Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[ICantSpellDawg]

You keep saying this over and over, Tuff. You saying homosexuality is "made up" doesn't make it so. What exactly makes you think your personal rationalization for the right to discriminate against gay people (because they're "choosing" something undesirable, not born that way) should have more weight than what millions of gay people say?

Just because they say it doesn't make it so either. It's a fake difference and a fake classification as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be added into the discrimination law. Obviously they shouldn't be persecuted, but protected as human beings just like anyone else , I just wish that passing a law allowing them discrimination rights in the workplace wouldn't be used in an underhanded fashion to take the marriage decision away from the people.

My refusal to buy into their opinion makes me thick, not stupid. You take them at their word.

[Koga No Goshi]

Just because they say it doesn't make it so either. It's a fake difference and a fake classification as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be added into the discrimination law. Obviously they shouldn't be persecuted, but protected as human beings just like anyone else , I just wish that passing a law allowing them discrimination rights in the workplace wouldn't be used in an underhanded fashion to take the marriage decision away from the people.

My refusal to buy into their opinion makes me thick, not stupid. You take them at their word.

Dude, if the law doesn't recognize it as something worthy of equal protection, and it is... not "desirable" the way you argue that straight coupling is, then why the hell shouldn't people persecute it? I don't know what to make of your view on this except that you want to leave the legal room open for discrimination, while "stating" that you wouldn't condone persecution. I'm sure the kind of guys who beat Matthew Sheperd to death would respect your feelings.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just because they say it doesn't make it so either. It's a fake difference and a fake classification as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be added into the discrimination law. Obviously they shouldn't be persecuted, but protected as human beings just like anyone else , I just wish that passing a law allowing them discrimination rights in the workplace wouldn't be used in an underhanded fashion to take the marriage decision away from the people.

My refusal to buy into their opinion makes me thick, not stupid. You take them at their word.

TSM:

Based on the research conducted to date, there is no conclusive evidence to support either position (a = chosen behavioral fetish, b = hardwired biological compunction).

Prima facie, it would seem that homosexual behavior adds little to the survival of a species, which would make it an abberation. However, historical documents and observation of other animal species confirm that homosexuality is a recurrent (albeit small) component of most if not all populations. This calls into question whether or not we have a full understanding of the role of sexuality in species survival. God knows how this all fits together, we're still ignorant of a lot.

In the vast majority of historical cultures, "choosing" to be homosexual would be volunteering to be villified and sometimes persecuted. It strikes me as unlikely that this would be the choice made. Thus, absent better data, I am inclined to believe the self-reports of homosexuals, most of whom indicate that it was not a choice. This is a judgement call, since no definitive research exists as yet.

Personally, btw, I am not in favor of gay marriage -- you are not alone. I am simply analyzing things as I see them based on the facts at hand and the law. I am entitled to my own opinion, but not my own facts.

[Koga No Goshi]

Prima facie, it would seem that homosexual behavior adds little to the survival of a species

It can be observed in many animal populations when a) it's out of mating systen or b) given enclosed resources do not support prolific growth of populations. There is of course no conclusive proof yet but I've always leaned towards the theory that it DOES play a role in the survival of the species. It's a built-in genetic check on population control. But I believe it fails to "kick in" at a rate that would overcome vast increases in population and lifespan through medicine and technological improvement (many of which have happened in, from an evolutionary standpoint, a very short period of time.)

[ICantSpellDawg]

It can be observed in many animal populations when a) it's out of mating systen or b) given enclosed resources do not support prolific growth of populations. There is of course no conclusive proof yet but I've always leaned towards the theory that it DOES play a role in the survival of the species. It's a built-in genetic check on population control. But I believe it fails to "kick in" at a rate that would overcome vast increases in population and lifespan through medicine and technological improvement (many of which have happened in, from an evolutionary standpoint, a very short period of time.)

That sounds like alot of presumption there. It is a judgment call. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine.

[Koga No Goshi]

That sounds like alot of presumption there. It is a judgment call. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine.

Dolphins engage in homosexual activity outside of mating season. And dogs in enclosed environments allowed to breed and scavenge for their own food and water naturally start self-correcting their own population growth. I'm not sure how that's being "presumptious" to assume it may be some sort of built in population control. It's quite logical, though as I admitted, not a hard proven link.

It's certainly more logical than "people flaunt a fettish they know will bring down heaps of social prejudice and persecution on them", which is your view. So, glass houses, stone throwing...

