[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do we really need legislation to tell two men it’s their right to be legally bound to each other?
[/quote]
Yes, given that legislation is what defines the particular legal bond they want to enter, and they don’t meet the current criteria. So in one way or another, the legislation needs to be changed if two men were to have the right to that particular legal bond.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
See Thunderbolt’s post right above you.
[/quote]
ok
[quote]Thunderbolt wrote:
So for those of you fixated on the ‘exception’ to the rule…
…the only time there is trouble determining sex is when a person is born intersex - the genetic anomaly of the hermaphrodite - correct?
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is FIXATED on the exception to the rule. The exception can show us where the problem truly lies. It allows us to cut through much of the bias based on personal issues or misperceptions. If a hermaphrodite were to try to get married, you are saying you would send them in for DNA tests to be sure that they are the right sex before marriage is allowed? There are deviances to the chromosome rule like in Klinefelter’s and Turner’s syndrome. That means that if a law is supposed to be passed, it needs to encompass those minorities as well…not leave them out simply because you forgot about them. If a male has female characteristics, no penis, a vagina and wants to marry a female, you would have nothing to say?
How would you be sure this was a male? If this person needs to be tested to be sure of which chromosomes are there, then are you saying that sex alone determines sexual orientation? We know this isn’t true. Instead of simply admitting that you don’t know, some of you are basing your judgements on whether some majority of people think like you. I’m sorry, that isn’t good enough. Simply because more people think one way doesn’t make it right.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
vroom:
I think you make a valid point, but a properly worded amendment to the constitution ends it all!
How can you properly word a document that will ask us to give rights to some but deny them to others based on their sexual preference (wether it be genetic, chosen, or because you tossed a coin and lost)?[/quote]
Um…we do that now my friend! How many women can you marry (if you are a man)? Can you marry your sister (if you are a man)? Can you marry your dog?
Okay…so no more talk about “rights.”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, given that legislation is what defines the particular legal bond they want to enter, and they don’t meet the current criteria. So in one way or another, the legislation needs to be changed if two men were to have the right to that particular legal bond.[/quote]
Okay, so we establish legislation for same sex marriage because marriage itself is established by legislation–how do we legally deny the right of marriage to certain individuals because “marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman”? This definition is exclusionary and therefore not right–you can read that as unconstitutional if you like. But laws written to exclude based on sexual preference should be not be allowed–at the state level or otherwise.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
First off - please post the quote where I even use the word stupid, much less call someone stupid.
[/quote]
You’re right, you didn’t use the word ‘stupid’. I was paraphrasing. The quote was: “It’s not my fault you have no reading comprehension skills.”
I apologize for erroneously extrapolating the fact that you would consider someone that has literally no reading comprehension skills to also be stupid.
Again, I’m not questioning why you want to distinguish between ‘hardwired’ and ‘environmental’. I am simply asking why the existence of a “gay gene” is your standard to prove genetic differentiation. I’ve never before heard of that being a standard for proving something is a genetic trait, so I (and others) wanted to know how you came up with that.
As ProfX has pointed out, even if homosexuality was genetic, it’s unlikely that we could single out a single source for homosexuality in our genetic material. It’s more likely that homosexuality would be the culmination of many small, possibly unobservable, genetic traits.
Personally, I think showing a differentiated hormonal profile or chemical response to stimuli, given that those factors were also shown to be unaffected by environmental conditions would be sufficient to prove genetic differentiation. It seems that, to you, nothing short of the existence of a “gay gene” is necessary to prove genetic differentiation. That seems arbitrary and scientifically unsound, and you still haven’t given a rationale for adopting that standard (and to clarify again, I’m talking about the existence of a “gay gene” being the standard for proving genetic differentiation).
The study showed that the closer two subjects were genetically the more likely there were to share sexual preference. That seems like a pretty ringing endorsement that sexual preference is genetically rooted.
The only counter-argument that thunder provided was that “only 50% were gay, and it should have been 100% if homosexuality was genetic”. I don’t take that argument seriously because:
It’s not scientifically true that twins would have to share sexual preference 100% of the time to prove genetic causation
That argument disregards the fact that non-related brothers share homosexual preference only 4%. What caused the 4% → 50% leap when environmental factors were controlled.
Was there another counter argument on this thread that I missed that was actually based on fact?
I know exactly what you mean. Did you see how many times I had to read “What about marrying dogs?” as a response to an argument based solely on gender discrimination?
I think there are various anomolies.
Umm, I’m no expert in this matter, but I’m sure a bit of research would yield, some with missing parts, extra parts, operations to correct these issues and so on. None of these are in any way choices decided upon by those born with these conditions.
Heck, you could say doctors and parents flip a coin to decide on which is easier to achieve based on the organs available for an operation.
You also have people that have operations to change their genders, after they grow to some age, with the assistance of the medical community. Whether this is pure choice or a medically appropriate activity, I do not have any idea. Are the examples of this procedure being reversed?
There would also be the issue of those that suffer a gender accident of some type, not by choice, through some type of physical catastrophe. I’m assuming more so to men than women.
As to which is what in these situations, I don’t know, but I do think there are issues we use to judge a persons sex on without looking down their pants.
There might be more strange territory to consider, I don’t know. Good grief! It’s my fault we are going down this road isn’t it? 
