[quote]vroom wrote:
Heh, nice try Rainjack. Looks like you are firing off a losing salvo. The writing is on the wall and it’s only a matter time now.[/quote]
Hardly losing. Unless sometime lastnight the constitution was rewritten by yet another activist judge, it is the pro-gay rights crowd thst is still losing.
But maybe we judge wins and losses by a different criteria.
Question: is monogamy natural, biological, and predetermined at birth?
I am not trying to be cute here. Marriage is built on the premise of monogamy - but does anyone ever wonder or care if they are actually ‘hardwired’ for monogamy?
The point is this - the biological nature of homosexuality, regardless of the answer, is not the sole determinant of whether a society would want to formally recognize a union in law. I suspect that monogamy is not much of a purely biological phenomenon, but we insist the marriage be in the form of monogamy - why? Cultural, historical, religious, traditional, practical, etc. Big bucket of reasons.
Fact is, no one has the definitive answer on whether homosexuality is natural or a choice. The presentation of data is compromised by people with agendas - gays are gonna see every piece of evidence as proof, others are gonna have their own.
There was a study done on identical twins to see if a gay twin’s other twin - a sibling with an identical mirror of DNA makeup - was gay. The research showed that just about 50% of all identical twins that were gay had a gay twin.
The report has hailed by both sides. Gays insisted that such a high percentage showed that there was clearly a genetic component. Those opposed claimed that this research was proof that there was no genetic component - after all, only half of the the siblings with identical DNA were gay - hardly a showing that homosexuality was driven purely by genetic factors.
All of which is beside the point, in my view. Marriage is not a right. Society has a bundle of reasons to incentivize monogamous heterosexual unions - marriage serves social goals as much as it serves the goals of the individual. Gays have no ‘right’ to marriage - what they must do is try and create a brand spanking new institution and convince the public that society is better off as a result of allowing gays to cement their union in the law.
It is not just about a right to get the benefits of marriage - tax breaks, state endorsement of the relationship for self-esteem, etc. It is not just about letting people do as they want. Marriage is a partnership with the state - if you don’t think so, try and get a divorce.
So maybe gays choose to be gay or they don’t, but it is an impartial and misguided argument - we couldn’t give a shit if bigamists have a biological claim that they need more than one woman, presumably a plausible a claim as being naturally gay. In fact, we don’t even recognize that bigamists make an argument for their kind of marriage for religious reasons, which ordinarily gets a fairly privileged status in our country.
As such, the only claim put forward by gay marriage advocates is that being denied the ability to marry is ‘unfair’. But in that vein, so are any restrictions on marriage. Gay marriage advocates can’t tell you why gays should marry but Mormons shouldn’t have seven wives or a family couldn’t include multiple fathers and mothers - even though polyandry wouldn’t stand a chance in hell of being an institution in this country.
So is homosexuality genetic? Who knows for sure, but if it is, it is on its way to be naturally selected out of existence - homosexuals don’t reproduce. Ask my gay friend who refers to me all the time as a ‘breeder’.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bullshit argument. The reason it is bullshit is because we are no where near understanding everything that has to do with the human body. Even muscle growth and the causes of it is largely still a theory. Does this mean we don’t have a pretty good idea what causes muscle growth? Of course not, but we couldn’t PROVE it without a shadow of a doubt that A+B always equals C. The DNA molecular structure, as far as the helix form, is a theory. It is a well thought out and well supported theory, but a theory none the less. That means you will have your answer the moment we understand every inch of the human mental and physiological make up. Until then, making judgements as if it has been proven one way or the other is simply the wrong way to handle this.
[/quote]
If it is a bullshit argument then why is your side so married to the idea that there is no choice? You said yourself that it is at best a theory, no?
I think the theory is bullshit, and so does over 2/3 of america.
But what do we know, right? I guess 66% of the U.S. is just a bunch of homophobic bubbas who only vote at the directive of Pat Robertson and James Dobson.
