Thomas wrote:joefromchicago wrote: Ask a Marxist what "class" is and you'll get one answer. Ask Webster and you might get another. But this discussion was about "class" in a legal context; in that context, "class" means any identifiable group.
Source?
Class: a group of persons or things having characteristics in common: as
a: a group of persons who have some common relationship to a person making a will and are designated to receive a gift under the will but whose identities will not be determined until sometime in the future
(see also class gift at gift)
b: a group of securities (as stocks or bonds) having similar distinguishing features (as voting rights or priority of redemption)
c: a group whose members are represented in a class action
d: "protected class"
e: a group of crimes forming a category distinguished by a common characteristic (as the use of violence or the requirement for a maximum penalty)
Example: murder is a class A felony
blatham wrote:
Taboo and 'profane' are essentially identical. They are really the same concept. And that concept is always held in opposition to 'sacred'. And that goes a lonnnng way to explaining why the religious or faith component in a community will so often fall on the side of 'traditional values'.
This, perhaps is the essence of Blatham's argument.
I agree - they do "go a lonnnng way to explaining...". However they don't go all the way.
It is simply not true that opposition to "gay marriage" necessarily springs from a deep reaction to the violation of some mutable taboo or concept of what constitutes perversity. It may well have real components of that in some or even many cases, but it does not in all. You have steadfastly refused to deal with that element of the very good arguments that have been put forward here by the evil German and others.
joefromchicago wrote:
Class: a group of persons or things having characteristics in common: as
Thank you!
I am now trying to make sense of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's statement under this definition of "class" and your understanding of "arbitrary". It does make sense to me now as far as it goes, but its scope now seems much too broad to be useful. For example, by charging higher university tuitions from in-state students than from out-of-state students, states could be said to arbitrarily discriminate against the class of out-of-state students. By making payments to 65 year old retirees but not to 55 year old retirees, Social Security arbitrarily discriminates against the class of sub-60-year-retirees, or whatever the threshold age is for Social Security.
Finally, marriage itself would seem to create a class of people that is arbitrarily privileged over everybody else. It seems that the same "equal protection" logic that makes straight-only marriage unconstitutional, also makes practically all marriage privileges unconstitutional. The government can subsidize people for bearing and raising children, but subsidizing marriage for its own sake would be arbitrary discrimination against the class of unmarried people.
In your opinion, is that valid legal reasoning? If not, how would you distinguish the cases?
Thomas, your point about 5 couples being equivalent to ten singles is well taken. Perhaps the whole health care thing ought to be a moot point, as I believe decent health care is a right, not a priviledge, but that's another thread.
Also, you wrote: "By taking it to the courts, however, the gay marriage movement is pretending that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right "
which I believe it is
"already protected by America's federal and state constitutions"
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
".... No persuasion and voting necessary."
Did anyone have to be persuaded to allow for straight marriages ? And if, say, interracial marriage had been put to a vote in the sixties, what do you think would have happened ?
As I have said before on other threads, I believe one of the roles of our courts is to protect the rights on minorities, who, by definition, cannot achieve a majority vote by themselves to secure their rights. afer the rights become legal, "people" can take as long as they want or need to become comfortable with them.
Thomas wrote:I am now trying to make sense of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's statement under this definition of "class" and your understanding of "arbitrary". It does make sense to me now as far as it goes, but its scope now seems much too broad to be useful. For example, by charging higher university tuitions from in-state students than from out-of-state students, states could be said to arbitrarily discriminate against the class of out-of-state students. By making payments to 65 year old retirees but not to 55 year old retirees, Social Security arbitrarily discriminates against the class of sub-60-year-retirees, or whatever the threshold age is for Social Security.
It is a mistake to think that all discrimination is illegal. Laws routinely discriminate against or between certain classes of individuals. The test, however, is whether or not the state has a compelling interest in discriminating. Furthermore, the supreme court has determined that there are some classes that have been the targets of invidious discrimination ("suspect classes"), so laws discriminating against those classes are subject to the highest level of scrutiny ("strict scrutiny"). Currently, the supreme court considers four classes to be "suspect" classes: race, color, religion, and national origin.
