Asymmetrical Information

...the state aspects of marriage consist of subsidies and entitlements. These are inherently discriminatory. Why should it be so surprising that all types of couples or unions want access to them?

Indeed, I've long held that subsidies and entitlements are part of the problem. Divorce isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is people getting married who shouldn't be getting married.

And guess what, plenty of those people are getting married to get the subsidies and entitlements.

So if social conservatives really wanted to defend marriage, getting rid of those would actually be a productive step, because then you'd have fewer people marrying for purely financial reasons.

So they should actually be on the same side of this as libertarian conservatives.

Okay, you got me. "Pertrouserating" is a word I hadn't seen before, but I thouhgt I had it from the context. I was wrong.

Hey Mindles,

What is it about people who insist that thay are"Homosexual", without any realworld identifying characteristics to prove it with, that gives them the right to muscle in on a gig that belongs to heterosexuals ( who definitely have those identifying bits to prove it).
I say that the entire "homosexual" "community" is a bunch of "can't competes" with the real world, so they have invented their own and now want to rip down and destroy what they can't succede in.
What a bunch of self indulgent whingeing phonies the "homosexuals" are.
People who suppport their cause, and are not "homosexuals" themselves, are useful idiots.

This topic is such a can of worms that saying anything about it is bound to infuriate someone. I agree with you that motivations or desires of the gay community are irrelevant to the issue. Instead, I prefer to look at what's best for everyone involved.

Some folks believe in heaven and hell and a God that laid laws down for humans to obey. I don't.

However, despite this lack of church indoctrination I still don't believe gay marriage is a goal for America and in fact would clearly weaken America.

Look at the birth rate in nations with gay marriage:

Sweden: 9.71 per 1000 population

Thats the 210th out of 224 nations.

The US has 14.14 per 1000 population

A nation like Saudi Arabia has 37.2 per 1000 population. They also have laws banning homosexuality.

If one looks at the long term projection Sweden is going to be run over by immigrants. Those immigrants will be Saudis or other nations that have an equally high birth rate. When they get there, they will change the laws and Sweden will not be Sweden anymore, it will be a Muslim nation with not only no gay marriage - but homosexuality will be outlawed there too.

Mexico has 21.92 per 1000 population - over twice the birth rate of Sweden. Not surprisingly they overflow their borders and now occupy large population centers in the US and increase the US population by over 1,000,000 each year illegally. Homosexuality is frowned upon in devout Catholic Mexico as well.

Yeliu Chutsai was a statesman and scholar of the Genghis Khan era. He knew that to conquer the Mongols one could not use force - but rather change what they were inside. The US is in danger of being changed from the inside and it won't smile upon homosexuality or gay marriage.

The long-term view for many nations in Europe is decimation of their culture and politics. If after enough decades the original inhabitants and their beliefs have been bred out of a nation, the nation will fundamentally change.

German is more socialistic than ever after 1989 and the reunification. It has caused them to harm their economy and their relations with the United States. It is due to the influx of life-long socialists and communists who wanted the goods but really didn't understand capitalism or the West German work ethic that created prosperity.

What does this have to do with gay marriage?

A lot.

If gay marriage receives the stamp of approval, it is a given the number of homosexuals will increase. Adopted children will grow up in an environment which will tend to produce a much higher incidence of homosexual/lesbians than the present number. Our birth rate will go down. Perhaps as low as Sweden's birthrate.

Simultaneously our porous borders will keep replenishing with illegal immigrants and legal immigrants who have a much higher birth rate.

In time, as the population increases solely due to foreigners with different beliefs - America itself will change.

One think-tank projection places a Mexican-American President by the elections in 2060. He will follow what will be a great increase in Mexican Catholics into the House and Senate. One of the results of this demographic change will actually be a crackdown and religious resurgency that will make homosexuals long for the days of the hypocritical bible thumpers and televangelists.

If our borders are not tightened up this will happen even sooner and gay marriage will not only be not allowed, but over several more generations the politics of the US will be completely Mexicanized. Liberals will find that their support for unhampered immigration, amnesty and other noble, albeit brain-dead, notions will bring about their worst nightmare - complete repression that makes President George Bush appear like the most open-minded liberal guy in history. If gay marriage is legalized and endorsed they will only speed up the arrival of this day and it would be ironic that the very thing they feel will lead to greater freedom would actually lead to the utter destruction of their sexual freedom.

I see the big picture. Gay marriage is not in America's best interest and actually it is not in the gay community's best interest either.

The US is an open culture but there is a line of demarcation which must be drawn if the US is to fundamentally retain its openness - being too open will actually lead to America being very closed. The America of 2156 will be unrecognizable to anyone alive today and if trends don't change it will be a much poorer, repressive and very religious state.

There are stages to moral development. At first one's morals are formed by family, friends and church. Later as one gets a bit older and one says live and let live, one's views shift towards the liberal bend. The third and final stage completely bypasses both of the former and sees things in totality. One sees that some things which may seem morally righteous carry hidden payloads of massive suffering.

From a US strategic viewpoint homosexuality is something to allow, but not encourage or subsidize.

From a moral standpoint if two men or women want to call themselves married - they should be allowed to if that's what they really want to do.

I think that only a few people can see from this level perspective because they are usually reactionary and their words are motivated by indoctrination or indignation and a sense of injustice - neither are ideal for a discourse on what is truly best for America.

SDAI-Tech1

'TheDaddy'-

What is it about people who insist that thay are"Homosexual", without any realworld identifying characteristics to prove it with, that gives them the right to muscle in on a gig that belongs to heterosexuals ( who definitely have those identifying bits to prove it).

Oh no, no gay person ever masqueraded as straight. they couldn't, after all they don't have the 'identifying bits'. And as for 'muscling in' - marriage is not a zero-sum game. Gay people marrying has no effect whatsoever on the marriages of straight people (except possibly relieving a divorced spouse from the matrimony obligation to his/her spouse who has come out of the closet and remarried).

I say that the entire "homosexual" "community" is a bunch of "can't competes" with the real world, so they have invented their own and now want to rip down and destroy what they can't succede in. What a bunch of self indulgent whingeing phonies the "homosexuals" are.

People who suppport their cause, and are not "homosexuals" themselves, are useful idiots.

I don't favor gay marriage but I suspect it wouldn't be the end of the world either. My real beef is with the attempt to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat.

The great strength of democracy (and capitalism) is the way it absorbs change without violent upheaval. Judicial usurpation short-circuits the process, producing a binary outcome with embittered losers. We still haven't gotten over the ill-effects of Roe v. Wade.

Is homosexuality part of an individual's essential being, is it a lifestyle choice, or is it something in between?

SDAI-Tech -

I believe there are some unsupported links in your chain of reason:

• That allowing marriage increases the number of homosexuals and decreases the birthrate in the heterosexual population. Birthrates correlate with national income.
  
• That a proportionate increase in Mexicans or another immigrating ethnicity in the US population will substantially change the polity and ultimately distort or change our constitution.

Both lines of reasoning trouble me. The first because the idea that we should force gay people to have kids (isn't that ultimately what you are saying, and isn't that one thing that is happening in Saudi?) is abhorrent to me.

The second..well, why should I be worried about a Mexican-American President? What's his stand on economic liberalism? national security? You really feel you can predict that from here and now?

I agree with you that from a moral standpoint, two men or women should be able to make a marriage commitment. I'm not sure your "hidden payload of massive suffering" exists, let alone see it's inevitability.

SDAI-Tech -

Current US population growth is composed almost exclusively of immigration (legal and illegal) and the birth of children to first and second generation immigrants.

At the current US population growth rate, we will be 500 million souls by 2050 and 1 billion by 2100.

SDI Tech. Abortion and birth control are also frowned upon in "Devout Catholic" Mexico. (interestingly, in "devout Catholic" Italy, the birth rate per 1000 is 9.18) Don't you think that is a larger factor in their live birth rate than disdain for homosexuality? Some of the highest birthrates in the world are in Africa, in some of the poorest nations on earth, where the literacy rate is also low. Homosexuality isn't favored there, either. Clearly, education about birth control and the availability contraception plays a greater role in the birthrate than tolerance of Homosexuals have always been around and by definition can't reproduce, at least not without help. Whether they are allowed to get married will have no little to no impact on the ethnic make up of the United States or its birth rate.

SDAI, your reliance on comparing Swedish and American birth rates is specious. Sweden has always had a low birth rate, which has fluctuated between 1.4 and 2.2 births per woman of child-bearing age. Birth rates declined in the early 1990s, but have been increasing since (using your measure, the rate increased from 9.71 in 2002 to 10.4 in 2003). The low birth rate is more a factor of very high female participation in the work force (80% of Swedish mothers work at least part-time), high levels of cohabitation and childbirth outside marriage (more than half of Swedish children are born to unmarried parents), high levels of contraceptive use, and high divorce rates. In the 1930s, for example, Sweden's population growth rate fell to 0.3%, and the Swedes worried about a "population crisis." The lower-than-ours birth rate has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Also, do you honestly believe that the availability of homosexual marriage will create more homosexuals? Really? There are that many heterosexuals out there who would switch sides if they could only get married? I've heard this argument before from opponents of gay marriage, and it is absurd on its face. It is possible that gay marriage would lead some out of the closet, maybe even lead some homosexuals to abandon sham hetero marriages, but that is almost certainly a good thing.

Nice Blog!
kisses from Lisbon!

What a scam this has become. You folks are being played like a violin by scam artists. I'll skip the issue of gay marriage, which is a phony issue.

My daughter called me from San Francisco, where she moved after she graduated from college. "Don't you think that gays are oppressed?" she asked me.

My reply. "When I lived in SF 35 years ago, all my gay friends had good jobs, wore designer clothes and spent their evenings running from one club to another. 35 years later, I live in NYC and... ditto!"

What I am saying will be very hard for the young (and most of the readers of this blog are young) to comprehend. Take it slow and easy and think about it a few times before you consign me to the standard trash can of "the bigot."

Every generation of young people gets caught up in proving just how tolerant they are of gays. This has created a phony history in which previous generations persecuted and beat up gays as a matter of social policy. Gays know how to play this syndrome for all they can get. They love to tell straights that the failures and pathologies of the gay community are caused by straights. You won't believe this, I know, but your parents and your grandparents probably also spent their youths trying to prove how tolerant they were of gays.

Andrew Sullivan may be the best example you can find. He has AIDS as a result of his own behavior, yet he loves to scream "bigot" at anybody who suggests that the gay male lifestyle has its innate pathologies. He quite literally states that he might not have been so promiscuous if only he had been allowed to get married.

This is a phony issue. It's a con job. After this con job dies down, the gay community will produce another con job designed to accuse straights of bigotry... and all of you will be ruuning around like fools trying to prove how tolerant you are.

You are being played. Get some sense.

Now, we can return to our regular part of our programming. Please feel free to consign me to the far right wing which as we all know is composed of bigots who like to burn gays at the stake.

A question to Stephen how old are you? I do indeed remember when it was considered ok to beat up gays. I remember it in discussions with barracks mates in the Air Force. I remember smears of people during that period of time. I did read newspapers and I never lived in NYC or SF, rather in the middle of the country, so perhaps you were not aware of how folks felt and acted in my home towns.

Everybody gets beat up in the military, for one reason or another. My nephew got the shit kicked out of him so often when he joined the Marines that they discharged him for his own protection, and he's straight.

I grew up in a small town. Everybody gets beat up as a kid, for one reason or another. In my case, people taunted me because I had a big nose.

People do taunt other people when they like to pick a fight. They are inclined to call people names when they do it. What does this prove?

Stephen says: "You won't believe this, I know, but your parents and your grandparents probably also spent their youths trying to prove how tolerant they were of gays."

With the benefit of actually having met my parents and grandparents, I can say that with the exception of my mother this is not at all true. Attitudes in New York and San Francisco cannot be extrapolated to the Midwest, today or (especially) 30 years ago.

And with the benefit of actually knowing a fair number of homosexuals (>25), I can say that I don't observe any "pathologies" in them. They seem to be normal, well-adjusted people. The occasional oddball in the group isn't any more common than oddballs in the population at large.

As far as I can tell, the Homosexual Agenda (TM) consists of having the same legal rights and protections as heterosexuals, and otherwise being left alone. So the Vast Gay Conspiracy (TM) to play on our sympathies serves what end, exactly?

(I can't believe how many logical fallacies I've already seen in one short comment thread. Gays = low birth rate? Successful gays in NYC = no discrimination against gays? Come on!)

There is one major factor about forbidding gays to marry that can't be gotten around by other legal means, and that is immigration. An American citizen cannot sponsor his or her same sex partner for marriage based immigration.

Every generation of young people gets caught up in proving just how tolerant they are of gays. This has created a phony history in which previous generations persecuted and beat up gays as a matter of social policy.

Even if we accepted your premise that this is just the latest issue foisted on us by politically correct victimology types, it doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't right about this one issue. In other words, even if the clock is stuck, it is still right twice a day.

I think there are gay activists who spend too much time sanctimoniously dragging out a history of oppression. If they want to marry each other that's none of my business.

If (as you seem to predict) they insist on affirmative action for homosexuals next year, then I'll object to that.

Your comment is a joke, right? I'm falling for it..?

No Mindles its not a joke =so you must be one of the useful idiots.
Walter Duranty won a pulitzer prize for his BS reporting on the USSR and the times (useful idiots) still won't repudiate and return the prize.
So just brecause you are so wrapped up in your take on the situation doesn't mean that there is any validity in it.
"Homosexuals" as individuals ( otherwise indistinguishable from the general population unless they make the effort to so distinguish themselves) may be succesful in their chosen professions ( contrary to their constanly bleated message of discrimination) but as members of their particular gender they are obviouly total failures as much as they may proclaim otherwise.

I have no problem with "homosexuals' But I have a huge problem with the Cult of "homoseuality".
If you can't see the difference between these two concepts you are = useful idiot.

I hope that the use of this leninist term dosen't offfend but rather causes you to rethink what you seem to be espousing.

Best regards

I used to have a couple of dozen gay men friends, all of them connected in one way or another with my best friend, who is now dying of AIDS. I'll call him "John."

In the 20 years we've been friends, I've gone through this progression with John. First, he was a victim of discrimination because he was gay. Then, he became a victim of discrimination because he was white. In the past 10 years, he's joined the men's activist groups and he's become a victim of discrimination because he's a man. He's not the only gay guy I've known who's done this.

Not incidently, the majority of my gay friends are involved in some way in the theater or in modelling. John could have contracted AIDS in any number of ways. One of the ways could have been this. The grape vine for modelling jobs involves, among other things, compulsory attendance at group orgies. (Some people probably find a way around this. Not that John needed any encouragement there.) Having been around so many gay men for so long, I can tell you that the "Peter Pan" syndrome is real. Extreme narcissism and an obsession with eternal youth are indeed characterist of just about every gay man I've known.