100meters,
“…just like Liberal Lincoln learned.”
Let’s not stop there - let’s look at even more ‘Liberal Lincoln’:
Lincoln and his Republican Party once called polygamy, along with slavery, the “twin relics of barbarism”.
Lincoln also signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law in 1862, making bigamy a federal offense. The Law also annulled polygamy acts passed in the states.
Rainjack,
I’m afraid it is already over, we just don’t know it yet.
The first time the courts are asked to decide on the gender of an individual this whole issue will unravel.
Vroom,
“I’m afraid it is already over, we just don’t know it yet…The first time the courts are asked to decide on the gender of an individual this whole issue will unravel.”
I would say no for several reasons. A prohibition on gay marriage is not an assault on a person’s gender at all. Both males and females would be prevented from doing it. Gender, as a class, is not being singled out. Sexual orientation is.
Secondly, people really, really don’t want the issue shoved down their throats, no matter how tolerant they are or are becoming to the gay liefstyle. If courts continue to manufacture rights, expect a backlash bigger than the one noted bipartisan one on referendum in the 2004 elections.
I think most sensible people - conservative, moderate, even liberal - are growing weary of their arrogant Robed Masters usurping the functions of the elected representatives.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think most sensible people - conservative, moderate, even liberal - are growing weary of their arrogant Robed Masters usurping the functions of the elected representatives. [/quote]
Which I think is THE point of this thread. The judiciary has no place sidestepping the legislative process to fulfill an agenda that has no constitutional basis.
There is no homosexual provision in the constitution. Gays should not be read into the constitution as a protected group - which, if they were, would give the judiciary the right to rule on the constitutionality of gay-marraige bans.
Which - ties into the left’s/pro-gay assertion that it is as much choice in being gay as there is in the color of one’s skin, or the slope of one’s forehead. That being the case, gays should be considered a protected group, recieve special treatment under the constitution, and be allowed to marry.
Which - dovetails into my asking for real proof of such hardwiring. No conclusive proof has been brought forth.
What does the pro-gay crowd counter with? Invoking the name of James Dobson, and Pat Robertson to prove that it is a religous thing when religion was never brought up except by the left.
Now this is clearly going to have to come down to a constitutional amendment. Let’s take away some more of the rights of individuals to be equally protected under the law.
I understand the “lets leave this up to the states” point, as many laws are a matter of state legislation. However, if a gay couple was to get married in a state and then move to another their marriage still be legal? Case in point–I got married in North Carolina (my marriage license is located at the county clerks office in Craven County) however I moved to Minnesota after getting out of the USMC–is my marriage no less legal because I moved to a different state?
Do you understand where I am coming from? A state can choose not to recognize a marriage. Another argument I think I could make is that if I wanted to get divorced then I could just move and no longer be held under legal obligation to my spouse gay or not. So how then can we let each state decide on its own to recognize or not recognize gay marriage? There is no alternative but to make an amendment.
I in no way shape or form see an amendment passing stating that marriage is a going to be defined as a union between a man and a woman as ordained by God. Marriage is a legal contract that two people make when they want to protect their legal rights when they decide to move in together and quit having sex with other people–it can be broken if you pay two lawyers tons of money to help you split your stuff up equally.
Okay, so I am a little cynical about the religious aspect of marriage.
Rainjack, Thunderbolt,
I’m not trying to shove this at anyone. Let me ask you a hypothetical…
You suffer a car accident or other unfortunate accident – perhaps your wife gets angry and blow torches off your private parts.
Are you still a man? Are you still allowed to be married to a woman?
I think the obvious answer is that you are. However, it wasn’t determined because you have a penis. It is because of “other attributes”, one of which might be considered is your preference.
As soon as the court is forced to open the door on allowing other attributes to define the gender or sex of a person with respect to the legality of a marriage, the issue is over.