In the case of tuitions or retirement benefits, a fairly easy case can be made that the state has a compelling interest in discriminating against out-of-state students or persons younger than 65. And since neither residency nor age are "suspect" classes, courts would apply a "moderate" or "rational relationship" test to laws that discriminate on those bases.
Thomas wrote:Finally, marriage itself would seem to create a class of people that is arbitrarily privileged over everybody else. It seems that the same "equal protection" logic that makes straight-only marriage unconstitutional, also makes practically all marriage privileges unconstitutional. The government can subsidize people for bearing and raising children, but subsidizing marriage for its own sake would be arbitrary discrimination against the class of unmarried people.
Why should the state subsidize people for bearing and raising children?
There are, no doubt, compelling reasons to grant some privileges and benefits to married couples. For instance, it is useful to give special priority to widows or widowers in cases of intestate succession (i.e. where a spouse dies without leaving a will) or to spouses in cases of medical decision-making. The law, in other words, should recognize that the married couple (and, by extension, the family) constitutes a special social unit. And, to a certain extent, that would mean that unmarried people would not receive the benefits and privileges accorded to married couples.
Thomas wrote:In your opinion, is that valid legal reasoning? If not, how would you distinguish the cases?
What cases? The tuition and retirement cases?
Go back to the basics
Go back to the basics:
The Declaration of Independence establishes the truth -- that all individuals are born with inalienable rights. Among those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
When forming our government, the people did not give up their individual rights. These rights are inalienable. These rights cannot be voluntarily surrendered to a governing power.
Government was formed to SECURE individual rights. Our government was formed as an insurance (a policing agent) against infringements upon individual rights.
In order to keep government in its proper role, our founding fathers created a government of LIMITED powers. The Constitution provides for separation of powers and checks and balances to safeguard the people against oppression and tyranny.
Whenever we analyze government conduct/actions/laws, we must do so with the understanding of why government exists (to secure individual life, liberty, and happiness) and why government powers are limited (to safeguard against infringements upon individual rights).
Where this country has gone astray is through the people clamoring "there ought to be a law, there ought to be a law" every time they turn around -- and their elected representatives (both state and federal) have answered the call. As a result, darn near every human activity is subject to government regulation. We live in a society that criminalizes, penalizes, or attempts to remedy through fines or other sanctions all perceived evils. And then, the courts developed a presumption of constitutionality for virtually all laws enacted so long as the law in question might somehow be rationally related to some government interest in protecting the welfare of the people.
The police powers of our government have grown to massive proportions and people have forgotten why government was created in the first place.
Finally, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court opened its slumbering eyes just a tad and got back to the basics. Instead of hammering the "presumption of constitutionality" of a state law that criminalized private conduct, the Court essentially invoked the presumption upon which this country was founded: THE PRESUMPTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
Instead of protecting the state law with a presumption of constitutionality and placing the onerous burden of proving its unconstitutionality on the persons challenging the law, the Supreme Court required the state to justify a law that infringed upon private conduct between two consenting adults. The state could not articulate any rational interest -- let alone a compelling state interest -- that justified the law.
And that's what we all must remember -- all individuals have a fundamental, inalienable right to LIBERTY. This is the right to be free from governmental intrusions into our personal and economic lives. This right cannot be violated unless government has a COMPELLING governmental interest for intruding and the means used are NECESSARY and NARROWLY TAILORED to serve that compelling interest. The burden of justifying the law must fall upon the government -- a government that was formed to be a government of LIMITED powers.
The individual right to liberty encompasses all individual activities and prohibits government interference, whether or not the right or limitation is enumerated in the constitution (See the Ninth Amendment), so long as those activities do not violate the rights of others.
The government cannot justify the prohibition of same-sex marriages. It does not violate the rights of heterosexual couples if homosexual couples are allowed to marry.
angie wrote:life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
They are a good reason for believing that homosexuals have a fundamental right to sleep with each other. (As do people in incestuous and polygamous liaisons.) I don't think they're a good reason for believing that homosexuals have a right to marry. Remember that marriage,
in the words of MSN Encarta, is "
a socially recognized and approved union between individuals, who commit to one another with the expectation of a stable and lasting intimate relationship." (Emphasis mine.) Recognition and approval are voluntary acts of society, and coercing approval by law infringes on the liberty of everybody else in society.
angie wrote:Did anyone have to be persuaded to allow for straight marriages ? And if, say, interracial marriage had been put to a vote in the sixties, what do you think would have happened ?