In other words, the gay men I've known are hogs for attention of any kind. Hetero men are somewhat different in this regard. Most hetero men I know want attention only for actual achievements. (Think of the baseball player who is complemented on his achievements and immediately redirects this to the team. He might actually revel in the compliment, but the ethos of the male athlete demands that he deflect it.) In the gay community I've lived in, attention is assumed to be a virtue no matter how it is obtained.

In other words, you are dealing here with drama queens. Any attention is good. In addition, you are dealing with a strange phenomenon that has been around since the civil rights era. Every person who wants to advance their cause does so by comparing their plight to blacks in the Jim Crow south. Feminists were the first to do it in the late 60s. Gays followed. I went with John to a men's movement meeting and, guess what? The participants claimed to be victims of discrimination, just like blacks in the Jim Crow south.

There is now no person left in the U.S. whose plight has not been compared to blacks in the Jim Crow south.

This is all a play for attention, and part of a continuing attempt to make you feel guilty for the plight of gays. In some ways, it is an attempt to pin the blame for the AIDS epidemic on the straight community. The game will not end when the issue of gay marriage is resolved. It will just move on to a different level.

I left this out. I used to have a couple of dozen gay men friends, all in John's social circle. Every one of them, except John, is dead of AIDS. This is not a pathology?

So if social conservatives really wanted to defend marriage, getting rid of those would actually be a productive step, because then you'd have fewer people marrying for purely financial reasons.

So they should actually be on the same side of this as libertarian conservatives.

Not at all. The “subsidies and entitlements” that civilly married persons receive are pretty much in the form of having a standard civil marriage contract that contains default provisions for issues such as dying intestate or making medical decisions for a loved one that non-married people have to draft separate contracts for. In other words, in order to encourage civil marriage between men and women which provides a number of societal benefits (including what most people regard as the ideal situation for raising children), society via the government has tried to make it easier for married people by addressing these other issues in advance (you can of course change them by drafting a will like non-married people but if you’re happy with the default provisions, it’s less work).

There is nothing inherently “anti-libertarian” (aside from the anarchist fringe) in continuing the practice of providing added conveniences for married persons. Nor for that matter is there anything “libertarian” in suggesting that we ought to change the terms of a civil marriage in order to extend these same benefits to people whose relationships do not provide the same societal benefits.

Excuse me for being so verbose, Mindles. I will bow out after this post.

I'm trying to tell you that you are making a mistake by getting drawn into discussing this issue as an abstract intellectual and political issue. That's the con and you are falling for it.

To add to the merriment, I'll conclude. In the mid-1990s, a whole new crew of gay guys arrived in NYC, fresh out of the gay activist curriculum of college. This was the common scenario I encountered. They told me I was "stupid" precisely because I was married. The proof that I was "stupid" was that I sacrificed any part of my life for another person.

About two years ago, the issue of gay marriage came on the radar. The precise same individuals then took to calling me a "bigot" if I presented any reservations about this issue.

When are you going to catch on to the game?

Actually, I've always thought one of the reasons that Ivy League schools have a disproportionately high gay population is that coming to terms with one's homosexuality early in life accelerates thinking for yourself, figuring out what you want in life and maturing as an individual.

Speaking from my own experience, I think (regrettably) there's a bigger factor of NOT coming to terms with one's sexuality. I knew full well I was gay from age 12 on, but I couldn't doing anything with it until college. Not being able to date or even talk about your sexuality as a teen--or worse, having to date fraudulently--leaves a big vacuum in your life that it's easy to fill by throwing yourself into schoolwork, academic achievement, and extracurriculars. This is something that is not limited to homosexuals.

I know that my personal ambitions went to sh!t after I came out of the closet and started having something like a normal love life. I was a total overachiever in high school and got into a great school. Since then, I've been outpaced educationally and professionally by a lot of my high school classmates. But I'm a much happier person.

On a broader note, I liked this blog entry a lot. I disagree with the bit about 'state legitimacy' for myself. I'm a liberal AND a civics geek, so as long as the state is in the business of recognizing relationships, it means a lot to me to be able to step up to the bar like a heterosexual couple and join the fellowship. I understand that not everyone feels it's worthwhile to have that fellowship.

Stephen, I confess that part of the appeal of having a wedding is that it will make me the center of attention. I can't cite any studies, but I don't think this is exclusive to gay people.

I should also point out that while it is why I am having a sizable wedding, it has nothing at all to do with the appeal of a marriage. If gay men are pathological sex addicts, it stands to reason that getting married is the equivalent of social suicide, no? Who ever thinks of Peter Pan in a tuxedo?

For what it's worth, I've been out for 10 years now and never known anyone personally who died of AIDS. I am not denying the terrible impact AIDS has had on gay men; the real lesson here is how differently it affected your generation from mine. This gets into the rapid spread of HIV in the very late 1970s and early 1980s when it was latent and people did not know how it was communicated. In the 1990s, things are different. Certainly many people are careless or reckless or unlucky, but people know how to reduce risk.

Oh no, no gay person ever masqueraded as straight. they couldn't, after all they don't have the 'identifying bits'. And as for 'muscling in' - marriage is not a zero-sum game. Gay people marrying has no effect whatsoever on the marriages of straight people (except possibly relieving a divorced spouse from the matrimony obligation to his/her spouse who has come out of the closet and remarried).

If they cannot develop a persuasive argument (and the fact that 39 States passed laws solidifying civil marriage as between a man and a woman and no State has legislatively enacted “same sex marriage” suggests that proponents have not been able to do so), then society is perfectly justified in saying that they should not dilute the value of civil marriage by awarding these privileges to relationships that do not provide the same or comparable societal benefits.

Thorley,

I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me. It essentially sounds like, "I believe that marriage is for making babies and if you can't make babies, you don't get to be married." But I know many gay couples who have children? "Well, they can write up a contract which says pretty much the same thing."

But isn't that the essence of discrimination? Group A gets to do something easily for relatively little cost which confers a large benefit, but Group B must contract for an attorney to draw up a contract, which takes a great deal of time and trouble and money and which confers on them a somewhat smaller benefit. I just don't see any justification for why?

On an side note, I would be with my husband regardless of whether we were "allowed" to marry or not. I would plan on having a life and a child with him. Marriage didn't make me do it, love did, even with the Marriage tax, which significantly effected us.

I just can't see denying anyone a something everyone else gets because I don't approve. There is evidence to suggest that Homosexuality is genetic. I would hate to think that we are preventing people from doing something because of any kind of genetic difference. Redheads make up 6% of our population. How about we say if anyone has red hair they can't collect their spouces social security.

As for Stephen, I don't believe in conspiracies, it's too hard to keep any kind of a secret, let alone one that could involve as much as 10% of the population, in the bag. I do find it very hard to believe that any of your friends are gay. Perhaps this is just a reaction to loosing so many friends in the 1980s? I don't know. But I do feel sorry for you if it is any consolation.

I'll return solely to respond to Brittan contention that "nobody knew."

I lived in San Francisco in the early 70s when everybody was coming out of the closet. I was actually involved in the political movement that supported that.

My gay male friends starting raving to me about the wide open sex clubs all over town and insisted that I just had to see how wonderful it all was. So, I went there to see what was happening.

It was common for men to take on a dozen or more partners for anal sex. In some clubs, it was common for men (and you'll excuse me for the graphic illustration) to climb into a pit where men pissed and shit on each other.

I walked out of one of those clubs and turned to my friends and said: "You keep this up and you'll be dead." Every last one of those men is now dead.

Don't tell me nobody knew.

Stephen, if your friend knew about HIV in the late 1970s, years before anyone had identified the virus or AIDS and before more than a handful of men were dying, he should have shared this information with everyone else. Certainly people were getting other STDs at the time but none of them were fatal or incurable. Third-stage syphillis was not that common.

The weight of anecdotal evidence, let alone actual facts, is against you on this count.

Kate wrote:

I'm sorry, that makes no sense to me. It essentially sounds like, "I believe that marriage is for making babies and if you can't make babies, you don't get to be married." But I know many gay couples who have children? "Well, they can write up a contract which says pretty much the same thing."

No, it’s more of “we have civil marriage in part because most married couples will produce children and all things being equally, encouraging mom and dad to stay together is usually what’s best for raising children so to do it, we’ll make things a little easier for them.”

But isn't that the essence of discrimination? Group A gets to do something easily for relatively little cost which confers a large benefit, but Group B must contract for an attorney to draw up a contract, which takes a great deal of time and trouble and money and which confers on them a somewhat smaller benefit. I just don't see any justification for why?

So what if it is? Privileges are inherently discriminatory otherwise it would defeat the purpose of trying to produce societal benefits by awarding them to encourage certain types of behavior and not others. The problem for proponents of “same sex marriage” is that there really does not seem to be anything about “same sex marriage” in terms of producing the same or comperable societal benefits that makes them as deserving of these privileges as married persons.

So just brecause you are so wrapped up in your take on the situation doesn't mean that there is any validity in it.

Walter Duranty won a pulitzer prize for his BS reporting on the USSR and the times (useful idiots) still won't repudiate and return the prize.

as members of their particular gender they are obviouly total failures as much as they may proclaim otherwise.

I have no problem with "homosexuals' But I have a huge problem with the Cult of "homoseuality (sic)".

Incidentally, I don't think the gay activist movement has this kind of corruption - or I haven't seen it.

The policy I espouse, which has a snowball's chance in hell of happening since neither side likes it, is in the cited post. It may differ from your assumptions, but probably remains no less repugnant to you.

It is perfectly possible to take your position and spin it into a 'useful idiot' for the violently anti-gay: "I'm just beating up the cult members, I have nothing against homosexuals". Doing so (even as I do so by praeteritio here) isn't going to cause anyone to re-examine their ideas.

Thorley,

The Commonwealth's case in Goodridge crumbled precisely because it could not demonstrate that marriage law was carried out to pursue the goals you ascribe to it. For example, the Commonwealth's lawyer was asked if the state could dissolve a marriage after ten years that did not produce any children, since clearly the marriage was not serving any state interest. No, she answered, that would be an unfair invasion of privacy. I'm sure it's unthinkable to you that the state could compel a divorce.

And that's not even going into the many marriages the state allows that have no prospect at all of leading to children because one or more of the partners is infertile. Would you support laws that exclude infertile opposite-sex couples from marrying? How can you justify extending a "penumbra" to them?

Holding same-sex couples up to a high, separate standard and then denying us rights even when we meet that standard by having children is the essence of unfair discrimination.

Oy. Should be more careful with closing italics.

"The problem for proponents of “same sex marriage” is that there really does not seem to be anything about “same sex marriage” in terms of producing the same or comperable societal benefits that makes them as deserving of these privileges as married persons."

Wouldn't the social benefit be that those couples who are in relationships with children have many thing to encourage them to stay together and to continue to procreate? And, if that is the case, why does sexuality matter at all? Why should the fact that your partner is the same sex as you be in any way relevent to the discussion or the benefit. I don't understand where society's motivation is different.

It just you're arguement seems specious to me Thorley. I just don't get it.

Thorley:

"If they cannot develop a persuasive argument ... then society is perfectly justified in saying that they should not dilute the value of civil marriage by awarding these privileges to relationships that do not provide the same or comparable societal benefits."

Jeebus. Are you telling me that you don't think that tyranny of the majority ever occurs? So African-Americans, having been made citizens at the end of the last century, should have been content with Jim Crow until they came up with an argument that convinced Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and the rest of the Dixiecrat thugs? All complaints prior to the passage (or later, enforcement) of the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act were just whining?

I don't even know what to do with that argument, except to note that, in preparation for government of your choosing, all minorities (racial, sexual, ideological) should practice bending over and grabbing their ankles.

I cannot get over Stephen's comment that there hasn't been any prejudice against gays in say the last 100 years if he includes my grandparents. My God, I saw it with my own eyes well into the 70s. I started working at
Antioch in Yellow Springs Ohio in the mid 70s, so from that point on I was in the middle of a very progressive community. On the other hand, I didn't assume that life outside Antioch and YS was the same as life in that liberal enclave.

Of course this whole discussion is indicative of a certain prejudice, isn't it? I mean here we are arguing over whether or not someone has the right to get married to an adult human being of their choice.

Incidently, going to one of Stephen's posts above about everybody getting beat up in school or the military. I'd suggest that his point of view is pretty limited. I remember no one getting beat up in my outfit in the nearly 4 years I was in. Well at least no fights in the outfit. I don't know what happened to everybody in the bars in town. Or school, most of the fights I remember occurred in grade school, not in Jr. High or High.

Although given Stephen's arguing style I could see where he might be in a different place than most.

"Our society has through the democratic process decided to award privileges to men and women who enter into a civil marriage"

And a hundred-some years ago, our society decided through a democratic process that your rights and privileges depended on the color of your skin.

Stephen, I misread your post before--I didn't realize you were prophesying a plague at the time. There's really no response to that. I only wish you were there to warn me away from the salad bar at the Freshman Union that Tuesday in 1995.

Thorley - it appears you argue the subsidy from the positive and I argue from the negative.

To me it is the original subsidy (of heterosexual marriage) that needs to be argued, not its extension to other groups. I'm against behavioral or economic subsidies in general as an interference in freedom and individual rights and promotion of inefficiency. So there has to be a convincing case for me to support one. In this case, one has to show that:

1. Subsidizing heterosexual marriage will eliminate externalities that would adversely affect the rest of the population
   
2. the cost of those externalities exceeds the cost of the subsidy
   
3. (to argue 'defense of marriage'): Extending the subsidy to gay couples would reverse the positive effect on externalities as given in(1)

I find it jarring to hear (what amount to) allusions to the 'common good' from economic non-interventionists. So far it's more about tradition and selfishness than societal benefits. We straight folks don't want to give up our entitlements and we don't want to share them. Besides, 'it's always been done this way'.

The fact that a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it true (Ad Numerum). It does mean the arguments against haven't been persuasive, as you point out. [no no, it's the fault of the corporate media, etc. etc.!!]

I think people need to admit that the "bathhouse lifestyle" has been a catastrophe for those gay men who were part of it. I fully support gay marriage -- which is about the exact opposite of the bath house scene.

"Although given Stephen's arguing style I could see where he might be in a different place than most."

Well, yes... abstract political and intellectual bullshitting sure beats the reality of a lifetime of experience in the gay community, doesn't it? Virtually every respondent to this board is deluding themselves with this nonsense.

I didn't predict a plague, Brittain. I was telling my friends that actions have consequences.

It is perfectly possible to take your position and spin it into a 'useful idiot' for the violently anti-gay: "I'm just beating up the cult members, I have nothing against homosexuals

MINDLES,
You are projecting here. I have mentioned no reprisals or violence or any antagonistic actions. I am not against anyone deciding that they are gay I'm only rejecting thier cultish attitude that, because they have decided to identify themselves as something that they "think and feel that they are", is their business, and that they deserve no more "legitimacy" than someone who decides he is a Yankee fan as opposed to a Mets fan.
Sorry you don't get it.

P.S. Your (sic) for my finger flobble was appreciated.

I don't understand how anyone can call this a "phony issue". Many people want Gays to enjoy official state-sanctioned marriage, but they can't. Phony rhetoric, poor justifications perhaps, not a phony issue.

