Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Fails in House

[Keith 0]

Quote

Where did that come from and why?

Counseling is available.

Exactly! Thank you for proving my point!!!

edited to answer the 'why.' Because you keep bringing up crap that has nothing to do with homosexuality to prove your point - example: incest and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Keith 0]

Quote

The basic ability to reproduce is but one of the reasons that make up the justifiability for a union such as marriage. Anything else is not viable or a suitable “standard” for the basic and fundamental building block for a civilization and it shouldn’t be promoted as such.

So what do you say about an infertile Christian couple I know. Are you against their marriag? Their union will never produce children.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Nightingale 0]

Marriage, if you go back to its origins, was based on property, social station and politics. Procreation didn't have much to do with it. If a union was infertile, an heir was declared, usually a cousin or fosterling.

[dorbie 0]

What's in a name? I'm all for equal & equivalent legal protection & civil unions, but why do some folks insist this is a "marriage". It seems like some groups expect some kind of affirmation out of this.

I don't like the way this debate has been framed, i.e. marriage vs no rights when that's not what this is about for me or I suspect most people not on the extremes of the issue.

It's one thing to expect equal legal recognition & protection, quite another to redefine the nature of an institution. Pretending people who object to this are somehow homophobic or opposed to gay rights is not just misguided, it's downright dishonest. Makes good politics though when you can label a whole group of people as anti-gay though when many of them are the exact opposite.

[billvon 2,384]

>Their demand for homosexuality to be given a civil rights status requires
> that it not be a chosen behavior, it must be accepted as hard wired from
> birth.

Dan Rossi, a skydiver I know, lost his eyes to disease at an early age. There's no way he can choose to see - even though he was born with functioning eyes. Saying that something is a combination of developmental and genetic factors does not equal "it's a choice." It would be ludicrous to say that Dan chooses to be blind.

>Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women?

You should be! The government should not be in the business of defining religious conventions. Governments provide the civil part of the union, which can be between any two people. Get that union, go to the Church of Many Wives, and marry ten. Knock yourself out. Heck, join The Church of the Big Dog and marry your dog if you want. It will have no legal standing whatsoever, of course, but you can get a nice certificate to put on the wall.

>I still haven't seen anybody willing to tackle my question about why incest
> is not OK.

?? Incest is having sex with a blood relative, which is icky but not evil if you're not trying to reproduce. We're not talking about who has sex with who, we're talking about marriages and civil unions. Allowing civil unions between relatives will not encourage incest just as making it illegal has not stopped it.

>You can call it a fallacy to compare it to homosexuality, but answer the
>question anyway, why is it wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone?

If they don't reproduce, it's not.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

What's in a name?

Agreed in principle. Call it what you will, if there is a "civil union" that allows homosexuals to benefit from the the same legal and fiscal advantages that heterosexuals unions benefit from, then so be it. Some countries have such processes. In essence, the local authorities recognize the union as valid. Then the different churches can decide whether they want to sanction the union as valid or not. But seculiar authorities denying homosexuals rights that are provided to heterosexuals is downright discriminating.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Keith 0]

Quote

It's one thing to expect equal legal recognition & protection, quite another to redefine the nature of an institution. Pretending people who object to this are somehow homophobic or opposed to gay rights is not just misguided, it's downright dishonest. Makes good politics though when you can label a whole group of people as anti-gay though when many of them are the exact opposite.

No, we're not grouping everyone who wants to define 'marriage' as between a man and woman as homophobic. It's about equal rights not terminology. The right has used that as a tool to divide and some people have bought in to it. Also, if you look up Plessy v Fergison you'll find the U.S. Supreme Court has determined separate but equal isn't equal. I personally think all unions not performed as a religious ceremony should be called a union not a marriage, which should include same sex unions. At some point the U.S. Supreme Court will rule for same sex unions. The "instituion" of marriage will get redefined one way or another; it's only a matter of time.

edited to correct a Freudian slip

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Treejumps 0]

*** ?? Is it really your contention that a young boy's desire for his mother helps him develop his sexuality? Now THAT'S bizarre. Most children have absolutely no desire for their siblings or parents; that's programmed into us.

Where did you get that idea from Bill? I never mentioned anything about a child's desire for a parent, or anything of the sort.

Its a poor argument that because blacks/women/or any other group who has suffered discrimination, that gay marriage should somehow automatically be supported. Everything must stand on its own merits. Just because people were wrong to oppose inter-racial marriage, does not mean that gay "marriage" is automatically OK. In fact, how do you even compare the them, other than as a convenient argument to support your personal views? I see no similarities.

Nature does not support gay unions. If it did, they could reproduce. While accepted as an abnormal lifestlye, it is still abnormal. Society should not have to change it's most basic conventions to fit the personal desires of a tiny minority.

While the gay lobby would have you believe that they are "just like you" and all want "families", its just not true. It is far more likley to find gay men in parks, alleys, and movie theaters "cruising" for their partner du juor than going out on traditional dates like the typical man/women courtship. They have every right to live the way they do, but just becasue a tiny fraction has decided that they want to be "families", does not mean that society has to jump to their whims.