[Redleg]

It can be observed in many animal populations when a) it's out of mating systen or b) given enclosed resources do not support prolific growth of populations. There is of course no conclusive proof yet but I've always leaned towards the theory that it DOES play a role in the survival of the species. It's a built-in genetic check on population control. But I believe it fails to "kick in" at a rate that would overcome vast increases in population and lifespan through medicine and technological improvement (many of which have happened in, from an evolutionary standpoint, a very short period of time.)

Most often its not out of any emotional concept, nor is it a survial concept for the species, a lot of the homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is based upon dominate behavior that is engaged when the species is confined in an area. Domestic animals are a primary examble of this type of behavior.

I am aware of some studies on homosexual behavior in wild animals, but I havent seen any explicite information that points to a genetic survival trait. Most of the studies I have read - however nothing recent - points to the demonstration of dominance of the Alpha male or female within the group.

Survival of species requires procreation. Population control for most species is done by predators or lack of food supply. Built in genetic check on population control is not a valid arguement, from any of the sources I have read, since the success of the species would breed out that genetic code over time.

[Productivity]

What of the animal? Do you know a dog on earth who wouldn't appreciate more one on one time with their owner? Couldn't they say that a dog humping your leg was consent?

Consent implies understanding what is being agreed to and unreservedly agreeing to that. While I think my dog is very smart and has quite a strong problem solving ability, I don't think there is anyway I can convey to him the entire concept of marriage and what it would entail and then proceed to ask him to consent to that. Until animals have clearly demonstrated the higher order functions needed to understand the concept of marriage and the concept of giving consent, then marriage between a human and an animal cannot happen as marriage requires consent from both parties.

You're running on a completely ridiculous slippery slope here as far as I can tell, do you actually intend to go anywhere with the whole marrying a goat argument or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm the only one left against Gay marriage on these boards it seems. I guess I'll just move out of the way and let progress happen.

Well I'm still here.

My point is if you want a secular society with 'freedom to', then really there is no way to resist these changes taking place.

[Viking]

Sounds like a pretty weak personal judgment call. Is that your argument? That it is icky? It hasn't worked on our end - I hope you fare better. I see dogs taken everywhere, they inherit money and property - they have great personalities, they are loyal, they don't ask for much, and they are sex machines - sounds like the ideal partner to some people.

Human-human involves two humans and gives legality beneficial for both, while human-animal only involves one human; who can legally gain what exactly from this hypothetical marriage? Inheriting the dog's possessions which he/she already legally owns? Only the animal could benefit from this; that's why it's got less to do with society, and is icky as it's comparing the interests of animals to the interests of humans in a outright silly way.

Most of western society claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman too. Take a few foundational blocks out and it won't be such a simple sentiment to keep.

You asked who could claim a certain right. Today, others claim their right to redefine marriage.

All of these questions go beyond marriage. They touch on government by the people, what the constitution means, what are people allowed to decide regarding their own government, Can the government promote a reasonable ideal, etc.

The question you posed does not only concern marriage in the following sense: it concerns the wider question of how much responsibility that can be given to minors; that's why just that restriction on marriage is in place. Homosexuals wouldn't able to marry as 15 year olds, either.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think it would prove useful in this discussion to recognise that the word "marriage" has two distinct meanings that have inevitably - but not necessarily - become inter-twined. Appeals to historical verisimilitude might also benefit from recognising that marriage customs through the ages and within human cultures vary enormously.

Firstly, a marriage is a legal contract which confers certain rights from the state. Thus, the state must be involved in defining the bounds of that contract.

Secondly, marriage is a religious ceremony binding two people - what my religious tradition would term a "sacrament". This requires the religious institution (and community) to acknowledge, via ritual and witness, the nuptials.

The two can be distinct within the same pair. In the Roman Catholic tradition, for example, a couple can marry legally in a state ceremony, but not take the sacrament and thus not be considered married by the Church.

The issue of consent is a thorny one to argue. For much of history, and still in many cultures, the consent of either party (but most especially women) is not necessarily a factor. The arrangement has been made by parents or guardians and the principals do what they are instructed.

A secular state may define marriage any way it likes. I happen to believe that since terminology appears to create division, it would be much more helpful to define state "marriage" as "civil union" or some such. Sadly, some people find this discriminatory, even though it is just vocabulary intended for clarity. Consent is integral to a legal civil union.

A religious institution may also define marriage as it wishes, and may (if it be a private institution) discriminate against anyone it likes. Those who wish to change the church's mind, must make their case to the church. There is nothing inherently more unjust in denying homosexuals the sacrament of marriage than denying divorcees. A religious sacrament confers no benefits outside the religious community - unless a civil union under the state is also entered into.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think it would prove useful in this discussion to recognise that the word "marriage" has two distinct meanings that have inevitably - but not necessarily - become inter-twined. Appeals to historical verisimilitude might also benefit from recognising that marriage customs through the ages and within human cultures vary enormously.