But I suppose you are arguing they don't want it and simply manufactured the desire to keep their victimology in the news.

Since you like to argue from personal experience, Stephen, I'll tell you that I know plenty of gay couples who would like to get married and have no patience for political correct nonsense. One is the general counsel of a large organization and spends most of his time defending against phony victimology claims. Another is a math professor who is spock-like in rigorous logical thinking.

Can I generalize as you have and say all gays are logical and oppose political correctness? Will that be as persuasive as you have been here? Or is your anecdotal knowledge of gays from 'living among them' like Jane Goodall more all-encompassing than mine?

People participate in group hysteria, promiscuous gay behavior in the face of Aids being one isolated example. That doesn't justify discrimination against the group(see my response to Thorley for what might).

thedaddy - you 'Dowdified' me, but you made my point anyway. Such rhetorical techniques do not persuade. Let's not use them.

Matthew, I don't think I'd disagree with you. I think people need to recognize that straight people do many of the same things Stephen complains about, including all kinds of kink, and can be plenty promiscuous. And I acknowledge that men seem to be more promiscuous than women, meaning that gay men and lesbians skew in opposite directions from the heterosexual mean for sex partners. (It seems logical to me.) There's plenty of room for a rational discussion of these issues.

Stephen, the problem with your advice was that for decades up to that point those same actions didn't have consequences. The sexual revolution began ten years before AIDS and the "consequences" were broken marriages, unplanned pregnancies, and some unpleasant but far from fatal diseases. That was the model for straight and gay people alike. People will push boundaries if there is no rational reason not to. It's human nature. No one, not even you, predicted anything like AIDS.

The large majority of people who were telling homosexuals to stop having sex then--and a goodly number who are doing it now--were not motivated by concern about diseases. Diseases have been added to the discussions since the 1980s, but they are not at the core of the argument. They oppose homosexuality because the Bible declares it immoral and unhealthy for the soul. You oppose it also because you think homosexuals are con men, whiners, pathological Peter Pans who offend your moral aesthetic, for as much as I can determine. If someone don't accept their religion, this is not an argument that resonates. You can't claim "I told you so" for an unhappy coincidence.

Imagine that the world's coffee crop were attacked by a hardy fungus that survived processing. Within a few months, thousands of people around the world would die without warning or an obvious connection. Eventually scientists track down the cause and people adjust their habits accordingly.

If Gordon Hinkley came out and said "I told you so" on behalf of the Mormons, and pointed out that no one in his church died (except for a few embarrassing exceptions), what's the predictive value in that? Does it prove Mormon morality? Maybe it does. But I don't think Joseph Smith would have had the blight in mind when he warned against "hot drinks."

You can live your life avoiding all risks. Gay men could have abstained from random sex. I could have avoided the salad bar. I can stay locked in my house all day. However, it's all a question of weighting risk accordingly. Gay men severely underweighted the risk of random sex in the late 1970s and early 1980s because, dare I say it, of asymmetrical information with the virus that was starting to make the rounds.

It's the easiest thing in the world to tell someone who has a drive you don't share to weight risk 100% and just not act on their drive. I could tell 14 year old girls not to sunbathe without SPF30 or I can tell the 80 year old who's been smoking since 1939 that they're digging their own grave. I don't have an interest in doing either. Understandably, they're going to make their own decisions.

God, I'm going to stop because it is useless. But I'll try telling you kids this one last time. Not that you will be able to hear.

The last great myth of the political left is that it is sexy. Love and sex are failing prodigiously in leftist communities. Here, in NYC or in Woodstock where I have a summer home, you will find legions of hip leftist women over the age of 35 who don't stand a chance of ever getting laid again. That's really sexy. The reason? The traditional sexual roles have a function that the left refuses to acknowledge. It's a sort of puzzle that allows people to connect. Jettisoning those roles has created astonishing confusion and a consequent epidemic failure to connect.

The left (and most of you belong to it) has been obsessed throughout my life with issues of sexual freedom. The left views sex and love much as it views money... as an asset to be controlled and doled out by government, or society or something. Love and sexual happiness, in this viewpoint, are things that have been forcibly withheld from those who do not have them. And the solution, always, is an expansion of rights and legal remedies in the hope that those who have been forcibly deprived of sex and love will finally get theirs.

I'll tell you the secret, which all of you will reject. An individual achieves a happy sex and love life by... learning to get along with another person!!

The issue of gay marriage is a red herring. It's a pointless argument because the American people will reject it. They are probably right here, although I don't have any strong opinions. As a student of literature and history, I have an uneasy feeling that the number of gay people in a society increases with wealth. There is an unhappy thread throughout literature, history and the Bible that tells us that this phenomenon leads to decadence and the inability of a society to defend itself against external attack. Why this is so, I cannot say.

I have an inchoate feeling that this issue is not about what it pretends to be about, and an equally uneasy feeling that we are headed down a road to a tragedy that we can barely fathom. And, all of the proponents who tell me that there is no cost really make me worry.

You won't know whether there is a cost until many years have passed.

I'll tell you the secret, which all of you will reject. An individual achieves a happy sex and love life by... learning to get along with another person!!

I can't believe I've wasted my morning in a flamewar with Andrew Lloyd Webber.

I dont think its the states job to promote or prohibit marriage for anyone. I dont think there should be benefits or subsidies that discriminate against single people. Because ultimately any benefit extended to the married, increases the cost of say, health insurance to singles. There shouldnt be volume discounts for families at the cost of the individual. I dont think theres any sort of morality in ones sexuality, its a sort of set by default perception of sexual beauty. I dont even have any gay friends(that I know of), but I cant see anyone choosing to be gay in our society.

The left (and most of you belong to it) has been obsessed throughout my life with issues of sexual freedom. The left views sex and love much as it views money... as an asset to be controlled and doled out by government, or society or something.

As a student of literature and history, I have an uneasy feeling that the number of gay people in a society increases with wealth. There is an unhappy thread throughout literature, history and the Bible that tells us that this phenomenon leads to decadence and the inability of a society to defend itself against external attack. Why this is so, I cannot say.

Guess what? People on the "right" like sex too. Imagine that?

Andrew Sullivan may be the best example you can find. He has AIDS as a result of his own behavior, yet he loves to scream "bigot" at anybody who suggests that the gay male lifestyle has its innate pathologies. He quite literally states that he might not have been so promiscuous if only he had been allowed to get married.

Sullivan can best speak for his personal decisions but he makes an excellent case. Marriage almost certainly has decreased promiscuity among hetosexuals so why wouldn't it among homosexuals?

What exactly is this mythical 'gay lifestyle' or 'gay male lifestyle'? The women on 'Sex & the City' sleep with a lot of different men. Is that THE HETROSEXUAL LIFESTYLE(tm)? How about your sweet grandmother who stayed true to her husband for 40 years? She too is practicing a HETROSEXUAL LIFESTYLE(tm) but you see how meaningless that phrase is.

You are distorting language. What you are saying is a promiscuous lifestyle has innate pathologies but that applies to all types of people. Dressing it up with the term GAY LIFESTYLE(tm) only serves to falsly imply that all gays must be promiscuous at all points in their life & at all times in history.

No doubt there are certain lifestyles that are very dominant in certain communities. I wouldn't be surprised if the gay model community in San Francisco & New York had a very promiscuous lifestyle. So did a lot of hetro communities, especially those dominated by the very young like those who go clubbing and bar hopping a lot. This isn't telling us anything that's very useful to the discussion of gay marriage.

The left (and most of you belong to it) has been obsessed throughout my life with issues of sexual freedom. The left views sex and love much as it views money... as an asset to be controlled and doled out by government, or society or something.

Wait, the left was advocating that the gov't hand out sex to people! Where do I sign up? Is this the same place you sign up for food stamps and unemployment insurance?

Brittain33:

"I can't believe I've wasted my morning in a flamewar with Andrew Lloyd Webber."

Great line. Beautiful line. In 14 words, you (a) laugh at yourself, (b) capture the sneaking suspicion of most commenters that there is something slightly pathetic about their devotion to commenting, (c) establish both your pop culture and intellectual snob (meant positively by me) credentials, (d) suggest that Stephen's point of view is based on a worldview constructed of banal cliches (I agree), (e) make fun of him for (d), and, (f) with a light touch, suggest that Stephen could be a deeply closeted homosexual.

If there were a way to include the exchange on your cv, I'd suggest you do it. The rest of us should at least pause to acknowledge the odd marvel of a language used properly.

Seriously - lovely line. And I say that without being able to remember if you're on the side Good (ABB) or Misbegotten (Bush). I'll smile for the next hour thinking of this line.

"Stephen could be a deeply closeted homosexual."

The usual.

This guy proves my point. The entire argument is a red herring.

I am married to one of the most beautiful Filipino women any of you have ever seen. Go take a look at my website if you like.

In Woodstock, the left reveals its ugliest and stupidest side with remarks like this. When my Filipino wife first began to spend weekends in Woodstock with me, I was constantly confronted with jackasses who told me that the fact that I am married to an Asian woman proves that I am a homosexual. The reason: a proper white man marries a feminist white woman, because it is his duty to do so. A white man who marries an Asian woman does so because an Asian woman is not really a woman because... Asian women do not normally buy into feminist. So, the proof that I am gay is that I am married to an Asian woman.

The fascist tendencies of the left are never very far from the surface, are they?

Seig Heil, Tim!

Stephen,

Why don't you respond to actual criticisms of your posts instead of the childish name calling? You talk about gays being 'drama queens' seeking attention just for the sake of attention! Your posts seem to consist of nothing more than 'look at these ancedotes from my life!' 'Look, there I am in the gay bathhouses in the 70's telling my gay friends if they keep doing it they will die!' 'Look, there's me chatting with my gay model friend about the orgies they go to!'.

You ignore any criticism that actually employs marshalling facts & logic beyond personal experience.

Well, Boonton, you've actually just shown yourself to be utterly incapable of understanding what I've been saying. That's why I've said that this issue is hopeless.

I've been telling you that this is not an issue that really revolves around "facts and logic." Personal experience really is what this is all about.

I've got to go to work, so I'll leave you to argue among yourselves. I'll explain why you cannot understand by analogy, as if that will do any good.

I often hear my leftist friends refer to Bush as "stupid." I've asked them often to tell me what they mean by that, and I've been unable to really get an adequate response. But, I do think I know what they mean.

The left is obsessed with ideals, and it believes that the formation of ideals is the highest form of intelligence. It doesn't really matter whether those ideals produce happiness or misery. It is "smart" to posit great ideals, and the "smartest" person is the one who posits the greatest ideals.

When they say that Prez Bush is "stupid," they mean that he does not occupy all his time in the positing of the absolute ideal. He understands, correctly I believe, that the job of the president is to represent the self-interest of the U.S. in the real world. He does this very well, I think, and the left becomes more convinced of his "stupidity" the better he does it.

Bye kids.

I've been telling you that this is not an issue that really revolves around "facts and logic." Personal experience really is what this is all about.

No it is not. We all have different personal experiences, only an immature drama queen thinks reality can be understood only by his limited personal experiences. Facts & logic have been presented in this debate. Andrew Sullivan, who Stephan attacks, has presented a well thought out case for gay marriage. Stephan tells us about his supposed experience visiting a gay bathhouse in the late 70's & a person in upstate NY that made fun of him for marrying an Asian woman. That's all well and good but what does it have to do with gay marriage? Stephen tells us the issue is not gay marriage, but rather his personal experience with gay friends and leftist friends.

Poor Jane, if only she could realize this blog is all about Stephen!

Stephen - I deleted your post with the "Nazi F***" epithet, and don't particularly appreciate the Sieg Heil stuff either. Godwin nods...

fling93: So if social conservatives really wanted to defend marriage, getting rid of those would actually be a productive step, because then you'd have fewer people marrying for purely financial reasons.

Thorley Winston: Not at all. The “subsidies and entitlements” that civilly married persons receive are pretty much in the form of having a standard civil marriage contract that contains default provisions for issues such as dying intestate or making medical decisions for a loved one that non-married people have to draft separate contracts for.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of other incentives to getting married that make for bad reasons. Yes, some are from the private sector as well as the public sector, but the government could always step in to rein in these incentives, and it's the libertarian conservatives who dislike that, not the social conservatives (who didn't mind the FDA stepping in for political reasons to prevent the private sector from selling Plan B). But there are a host of incentives from the private sector, society, and government.

For example, most companies offer health insurance coverage to spouses. This is a financial incentive for those couples where only one person has insurance. My mother-in-law just remarried for this exact reason. Many colleges offer shared housing for married students. My wife strongly considered marrying her best friend in college for this benefit. Society, of course, assigns a stigma to unwed mothers, which is why there used to be shotgun weddings. My wife's 16-year-old cousin in Texas who impregnated his girlfriend is, of course, being pressured to marry her. Forcing a marriage between two people who don't want to get married and who are likely to be too young to be emotionally mature enough to handle marriage? Sounds like a recipe for a disastrous marriage to me.

The government compounds the problem. First of all, welfare benefits are higher for married people. I know the idea was to disincentivize promiscuity, but it also incentivizes poor people to get married for money. Social conservatives must surely realize that money is a quite powerful incentive for poor people, or else they wouldn't believe poor people would pop out children for the welfare benefits. Another obvious benefit is citizenship. And yes, we know a couple who got married right before her green card expired (a couple that few of us thought was a good candidate for marriage).

And of course, there's the progressive tax. While it serves as a disincentive for two-income couples, it's actually an incentive for one-income couples, who end up with the same income level but with higher tax brackets (even those who will still end up in the highest tax bracket after the marriage will benefit because they get to have less money taxed at the higher brackets). Of course, a flat tax would be neutral to both cases. Income would be income, whether it be made by two people or one. I know conservatives like myself support the flat tax, but most of the wailing from social conservatives is about the marriage penalty, not about the marriage incentive.

So there are plenty of financial incentives to be had for getting married. And of course, incentives work. Plenty of people will be willing to change their behavior to get the carrot. And when you have people marrying for money or benefits, and not because of love or commitment, you end up with bad marriages. And I would say unhealthy marriages have always been the biggest threat to the institution of marriage. My wife had experienced plenty of unhealthy marriages in her family and had concluded that marriage itself was an unhealthy, artificial, unnatural, and outdated arrangement that human beings were ill-suited for. It took a long time and a lot of convincing to get her to see otherwise, but I bet there are plenty of more people like her who don't ever find a soul-mate to change their minds.

Thank you, fling. I have always maintained that, if fringes were taxed as ordinary income, 90% of the demand for Gay Marriage would disappear.
I have also maintained that homosexuality was a field expedient rationalized, and the pictures of the folk lined up for Gay Marriage licenses demonstrates my point. Few of them are in any danger of being attractive to the other gender.
Finally, if word meanings are subject to arbitrary sociopolitical redefinition then hello, 1984.

Tim's rebuttal to Thorley's "the majority doesn't want it" argument is pretty devastating.

Thorley apparently believes that it was OK to ban interracial marriage not so long ago because the majority didn't approve of it.