As Blatham points out, the institution of marriage has changed a lot over time. I haven't done enough historical research to really answer your question, but I would be very surprised if changes in that instituion hadn't always required a significant amount of persuasion to happen. I don't think anybody knows how the history of marriage got started, but marriage is the way it is today because people have persuaded other people that it ought to be this way. On the second part, my guess is that if interracial marriage had been decided by vote in the 1960s, some Southern States would have kept it illegal and legalized it in the 1970s instead. I am also guessing that its social acceptance in the rural South would be greater today than it actually is. After all, the change in law would have happened because Southern society would have been persuaded by the Civil Rights movement, not press-ganged by the federal courts.
joefromchicago wrote: It is a mistake to think that all discrimination is illegal. Laws routinely discriminate against or between certain classes of individuals. The test, however, is whether or not the state has a compelling interest in discriminating. Furthermore, the supreme court has determined that there are some classes that have been the targets of invidious discrimination ("suspect classes"), so laws discriminating against those classes are subject to the highest level of scrutiny ("strict scrutiny"). Currently, the supreme court considers four classes to be "suspect" classes: race, color, religion, and national origin.
On the face of it, this sounds as if the Supreme Court had first used a very broad definition of "discrimination" and "equal rights" to declare unconstitutional all discrimination it doesn't like. It then used the wild card of "compelling state interest" and the arbitrary technicality of "suspect classes" to excuse the kinds of discrimination it likes. I can accept this as a factual account of how the law is currently applied in the United States. But I can't take it seriously as a legal doctrine that has any normative implications. In particular, I can see no compelling reason why, in the Supreme Court's opinion, married people ought to be privileged, but marriage ought not be a privilege of heterosexuals.
joefromchicago wrote:In the case of tuitions or retirement benefits, a fairly easy case can be made that the state has a compelling interest in discriminating against out-of-state students or persons younger than 65.
Why? If tuitions were equal between out-of-state stutents and in-state students, what undesirable consequences establish a compelling state interest not to have them? If retirees received $800 a month for 30 years after their 55th birthday rather than $1200 a month for 20 years after their 65th birthday, what undesirable consequences establish a compelling state interest not to provide that option? If widows weren't priviledged heirs, what terrible things would happen to the state? I don't see them.
joefromchicago wrote:Thomas wrote:In your opinion, is that valid legal reasoning? If not, how would you distinguish the cases?
What cases? The tuition and retirement cases?
tuition and retirement vs. marriage, yes.
Debraw_Law wrote:Where this country has gone astray is through the people clamoring "there ought to be a law, there ought to be a law" every time they turn around -- and their elected representatives (both state and federal) have answered the call. As a result, darn near every human activity is subject to government regulation.
This is indeed a good argument for opening marriage to homosexuals -- and against having the government subsidize people for marrying. Just do it
the Blackstone way: Have the state treat marriage like any private contract, and leave it to the churches to confer social approval, social disapproval, and any social privileges there need to be. The United States not having an established church, this means that couples can then change their religion as needed and get social blessings from any religious community willing to give it. I'm fine with that.
Thomas wrote:
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
They are a good reason for believing that homosexuals have a fundamental right to sleep with each other. (As do people in incestuous and polygamous liaisons.) "
First of all, if I may say so, I am really put off by the repeated efforts of some (not necessarily Thomas) to somehow subtly denigrate homosexual relationships by grouping them, even parenthitically, with other relationships that may be viewed as unfavorable, such as incestuous ones. Should incestuous relationships be viewed "unfavorably? Perhaps, perhaps not, but they generally are, and the association is therefore, for some people, intended to be a negatve one.
"I don't think they're a good reason for believing that homosexuals have a right to marry."
I strongly disagree. The pursuit of marriage is, for me, most definitely a good reason for allowing same sex marriage.