Firstly, a marriage is a legal contract which confers certain rights from the state. Thus, the state must be involved in defining the bounds of that contract.

Secondly, marriage is a religious ceremony binding two people - what my religious tradition would term a "sacrament". This requires the religious institution (and community) to acknowledge, via ritual and witness, the nuptials.

The two can be distinct within the same pair. In the Roman Catholic tradition, for example, a couple can marry legally in a state ceremony, but not take the sacrament and thus not be considered married by the Church.

The issue of consent is a thorny one to argue. For much of history, and still in many cultures, the consent of either party (but most especially women) is not necessarily a factor. The arrangement has been made by parents or guardians and the principals do what they are instructed.

A secular state may define marriage any way it likes. I happen to believe that since terminology appears to create division, it would be much more helpful to define state "marriage" as "civil union" or some such. Sadly, some people find this discriminatory, even though it is just vocabulary intended for clarity. Consent is integral to a legal civil union.

A religious institution may also define marriage as it wishes, and may (if it be a private institution) discriminate against anyone it likes. Those who wish to change the church's mind, must make their case to the church. There is nothing inherently more unjust in denying homosexuals the sacrament of marriage than denying divorcees. A religious sacrament confers no benefits outside the religious community - unless a civil union under the state is also entered into.

Thank you.

[m52nickerson]

A secular state may define marriage any way it likes. I happen to believe that since terminology appears to create division, it would be much more helpful to define state "marriage" as "civil union" or some such. Sadly, some people find this discriminatory, even though it is just vocabulary intended for clarity. Consent is integral to a legal civil union.

That would be fine as long as all marriages are defined as civil unions. Labeling one as marriage and one as civil union hearkens back to separate but equal.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah if we agree that any legal status of marriage is, in fact, just a civil contract, and we separate out "marriage" as a religious connotation or sacrament, then as the above poster said, simply make a civil contract law to replace the marriage law and leave marriage up to churches. This is an old argument too, because even before the issue of gay marriage became a hot topic, people have argued over the jurisdiction religion/churches have, or should have, over the institution of marriage. It's amazing how many people out there don't know what the "by the power vested in me by the State of.." means when the pastor or priest is saying it. It means he is conferring legal state-defined rights to the couple which a church does not have the power to bestow. This is why talking about a particular religion, or denomination's, view of what constitutes a morally acceptable marriage or family or couple or significant other is irrelevant, and why the state's definition of marriage does not and should not hinge upon the approval of religious viewpoints or ... don't even know what to call them, secular moralists? Who believe that being gay is wrong or gross or should be discouraged, but don't go to church.

I don't think the "definition of marriage" in a moral/religious sense will change a whit, no matter which way any future decision goes. That will always ultimately be up to churches. However, if people are playing semantics and what they really mean is that the LEGAL status of marriage should remain under the thumb of "strict conformity to the majority fettish", to use Tuff's characterization of sexuality, that is unsupportable and has no place in our government or institutions IMHO.

And Tuff, yes, you veered well off into the obtuse. Talking about rights between two humans and a human and an object or organism incapable of forming social contract is a table without any legs as an argument.

[Kralizec]

It's amazing how many people out there don't know what the "by the power vested in me by the State of.." means when the pastor or priest is saying it. It means he is conferring legal state-defined rights to the couple which a church does not have the power to bestow.

I didn't even know that ministers could legally pronounce marriages in the US. Over here that's the job of civil servants - it's even illegal to hold a church ceremony before you get your papers.

[m52nickerson]

I didn't even know that ministers could legally pronounce marriages in the US. Over here that's the job of civil servants - it's even illegal to hold a church ceremony before you get your papers.

They can with a marriage if you have a marriage license. In some states if they perform a marriage without seeing and signing a marriage license they can lose that power.

[Kadagar_AV]

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

[m52nickerson]

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

You missed this last page, the separation is what we have been talking about.

[Kadagar_AV]

Just noticed...

still no arguments why that would be bad though...

[m52nickerson]

Just noticed...

still no arguments why that would be bad though...

I don't think it would be, as long as everything was the same for all couples.

[Kadagar_AV]

Of course...

It is rather fun though... because when you really look into this issue, the only conter-argument would be... "but.... but.... it's GAY!!!"