But Thorley's argument has another flaw. Suppose that, in a few years, the majority is in favor of gay marriage, as I think will be the case. Will Thorley then change his mind? And if so, how can he support a constituitonal amendment that would prevent the majority from expressing its will?

Mindles is arguing under the fallacy that if some things in marriage has changed, everything about it is up for grabs. Why don't you go back to obsessing about statues' private parts?

I believe there are some unsupported links in your chain of reason:

That allowing marriage increases the number of homosexuals and decreases the birthrate in the heterosexual population. Birthrates correlate with national income.

That a proportionate increase in Mexicans or another immigrating ethnicity in the US population will substantially change the polity and ultimately distort or change our constitution.

Both lines of reasoning trouble me. The first because the idea that we should force gay people to have kids (isn't that ultimately what you are saying, and isn't that one thing that is happening in Saudi?) is abhorrent to me.

The second..well, why should I be worried about a Mexican-American President? What's his stand on economic liberalism? national security? You really feel you can predict that from here and now?

Hi Mindles,

The increase in Mexican-Americans is not tied directly to the gay marriage issue, until you take a look at the big picture level. One has to observe all that is going on in a room if one is to be prepared for the next event and actually, yes, I feel I can predict with some accuracy the changes that America may face based upon certain patterns and statistics.

I am not saying that homosexuals should be forced to have children. What I am saying is that the existence of gay marriage will influence many children whose sexuality is still impressionable. Like it or not many children imitate their parents. They smoke and drink because their parents do. To deny that government endorsed homosexuality will increase the number of homosexuals is a fallacious viewpoint. Environment always plays a large part in behavior patterns.

If Catholicism becomes the dominant religion of America's politicians does it not stand to reason that this belief system will guide their decisions on moral issues? And is it not almost a given that they will pander to their largest constituency?

The Mexican immigration issue indeed does not bode well for homosexuals. In the small picture view the issues are unrelated but in this world everything is related and influences events.

In Frankfurt, Germany, one can walk down many streets now and see the many veiled women as if one was transported to the Middle East. Many businesses and streets have changed their entire essence and women who walk down those streets unveiled are at risk of derogatory slurs or violence. Out of work immigrants loiter on the streets and gamble and much crime occurs at the tip of a knife. The point being that immigrants bring their religions, beliefs and habits with them.

Should you be concerned about a Mexican-American President and a Mexican-American Congress? Right now no one is worried about such a thing except those whose job it is to predict the future and prepare for it.

If patterns of immigration persist at the current levels it probably is something to worry about - if one's views are not lockstep with Catholic ones.

America is great because of its openness and the separation of church and state. We have usually had a balance of immigrants to offset eachothers beliefs and provide diversity. That is in serious jeopardy. In the future, if the nation becomes 70% Catholic, I do fear for the safety of the Constitution and the various liberties we enjoy today.

I look at Germany, where state imposed closing hours and various other restrictions are imposed by the Catholic religion and I know that it is not difficult to see the same thing happening here. It's simply a numbers game. If the congress is in lockstep with the President it will happen.

Ironically, Germany and the rest of Europe are headed towards becoming Muslim nations over the next century and the US is headed for a decidedly Catholic one. Both religions (and their high birth rates to repopulate their belief systems) will battle it out in the next centuries.

In some ways America because of its isolated position has had the luxury of ignoring global birthrates. Unfortunately for the US the meek do not necessarily inherit the earth - the most prolific reproducers will.

SDAI-Tech1
________________________________

Hi Fred,

Yes Sweden has always had a low birthrate - but they have almost always had very liberal laws regarding sexual activity. Legalized prostitution reduces children and birthrates at an even greater rate than homosexuality and is one of the reasons the US can't afford to legalize prostitution.

On an aside, one of the US strategic goals must be to diminish Catholic, Muslim and other religions chokehold on the worlds masses and promote birth control throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world. Otherwise the technocratic nations will eventually be at a disadvantage when these other 3rd world nations and their burgeoning hordes achieve even a somewhat close level of technological parity.

Condoms, the pill and the morning after pill must be realized as what they really are - weapons for US national security.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1

Few of them are in any danger of being attractive to the other gender.

Offhand, I can think of no society other than Sparta that approved/approves homosexual relationships. So what? Society seldom aproves of minorities, people outside the mainstream. Look around, and if you keep an open mind you'll notice society tolerates but does not really approve of mathemeticians, lawyers, nuclear physicists, doctors... Such are different, and the different is viewed with suspicion. When I am honest with myself, I admit I am uncomfortable around Danes - and my heritage is thre-quarters Danish!

Homosexuality has always existed - and exists in more than one species. It isn't going to go away with a wave of Pat Robertson's hand. I happen to believe one of the things that makes the USA great is its tolerance (usually) and growth of same. Is it time to expand our (grudging) tolerance of homosexuality? I think so: I think it is a shame that a life-partner of twenty years standing is not allowed into an ICU to be with a dying partner because (without a piece of paper from the State) the relationship of a same-sex couple is not demonstrable.

But evryone gets hung up on the word "marriage". Now, marriage is a religious institution, always has been wherever it has existed. For several reasons, Rome decided that the State should regularize certain things such as inheritances, and started recording marriages: but note, it recognized marriages of many religions. Actually, in this it was more progressive than my own State of Rhode Island, which specifies certain religions as allowed to sign the partnership contract as well as State officials. A Shinto couple may be married by a Shinto priest, but the State won't recognize it because that is not one of the enumerated religions - so either a State official must be present to sign the certificate, or a seperate ceremony must be held by such an official.

On the other hand, a State can sign the certificate with no religious overtones. A religious "marriage" is quite irrelevant, albeit the State uses the same word as a matter of custom and convenience. Any lawyer could give several examples of words which have different meaning when formally uttered in court than they do when used informally at, say, a picnic.

No, the State should not be able to tell the Taoist or Anglican that they must allow "marriage" of homosexuals. But neither should tho State refuse its own certificates on the simple ground "Religion say it is bad." Do you eat pork? Lobster? Leviticus, which condemns homosexualty, also condemns this practice. At the other extreme, the State says slavery is bad - but Leviticus says it is OK, as long as you are not enslaving your own (Jewish) people.

Well, Ive written quite a lot and not changed anyone's mind, but I feel I have to try. I especially haven't changed Stephen's, since I seem to have shown the State running a scam on the religious by doubling-up on the requirement for recognition of "marriage".

Beautifully put John Anderson.

Well, I must say, I rarely have to run so much defense.

David - marriage is a social construct and I don't believe it is described in the Constitution. We are the ones who describe its non-religious meaning. In that sense, yes, everything is up for grabs. A healthy argument about the tradition and the need for change is reasonable and not inherently fallacious.

I'm coming back to this late, because I had to go to work, but I did catch Stephen's comment that there are huge numbers of women who will never get laid again because they are over 35.

If I could just get a few phone numbers I would really appriciate it. Thanks.

I am not saying that homosexuals should be forced to have children. What I am saying is that the existence of gay marriage will influence many children whose sexuality is still impressionable. Like it or not many children imitate their parents. They smoke and drink because their parents do. To deny that government endorsed homosexuality will increase the number of homosexuals is a fallacious viewpoint. Environment always plays a large part in behavior patterns.

Unless homosexuality is really set either by genetics or very early on in childhood. In that case, larger acceptance of homosexuals would not significantly increase the gay population.

If Catholicism becomes the dominant religion of America's politicians does it not stand to reason that this belief system will guide their decisions on moral issues? And is it not almost a given that they will pander to their largest constituency?

The Mexican immigration issue indeed does not bode well for homosexuals. In the small picture view the issues are unrelated but in this world everything is related and influences events.

These are very difficult predictions to make. The Catholic position on homosexuality is in some ways more tolerant than other Christian religions. The Catholic Church, for example, has recognized that homosexuality may be an inherent part of a person's condition. Many other Christian Churches continue to insist it is nothing more than behavior. Anyway, immigrants change a country but the country also changes the immigrants. The non-WASP immigration from Eastern Europe, Ireland, Italy etc. altered America but not in ways the commentators of the day did a good job of predicting.

Your analysis seems to rest on the theory that population = power. History has not shown this to be the case, otherwise China and India would be the world's superpowers today. It seems having a proper free-market centered economic system coupled with a liberal system of gov't is much more important if you want to achieve either economic or military power.

Your analysis seems to rest on the theory that population = power. History has not shown this to be the case, otherwise China and India would be the world's superpowers today. It seems having a proper free-market centered economic system coupled with a liberal system of gov't is much more important if you want to achieve either economic or military power.

Hi Boonton,

Thanks for bringing this up. In ages past population usually did equal power. That was until technology and ideas both grew in stature. America has largely remained unmolested for the past sixty years almost solely due to technological development. (i.e the atom bomb)

Now, as nations such as Pakistan and India also possess nuclear weapons, their population reachieves a certain significance and power. When Pakistan and India were rattling nuclear sabres, Indian politicians believed that Pakistani nuclear attacks were not to be feared because their immense populations would prevail.

This was a very frightening viewpoint, because it demonstrates exactly the opposite view to life that the US holds - namely that each individual is extremely valuable. These nations with overwhelming masses grow numb to human death. In India they beat the poor masses asleep on the sidewalks with swatches to see who is alive and asleep or who has died and needs to be carted away.

When China acquired our missile guidance technology, we witnessed another great gap grow smaller. In a few short years Chinese missiles will be able to deliver nuclear payloads to any spot in the United States.

Again, now their masses achieve new significance and power.

The Middle East could safely be ignored by diplomats and left to its own barbaric traditions without fear of consequence. Fortunately we now see the folly of such a carefree attitude.

The US, has been aided by another benefit - we are the land of new ideas. Ideas gave birth to religions and concepts, influencing the masses and which have a longevity much greater than any single man. Freedom was the US' claim to fame and still is. However if our freedom diminishes from the inside and our nation loses that idea edge, than the US will become another overpopulated, over-religious also-ran in the world. If the tidal wave of Mexican immigration flows unchecked, and these same folks wish to retain their language, customs and beliefs - then the US will become a nuclear-powered Mexico over the next hundred years.

The day a foreign nuclear bomb detonates on US soil will be the final wake up call. Our security cocoon will be shattered and the centuries we have relied on two great oceans to keep us secure will be at a close.

Such an event is not inevitable, but if the rest of the world acquires parity in weapons technology before they acquire the love and value of freedom - it is a statistical probability.

and what does that have to do with cassidy and her pat moms?

"I am not saying that homosexuals should be forced to have children. What I am saying is that the existence of gay marriage will influence many children whose sexuality is still impressionable. Like it or not many children imitate their parents. They smoke and drink because their parents do."

That's odd. I never watched my parents have sex, but I still came out heterosexual. In fact, I would say my fervent attraction to women arose wholly independently of my parents' sexual preferences.

I wonder what happens to kids growing up with single parents who never remarry--do they end up asexual?

"To deny that government endorsed homosexuality will increase the number of homosexuals is a fallacious viewpoint. Environment always plays a large part in behavior patterns."

First, how is it "government-endorsed homosexuality"? This is the same ridiculous argument that the existence of religous symbols or language on government buildings is government endorsement of religion. It's no such thing. Recognition of a population and conferral of equal rights hardly means promotion.

Second, it probably will lead to more homosexuals, but only because increased societal acceptance of homosexuality will inevitably lead to more of them coming out of the closet.

Which is fine with me.

Better they come out and become happy members of society than stay in the closet, get into unhappy heterosexual marriages, and pass on that unhappiness to their kids. Which would you prefer?

I am sure that I am not the first one to be posting notice of the lawsuit brought against the Major League Baseball organization by M.A.D. - Mimes Against Discrimination - or the ruling on their behalf that ordered the M.L.B. to change the game to allow Mimes to play. You have heard about this right?

In case you are not aware mimes from across the United States organized and brought multiple lawsuits against various sports organizations in separate states. The 9th Circuit Court was the court to hear the case against the M.L.B. organization. The case was vigorously fought by M.L.B, but in the end what was the court's ruling? M.A.D. Although there are plans to appeal the Supreme Court, it will not be heard in before this years season ends, so changes to the sport must be made according to the courts ruling by end of next month.

As expected, redefining the 158 year old sport is being resisted by a majority of the population, but a small minority thinks that it's about time the discrimination ended. Changes include the removal of the baseball from the game. That is right, no ball. All pitchers must go through the motions of pitching without the actual ball. The Umpire will watch the release point of the imaginary ball and the swing of the batter, or mimicked swing if it is a Mime player at bat, before making a call. That call is no longer just BALL or STRIKE, but will now include FOUL, FAIR, POP-UP, GROUND, or OUTFIELD and toward which field the "ball" was hit. Depending on how the other baseball players and/ or mimes field the "ball" the base umpires will decide when and if the play is an out, single, double, triple, or homerun. Another drastic change will be that no score will be kept. It was decided that to actually keep score would be insulting to the mimes on the losing teams and imply that their skill in the Craft of Mime was inferior or "second class", which is unacceptable in this day and age. The winner of each game will be determined by a lottery during the 7th inning stretch by a coin toss and the remainder of the game played out to ensure that result. There have been reports of some mayors in various parts of the US forcing the changes on the populace illegally before the courts actually ruled. To date nothing has been done about those crimes though.

Sound absurd? Welcome to the world of "'Gay' Marriage". Let me explain why.

The first step is that we all need to be clear on one very critical point. To make it clear here are three simple questions:

Can anyone tell me where in the world I might find the Kingdom of "Gay"? Or, maybe the Republic of Homosexuality? The Peoples State of Rainbow Pride perhaps? No, in fact no one can. There is no such country.

Second question: could anyone tell me the name of the deity or deities of the "Gay" Religion? I mean all "gay" people are part of one religious organization with its own separate pantheon of deities right? No? That's right, homosexuals are members of all different religions, including atheists and agnostics.

Ok, final question: can anyone tell me what color skin ALL "gay" people have? I mean there must be some outward physical characteristic that would identify someone that is "gay" correct? Oh yeah, that’s right there is nothing like that in reality. There are homosexual people in every race on Earth.

It is obvious that Homosexual is not a nationality, nor is it an ethnic trait. It is not a race, nor is it a religious title. So what IS a homosexual then? This is the critical point: a homosexual is someone that engages in sexual acts with another person of the same gender. "Yeah, everyone knows that. So what?" some might respond to that statement. The "so what" is that this fact has been ignored in all the talk of "'Gay' Marriage".

No homosexual in the USA is denied the right to be married. If a homosexual male would like to wed a female, homosexual or heterosexual, there is not a single state in the union that would put a stop to that marriage or deny it from happening based on his homosexual activities. There is no discrimination against homosexual individuals getting married at all in fact. For example a "gay" black female can marry any male of any race that wants to marry her. The same is true for any female or male of any race.

So what is all this talk about "'Gay' Marriage"? It is nothing more than a small minority of people using the judicial system to force their desires on the majority of the country. This minority of people are using judicial decrees to force the redefining and restructuring of an institution that is older than any civilization on this planet. The people behind this movement are making false claims of "racism", "second class citizens", "discrimination", and "unequal treatment". And sadly, some people believe the lies.