"Remember that marriage, in the words of MSN Encarta, is "a socially recognized and approved union between individuals, who commit to one another with the expectation of a stable and lasting intimate relationship." (Emphasis mine.) "
Is there an assumption/suggestion here somewhere that two gay people would NOT be interested in a stable and lasting intimate relationship? Such an assumption/suggestion would, IMO, be absurd. Many gay families, just like many straight families, are shining examples of two strongly committed people who adore their children and are providing a truly warm, loving, nurturing stable environment for them.
"Recognition and approval are voluntary acts of society, and coercing approval by law infringes on the liberty of everybody else in society"
Well, I've already addressed this, but for the sake perhaps of closure, let me say one more time that, in some case, especially when minorities are involved, it can not and ought not be a majority that determines civil rights. Our history bears strong witness to that. It appears that you (Thomas) and I have a fundamental disagreement on at least that point.
For me, this whole thing comes down to civil rights. If gay people are duly granted the civil right to secure a civil marriage (or any other arrangement that guarantees the all and exactly the same rights as married straight couples), then people can take as long as they want or need to decide for themselves whether or not to embrace this change based upon comfort factors, religious issues, or whatever. It took a long time for most people to become "comfortable" with interracial civil marriage, originally viewed by most as abnormal, unnatural, and 'not good for children'. It took a long time for people to be comfortable with interracial schools, and if the courts had not stepped in, the majority might still not be comfortable enough to "vote" out separate but equal.
Change is hard. It takes time for the so-called confort factor to take hold, but that is not, IMO, a just reason to deny rights.
Gay Americans are our brothers and sisters, our neighbors and co-workers, our sons and daughters. they are every bit as American as we straight people are, and they want the same shot at personal happiness that we do. For most people, surely that involves finding love, making a commitment, and perhaps raising a family. Granting this right to all who seek it is the strongest boost we can give to preserving the sanctity of marriage, IMO.
Another champion of democracy...
"......the mob voted...."
"...when minorities are involved, majorities cannot decide the issue..."
Angie - since you're the author of the above, could you tell us how majorities should vote concerning rights of minorities? Should our votes be 3/5 of a vote, perhaps?? Or 1/4 - what do you consider fair?
angie wrote:First of all, if I may say so, I am really put off by the repeated efforts of some (not necessarily Thomas) to somehow subtly denigrate homosexual relationships by grouping them, even parenthitically, with other relationships that may be viewed as unfavorable, such as incestuous ones. Should incestuous relationships be viewed "unfavorably? Perhaps, perhaps not, but they generally are, and the association is therefore, for some people, intended to be a negatve one.
You may of course say so, but I disagree with you. There is a simple, and I think legitimate, reason I group homosexuals polygamists and incestuous relations (among consenting grownups) together: The argument you are advancing for gay marriage applies equally to
all these groups, and there is no ethical or logical reason that what's appropriate for one group should not be appropriate for the others. If you are singling out homosexuals -- if you are unwilling to follow the implications of your own argument to its logical conclusions -- than that says something about the limits of the argument itself. So far,
none of the defenders of homosexual marriage has come forward to defend what seems to me like a perfectly sensible analogy.
angie wrote:Is there an assumption/suggestion here somewhere that two gay people would NOT be interested in a stable and lasting intimate relationship?
No. If I had intended to suggest this, I would have emphasised that part of the definition. The suggestion is that when A and B have a stable and lasting intimate relationship, and C doesn't recognize or approve it, that is C's own free decision. If you want C's approval, you have to persuade him, not compel him. There is no point in creating the institution of same-sex marriage if a large majority is unwilling to approve it.
angie wrote:Well, I've already addressed this, but for the sake perhaps of closure, let me say one more time that, in some case, especially when minorities are involved, it can not and ought not be a majority that determines civil rights.
Okay, so who do you think ought to determine them, and why do you expect their decisions to be better?
Thomas is a more patient man than I.
The topic proposition in this thread is that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily an indication of homophobia in the part of one who holds that opinion.