Sex is a protected issue with respect to discrimination, and the analysis to determine the sex of a person will unravel the sophistry of claiming a preference is not protected.
We already have transvestites, transsexuals and other issues with respect to gender confusion. It is not hard to imagine that a scenario of this type will eventually make its way to the top courts.
So, perhaps we’ll wait decades, but without a change in the constitution, the issue is all but decided.
Vroom,
“I’m not trying to shove this at anyone.”
Oh no, I wasn’t suggesting you were - I was mainly talking about judges and mayors who are declaring by fiat the right of gay marriage.
“You suffer a car accident or other unfortunate accident – perhaps your wife gets angry and blow torches off your private parts.”
Lay off the alcohol this morning, Vroom (kidding).
“It is because of “other attributes”, one of which might be considered is your preference.”
Okay…
“As soon as the court is forced to open the door on allowing other attributes to define the gender or sex of a person with respect to the legality of a marriage, the issue is over.”
Huh? You make a great leap here with no explanation. Laws always underinclude or overinclude classifications - like barren women being allowed to marry even though marriage has a great deal to do with procreation, etc. Despite the postmodern attempts to say otherwise, ‘other’ attributes to determine sex will stay close to home. If a man loses his todger, for whatever reason, he has not ceased being a man as we know it, biologically, spiritually, culturally, whatever. He doesn’t want to be anything but a man, and he is recognized as such.
“Sex is a protected issue with respect to discrimination, and the analysis to determine the sex of a person will unravel the sophistry of claiming a preference is not protected.”
Yes, but gender is measured under intermediate scrutiny by the courts. Laws can discriminate on the basis of gender/sex as long as the justification meets the intermediate threshold. The next question is: is a law that protects traditional marriage, an institution that predates the Republic itself and recognized in every state since inception, within the intermediate scrutiny required by the Court? I suspect the overwhelming answer is yes, and even O’Connor - who voted for a constitutional right to sodomy - mentioned in Lawrence v. Texas the privileged status of traditional marriage.
Even if marriage is twisted to be a gender issue - and I still don’t see your point on this - it hurdles intermediate scrutiny with ease.
“We already have transvestites, transsexuals and other issues with respect to gender confusion. It is not hard to imagine that a scenario of this type will eventually make its way to the top courts.”
Given the tempest-in-a-teapot approach the gender benders are claiming, I don’t doubt they might try. I would refer back to intermediate scrutiny here - states can demand that a marriage be between a man and a woman as historically and traditionally defined, and will not be compelled by some phantom Constitutional provision that people pretending to be men or women can stand in the legal shoes of others that are legitimately recognized as men and women.
Playing dressup, whatever the motive, is not enough to grant status. Can I make a claim that I reallty think I was born a black man in a white man’s body and then claim that I am due minority advantages like Affirmative Action, scholarships, minority contracting, etc.? Should I be able to get into a school for diversity purposes because I am a black man in a white man’s body?
No - in order to be black, I must be black, sophistry aside. I don’t get a minority scholarship merely because I swear I really think I am a minority. Same goes with transvestites, gender confused, etc. The law permits a man and a woman to marry. If you can’t meet this classification, then no amount of whining about the ephemeral nature of gender roles and an oppressive, antiquated patriarchy is going to change it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,
“…just like Liberal Lincoln learned.”
Let’s not stop there - let’s look at even more ‘Liberal Lincoln’:
Lincoln and his Republican Party once called polygamy, along with slavery, the “twin relics of barbarism”.
Lincoln also signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law in 1862, making bigamy a federal offense. The Law also annulled polygamy acts passed in the states.
[/quote]
You’re point?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Question: is monogamy natural, biological, and predetermined at birth?
I am not trying to be cute here. Marriage is built on the premise of monogamy - but does anyone ever wonder or care if they are actually ‘hardwired’ for monogamy?