The "'Gay' Marriage" movement, in an attempt to generate sympathy and play on peoples emotions, has hoisted the banner of Civil Rights and equated their attempts to force their minority view on the majority to the actual discrimination and denial of rights to people based on their skin color. It's true that at one time in parts of the US a black person could not marry a white person. It was also true that people of color were not allowed to drink from the same fountain, eat at the same tables, work the same jobs, etc. as those not of color. And going back to baseball, they were not allowed to play certain sports either. Thankfully that time is past. Today homosexuals are not in that position. They are not being denied any rights or treated in the same way as "people of color" were. I defy anyone to show me a homosexual and heterosexual drinking fountain anywhere in this country. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting to those that actually suffered and fought for Civil Rights to have the "'Gay' Marriage" movement attempt this theft of meaning.

One of the arguments brought out most often in response to the above points is that "Civil Unions" are not equal to marriage as they lack "X", "Y", and "Z". Followed shortly afterward with "I do not see what the big deal is anyway, it is just a word". Yet when pressed for the reasons why "gays" are pushing for "gay" marriage instead of having civil unions improved to the same level of marriage, one will often be told: "Because words mean things". Yes, exactly: words mean things. The word "marriage" means "a union between a male and a female".

Those that are trying to preserve the meaning of the word marriage see this issue as one of Judicial Dictates being imposed on the majority by a very small minority. Elsewhere in the world we call places that allow/do this "Dictatorships". The USA is a country were individual rights are paramount and should not be stepped on by the government. Yet the "'Gay' Marriage" mafia is attempting to use the judicial system to do exactly that in their attempts to redefine an institution against the will of the people.

The majority of Americans have stated that they support civil unions. They have also stated that they do not wish to have marriage be redefined. It is obvious what should be done then, but those pushing "gay" marriage do not wish to work with the system, they wish to abuse it. The argument most often used is that "Civil Unions would not be the same as marriage". Well, just like a mime stepping up to the plate with an imaginary bat to swing at an imaginary ball is not the same as a baseball player playing the game, a union between two homosexuals the not the same as one between heterosexuals. And before anyone has a knee-jerk reaction and screams "homophobe" let's be clear on the reason why it is not the same (aside from the obvious missing gender of course): two homosexuals, neither of them sterile, have zero ability to produce offspring. There will never be a union of their DNA for the creation of new life.

It is my sincere hope that the small minority ceases these attempts to impose its world view and desires on the majority of Americans using the judicial system. I would also hope that they would stop employing the intellectually dishonest arguments they are making to support their oppressive efforts. If things do not stop it will become like the past, but this time the ones oppressing their fellow Americans will be the "'Gay' Marriage" disciples.

Thank you for your time reading this. I would like to address a couple of arguments often put forth by the "Gay" Rights groups, keeping them separate from my writings above.

"Is it better for a kid to grow up with two loving 'gay' dads/moms or with a mother and father that hate each other?"

This is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty. The person asking this question is not making a just or fair comparison. The real question should be "Is it better for a child to grow up with two loving 'gay' dads/moms or with a loving mother and father?" But that question defeats their effort because the vast majority of people will choose the mother and father. Let's turn things around and see how fair this question would be: "Is it better for a kid to grow up with two 'gay' dads that molest him all the time or with a loving mom and dad?" That is equal to their question for comparing totally different environments.

"A person cannot help being 'gay', they just are. It's not a choice."

This is the critical foundation of the homosexual argument, and has absolutely no medical proof to support it. This has been repeated so many times by the "Gay" Rights movement because it allows them to define themselves as a minority group. No one is allowed to discriminate against people for something that they have no choice or control over like skin color, race, gender, etc. So the "Gay" Rights advocates continue to put forth the above statement in order to be seen as one of these "no choice groups" instead of a fraction of the population that engages in certain sexual acts.

But even if the desire to have sex with - or general feelings of attraction for - someone of the same gender is not a choice, actually taking part in sexual activity is. If a heterosexual man began having sex with another man it would be called homosexual activity, not heterosexual, regardless of his desire for females. If a person during the span of his or her whole life never engaged in sex with someone of the same gender could they honestly be labeled as homosexual? No.

"What about a hetero couple that can't have kids? Should they not be allowed to marry? If it is all about offspring then why should they be allowed to marry?

Aside from the disgusting insensitivity for those people unable to have children this is also intellectually dishonest. Once again we have are presented with a comparison of unlike things. For some reason the heterosexual couple in question had something go wrong with their ability to produce offspring, or accident/injury removed the ability from one or both partners all together. Whatever the cause they have been denied the possibility for something that could occur. A homosexual couple never even has the potential to procreate to start with. There simply never could be a child from the union of two males or two females.

"What about hermaphrodites? What are you going to tell them? What if one of them wants to marry someone of the same gender?"

This is also an exception as there are people that are born XXY and are considered both male and female. Documented examples of hermaphrodites getting pregnant and also getting someone else pregnant do exist. Therefore a hermaphrodite would be honest and justified in claiming the opposite gender of their spouse in a marriage.

"I was reading about a tribe in Africa/South America which has never had contact with the Judeo/Christian world and everyone in that tribe is bisexual. No one has a problem with homosexuality in that culture. They are not repressed by religious beliefs."

Aside from not being able to prove the existence of this tribe the person in question totally failed to notice that if this tribe does in fact exist it would be the worst thing for the "Gay" Rights movement. It would prove once and for all that homosexual behavior was a CHOICE, not something at birth. A whole culture of bisexuals? That would be evidence in support of those that suggest homosexuality is an environmental result or a free will choice, and not proof that Judeo/Christian values/cultures are "anti-gay".

Wow Mindles,

I once worked at a place that had a fair number of strange employees. Someone once remarked that the way to call a staff meeting was to roll some nuts down the hall and watch the squirrels come out.

You really rolled out the nuts (and brought them out) with this one.

Congratulations.

Okay, tell me, please. Where the hell are the so-called tax advantages to being married?

I look at my taxes every year and believe me, I would pay thousands less if my spouse and I were not married but merely lived together.

When I married John, I gave up a lot of tax benefits, and I can't believe that gay people are so dumb as to be unaware of this.

There is a marriage penalty. There has been one for years - sure they reduce that penalty now and again, but dammit, I'm tired of paying taxes for you single people!!!

"Children *from* gay marriages"?

The children aren't really *from* the marriage, since the marriage needed someone elses genetic materials to really generate the children.

To paraphrase Will and Ariel Durant: How is that the people living now have decided that we are so much smarter than the @400 generations living before us and that gender and the social structures based upon it are simply unnecessary?
Spend a few moments googling the name Saul Alinsky. Then ask yourself: If I wanted to destroy the social order, what would be the most effective way to do it? If your answer is: Let's redefine the most element of identity ("Is our new baby a boy or a girl?") and simply make everything optional. This fluid reality then becomes constant flux, i.e. chaos. At this point, Alinsky's theory says that the idiot masses, in a panic, are ripe for stable "leadership" by the enlightened.
This isn't about tax breaks. It's about how society and civilization function.

Where the hell are the so-called tax advantages to being married?

There aren't any, if you're both employed.

Oh, and the idea that legalizing gay marriage is going to somehow induce more people to become gay? Hehehe.

It is obvious that Homosexual is not a nationality, nor is it an ethnic trait. It is not a race, nor is it a religious title. So what IS a homosexual then? This is the critical point: a homosexual is someone that engages in sexual acts with another person of the same gender.

I think the best analogy is with left-handed people. Lefties are not a nationality, ethnicity, nor religion. And lefties have a choice whether or not to use their left or right hand. Remember, left-handedness used to be considered evil, and lefties were forced to write with their right hand with considerable psychological damage. And they had the same rights that everyone else did: to write with their right hand.

And yes, we now believe left-handedness is genetic. Is homosexuality? The jury's still out, but in light of what happened to lefties, I think the burden of proof lies with those who believe that it isn't. Clearly, I don't think it's something you can control any more than your handed-ness. As a simple experiment, think of the most disgusting sexual fetish you can think of, one that makes you want to throw up. Be it bestiality, or incest, or what have you.

Now, try willing yourself to be sexually aroused by this fetish. Methinks you will find your sexual organs will not be so willing to comply to your brain's orders.

And even if you could, do you honestly think that's how homosexuals came to be? By willing themselves into a minority class?

Beth: Okay, tell me, please. Where the hell are the so-called tax advantages to being married?

From my earlier comment:

And of course, there's the progressive tax. While it serves as a disincentive for two-income couples, it's actually an incentive for one-income couples, who end up with the same income level but with higher tax brackets (even those who will still end up in the highest tax bracket after the marriage will benefit because they get to have less money taxed at the higher brackets). Of course, a flat tax would be neutral to both cases. Income would be income, whether it be made by two people or one. I know conservatives like myself support the flat tax, but most of the wailing from social conservatives is about the marriage penalty, not about the marriage incentive.

As a bonus, this serves as a tax cut for men who marry gold-diggers.

Nice comment voidseeker, I wore myself out just reading it!

There is another point I believe to the arguement that is deliberately being overlooked: Gay people already have the right and/or the freedom to do whatever they want in their lives, as do we all. Go ahead and live your life however you want to....Can people with religious or traditional values not also have this right? Must everyone be forced to accept the doctrine of gay marriage/liberation forwarded by some, and have it taught as doctrine in schools by the government?
Perhaps in time we will all learn to love and accept this new way of thinking put forward by our intellectual betters. We will probably even get to learn new terms for 'husband' and 'wife'. At least when the Romans conducted gay marriages, they skipped all the pretense and clearly defined roles. In fact, Nero was married twice to other men, the second time as the wife.
Rome, flaming, went down shortly after....

James uttereth: Nero was married twice to other men, the second time as the wife.
Rome, flaming, went down shortly after....

Oh good lord. And the problem with Rome going down is what exactly? From everything I have studied Rome in the time of Nero had passed her sell-by date quite some time before that. And remember, after Rome fell the Middle Ages began, when Europe became Christendom. I'm surprised more Christians don't appreciate just what they had back then, at least in the High Middle Ages; instead they blather on about "Rome, poor Rome." Please use another analogy to complain about the awfulness of cultural decadence.

Sorry Andrea, I wasn't trying to suggest that homosexuality caused the downfall of Rome. Like you stated, I was only rambling about various indicators of cultural decadence. I personally don't care for the Romans that much (not that you should care).
I do believe your comment about Rome's fall igniting a european Christendom is incorrect however; Rome herself, for good or bad, very much established Christianity in Europe by fusing the teachings of a Judeo/Jesuit sect (based on the work of Paul) with her own paganist and hellenistic theosophies. Thus we sit today.

My point was that the freedoms we enjoy are a respite from State-religion. We should be careful not to re-introduce an ideology by force or government regulation.
The Rome meme was a needless tongue in cheek comment.
Alas, we (I) appear to be way off track in this discussion now!

The children aren't really *from* the marriage, since the marriage needed someone elses genetic materials to really generate the children.

Pduggie,

My brother and sister are adopted because my parents could not conceive a child. A few years later they found they were wrong and I appeared, but my conception was highly unlikely.

I dare you to join us at Thanksgiving one year and tell us that I'm really a product of my parents' marriage, while my brother and sister aren't, because my parents needed someone else's "genetic material." In fact, I dare you to call my brother or my sister or my nephews the product of "someone else's genetic material" instead of "my family." We grew up under the same roof with the same rules. My family was created by my parents' marriage, each one of us.

If you have such an obnoxious and retrograde view of family, I hope that for your own sake you are pro-choice, since you don't seem to think adopted children can make a real family.

SomeCallMeTim, I'm blushing. Thank you for the note.

"Where the hell are the so-called tax advantages to being married?

There aren't any, if you're both employed."

Yeah but lifetime social security payments to a spouse are an advantage. An an old gay person with a work record can produce 10-20 spouses by serial wives, there is nothig wrong about that. Plus if last wife is in the next generation, no death tax at all. Estate passes tax free.

As a gay man, I am sick of hearing heterosexual politicians use the issue of gay marriage as a means of re-election. They claim with self-righteous fervor that they want to protect or to save the institution of marriage. Protect it from what? With a 50% divorce rate, heterosexual couples are doing a pretty good job of destroying it themselves without any help from me.

I'll make these politicians a deal. If they really want to save the institution of marriage, I will give up my right to marry the man I love IF they first make divorce illegal.

I very much doubt that would happen. Making divorce illegal would affect most of their constituents. Can't have that... It is much easier to pick on a minority group.

Well said VA_Gaymer
I don't think they're trying to exclude gays from marriage as much as they are trying to pretend they are in the right with regards to they're own ways.
That being said, all sides are guilty of self-righteousness.
Note to those who are religious: The Bible does not condone heterosexuality either-only the law of marriage between a man and a woman.

[It is obvious that Homosexual is not a nationality, nor is it an ethnic trait. It is not a race, nor is it a religious title. So what IS a homosexual then? This is the critical point: a homosexual is someone that engages in sexual acts with another person of the same gender.]

Wrong, a homosexual is someone sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, whether or not they engage in sexual relations with them. A man who is attracted to women is heterosexual, even if he becomes a Catholic priest, or is stranded on an island from a young age or for some other reason never has sex with anyone. A woman attracted to other women and not to men, who has sex with a man purely for money, is still a lesbian.

[No homosexual in the USA is denied the right to be married. If a homosexual male would like to wed a female, homosexual or heterosexual, there is not a single state in the union that would put a stop to that marriage or deny it from happening based on his homosexual activities. There is no discrimination against homosexual individuals getting married at all in fact. For example a "gay" black female can marry any male of any race that wants to marry her. The same is true for any female or male of any race.]

That was the argument put forward to support bans on interracial marriage in the 1960's - there is no discrimination as everyone is free to marry another person of the same race and prohibited from marrying someone of another race. The same rule applies whether you're white or black, so where's the discrimination? Of course, they also claimed God opposed interracial marriages, but that's an entirely different argument.

[So what is all this talk about "'Gay' Marriage"? It is nothing more than a small minority of people using the judicial system to force their desires on the majority of the country.]

Wow, so I guess Loving v. Virginia, which held bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, was an example of outrageous judicial activism, a court forcing its desires on a country that at the time was about 90-10 opposed to interracial marriages. Heck, a majority of the white population of Alabama voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage in their constitution just a few years ago, even though it's completely unenforceable in light of Loving v. Virginia.

[This minority of people are using judicial decrees to force the redefining and restructuring of an institution that is older than any civilization on this planet. The people behind this movement are making false claims of "racism", "second class citizens", "discrimination", and "unequal treatment". And sadly, some people believe the lies.]

So you'd have no problem with same-sex marriage if the legislature of a state approved it, or are you using the "activism" argument to hide behind?