Thomas has convincingly offered reasonable alternative reasons on which one could oppose gay marriage, and has, as well, pointed out serious contradictions in the arguments its proponents have put forward in support of it. None of thisa has the slightest tint of homophobia or a fixed dislike of homosexuals or homosexuality.
For those of you who wish to DEFINE homophobia as opposition to gay marriage, you are OK. However this is not the usual understanding of the term.
georgeob1 wrote: Thomas has convincingly offered reasonable alternative reasons on which one could oppose gay marriage....
On which one
could oppose gay marriage. He has not made a case that these
are the reasons most oppose gay marriage.
As for lumping incestuous and polygamous relationships with gay marriage: this is a strawman argument. No one (here) is advocating incestual or polygamal marriage.
It is an attempt to appeal to the "yuck" factor.
He has also consistently ignored issues that he is unable to address.
Are you able to look into the hearts of others unseen and know the REAL reasons for their beliefs and opinions?
The part about incest and polygamy was no strawman. Thomas merely pointed out that we already make distinctions logically equivalent to that regarding homosexuals in our marriage laws, and that many or most of those who advocate gay marriage also advocate continuing them. Your statement strongly suggests you are prejudging his motives and intent. How do you know the truth of these assertions?
NO one here has made a convincing case here to support the truth of the topic proposition. On the other hand Thomas has clearly demonstrated that there are reasonable bases on which one could oppose gay marriage that have nothing at all to do with homophobia.
I drew a parallel between interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans (and motivations for same).
Doesn't mean you have to agree.
I don't think that either of us are suggesting that NONE of the opposition to gay marriage is based on homophobia.
We do, however, resist the slander that ALL of it necessarily is so based.
"The argument you are advancing for gay marriage applies equally to all these groups, and there is no ethical or logical reason that what's appropriate for one group should not be appropriate for the others. "
If you read my comments again, you will see that I did not disagree with this. I simply stated that I am put off by the grouping which SOME people use to suggest a negative connotation.
" The suggestion is that when A and B have a stable and lasting intimate relationship, and C doesn't recognize or approve it, that is C's own free decision. "
ok
"If you want C's approval, you have to persuade him, not compel him. "
I do not want anyone's "approval". I can not speak for others, but I have stated many times that the notion of someone needing the approval of someone else bothers me.
"There is no point in creating the institution of same-sex marriage if a large majority is unwilling to approve it."
What ? How ridiculous. What does the approval of the majority have to do with someone's legal rights? I may not approve of someone marrying someone thirty years younger, or someone marrying a right-wing Republican, but that is certainly not grounds for denying that person his or her right to do so. And again, how many Americans strongly disapproved of interracial marriage not that long ago? A vast majority to be sure. Doesn't mean interracial couples ought to have been denied their legal right to marry.
"Okay, so who do you think ought to determine them (civil rights), and why do you expect their decisions to be better?"
The courts exist (among other reasons), IMO, to protect the rights of minorities who, by definition, cannot "vote" themselves rights by majority. What I believe, and hope, is that those courts will make their decisions based upon our constitution and upon the fundamental premise of equality inherent within that document. Whether you feel that would result in a "better" situation, or not, will of course depend upon your own subjective perspective.
I have tried to have a reasonable dialogue with you, Thomas, and I think we have for the most part been able to do so, but there comes a point when pretty much all that needs to be said has been said. We could go on, or we could agree to leave this issue be, for now at least, and perhaps meet again on another thread.
That work for you ?
angie wrote: If you read my comments again, you will see that I did not disagree with this. I simply stated that I am put off by the grouping which SOME people use to suggest a negative connotation.
That's what I thought you were saying. I was trying to suggest that if your "equal protection" arguments for gay marriage (and blathams, and ...) were sound, "some people" couldn't successfully establish such a negative connotation.
angie wrote:I do not want anyone's "approval". I can not speak for others, but I have stated many times that the notion of someone needing the approval of someone else bothers me.