[Treejumps 0]

I also agree with this. You can have equal rights without trying to disrupt society.

[Keith 0]

Quote

It is far more likley to find gay men in parks, alleys, and movie theaters "cruising" for their partner du juor than going out on traditional dates like the typical man/women courtship.

There was a time that was true because social hangouts frequented by gay people would be raided by the vice. People would be arrested and beaten by the cops 'just because' so gays were forced out into the fringes. That has changed for the most part. I, and all my gay friends, go out on dates just like everyone else.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[narcimund 0]

Quote

***While the gay lobby would have you believe that they are "just like you" and all want "families", its just not true.

I never heard that position in the official Gay Lobby newsletter. Maybe you're on the top secret inner-circle mailing list.

Some gay people fuck strangers and some form monogamous relationships. Hmm. Just like straight people.

So we'd really get a lot further in this conversation if you guys would pick a position and stick with it. Are we homosexuals inferior to you because some of us don't want to be married or because some of us do?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

How about this one… A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. If you add one more oxygen atom to the bond, it ceases to be water and becomes hydrogen peroxide. It’s a very subtle change and it is still very similar to water but it has changed to a different substance altogether.

And if you have 2 water molecules, and change one, the first doen't change at all. And nothing prevents you from having new or other water molecules that are H2O.

Quote

The root definition of marriage, makeup, or fundamental reality will also have changed. Blurring the lines for what marriage is and allowing it to consist of whatever the changing winds of opinion say it should be at the time will destroy the fabric that makes it up.

I just don't see how that is possible. Are you saying hetero couples will no longer get married because gays can get married too? You'd be much better off making an argument to outlaw divorce using these feared results.

As far as marriage being the rock of civilization for thousands of years, homosexuality has been around longer than marriage. If you think that allowing gays to receive the legal benefits of coupling will destroy marriage, than you must not put to much faith in how strong that rock of civilization is.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

While the gay lobby would have you believe that they are "just like you" and all want "families", its just not true. It is far more likley to find gay men in parks, alleys, and movie theaters "cruising" for their partner du juor than going out on traditional dates like the typical man/women courtship.

Do you know that to be true based on your vast experience of cruising parks, alleys and movie theaters for gay partners?

[billvon 2,384]

>Where did you get that idea from Bill? I never mentioned anything about
>a child's desire for a parent, or anything of the sort.

Good! Then we won't have to deal with that nonsense that children with gay parents can't decide "which mate I can get along with."

>Its a poor argument that because blacks/women/or any other group who
> has suffered discrimination, that gay marriage should somehow
> automatically be supported.

I didn't suggest that; the fact that the cases are similar does not mean they are both valid. The reason I feel gay marriages (or civil unions) should be legal is not because blacks should have the same rights as everyone else, it's because Keith and Jason and Scott and Emily and Michelle should have the same rights as everyone else.

>In fact, how do you even compare the them, other than as a convenient
>argument to support your personal views? I see no similarities.

In both cases, opponents of equality claimed that "most people oppose them." In both cases, courts ruled against them several times before they finally allowed them. In both cases, people used the bible to prove that interracial (or same sex) marriages were against the will of god. In both cases, opponents predicted the demise of marriage as we know it.

Yet interracial marriages did not cause same-race marriages to fail (at least, any more than they were already failing.) Neither will same-sex marriages.

>Nature does not support gay unions. If it did, they could reproduce.

I don't think you've done much research into reproduction! There are plenty of species that reproduce hermaphroditically, or whose members change sex with some regularity. Earthworms are both male and female. Snails mate with themselves and produce offspring. Frogs change sex to suit the environment. Male penguins have sex and pair-bond for years, as do many monkeys and dolphins. Rats often become homosexual when they are overcrowded; this reduces the population to a sustainable level. And, of course, anyone who has owned a male dog knows they are not very discriminating.

Homosexuality occurs in nature with very great regularity. None of the species I've listed above has gone extinct because of it. Indeed, it often serves a useful purpose in helping a species survive.

> Society should not have to change it's most basic conventions to fit the
> personal desires of a tiny minority.

I agree. You should not have to do a single thing different once gay marriages/civil unions become legal.

>It is far more likley to find gay men in parks, alleys, and movie
> theaters "cruising" for their partner du juor than going out on
> traditional dates like the typical man/women courtship.

That's simply a load of crap, no more valid than the claims that blacks are naturally shiftless or women are unable to handle the stress of employment.

[wmw999 2,117]

Quote

women are unable to handle the stress of employment.

ssssshhhhhhhhhh!!! That's the argument I was going to use in a disability case to get out of working -- that nature just didn't intend for me to work . Don't let all the secrets out

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dorbie 0]

If you separate the rights from the terminology you get a lot more traction, much more support and agreement across the board, however I think this has been hijacked and coopted by intrested elements within the big two parties, or maybe just the pressure groups themselves. It almost seems like Democrats and Republicans *want* to throw the label marriage in there because they see this issue as energizing their base, while being low on the radar for most others.

[Keith 0]

Quote

If you separate the rights from the terminology you get a lot more traction, much more support and agreement across the board . . .