[ Thankfully that time is past. Today homosexuals are not in that position. They are not being denied any rights or treated in the same way as "people of color" were. I defy anyone to show me a homosexual and heterosexual drinking fountain anywhere in this country. It is intellectually dishonest and insulting to those that actually suffered and fought for Civil Rights to have the "'Gay' Marriage" movement attempt this theft of meaning.]

Hmm, how about the right to marry the person they love? Anyway, your analogy proves too much. By that logic, civil rights for hispanics, jews, asians, women and the disabled are not legitimate either. None of those groups were enslaved, or the victims of Jim Crow laws either.

[One of the arguments brought out most often in response to the above points is that "Civil Unions" are not equal to marriage as they lack "X", "Y", and "Z". Followed shortly afterward with "I do not see what the big deal is anyway, it is just a word". Yet when pressed for the reasons why "gays" are pushing for "gay" marriage instead of having civil unions improved to the same level of marriage, one will often be told: "Because words mean things". Yes, exactly: words mean things. The word "marriage" means "a union between a male and a female".]

Says you. And just 40 years ago in many states it meant "a male and female of the same race". And not so long before that it meant just the man, because the wife was his property, unable to own property on her own or sign contracts without her husband's permission. When those things changed, people attacked those changes too, claimed to be "defending traditional marriage", and pretty much made all the same arguments you're making now, and just about as persuasively.

[Those that are trying to preserve the meaning of the word marriage see this issue as one of Judicial Dictates being imposed on the majority by a very small minority. Elsewhere in the world we call places that allow/do this "Dictatorships". The USA is a country were individual rights are paramount and should not be stepped on by the government. Yet the "'Gay' Marriage" mafia is attempting to use the judicial system to do exactly that in their attempts to redefine an institution against the will of the people.]

Wow, "individual rights are paramount and should not be stepped on by the government", apparently unless you're gay and want to get maried, then it's the government's job to step on your rights. The whole point of rights is to protect minorities from majorities - that's why we have a Bill of Rights. As for redefining marriage, defined according to who? It's no more a redefinition than Loving v. Virginia was. In any event, those who support the proposed federal constitutional amendment aren't in a position to claim they're speaking for the people. That's an amendment that would deprive the people of a state of the right to legislate same-sex marriage, even if the population was 90-10 in favor of it.

[A union between two homosexuals the not the same as one between heterosexuals. And before anyone has a knee-jerk reaction and screams "homophobe" let's be clear on the reason why it is not the same (aside from the obvious missing gender of course): two homosexuals, neither of them sterile, have zero ability to produce offspring. There will never be a union of their DNA for the creation of new life.]

So what? Straight people aren't required to be able to produce children in order to get married. Heck, they don't even have to want children. Heck, they can publically declare that they despise children and want nothing to do with them and yet they can still get married.

[It is my sincere hope that the small minority ceases these attempts to impose its world view and desires on the majority of Americans using the judicial system. I would also hope that they would stop employing the intellectually dishonest arguments they are making to support their oppressive efforts. If things do not stop it will become like the past, but this time the ones oppressing their fellow Americans will be the "'Gay' Marriage" disciples.]

On that approach interracial marriages would still be illegal in the South and explain exactly how two adults getting married oppresses you?

["Is it better for a kid to grow up with two loving 'gay' dads/moms or with a mother and father that hate each other?"
This is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty. The person asking this question is not making a just or fair comparison. The real question should be "Is it better for a child to grow up with two loving 'gay' dads/moms or with a loving mother and father?" But that question defeats their effort because the vast majority of people will choose the mother and father. Let's turn things around and see how fair this question would be: "Is it better for a kid to grow up with two 'gay' dads that molest him all the time or with a loving mom and dad?" That is equal to their question for comparing totally different environments.]

So if your point is that it is better for a child to have two loving parents rather than two parents who hate each other, how is that an argument against same-sex marriage?

["A person cannot help being 'gay', they just are. It's not a choice." This is the critical foundation of the homosexual argument, and has absolutely no medical proof to support it.]

Assuming you are a straight person, just try to force yourself not to be attracted to good looking members of the opposite sex, and instead to be attracted to persons of the same sex. You can't do it, nor can gay people do the reverse. In any event, you claim there's no proof that being gay is an inherent feature of a person - but why should the burden of proof be on gay people? You don't have any medical proof of the opposite position and, by the way, if being gay is not an inherent condition, how do you explain the existence of homosexuality in animals?

[This has been repeated so many times by the "Gay" Rights movement because it allows them to define themselves as a minority group. No one is allowed to discriminate against people for something that they have no choice or control over like skin color, race, gender, etc. So the "Gay" Rights advocates continue to put forth the above statement in order to be seen as one of these "no choice groups" instead of a fraction of the population that engages in certain sexual acts.]

Uh, so discrimination on the grounds of religion is ok? Discrimination on the grounds of citizenship? Discrimination on the grounds of disability? All of those things can change. Certainly at a minimum religion is at least as much a choice as sexual orientation, and probably much more so.

[But even if the desire to have sex with - or general feelings of attraction for - someone of the same gender is not a choice, actually taking part in sexual activity is. If a heterosexual man began having sex with another man it would be called homosexual activity, not heterosexual, regardless of his desire for females. If a person during the span of his or her whole life never engaged in sex with someone of the same gender could they honestly be labeled as homosexual? No.]

See my point above re the Catholic priest or person stranded on a desert island.

["What about a hetero couple that can't have kids? Should they not be allowed to marry? If it is all about offspring then why should they be allowed to marry?
Aside from the disgusting insensitivity for those people unable to have children this is also intellectually dishonest. Once again we have are presented with a comparison of unlike things. For some reason the heterosexual couple in question had something go wrong with their ability to produce offspring, or accident/injury removed the ability from one or both partners all together. Whatever the cause they have been denied the possibility for something that could occur. A homosexual couple never even has the potential to procreate to start with. There simply never could be a child from the union of two males or two females.]

Uh, how was that point "disgusting insensitivity"? When Carole Channing re-married recently, both she and her husband were in their 80's. What's so insensitive about pointing out that they can't have children? Why weren't the "marriage is about procreation" types out there attacking her for getting married? In any event, you're only addressing the situation of an opposite sex couple who cannot have children. As mentioned above, even an opposite sex couple who can have children, but simply do not wish to have any are still free to get married.

Julie:

To paraphrase Will and Ariel Durant: How is that the people living now have decided that we are so much smarter than the @400 generations living before us

Gee, could it be, perhaps, because those 400 generations living before us practised slavery, religious persecution, the subjugation of women and all manner of other evils?

and that gender and the social structures based upon it are simply unnecessary?

I have seen no one suggest that gender and the social structures based upon it are simply unnecessary.

Voidseeker:

Aside from the disgusting insensitivity for those people unable to have children this is also intellectually dishonest. Once again we have are presented with a comparison of unlike things. For some reason the heterosexual couple in question had something go wrong with their ability to produce offspring, or accident/injury removed the ability from one or both partners all together. Whatever the cause they have been denied the possibility for something that could occur. A homosexual couple never even has the potential to procreate to start with. There simply never could be a child from the union of two males or two females.

So what? If the gay couple is to be excluded from marriage because it can't produce children through a biological union of the partners, why shouldn't the infertile straight couple be excluded from marriage for the same reason?

Your statement above is factually incorrect, anyway. Many straight people are infertile not because something "went wrong" with their ability to produce offspring but because they are too old to have children, or because they chose to be sterilized.

Mindles:

Having read through some more of these comments, I have to agree with Bernard. You've really managed to bring out the wingnuts with this post. I guess they usually just lurk.

Doesn't say much for the quality of your readership, really, does it?

Don P and Mindles: I must disagree strongly with Don P's last remark. Gay marriage is a topic that touches deeply on many traditions, customs, and institutions. As is appropriate for such a topic, this thread has featured a wide ranging and fascinating discussion. Even though I disagree strenuously with some of the comments, I found about 80% or so of them interesting and thoughtful, an 80% that includes many of the comments with which I strenuously disagree. The large number of thoughtful comments on such a controversial topic reflects well on the readership of Asymmetrical Information and therefore reflects well on the authors.

Of course, rendering such a judgement requires an ability to recognize that different intelligent, well informed people of good will can look at a complex issue like gay marriage and arrive at different opinions.

And while commenting while half-drunk after a Friday night, I have two comments on earlier posts. First, Brittain33 wrote something that really touched me

Not being able to date or even talk about your sexuality as a teen--or worse, having to date fraudulently--leaves a big vacuum in your life that it's easy to fill by throwing yourself into schoolwork, academic achievement, and extracurriculars.

In a completely different post, SomeCallMeTim wrote

So African-Americans, having been made citizens at the end of the last century, should have been content with Jim Crow until they came up with an argument that convinced Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and the rest of the Dixiecrat thugs?

The problem with subsidizing all couplings and granting federal benefits also becomes one of where one draws the line. If it is discriminatory to prevent two men or two women from marrying isn't it discriminatory to those who remain bachelors or bachelorettes?

I mean if we really are to start letting folks marry someone they love, regardless of their ability to procreate, then it would be discriminatory to draw the line just at heterosexual and homosexual couples. What about those who truly love themselves and are psychologically incapable of commitment? Should the government grant them the same benefits of marriage due to their handicap? The world is filled with onanists. Is their form of non-procreation worse than any other?

And what about blood relations? Presently due to the knowledge that these relations result in deformed children they are outlawed in the United States. But isn't that discriminatory if two cousins really love eachother and want to get married?

It is a long slippery slope one descends in an attempt to achieve moral righteousness. Thorley touched upon it earlier, but folks didn't quite comprehend what he was saying. Government recognized marriage isn't for everyone. It's a reward for coupling and having healthy children.

While not all marriages result in children, most do. The government would have to require that a majority of gay couples adopt or become artificially inseminated to get the payoff - new taxpayers brought into the nation.

Again, I will reiterate, homosexuality is not a desirable outcome. A nation does not seek to encourage homosexual relationships. Male and female human anatomies were designed to complement eachother and largely the emotional temperament were also designed to complement. Two of the same polarity create an imbalance. In gay coupling one is almost forced to assume a masculine role and the other a feminine role to create a sense of polar attraction. This will tend to psychologically mess up a lot of folks and was why the AMA classified homosexuality as a mental illness for most of the twentieth century.

Naturally, there is still more that needs to be discovered about homosexuality. Is it genetic? Is it the result of something even more baffling to science?

As someone who believes in reincarnation, I find it quite plausible that people with gender confusion have lived more lives of the opposite sex and now find themselves a bit out of place in their current gender. The physical appearance of many homosexuals is a strong indication that many lesbians are really male polarities and many homosexuals are female polarities.

If this is the case, it will require a whole new set of rules, perspectives and compassion. For who's to say that in your next life it may not be you who find yourself in a gender which you rarely utilize?

Of course this takes the thread to a metaphysical perspective and it's hard to debate it on that level.

SDAI-Tech1

Chris states:

"Wrong, a homosexual is someone sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, whether or not they engage in sexual relations with them. A man who is attracted to women is heterosexual, even if he becomes a Catholic priest, or is stranded on an island from a young age or for some other reason never has sex with anyone. A woman attracted to other women and not to men, who has sex with a man purely for money, is still a lesbian."

If this was true, that all it took was attraction, than those that are attracted to minors would have to be treated as pedophiles, but they are not - UNTIL they engage in their desires and perform a sexual act. No, I am not calling homosexuals pedophiles, I am making a comparison. By Chris's logic a pedophile is a pedophile even if the person has never actually engaged in a sexual act with someone underage, and should be treated as such. Yet we do not lock up these people or charge them with crimes do we? It is only when they engage in the action that they are treated differently from their fellow citizens. The simple fact is that unless someone has sexual interactions with someone of the same gender they are not homosexual, regardless of their desire. Just as if a person never engages in sexual activities with someone of the opposite gender can they be called heterosexual. Mere arousal is not enough, if it was would someone that gets sexually aroused by a nice car be called an "autosexual"? Would a person that became aroused due to waterfalls be called a "hydrosexual"?

Chris classifies homosexuals as a minority group based strictly on their sexual desire, I do not. For me and many others Homosexual is more like a profession. It is a lifestyle choice, and carries with it some consequences. An artist that never engages in a single artistic endeavor can hardly be called an "Artist".

As I said before, it is critical to the homosexual agenda that they be able to classify themselves as a minority group equivalent to those minority groups that are based on race or nationality, otherwise their arguments fall apart. But they ignore the fact that a black person cannot change the color of his/her skin just by will alone. A person of full Mexican decent cannot become a person of full Japanese decent by making a choice or acting differently. But there more than a few homosexuals that have chosen to give up the lifestyle and become heterosexual. There are homosexuals and heterosexuals that become bisexual all the time. Homosexuality is not the same as being a certain nationality or race. (For the record I do not use "African American" because not all Blacks in the USA are from African decent and it is insulting to them to say they are).

With that stated Chris's points can be addressed as follows:

*Argument about interracial from the 1960s:
***Does not apply, homosexuals are not a race.

* Loving v. Virginia:
***Once again, homosexuals are not a race, does not apply.

*"So you'd have no problem with same-sex marriage if the legislature of a state approved it…?"
***No, I would not have a problem if a single state chose to approve it by passing a law through their legislature. That is the way that things are supposed to work in this country, not taking a case before a very few number of people sitting on a court and having them order the legislature to write a new law. If a single state in the union chooses to recognize marriage between two people of the same gender that is the prerogative of that state. But that law should not be forced on any other state in the Union. Either it is a State's Right issue or it is a federal issue. Regardless of which it is, the issue should be address by the will of the people through the proper section of government: the Legislative branch - not the Judicial.

* Anyway, your analogy proves too much. By that logic, civil rights for hispanics, jews, asians, women and the disabled are not legitimate either. None of those groups were enslaved, or the victims of Jim Crow laws either
***No, actually that is not true. I never mentioned slavery as a condition and only used the drinking fountain as an example because of the "Gay" Marriage movement's constant attempts to hijack the Civil Rights movement for their purposes.

* Says you. And just 40 years ago in many states it meant "a male and female of the same race". And not so long before that it meant just the man, because the wife was his property, unable to own property on her own or sign contracts without her husband's permission. When those things changed, people attacked those changes too, claimed to be "defending traditional marriage", and pretty much made all the same arguments you're making now, and just about as persuasively.
***This is a twisting of history. Did all of society 40 years ago ban marriage between people of different races? No, they did not. The truth is that there were interracial unions 40 years ago, and even before that. They were unions between a male and a female. Your attempt to claim "before that it was just the man" has nothing to do with the union itself, once again a male and a female, but instead with which partner had ownership rights of property and the status of one of the spouses. Again you are relying on the rights denied to a race in a small part of the country to justify forcing "Gay" marriage rulings on the population at large. Homosexual is not a race. Marriage has always been viewed as the union of a male and female.