I sympathise with your sentiment. But this means that the institution of marriage itself bothers you, because its definition explicitly includes the social approval of the relationship in question. I cited you the definition from MSN Encarta, but social approval is an element of the marriage definitions of all the sources I checked. Under the standard usage of terms, you are in effect saying: "Gays should have a right to have their relations approved by society, no matter if society approves of them or not." In other words, you are demanding something that's logically impossible.
angie wrote:Thomas wrote:"There is no point in creating the institution of same-sex marriage if a large majority is unwilling to approve it."
And again, how many Americans strongly disapproved of interracial marriage not that long ago? A vast majority to be sure. Doesn't mean interracial couples ought to have been denied their legal right to marry.
I disagree. In places where a large majority opposes interracial marriage, it doesn't make sense to have interracial marriage. In these places, the problem is that this opposition is based on false premises, not that marriage implies social approval. The solution is to correct the false premises, not to redefine what a marriage implies. And the Federal government intervening is generally the wrong way to correct false premises.
To expand: In my opinion, it was wrong to deny interracial couples the right to marry, but the reason I think it was wrong has nothing to do with the nature of marriage. The opposition to interracial marriage sprung from deeply rooted misconceptions about the biology of race, and about the likely consequences of having large numbers of mulatto children. Hypothetically, if those hadn't been misconceptions -- for example, if crossing blacks and whites really had been genetically similar to crossing Indian elephants and African elephants -- mixed couples indeed ought to have been denied a legal right to marry. Given that those notions were wrong, the proper thing to do would have been to convince the opposition that they were mistaken and interracial marriage is benign, not to have the federal government muscle in.
angie wrote: Whether you feel that would result in a "better" situation, or not, will of course depend upon your own subjective perspective.
I don't think I disagree with your notion of "better" so much as I disagree with your opinion of the likely consequences. Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled both in favor of segregation and against it, without any change in the Fourteenth Amendment in between. Both times, clever legal arguments were advanced that the Supreme Court's ruling was just what the constitution required. So even on your understanding of a "better" situation, I don't see why you think that the rule of courts is realistically "better" than the rule of parliaments.
angie wrote:We could go on, or we could agree to leave this issue be, for now at least, and perhaps meet again on another thread.
It would work either way for me. It's always nice to talk to an opponent who listens.
DrewDad wrote:It is an attempt to appeal to the "yuck" factor.
I think George and I have both dealt with that assertion. (Thank you George!)
DrewDad wrote:He has also consistently ignored issues that he is unable to address.
As an abstract matter, this is necessarily true. If I am unable to do something, I won't. But let's get more specific. Which issues would you like me to address, and I haven't? I'll be happy to try now.
homosexual immorality
[quote="blatham"][quote]First of all I never said that blacks are inferior. I believe that all people are equal. Our behaviors are are another matter. If I help feed the poor, then I am doing good. If I steal or cheat someone then I am doing wrong. If the same person can do good and evil, then the difference must be the behavior. So as A christian I believe that we are all loved by God equally. He does not like my sins anymore than yours or anyone else's [/quote]
Quote:Of course, many have considered blacks inferior, and many others still do consider blacks inferior. Often, the justification or reasoning used to excuse racism has been an interpretation of scripture, and of 'sin'. As in the case of
Bob Jones University and Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc
What does Bob Jones U have to do with this debate? Are you stereotyping? Could it be that Blantham the supposed champion of freedom discriminates against Christians. Do you think that if one Christian in North Carolina says something,that we all agree with it. Why don't you address this debate instead of hiding behind Bob Jones. Why don't homosexual activist debate their issue instead of hiding behind racial discrimination. As I've said Blacks are 100% equal. My nephew is half black and I would love to adopt him. Racial discrimination is 100% wrong. These are two seperate issues.
Quote:As I said earlier, your personal ideas about what constitutes 'sin', and your particular interpretation of scripture does not provide sufficient criteria for avoiding the equality provisions and principles of the constitution and bill of rights.
As I've said before, I believe you already have equal rights. what you're asking for are special rights.
Quote:Quote: Your body was not designed for flight. Therefore flying is abnormal. Your body was not designed for a prostate examination. Therefore prostate examinations are abnormal.
I agree, that our bodies were not designed for flight. Anyone stepping out of an airplane at altitude will prove this. As for the prostate exam, again I agree. I have not seen to many people born with a scope in their bum.