I completely agree. I think same sex unions should start out as unions rather than marriages. Once we have same sex unions coexisting with marriage, the disparity between the two will become much more evident. At some point the disparity will wind up in the U.S. Supreme court and the two will have to be merged because as I pointed out before, the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided separate but equal isn't equal. Those who want to 'save marriage' better come together and decide what they really want because one day, maybe not in my life time but some day, same sex couples will obtain equal rights to opposite sex couples.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Treejumps 0]

So basically, you are saying that your agenda is to change the meaning of marriage, and you are only willing to be in a civil union to that end.

"as I pointed out before, the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided separate but equal isn't equal."

I fail to see how separte but equal can be applied. Nobody is separating anythng. What is being pointed out is that marriage IS defined by, and at its essence, formed by 1 man and 1 women. A civil union is not separate from this, it is DIFFERENT. Different in that 2 men (or women) in any relationship are not married. They can be partners, boyfriends, in a civil union, or just two good friends getting one over on the system, but they are not married.

Your greatest hope seems to be that this goes to the Supreme Court, and that it is your foregone conclusion that your ideas will prevail. I seriously doubt it, if Separate But Equal is your argument. More than likely it will be handled by each state, and only OR has much chance of a ban not being implemented.

[Treejumps 0]

Quote

Good! Then we won't have to deal with that nonsense that children with gay parents can't decide "which mate I can get along with."

Frankly, I agree. It is nonsense for there to be "gay parents". If you want to spend your life in abnormal relationships, fine, but don't drag an innocnet child into it. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, but it is the height of hubris for gay couples to adopt children. Can the end result be a normal child? Yes. Is completely against nature? Yes. For all of the talk about worms and slugs, and other "gay animals" in nature, I doubt there are many same sex animal partners rasing other animals offspring as there own.

Male penguins have sex and pair-bond for years, as do many monkeys and dolphins. Rats often become homosexual when they are overcrowded; this reduces the population to a sustainable level.

So are you saying that becasue animals are not smart enough to know the difference, humans should use that as an example? Are you comparing the gay population with rats and suggesting that they are doing their part to reduce population to a sustainable level?

[billvon 2,384]

>I fail to see how separte but equal can be applied.

Some people are saying that gays should have an equal but separate procedure they can follow (civil union.)

>Nobody is separating anythng.

Aren't you trying to separate legally married couples?

>What is being pointed out is that marriage IS defined by, and at its
>essence, formed by 1 man and 1 women.

Several states disagree.

>A civil union is not separate from this, it is DIFFERENT.

Just as, once, a black man marrying a white woman was DIFFERENT. There's a reason god put the races on separate continents, after all! He meant for them to not interbreed and produce impure children.

[billvon 2,384]

>It is nonsense for there to be "gay parents".

There are gay parents. Generally they end up as better parents overall, because you don't need to meet any criteria to get pregnant and have a child, but do have to meet criteria to adopt one.

>If you want to spend your life in abnormal relationships, fine, but don't
>drag an innocnet child into it.

A child is far better off with two loving parents (of whatever sex) than in a relationship with a mother trying to fend off attempts by the father to take custody. A hate-filled heterosexual relationship can (and has) damaged many a child.

>So are you saying that becasue animals are not smart enough to know
>the difference, humans should use that as an example?

Not at all. I'm just saying that the argument "homosexuality is against nature" is absurd. Homosexuality is an integral part of the lives of many species.

[Ron 7]

Quote

There are gay parents. Generally they end up as better parents overall

Got anything to back that up? Or are you just spouting crap that you think sounds good?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

While the gay lobby would have you believe that they are "just like you" and all want "families", its just not true. It is far more likley to find gay men in parks, alleys, and movie theaters "cruising" for their partner du juor than going out on traditional dates like the typical man/women courtship.

Much as I like you Tree, what a yucky thing to say.

Imagine if you lived in a predominantly gay world. One where heterosexuality was misunderstood and despised by many if not most.

You couldn't approach a woman at the grocery store because most likely she is gay and might verbally (or physically) attack you.

You couldn't approach women at the library, have your parents fix you up, meet women on the bus or at church or anywhere...

You would be 'forced' to look for dates in places where you knew your chances are better. Organizations, clubs, bars, etc. that catered to straight people.

And what if you hated the straight singles bar scene - where would you find love?

Where would you find love?

To say that gays cruise parks and alleys is a mean, mean generalization.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[billvon 2,384]

>Got anything to back that up?

All the adoptive parents I know have been excellent parents, primarily because they have to really want a child and have to be approved. One friend of mine recently returned from China with an adopted girl; she will have a great home. I've known quite a few absolutely miserable heterosexual parents; they often end up with children they do not want, cannot support or are not prepared for in the slightest.

[wmw999 2,117]

There are gay adoptive parents -- i.e. gay couples who have adopted childred (generally older ones).

There are also people who have gotten married to someone of the opposite sex, had children, and then gotten into a same-sex relationship. I believe that they would still be considered parents.

And there are gay women who have been artificially inseminated so they could have children. I believe they, too, would qualify as parents.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)