* Wow, "individual rights are paramount and should not be stepped on by the government", apparently unless you're gay and want to get maried, then it's the government's job to step on your rights. The whole point of rights is to protect minorities from majorities - that's why we have a Bill of Rights. As for redefining marriage, defined according to who? It's no more a redefinition than Loving v. Virginia was. In any event, those who support the proposed federal constitutional amendment aren't in a position to claim they're speaking for the people. That's an amendment that would deprive the people of a state of the right to legislate same-sex marriage, even if the population was 90-10 in favor of it.
***Actually the whole point of laws is to protect individuals and minorities from illegal activities by others, minorities or majorities. Rights were setup to define the boundaries of the governments and limit its interference in actions/activities/possessions reserved for the citizens of the nation. The ban of polygamy/bigamy has already proven that marriage is an institution in which the defining of our government does have control.

* So what? Straight people aren't required to be able to produce children in order to get married. Heck, they don't even have to want children. Heck, they can publically declare that they despise children and want nothing to do with them and yet they can still get married.
***I never said it was a requirement to have kids. I pointed out that in one case there is the possibility of producing offspring, in the other there is no possibility of doing so. "Gay" Marriage advocates state that there is no difference if the two people are of the same gender or not in a loving marriage, and that simply is not true.

* On that approach interracial marriages would still be illegal in the South and explain exactly how two adults getting married oppresses you?
***Again that is not true. Interracial marriages were not illegal everywhere in the USA. Due to the structure of the union a marriage, as defined as a union between a male and a female, that was legal in one state had to be recognized in another. The "Gay" Marriage are attempting to abuse this system by forcing marriage to be redefined in one state via the court system and then use that decision to force "Gay" Marriage on the rest of the states in the union. If one does not see the problem with an individual state's court's ruling forcing nation wide changes to the law, society, and economy - not to mention overruling the laws of those other states - then I would have to assume the person in question is a fanatical supporter of the decision that has no concern for anything but the cause.

* So if your point is that it is better for a child to have two loving parents rather than two parents who hate each other, how is that an argument against same-sex marriage?
*** My point was the intellectual dishonesty used by the supporters of "Gay" Marriage in comparing an in love homosexual pair vs a not in love heterosexual pair in order to solicit a response in favor of "Gay" marriage.

* Assuming you are a straight person, just try to force yourself not to be attracted to good looking members of the opposite sex, and instead to be attracted to persons of the same sex. You can't do it, nor can gay people do the reverse. In any event, you claim there's no proof that being gay is an inherent feature of a person - but why should the burden of proof be on gay people? You don't have any medical proof of the opposite position and, by the way, if being gay is not an inherent condition, how do you explain the existence of homosexuality in animals?
***I find it amusing that Chris states I cannot do what he/she suggests, or that other people cannot. In fact I could if I chose to, and personally know more than a few people that have done exactly what Chris describes. Almost every single bisexual has done exactly what was stated in fact. The burden of proof rests with "gay" people because they are the ones making the claim that it is not a choice but instead something inherent to the person in question. As stated, bisexuals and former homosexuals now heterosexuals disprove that claim. As for explaining the existence of homosexual activity in animals I believe that is rather obvious. The animals engage in the activity because they find physical pleasure in it. There are animals that engage in bisexual activates also. Feel free to explain them away though.

* Uh, so discrimination on the grounds of religion is ok? Discrimination on the grounds of citizenship? Discrimination on the grounds of disability? All of those things can change. Certainly at a minimum religion is at least as much a choice as sexual orientation, and probably much more so.
***Let us see who has a closed mind in reading this reply. Yes, it is ok in fact. The constitution discriminates against non-natural citizens that aspire to the office of President of the United States. Private organizations discriminate all the time on membership. To use the example above the MLB organization discriminates against all people that are not able to play the sport. Discrimination occurs all the time and it is not immoral or wrong in and of itself. We, as a society, have setup laws that say in certain areas of life/business one cannot discriminate solely on race, gender, religion, etc. but that does not mean that an apartment complex cannot reject a [pick a race] [pick a religion] tenant that was evicted from the last 3 complexes his/she lived in. They discriminate against the person in question regardless though.

* Uh, how was that point "disgusting insensitivity"? When Carole Channing re-married recently, both she and her husband were in their 80's. What's so insensitive about pointing out that they can't have children? Why weren't the "marriage is about procreation" types out there attacking her for getting married? In any event, you're only addressing the situation of an opposite sex couple who cannot have children. As mentioned above, even an opposite sex couple who can have children, but simply do not wish to have any are still free to get married.
***The reason it is insensitive is that it almost always refers to a sterile couple. The example of an elderly couple has come up more and more as the insensitivity to those denied the chance to produce progeny was getting a backlash. Perhaps a reason the "marriage is about procreation" types did not "attack" her was the fact that the union was that of a male and female, and if it had occurred earlier in both of their lives they could have produced offspring. No matter what the age of the people involved two homosexual people can never produce offspring. It may be about the potential more then the actual result. Regardless, I am not one of those people nor a spokesman for them.

My thoughts and reasons for opposing the "Gay" Marriage onslaught should be clear and are stated above. To me the "Gay" Marriage drive is nothing more than an attempt to force the redefining of marriage on the people in order to make them view homosexuality as "normal" when by definition it is exactly the opposite (when there are only two things, one being normal, the other not, and 90%+ engage in one of the two things that becomes the norm).

If this "Gay" Marriage crusade was about all the "benefits" of marriage why not just push to ensure that Civil Unions have all the same benefits? The people by a large majory have stated that this is acceptable to them. Yet every time I have asked someone involved with or that supports the "Gay" Marriage agenda "If Civil Unions were to have all the same benefits and drawbacks as marriage would that be enough to make you happy?" the answer has always been "No." So one will need to forgive me if I hold some disbelief towards the claims made by supports of marriage between homosexuals.

Voidseeker --

"This is also an exception as there are people that are born XXY and are considered both male and female. Documented examples of hermaphrodites getting pregnant and also getting someone else pregnant do exist. Therefore a hermaphrodite would be honest and justified in claiming the opposite gender of their spouse in a marriage."

This is incorrect on a number of levels and, ironically enough, hints at why all of the anti-gay marriage efforts are likely, in the end, to create more problems for straights than people imagine.

A karyotype of 47XXY is known as Klinefelter's syndrome, which covers a number of variants (xxyy, xxxy, xxxxy, ect.) and mosaics (xy/xxy, xxy, xxxy, etc.). Those born with Klinefelter's syndrome tend to be tall with proportionally long legs, tend to suffer from attention and sometimes learning disorders, and tend to have low androgen levels - many to the point of infertility (though that sometimes can be corrected exogenously). There is some debate about whether those with Klinefelter's tend to be homosexual at a higher rate than the general population with some studies saying yes and some no. Fact is, no one really knows because the frequency of Klinefelter's is unknown, karyotypes are not routinely run. Best estimates are that Klinefelter's effects about 1:1,000, making it the most common of the intersexual conditions. Chances are high that someone reading this has Klinefelter's, likely several someones and likely they don't even know it as Klinefelter's is often asymptomatic, or close enough, or when it is symptomatic doctors often never think to look for it.

In other words, those born XXY are not considered both male and female, they are not hermaphrodites in the sense that you mean the term. Technically they are intersexual, but the bulk are physiologically normal appearing males.

There are a number of other IS conditions closer to what you mean. In AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, estimated at 1:13,000 births) a karyotype 46XY (id est, male by most definitions) individual is born with a genetic or physiologic 'error' that causes their body not to be able to produce and/or utilize androgens. Such persons are born with undescended and non-functional testes but also with a 'closed' vagina (closed because there is no womb). Though "chromosomally male", these individuals appear and develop as female and the condition is not generally discovered until they fail to menstruate. PAIS (Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, estimated at 1:130,000 births, though estimates here are far more iffy) is a variant where only some of the androgens (generally Dihydrotestosterone) are effected. The effects vary depending on which androgen(s) is effected and where the error occurs (conversion level, receptor level, or transcription level). CAH (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, 1:13,000 births) is where a 46XX (id est, female by most definitions) child has an error in the adrenals that can cause an excess of androgens leading to varying degrees of virilization both in utero and later -- some studies have indicated that those with CAH have a higher incidence of lesbianism. In some instances the degree of virilization is quite minor, in others quite severe. There is a similar iatrogenic condition known as Progestin Induced Virilization.

There are a number of other IS conditions, of course, many of them closer to your notion of a 'hermaphrodite' (the terms used amongst ISs are 'herms' and 'merms', by the way), but I bring up these particular IS conditions because they're all fairly common and because they all point out a big problem in this debate -- what is "a man" and what is "a woman"?

If we wish to define marriage as something that should only be allowed between a man and a woman at some point we're going to have to define those terms in an objective, testable, and verifiable manner. Problem is, there is no way scientifically to define those terms. At least no way that isn't going to screw a whole lot of people, likely including some of those who are calling for things like the FMA.

In Littleton v. Prange the Texas Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals based their decision against Christie Lee Littleton in part based on her assumed chromosomal status (assumed as it is illegal to use genetic data in Texas courts so a karyotype was never actually run). In Gardiner v. Gardiner the Kansas State Supreme Court reached a similar decision. Both cases involved male-to-female transsexuals married to men who died, in both instances the courts dissolved the marriage, essentially said that no marriage had ever legally existed, based mostly on a fairly rigid chromosomal definition of sex. One who is 46XY is male, one who is 46XX is female, and only a marriage between one who is 46XY and one who is 46XX is legal.

This fairly simplistic definition is likely one the courts will continue to use in the future, but for what should be obvious reasons it is going to be problematic. Someone reading this may be 48XXYY and not even know it, are they male or female? Someone reading this may have a daughter who is AIS, who appears, is raised as, and develops (with the exception of menses) as any 'normal' female child yet is 46XY. Are they male or female? Someone reading this may have a friend who is a highly virilized case of CAH or PIV, may have 'male' on the BC and DL, may have been raised as male, but is 46XX. Are they male or female?

There are any number of other examples, exceptions to the neat (if useless) XX/XY chromosomal sex rule. The degree of fun this could cause in legal proceedings is pretty horrifying to imagine. Either a lot of people (just the Klinefelter's 1:1,000 amongst 300,000,000 adds up to a lot of people) could find their marriages subject to challenge and dissolution by the courts, or the courts would have to create so many exceptions as to make the definitions pretty useless.

This is an issue getting far too little attention in this entire debate because frankly most people are wholly ignorant of the complexities involved. Put simply, "male" and "female" are not definable terms in any meaningful sense. Any attempt to define them rigidly for legal purposes is going to not only screw gays and lesbians, but also have the unintended effect of screwing a whole lot of other people walking around right now, many of whom may not even be aware there's anything different about them from the norm.

It would be a fitting irony if some senator was to vote for the FMA and later have their marriage challenged after the death of their wife by an insurance company that didn't want to pay out and knew there was a chance that by challenging the marriage in court there was a chance that marriage could be dissolved if said senator had some chromosomal anomaly. That is exactly the direction we're heading with these ill thought out attempts to codify prejudice.

Anyone who thinks that wouldn't and won't happen is fooling themselves.

Myria

Thanks for bringing this up. In ages past population usually did equal power. That was until technology and ideas both grew in stature. America has largely remained unmolested for the past sixty years almost solely due to technological development. (i.e the atom bomb)

Again, why was Japan the Empire builder in WWII? China had plenty of people then. Why was India a British Colony for so long when they long had many more people than the UK? Population hasn't equalled power for a lot longer than you imagine...if it ever did.

When China acquired our missile guidance technology, we witnessed another great gap grow smaller. In a few short years Chinese missiles will be able to deliver nuclear payloads to any spot in the United States.

True but that's still a large gap to bridge. A lot more seperates the US from China than long range missiles. Also tech marches forward. The ability to land a warhead on the other side of the earth isn't modern technology anymore. That was cutting edge tech in the 1950s!

But this has nothing to do with gay marriage or population. If China embarks on a nuclear buildup the US having more people isn't going to counter that.

It is obvious that Homosexual is not a nationality, nor is it an ethnic trait. It is not a race, nor is it a religious title. So what IS a homosexual then? This is the critical point: a homosexual is someone that engages in sexual acts with another person of the same gender.

But I was hetrosexual long before I actually had sex with a woman. Does that mean hetrosexuals don't exist until they have sex? If not then you have to admit that sexuality is a trait of a human being that exists independent of their actual sexual behavior. I'd be a hetrosexual even if I was stranded on an island with no other human beigns.

To paraphrase Will and Ariel Durant: How is that the people living now have decided that we are so much smarter than the @400 generations living before us and that gender and the social structures based upon it are simply unnecessary?

How is it that people who couldn't even come up with indoor plumbing 400 generations ago are suddenly smarter then us today?

Excellent post Myria.

Everyone will just humor me here for a bit as I extrapolate way outside the box...

I think those chromosomal anomalies are based upon a sort of selection of frequency pairing at the quantum level. Let's say two individuals have lived each forty lifetimes. One has had 10 lifetimes male and 30 female, while the other has had 17 lifetimes male and 23 female. let's say every single thought and experience are stored in a quantized field of energy, composed of trillions of quantum wave forms (or what the layman might call a soul)

As each are reborn again these quantized fields attract and rebuild a DNA structure pulling material from each of the parents as best suits these particular waveforms. It's not random at all, but is created through harmonic affiliation which generates the entire DNA strand from top to bottom.

Does it not then make sense that the individual with 30 lifetimes female and 10 male would develop an 48XXYY chromosome pattern, based upon the polarity of the stored waves in this quantized field, when they are born as a man?

This would be such an exception because most people would be balanced with a shift towards one polarity - say 17 lifetimes male and 23 female and vice-versa. However these stronger polarized folks would tend to be in a pretty bad way when they do return in the opposite gender - and it is a foregone conclusion their entire genetic make-up would scream male even when they are physically female and vice-versa. This would explain the women born 46XY.

This would explain why many feel it is not a choice but that their attraction is built in when they are born. Instead of a clean slate with random genetic determiners I believe the process is very scientific and precise - and that the process occurs at a quantum level we just can't observe yet.

Let's take it even farther.

Here we get to the real kicker...

If this indeed were the case, it would be in these folks best interest not to act on these impulses but rather to resist them and strengthen and build more waveforms with this other polarity bias so that in future lifetimes they would not be so strongly polarized with experiences of just one gender.

Of course the gay community (folks with a preponderance of experience in another gender) wont like to hear this. However, from a WAY bigger perspective it would be in their best interests and, in future lives, whenever they find themselves in either gender they will be able to have normal relations with the opposite sex.

That might also explain why so many folks feel that gays should to try and resist their so-called 'unnatural'impulses. It sets off a sort of internal alarm and one knows that acting on these impulses will just cause more long-term difficulties for these folks. And why do they know this - because five lifetimes ago they may have been in the exact same predicament!

_____________________________________
End of way outside the box theorizing.

Interesting isn't it?

SDAI-Tech1

thedaddy:

Your ignorance of basic neurological science is astounding in light of the smugness with which you make assertions relating to the field.

There is indeed a biological indicator for homosexuality, and it is based on the structure of a person's hypothalamus. It makes sense that a person's brain would be what determines their standards of sexual attraction, and indeed what sometimes happens is that the brain's hypothalamus is "wired" in a way that is different from the programming suggested by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.