So we seem to be in agreement. Flying , prostate exams, and homosexuality are not normal.
You avoid, you must avoid, the logical consequence of this equation. Your argument against homosexuality is that it is 'not normal'. You justify activism and legislation designed to reduce or eliminate it, or to deny equality status to homosexuals, because what they do is 'not normal'. Thus, by your argument, pilots and doctors too ought to suffer such treatment and reduction of equality status.
I'm not avoiding anything. Your logic is flawed. The practice of medicine and the aviation industry both improve our society. Homosexuality does not. Come on Blantham. First you said homosexuality was normal because animals do it. When I refuted that argument, you say in effect "if we can't be gay, you can't have doctors or pilots." Grow up !! You are demonstrating the truth that SELFISHNESS is the motivation behind your efforts.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Evolution, or procreation, remains uninfluenced via marriage between couples where one partner is incapable of producing offspring. Therefore such unions are abnormal.
Procreation is a potential result of a natural or normal act. The act is normal because our bodies either evolved or were designed for this specific purpose. When procreation does not result the sexual act is still natural. It is only the result that has changed. So one could argue that the act was unsuccessful, but not abnormal.
You demonstrate a poor understanding of evolution, and of design for that matter. Did your forefinger evolve for, or was it designed to clean your nose? Or to facilitate multiple uses? Pushing an elevator button? Cleaning a spot on your computer screen? Tickling your children? Manipulating a clitoris? Anal stimulation? Why ought I or anyone else to accept your conception of what evolution or design mandates? Is your hand designed to grasp a crescent wrench or another man's penis? Men's and women's hands are the same.
Blantham I think you have tunnel vision. That is I think you are very narrow minded and see things from a tiny perspective. For example
I mention procreation and sex and all you can think of is hands. WOW great imagination. I'm sure that you're aware of other organs which are different from man to woman. Why do you ignore these differences? I don't think your being honest , especially with yourself. The fact that you try to convince people even when you know you're wrong again demonstrates your motivation. SELFISHNESS.
Quote: You're right, this applies to information on both sides of the debate. When two statements/ books/ studies contradict each other one of them must be false. Choosing to believe based only on which is more to ones liking may be easier, but it will also likely be wrong. To determine what is true we should use logic.
Please, lets.
Quote: For example: Much of the heterosexual activity that occurs is the result of sexual experimentation. Some of these participants will experiment with homosexuality as well.
Do you disagree with anything so far?
It is logical to believe that (at a minimum) some who are engaging in homosexual activity were not born that way. They are doing so by choice.
If this theory is true then there should be evidence of EX-GAYS
Quote:By which I assume you mean people who now mainly or totally engage in heterosexual activities. Yes, there are many such cases
.
If you're finally ready to admit that not all were born gay, how do you justify telling the confused and awkward latebloomer(boy or girl) that he or she should embrace homosexuality?
Answer: Selfishness, You encourage as many as possible to join your lifestyle regardless of whether or not they get hurt.
Quote: Of course, the converse is equally true. Many who originally engaged in heterosexual activities now engage mainly or totally in homosexual activities. That constitutes 'evidence of' EX-HETEROSEXUALS. How far does that get you?
That simply goes back to people experimenting with sex. It does not mean that they were born as homosexuals. Sorry your evidence and logic just don't hold up.
Quote:If your looking for the truth, check it out.
If you just want to recruit, reply with propaganda
dadothree
This is my favorite bit in your post. I suspect you have no comprehension at all as to what this tells the rest of us about you.[/quote]
I hope it tells one person that he or she was not born a homosexual. That he or she can change if THEY WANT to. That there are christians motivated by love not hate willing to help. Why do you have a problem with this?
I'm back, probably not a good idea, as I'm really not sure if this dialogue is still working, for either of us, or for those "watching". Still, some of your last responses were difficult to let pass.
"I was trying to suggest that if your "equal protection" arguments for gay marriage (and blathams, and ...) were sound, "
Do you not hear the arrogance in this statement? I believe my arguments are quite sound. Notice I prefaced my remark with "I believe". Perhaps, in the interests of polite conversation, you should do the same.