The point is this - the biological nature of homosexuality, regardless of the answer, is not the sole determinant of whether a society would want to formally recognize a union in law. I suspect that monogamy is not much of a purely biological phenomenon, but we insist the marriage be in the form of monogamy - why? Cultural, historical, religious, traditional, practical, etc. Big bucket of reasons.
Fact is, no one has the definitive answer on whether homosexuality is natural or a choice. The presentation of data is compromised by people with agendas - gays are gonna see every piece of evidence as proof, others are gonna have their own.
There was a study done on identical twins to see if a gay twin’s other twin - a sibling with an identical mirror of DNA makeup - was gay. The research showed that just about 50% of all identical twins that were gay had a gay twin.
The report has hailed by both sides. Gays insisted that such a high percentage showed that there was clearly a genetic component. Those opposed claimed that this research was proof that there was no genetic component - after all, only half of the the siblings with identical DNA were gay - hardly a showing that homosexuality was driven purely by genetic factors.
All of which is beside the point, in my view. Marriage is not a right. Society has a bundle of reasons to incentivize monogamous heterosexual unions - marriage serves social goals as much as it serves the goals of the individual. Gays have no ‘right’ to marriage - what they must do is try and create a brand spanking new institution and convince the public that society is better off as a result of allowing gays to cement their union in the law.
It is not just about a right to get the benefits of marriage - tax breaks, state endorsement of the relationship for self-esteem, etc. It is not just about letting people do as they want. Marriage is a partnership with the state - if you don’t think so, try and get a divorce.
So maybe gays choose to be gay or they don’t, but it is an impartial and misguided argument - we couldn’t give a shit if bigamists have a biological claim that they need more than one woman, presumably a plausible a claim as being naturally gay. In fact, we don’t even recognize that bigamists make an argument for their kind of marriage for religious reasons, which ordinarily gets a fairly privileged status in our country.
As such, the only claim put forward by gay marriage advocates is that being denied the ability to marry is ‘unfair’. But in that vein, so are any restrictions on marriage. Gay marriage advocates can’t tell you why gays should marry but Mormons shouldn’t have seven wives or a family couldn’t include multiple fathers and mothers - even though polyandry wouldn’t stand a chance in hell of being an institution in this country.
So is homosexuality genetic? Who knows for sure, but if it is, it is on its way to be naturally selected out of existence - homosexuals don’t reproduce. Ask my gay friend who refers to me all the time as a ‘breeder’. [/quote]
again with the bigamy(unrelated!)
and gays haven’t been able to reproduce since the history of man, and yet…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, Thunderbolt,
I’m not trying to shove this at anyone. Let me ask you a hypothetical…
You suffer a car accident or other unfortunate accident – perhaps your wife gets angry and blow torches off your private parts.
Are you still a man? Are you still allowed to be married to a woman?
I think the obvious answer is that you are. However, it wasn’t determined because you have a penis. It is because of “other attributes”, one of which might be considered is your preference.
As soon as the court is forced to open the door on allowing other attributes to define the gender or sex of a person with respect to the legality of a marriage, the issue is over.[/quote]
Not only that, but what about people born with both sexual organs, a penis and a vagina? They do exist. Who can they marry? Is this up to the church? Please, Ranjack, let me know.
100meters,
“You’re point?”
I assume you meant “Your point?”
My point was that you’re right - Lincoln would not and did not leave the issue of marriage up to the states - just not in the way you think.
Thunderbolt,
I see what you are saying, but unfortunately for those with your stance, Boston has already done a great job of showing how if it was discrimination based on “sex” (rather than “preference”) then it would be unconstitutional for states to ban it.
Simply, it’s already over, we just have to wait for it…
100meters,
“…again with the bigamy(unrelated!)”
How is it unrelated? We can ban bigamy and polygamy as forms of marriage, right? So then why can’t he same rationale be used to ban gay marriage? Point is - non-traditional marriage is not permitted. Gay marriage is as non-traditional than bigamy, even moreso, perhaps, since bigamy has some history in the United States.