People with "Attracted-to-Men" brains, as revealed via CAT scan, are overwhelmingly attracted to men.

People with "Attracted-to-Women" brains, again a demonstrable trait on a CAT scan, are overwhelmingly attracted to women.

This data is consistent REGARDLESS OF SEX: it's not your sex but the size of your hypothalamus that matters! That means if you're a man with a petite womanly hypothalamus you've no choice: you're gay (or at least attracted to men). If you have a big manly hypothalamus, you're attracted to women -- even if you're a woman yourself.

Size matters. Ain't that a hoot? Imagine this hospital waiting room conversation:

"Oi, lady, get a load a MY hypothalamus ... bet you ain't never seen one like that, eh, toots?"

"I dunno, my girlfriend's looked a little bigger, but maybe her head is just smaller."

Too funny.

Your argument then that homosexuality is somehow ephemeral or "not demonstrable" is false, most likely based upon your complete ignorance of neurological science. A simple CAT scan shows the difference as clearly as a Playboy centerfold (or Greg Louganis taking a dive).

Again, I will reiterate, homosexuality is not a desirable outcome.

Desirable for whom? I doubt either one of us knows enough about genetics to have any sort of intelligent discussion in this area. For all you or I know, homosexuality has a very definite function.

A nation does not seek to encourage homosexual relationships.

Which one is? Other than a Forever War hypothetical?

True but that's still a large gap to bridge. A lot more seperates the US from China than long range missiles. Also tech marches forward. The ability to land a warhead on the other side of the earth isn't modern technology anymore. That was cutting edge tech in the 1950s!

Here's what I think: the whole issue of technology is getting muddied in with the issue of knowledge. It's possible to transfer technology without transferring understanding of said technology. This is not to say that the Chinese are incapable of understanding the technology and understanding how to make it work, but these things cost time and money to develop. If someone handed you the guidance system to an ICBM imagine what it'd take to understand what it was doing, and build (and, more importantly, integrate and test) an exact replica that functions as well as the original. Knowing more than a little about such things, I can say it's a nontrivial amount of effort.

Since homosexuals cannot procreate, I am perplexed by the concept of "gay parent". Biology proves without a doubt that same-sex procreation is an impossibile event to achieve, therefore there is no such thing as a 'gay parent'.

"Mom" and "My Pat" are guardians, not parents.

Syn, does that mean my parents were "guardians" of my adopted brother and sister? Do you have moral qualms with adoption, and if not, how do you conclude that adopted kids should be second-class citizens within their own families? That's an awfully nasty perspective.

Syn, "Mom" was the Cassidy's mother (parent), regardless of your acceptance or rejection (or Cassidy's, for that matter). She is biologically the progenitor, just as your mother and mine were our progenitors. By your definition, those who adopt children are not parents, only guardians. Both those who adopt children and the children themselves will likely see the situation in a different light than you.

Yikes, I should have waited until I got home to post. Please excuse the grievous harm I inflicted upon the language with my previous comment. I think I conveyed my point, however inelegantly I have done so.

Seriously -- to the people who ask why we're redefining gender now after 400 + generations (and how exactly DID they get that count, anyway?)
Several reasons -- the pill; in-vitro fertilization; countless advances in technology that allow women to be as productive as men on the work force.

Whether one likes it or not -- and there will always be those who dislike change -- reproduction is changing. Chances are in the future reproduction will become ever more distanced from gender. And yes, as far as bio-technology goes, at least with animals (I don't think anyone has experimented with humans) it is already possible to create offspring with the genetic material of two females or two males.

Should it be done? Is it the big evil?

This is entirely subject to individual opinion and will always vary. If you disapprove you should definitely NOT do it.

(The most radical invention of the human race, affecting everything from food production to reproduction was arguably the wheel and I'm sure to some it was an evil, evil invention.)

Will it be used? Oh, you bet your behind it will. New technology ALWAYS gets used, and legislation can't keep it at bay. Only drive it underground and make it truly dangerous.

So -- why are we discussing gender rights as a legislative issue now? For the same reason land property rights became an issue only after the discovery of agriculture.

Because now is when it matters. And let's discuss these issues honestly without believing everything is going to somehow return to a time when women didn't have effective contraception and when marriage meant children (unless there was some biological problem.)

The mythical edenic past of the conservatives -- with women safely pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen -- is as ridiculous and made as outdated by progress as the mythical edenic past of the liberals where there were no combustion engines and everyone stayed in his little peaceful village that shared everything.

Trying to hold back the tide won't work. It never has and it won't now. And most of those "paradises" would have driven any normal, modern individual nuts, anyway.

Let's discuss things honestly, without mythos to hide behind.

To both Brittian33 and time keeper. Please do not confuse social parental rhetoric, ie adoption, with laws of nature, adopted children do have parents. You may not have been raised by your biological parents but you do have male-female parents.

Procreation can only occur between male sperm and female egg. Procreation cannot occur between egg and egg nor between sperm and sperm.
Same-sex procreation is impossible. No matter how hard we try, altering our language to accomodate behavior will not alter the laws of nature.

Despite our modern assumption females and males are not physically and psychologically equal. I have no intention of implying that one is better than the other, I am pointing out that each compliment one another. For a child to be raised by one gender, not both genders, is in defiance of the laws of nature. In order to maintain nature's balance, the offspring should ideally be raised by both genders.

For what is is worth, those who argue for allowing homosexual marriage with the argument that heterosexual marriage has been in the process of destruction are actually supporting the arguments posed by those who have been stating for decades that impact of the demise of marriage is heading towards social decay.

Also, I do question the validity of the premise that one is 'born' homosexual. Has this been proven beyond doubt? And, if so, could someone please provide the evidence. Feelings are not proof that one is 'born' homosexual.

Here's what I think: the whole issue of technology is getting muddied in with the issue of knowledge. It's possible to transfer technology without transferring understanding of said technology. This is not to say that the Chinese are incapable of understanding the technology and understanding how to make it work, but these things cost time and money to develop. If someone handed you the guidance system to an ICBM imagine what it'd take to understand what it was doing, and build (and, more importantly, integrate and test) an exact replica that functions as well as the original. Knowing more than a little about such things, I can say it's a nontrivial amount of effort.

A while ago it was reported that China plans to land an unmanned probe on the Moon by 2010. Also, didn't they send up a manned mission earlier this year for the first time? It would appear that the Chinese are developing their understanding of missile tech. quite nicely.

This doesn't change the fact that we are talking about what was cutting edge in 1960 and not 2004. This also doesn't explain what gay marriage has to do with any of this.

Procreation can only occur between male sperm and female egg. Procreation cannot occur between egg and egg nor between sperm and sperm. Same-sex procreation is impossible. No matter how hard we try, altering our language to accomodate behavior will not alter the laws of nature.

But you already acknowledged there's a difference between the 'social' definition of parenthood (that includes non-biological parents like step mothers and adoption) and the biological one. I haven't heard anyone advocate a redefinition of biological parenthood to incorporate gay couples. This has nothing to do with gay marriage because marriage in itself does not cause procreation. I've yet to see anyone show why 'gay married couples' would cause anything problems more dramatic than regular married couples that do not have children.

Also, I do question the validity of the premise that one is 'born' homosexual. Has this been proven beyond doubt? And, if so, could someone please provide the evidence. Feelings are not proof that one is 'born' homosexual.

Proof for such statements is always very elusive. Just defining the issue is difficult enough. How can you prove a person is homosexual to begin with (as opposed to, maybe, a confused hetrosexual)? Or hetrosexual for that matter! What has been very elusive, from my understanding, is evidence that homosexuality is environmental. In other words, there's little evidence that homosexuals are caused by some common environmental factor (such as an overbearing mother, neglectful father, being the youngest or oldest kid etc.)

Some evidence for a biological link has already been posted here. I'll let others evaluate the quality of that evidence.

Please do not confuse social parental rhetoric, ie adoption, with laws of nature

My point is that this is exactly what you are doing--confusing two definitions for the same term. You're trying to use one definition to undermine the other where it is completely inappropriate. Right now, family law defines "parent" according to the social term, not the "laws of nature." That is why adopted children have biological parents (whom they may not know) and adoptive parents. Most civilized people recognize the social definition as well, or else they get an ass-kicking from adoptive parents/kids.

If you are not willing to cite the "law of nature" to nullify my parents' adoption of my brother or sister, or at least to give you the authority to snub them or insult them as strangers in my family, I don't see why you think it's ok to treat same-sex parents who have gone through the same process in this manner. It's discrimination, pure and simple. Your argument is not inhabiting the same reality the rest of us Americans (those who have known or experienced adoption) live in.

syn,

To both Brittian33 and time keeper. Please do not confuse social parental rhetoric, ie adoption, with laws of nature, adopted children do have parents. You may not have been raised by your biological parents but you do have male-female parents.

I'm having trouble understanding your differentiation here. Further, you are making an assumption; I have not mentioned my father, which might be an omission. It could also mean that my mother raised me alone, or with a female partner, or with her parents, or some other option. In each of these other cases, I had no father, although (obviously) somebody contributed genetic material.

I'm also having trouble with the whole "Laws of Nature" thing, but I'll delve into that further down the line.

Procreation can only occur between male sperm and female egg. Procreation cannot occur between egg and egg nor between sperm and sperm.
Same-sex procreation is impossible. No matter how hard we try, altering our language to accomodate behavior will not alter the laws of nature.

I am not arguing that both male and female zygotes are required for reproduction. That's not the issue; it's a straw man.

Despite our modern assumption females and males are not physically and psychologically equal. I have no intention of implying that one is better than the other, I am pointing out that each compliment one another. For a child to be raised by one gender, not both genders, is in defiance of the laws of nature. In order to maintain nature's balance, the offspring should ideally be raised by both genders.

I do not claim that men and women are interchangeable, and nothing I have said could be misconstrued as such.

You bring up "laws of nature" again, and state that both genders must be represented to mantain nature's balance. Most living things are not raised by both parents. Whether we speak of lower life forms (not raised by any parents at all), or higher creatures (most birds and mammals relegate child care duties to the female, although there are exceptions such as swans), the two-parent ideal is either totally absent or significantly aberrent. Most primates form groups of one adult male and several adult females, or groups where a group of males protect a group of females; neither is directly analogous to the "one male parent/one female parent" form you advocate. (Gack, I'm describing "It takes a village"; I feel soiled.) My point is that it's no more or less natural for monogamous bondings in the rest of the animal kingdoom than it is among humans.

A totally different set of arguments (not mutally exclusive from these) could be brought forth for those who wish to argue the issue on theological grounds, but I presented these because you brought up "natural law".

For what is is worth, those who argue for allowing homosexual marriage with the argument that heterosexual marriage has been in the process of destruction are actually supporting the arguments posed by those who have been stating for decades that impact of the demise of marriage is heading towards social decay.

Heterosexual marriage should not need a differentiation from homosexual marriage to maintain its validity. If such a differentiation is necessary, then perhaps its value should be reevaluated. My personal view is that only church-sanctioned pairings should be defined as a marriage, and any sectarian (judge, justice of the peace) pairing should be defined as a civil union, with the same legal rights, priveleges, and responsibilites.

Also, I do question the validity of the premise that one is 'born' homosexual. Has this been proven beyond doubt? And, if so, could someone please provide the evidence. Feelings are not proof that one is 'born' homosexual.

Can you provide proof that one is born heterosexual? I will keep an open mind; try to prove to me that feelings of heterosexual love are beyond a doubt proof that people are born heterosexual.

It can be argued that sexuality is analogous to handedness; there is a broad variation, with most people being exclusively right-handed, some being exclusively left-handed, and some who fall somewhere in the middle. In decades past, there was an effort to identify those who were left-handed, and convert them to right-handed behavior. (I speak from experience on this, as I am naturally a lefty for most activites). Learning to write with one's right hand does not change the fact that the left hand is the dominant hand.

Here's a stumper for some of you 17th century religious types:

If you could tell from an ultrasound at, say, 3 months that your baby would have a "gay brain" would you have an abortion?

The technology to scan the nascent brains of the unborn is nonexistent and would be highly unlikely for at least the next several decades, so there's no danger of your actually being confronted with the situation. It's just a thought experiment.

The more interesting question is whether the phenomenon is a probabilistic function of some little-understood facet of embryology (i.e. a congenital accident) or whether there was at some point in the past a significant biological advantage to bisexuality.

Asserting the superficially obvious "homosexuality isn't hereditary" is ignoring the possibility of some advantage to be had at some lesser degree of expression, just as holding the sickle cell gene is proof against malaria.

Full-blown sickle cell anemia certainly isn't going to win you any survival contests, but neither is malaria. Evolutionary history has proven that immunity to malaria in mosquito-infested habitats outweighed the cost of losing 25% of ones children to sickle-cell anemia. Perhaps the hypothetical "gay genes" are part of the same sort of Darwinian compromise.

We're also talking about social behavior, which people have more control over than whether or not they are bitten by a mosquito. This leads to yet more fascinating questions, particularly concerning the phenomenon of the "closeted homosexual".

Still more to consider: what if there isn't a "gay gene" per se, but rather an over-balanced combination of attraction genes? Think about this (and it'll blow your mind): a hard-core heterosexual woman with a hypothalamus that pegs the man-lovin' meter mates with a marginally heterosexual guy.

Their female children inheirit a combination of the mother's extreme androphilia (just made that word up, hee hee) and the father's moderate gynophilia, with a "bias factor" toward men thrown in because they're girls. They emerge strongly heterosexual.

The couple's male children inheirit the mother's revved-up androphilia and the father's attenuated gynophilia, with an extra bias toward women thrown in by their Y chromosomes. However, that bias isn't enough to overcome whatever genes gave their mother her uncompromising lust for men, thus the boys wind up being gay.

A "closeted" gay man's female children, according to this theory, would be "hyper-hetero", perhaps even giving them a procreative advantage that completely outweighs the male parent's less-than-zealous pursuit of women. Homosexuality, in this scenario, is indeed hereditary.

Imagine the dismay of lesbian parents (only one biological, of course) whose artificially conceived son grows up to play basketball, join the Marines, marry the girl next door, and convert to the Republican party at age 24. Delicious irony ... and homosexuality in this example is once again -- you guessed it -- hereditary.

Funny stuff if you think about it. Too bad there aren't enough genealogical studies to work with. I'm sure statistics would bring out some kind of pattern; even total randomness would speak volumes. I'm sure whatever the answer is it will be fascinating.

A while ago it was reported that China plans to land an unmanned probe on the Moon by 2010.

Not that this actually means anything relevant. If they actually do it, that might be relevant. A few decades ago, China decided to have everyone be producers of steel, and we can see how that went.

"Spina's wife reacted by trying to get their marriage annulled. Among her legal arguments is the claim that Paul Spina was always psychologically a woman and, therefore, violated Kentucky's law prohibiting same-sex marriages when they said their "I do's."

FWIK of the Catholic Church's canon law on anullments, I've seen anullments granted on much shakier facts on the ground.

Comments are Closed.