enough to be wed in this debate.

What I'm saying is that let's say that gay marriage is legalized, NAMBLA and all of these other organizations will demand the same rights that gays have. Again, both legalizing gay marriage and keeping it criminal will both descriminate against another group(s).

CP

In response to that article (and a TON of others like it on the net)

Antonin Scalia did not issue a scalding, homophobic dissent. Scalia knows full well that this decision, this act of judicial activisy, will make EVERY SINGLE law in America which affect activities in "private" subject to judicial review.

Gambling, prostitution, adult incest, bigamy, polygamy (as I said before) are all "up-for-grabs" now.

What the decision REALLY says (homosexuality aside) is that the local community has no business determining local community values. Every law must coincide with the "National will" which is dictated by 9 un-elected justices wearing black robes in Washington DC.

If "privacy" trumps a state's ability to legislate, then who is to say where this decision will lead us?

NAMBLA already is a gay organization. Their members will be allowed to marry people of the same sex just like every other homosexual. The line will still stand for marriage to take place between two consenting adults. We're debating homosexual relationships and marriage, not the legalization of any form of pedophilia.

One will lead to another, this is my point. When one group gets rights that other groups don't have, the excluded ones will want those rights also.

CP

[QUOTE]
Normal: from M-W.com:

2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>

(the first definition is actually perpendicular...heh).

The stats bear out that 90-95% of the population is straight. The VAST majority. That is, therefore, normal.
[QUOTE]

So, since midgets fit into that category, being a small(no pun intended ) minority; and because they have a genetic defect that can be detrimental, therefore they can be seen as a burden on society and on the health insurance industry, should they also not be allowed to marry and reproduce?

Who wants to name that fallacy?

[QUOTE=Billy Jean,Jun 30 2003, 04:15 PM] [QUOTE]
Normal: from M-W.com:
QUOTE 
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>
[/QUOTE]
(the first definition is actually perpendicular...heh).

The stats bear out that 90-95% of the population is straight. The VAST majority. That is, therefore, normal.
[QUOTE]


So, since midgets fit into that category, being a small(no pun intended ) minority; and because they have a genetic defect that can be detrimental, therefore they can be seen as a burden on society and on the health insurance industry, should they also not be allowed to marry and reproduce? [/QUOTE]
This is completely different. Midgets are just, little people, they are not doing anything out of the norm. The whole problem wiht homosexual marriage, as I have said before, is that other more, radical groups will want the same rights. Platypus, why don't you think that that won't happen, elaborate.

CP

[quote=Billy Jean,Jun 30 2003, 04:15 PM] [QUOTE]
Normal: from M-W.com:

2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>

(the first definition is actually perpendicular...heh).

The stats bear out that 90-95% of the population is straight. The VAST majority. That is, therefore, normal.
[QUOTE]

So, since midgets fit into that category, being a small(no pun intended ) minority; and because they have a genetic defect that can be detrimental, therefore they can be seen as a burden on society and on the health insurance industry, should they also not be allowed to marry and reproduce? [/quote]
I never said that a minority should not be able to reproduce. My argument is that homosexuals can't reproduce by doing what they feel is "right", sexually.

Since you asked my opinion on midgets (or any other birth defect) here is my stance there:
If an individual, due to the circumstances of its birth, does not possess characteristics desirable to potential mates, then it should not (and naturally, will not) reproduce.

The ostracation of midgets actually ALLOWED them to find partners that would be willing to reproduce with them, therefore perpetuating midget-ness (dwarfism).

Of course, that wouldn't work with homosexuals.

Well, this hasn't happened in other countries that have allowed gay marriage, so unless "I think so" qualifies as evidence I don't see how you can call that statement valid.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/127...marriage18.html

Our neighbor to the north thinks gay marriages are okay....

Don't you think that there is the possibility of more groups coming out and wanting to marry, I think that this is a very reasonable assumption. Just because it hasn't happened in Canada, who's political atmosphere is much different than the US's, doesn't mean that more groups won't want equal rights in the states, where does it end.

CP

If and when that happens, we'll deal with it on its own merits. The slope's never as slippery as it seems.

Good point, but I think that some of the same type of legislatures and people who support gay marriage, will realize that other groups will have the same point as gays do, and will defend these other groups, I think that this would be a "pre-emtive strike" if you will against more extreme groups.

CP

Your reasoning is becoming repetitious. BTW, Canada is a Western Christian based democracy, like us. Just because they may not have only two major political factions doesn't mean that they aren't the closest resemblance to American politics and attitude. They are are neighbor to the north and we do share the longest border in the world and we get along famously. They're baseball teams even play in our leagues! How much more Americanized do they have to be?

If you read posts 3 thru 5 and 9 thru 11 on the first page, that pretty much covers everything I'd want to say.