[Koga No Goshi]

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

Hey Kadagar,

There is ZERO legal discussion of forcing churches to do anything. That is a scare tactic being used by people who oppose gay marriage in the U.S. Churches have not and never will be forced to perform any sort of ceremony they do not feel is in keeping with their beliefs or traditions.

The discussion or rather political controversy over gay marriage in the U.S. is strictly over the legal rights. In the U.S., many rights including shared property, inheritance (i.e. if you die, your wife gets the house, instead of your parents or your brother), medical decisions in the hospital or in case of coma or illness, hospital visitation (many U.S. hospitals only allow legal/blood family to visitation rights, which excludes gay partners) and such. With no form of "formal", legal status for gay couples in at least 48 of the 50 states, (and one of those likely to be overturned in 2 months) all kinds of legal problems arise because for many gay couples one side of the family or the other does not approve of the relationship and causes problems, either overriding the "spouse's" decisions in the hospital, or even making claim on property that was shared between a couple living together when one of them dies. And unless that couple has gone to a lawyer and had things cemented into stone about who owns what and who has medical directives and such, in rather costly and extensive documentation, the spouse has nebulous grounds upon which to challenge any of these things.

The problem in the U.S. is that some people say marriage is RELIGIOUS, and should be protected as only between a man and a woman and sacred. This argument is bunk because the legal rights of marriage under the law have nothing to do with a specific religion or religious viewpoint, or rather, SHOULDN'T according to our Constitution. While other people use a vague argument about how it "threatens the sanctity of marriage" or in some way devalues, attacks, or destroys traditional marriage if gay marriage is allowed. The second group tend to just be prejudiced people who don't want any sort of recognized rights for gay people because they don't "approve" of someone being gay.

That's about it, in a nutshell.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hmm... Geez, I thought western ideals had made more ground than that in the states.

Seriosly, to argue against church marriages for gay couples = fine.

To argue about legal rights for gay couples...???

I just can not see the sence in it, at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hmm... Geez, I thought western ideals had made more ground than that in the states.

Seriosly, to argue against church marriages for gay couples = fine.

To argue about legal rights for gay couples...???

I just can not see the sence in it, at all.

Well, as you've seen in this thread, some people think it's a mental illness or a sick fettish. That's what we have to deal with over here. And frankly just a lot of irrational hate and intolerance and people who don't want to see any rights observed for gay people or any..... particularly protections against people discriminating against them or persecuting them in some way. For instance a lot of people in the U.S. oppose gaybashing (physical beating etc.) being classified as a hate crime, and just think it should be prosecuted as any typical assault charge. The problem with that is, that a gay person is exponentially more likely than a straight person to be randomly attacked on the street by crazy people with a lead pipe or baseball bat for no provocation than "just anyone else." So I feel laws need to reflect that it's a special "target" of crime, and discourage it accordingly. But as I said, many disagree.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, as you've seen in this thread, some people think it's a mental illness or a sick fettish. That's what we have to deal with over here.

They are not very much into science, now are they?

We have those nutjobs in Sweden and Austria too, but they are far away from any political power, as should be.

[Koga No Goshi]

They are not very much into science, now are they?

We have those nutjobs in Sweden and Austria too, but they are far away from any political power, as should be.

The lack of a conclusive answer from science that definitively proves thing one way is apparently license to fall back on prejudices and bigotry and make up any story you like. It is used that way, at any rate.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Homosexuality is a fetish, that's why some people can turn away from it completely if they actually try. And equally why originally straight people can adopt it.

[Andres]

I really can't see the problem with allowing legal marriage for two (three, four, five,...?) consenting adults

And if the use of the word "marriage" is the problem, well fine, call it "legal banana juice" for my part and keep the word "marriage" for religious marriage.

Surely, there are more important matters at hand in the world right now?

This is a luxury problem.

[The Celtic Viking]

Homosexuality is no more a "fetish" than heterosexuality is. In other words: it is not. You're either born homosexual, or you're not. Likewise, you're either born heterosexual or you're not. There is no choice in the matter, other than to live in denial of what you are.

Anything else than completely equal rights is discrimination, and that includes the whole "same thing but different name" argument. If the same rights are given anyway, what purpose except to say "you can't have what we have" would it serve to give it a different name?

[yesdachi]

I don’t mind giving a homosexual couple legal rights of partnership, allowing them to share things like health benefits or visitation rights in hospitals, it’s the word marriage that most people freak out about. I don’t think gay is the right choice but why deny others the perks of marriage just because I think who they sleep with is icky. I have an Aunt who has been with the same lady for over 25 years, why prevent them from sharing benefits or filing as “married” on their taxes? They have been a better couple than many boy/girl couples I know.