" "some people" couldn't successfully establish such a negative connotation. "
Of course they could. If the negative feelings exist for them, and if the grouping is made, then the negative suggestion follows.
"But this means that the institution of marriage itself bothers you, because its definition explicitly includes the social approval of the relationship in question."
Absolutely not. The definition YOU cited may do so, but where, in the LEGAL definition, does the notion od social approval appear? This entire issue is about LEGAL recognition, recognition by "the law", in order to secure civil rights.
"you are saying "Gays should have a right to have their relations approved by society, no matter if society approves of them or not." "
That is not at all what I am saying. I really thought I had been clear about the whole "approval" thing. What I, a straight, white, married, fair-minded (IMO) American want is for my fellow Americans, who happen to be gay, to have the legal rights secured by civil marriage and available at the present time only to heterosexual couples. That is what I want. That is what, I believe, most gay people want. Whether or not they want or need "approval" is up to them, but for me, it's about the civil rights that come with civil marriage.
"There is no point in creating the institution of same-sex marriage if a large majority is unwilling to approve it."
Wow, if you really believe that, then perhaps this dialogue has been a waste of time.
"In places where a large majority opposes interracial marriage, it doesn't make sense to have interracial marriage."
Again, wow. It makes sense to me, Thomas, it really does. Of course I think I realize, based upon what you have said, that I will not be changing your mind about whether or not it SHOULD make sense.
"In these places, the problem is that this opposition is based on false premises, "
Do you mean that insisting that a legal marriage ought to be between two people of the same race would constitute, for you, a false premise? Because, if that is so, then I agree.
"The solution is to correct the false premises, not to redefine what a marriage implies."
Hmmm. At the risk of reducing this dialogue to a ridiculously absurd semantic argument, correcting the false premise - the notion that marriage must occur between people of the same race - WOULD be changing the definition, if the definition prohibited interracial marriage, which at one time, it did. (Please note: When I use the word "marriage", I am speaking ONLY of civil marriage, not "religious marriage e.g. sacramental).
"but the reason I think it was wrong has nothing to do with the nature of marriage. The opposition to interracial marriage sprung from deeply rooted misconceptions about the biology of race, and about the likely consequences of having large numbers of mulatto children. "
It did for many people, who felt mixing races was "just plain wrong", children or no children. marriages have, in the past, and will in the future sometimes be between people who do not even want children. Had a black man and a white woman expressed their desire to remain childless, there would have been every bit as much opposition to their marriage. You see, Thomas, for many who opposed such unions, the "premise" was bigotry, pure and simple.
"I don't see why you think that the rule of courts is realistically "better" than the rule of parliaments. "
As I said, "better" or "worse" would be a subjective evaluation based upon one's perspective. The courts are, at least theoretically, supposed to provide objective interpretation of the constitution which, last time I checked, guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", equally and fairly to all Americans.
Thomas, in an ideal world, people would, IMO, recognize the basic fairness of equal rights and opportunities, but we do not live in an ideal world. People just naturally seem to fear differences, whether cultural, religious, racial, etc., and it is only through understanding that those fears can be dispelled. Sometimes, however, that takes a very long time, and I am one who believes that my fellow American brothers and sisters, who happen to be gay, should not have to wait for their rights until some of my other fellow Americans, who happen to be straight, get over their fears. People are, IMO, basically good and fair, and eventually I truly believe, most of them do get by their fears and prejudices, so I think the "acceptance" of which you speak will come. It's just, as I said, unfair, IMO, to ask them to wait.
I will confess to having a very personal interest in seeing the rights come sooner rather than later: someone I love with all my heart is gay, my bright, strong, wonderful, loving son, and when he finds the person with whom he wants to share his life, I hope he will be able to simply take himself to City Hall for a marriage license, just as my other son, who happens to be straight, did. My two sons are very much alike: both love sports, both are decent caring people, both did well in school and now work hard at their jobs. The thing is, they both want basically the same things from life: a shot at happiness, meaning good health, a decent job, a family, etc., and there is no one who will ever convince me, for any reason, that one son deserves that shot, and the other doesn't simply because of who he is.