It is absolutely related. If not, explain to me why it is ‘fair’ to allow gays to marry, but not bigamists to have multiple wives.
Thunderbolt,
Actually, you argue my point very well in this sentence…
Notice how you acknowledge the preference of the man? Notice how you discuss the attributes of the man? Obviously, it is partially these attributes that define the essence of being a man, not simply differing shapes of skin.
Your sex is composed of those attributes. Discrimination based on sex is not allowed. Discrimination based on the attributes that define your sex therefore will not be allowed, constitutionally.
Honestly, it’s over. Someone else can connect the dots if I haven’t…
Vroom,
“…Boston has already done a great job of showing how if it was discrimination based on “sex” (rather than “preference”) then it would be unconstitutional for states to ban it.”
I noticed you have used this response before, presumably to duck having to answer questions, but assuming Boston made those points, which I read somewhat differently:
The point you make is if it shown that the law is a discrimination based on sex. What I am saying is saying is firstly that it is unlikely to be shown to be a gender/sex-based classification. Who nows for sure how courts of the future will treat it, but your if is a big one, one that I don’t take as automatic.
Assuming it is a gender/sex classification, I still argue that intermediate scrutiny is satisfied w/r/t traditional marriage. Not every law that discriminates on the basis of sex in invalid, and I think traditional marriage - if it is viewed to discriminate along sexual classification lines - is a tolerable discrimination in the eyes of the law and the intermediate scrutiny test. All that is required is an ‘important government objective’ and it must be ‘substantially related’ to achievement of the objectives. Predicting what the Justices would say is a crapshoot, but my money says traditional marriage is an important government objective and the exclusive nature of the traditional union is substantially related to that goal.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not only that, but what about people born with both sexual organs, a penis and a vagina? They do exist. Who can they marry? Is this up to the church? Please, Ranjack, let me know.[/quote]
Once again with the Religion straw man? I’ve never mentioned the church in this entire thread. Please tell me why this is my question - 100M was the one who introduced religion.
Is this the level your argument has been reduced to? Pulling extreme cases out of your ass and trying to equate it with gay marraige?
Nice try - but I’m not taking the tangent bait.
Vroom,
“If a man loses his todger, for whatever reason, he has not ceased being a man as we know it, biologically, spiritually, culturally, whatever. He doesn’t want to be anything but a man, and he is recognized as such.”
Yes, and I wanted to add in an Addendum - but haven’t because of the activity and responses here - that it doesn’t matter what his preferences are. You can say you prefer to be a woman, and in the eyes of the law, that doesn’t make it so. See my illustration of me preferring to ba black.
“Notice how you acknowledge the preference of the man? Notice how you discuss the attributes of the man? Obviously, it is partially these attributes that define the essence of being a man, not simply differing shapes of skin.”
Other attriubutes are important - owning a penis is not the end of it. But mere preference isn’t enough. After all, the gender benders can’t get their theories straight: gender is supposedly an artificial social construct, but then, wait, you can’t ‘naturally’ be inclined to an ‘artificial’ construct…?
“Your sex is composed of those attributes. Discrimination based on sex is not allowed. Discrimination based on the attributes that define your sex therefore will not be allowed, constitutionally.”
Vroom, I don’t know a nice way to say this - this is competely and absolutely wrong. You can discriminate on the basis of sex. It has been explained several times over - sex classification is not ‘strict scrutiny’, it is measured under ‘intermediate scrutiny’: important government purpose, substantial relationship.
Not every law that discriminates on the basis of sex/gender is unconstitutional: the Constitution doesn’t say that and there is no USSC decision that even pretends to say it.
You keep advertising this canard that sex is untouchable in the realm of discrimination - flatly, unequivocally wrong.
“Honestly, it’s over. Someone else can connect the dots if I haven’t…”
You haven’t, Vroom, and your error is glaring and overwhelming.