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, given that legislation is what defines the particular legal bond they want to enter, and they don’t meet the current criteria. So in one way or another, the legislation needs to be changed if two men were to have the right to that particular legal bond.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Okay, so we establish legislation for same sex marriage because marriage itself is established by legislation–how do we legally deny the right of marriage to certain individuals because “marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman”? This definition is exclusionary and therefore not right–you can read that as unconstitutional if you like. But laws written to exclude based on sexual preference should be not be allowed–at the state level or otherwise. [/quote]
Well, that’s the crux of the debate, isn’t it? Whether this should be the policy – and I think that’s inherently a political question - a values question, if you will - though others might disagree. And those types of questions are best settled via the electoral process, or at least via the legislature, which is one-step removed from direct democracy but is at least accountable, and should thus reflect the mores of most voters.
Pro X,
“I don’t think anyone is FIXATED on the exception to the rule. The exception can show us where the problem truly lies.”
I have a hard time with a doctor that can’t answer a simple question.
“If a hermaphrodite were to try to get married, you are saying you would send them in for DNA tests to be sure that they are the right sex before marriage is allowed?”
How are hermaphrodites treated at birth? Are they not assigned a sex? I am not offering this an an explanation - I am clarifying. Is this true?
“There are deviances to the chromosome r"ule like in Klinefelter’s and Turner’s syndrome. That means that if a law is supposed to be passed, it needs to encompass those minorities as well…not leave them out simply because you forgot about them.”
This is exactly what my point is about - the only problem with true sex determination is in those very rare genetic anomalies like hermaphrodites, etc. Remember the word ‘deviances’ - it will be helpful later.
“If a male has female characteristics, no penis, a vagina and wants to marry a female, you would have nothing to say?”
What is this person’s sex as determined on his/her birth certificate?
“How would you be sure this was a male? If this person needs to be tested to be sure of which chromosomes are there, then are you saying that sex alone determines sexual orientation?”
This is madness. The point, Straw Men aside, was that there are a very few, limited instances when sex may not be easily determined - and these instances are genetic anomalies, which be definition, are abnormal.
That being said, the ‘exception to the rule’ here doesn’t prove anything at all. It merely shows that sometimes there are genetic errors that make sex difficult to determine. It does nothing to explain what holds for the overwhelming percentage of people whose sex is easily determined. And the law will be based on the norm - that is, the giant super-majority, neay-uniformity of those humans who have easily identified sex characteristics - not on the tiny exception.
About two to four persons per million suffer from xeroderma pigmentosum - allergic to sunlight. Should we insure that all public buildings seal up their windows with bricks because there is a chance that sometime somewhere on of these sun-suffers will need to go in a public place? Under your tortured - and I mean tortured - logic, we would need to adjust the rule of the norm to make sure that a tiny fraction of people enjoyed a privilege that wasn’t necessary for the vast majority.
To which I say - nonsense. The existence of a tiny group of people whose sex characteristics are not easily determined is no argument to unravel the traditional definition of marriage that holds that one man and one woman can be married. The exceptions can be dealt with - and they may already be dealt with, that is, if the person gets assigned a sex when they are born. I am not saying I think that is the best solution, but exceptions get treated as exactly that - exceptions.
“Instead of simply admitting that you don’t know, some of you are basing your judgements on whether some majority of people think like you.”
Well, that is a factor, since majorities pass laws in accordance to what the people ‘think’.
“I’m sorry, that isn’t good enough. Simply because more people think one way doesn’t make it right.”
Not absolutely, but in a democratic republic, by and large it works that way. So, actually, it is good enough.
And, if we were to ever even get far enough to say that traditional marriage is discrimination based on sex, that doesn’t automatically make it unconstitutional.
Zeb,
“Um…we do that now my friend! How many women can you marry (if you are a man)? Can you marry your sister (if you are a man)? Can you marry your dog?”
Zeb!!! Don’t you know that non-traditional forms of marriage like bigamy have nothing to do with the argument for non-traditional forms of marriage like gay marriage!!!
Pure heresy. Heh.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I have a hard time with a doctor that can’t answer a simple question.[/quote]
I did answer it. You simply didn’t like the answer.
[quote]
How are hermaphrodites treated at birth? Are they not assigned a sex? I am not offering this an an explanation - I am clarifying. Is this true?[/quote]
No, not all are. There is much controversy about this because in the past, many were simply assigned a role by the mother. This has caused problems later on in life when the little girl that mother assigned turns out to be very “boyish”.
[quote]
This is exactly what my point is about - the only problem with true sex determination is in those very rare genetic anomalies like hermaphrodites, etc. Remember the word ‘deviances’ - it will be helpful later.[/quote]
I gave you three different examples of how that might not directly apply…yet you try to act as if it is so rare that it isn’t worth considering?
[quote]
“If a male has female characteristics, no penis, a vagina and wants to marry a female, you would have nothing to say?”
What is this person’s sex as determined on his/her birth certificate? [/quote]
What difference does that make? Like I wrote above, there is much controversy about assigning a gender at birth. Sometimes they are wrong.
[quote]
“How would you be sure this was a male? If this person needs to be tested to be sure of which chromosomes are there, then are you saying that sex alone determines sexual orientation?”
This is madness. The point, Straw Men aside, was that there are a very few, limited instances when sex may not be easily determined - and these instances are genetic anomalies, which be definition, are abnormal. [/quote]
What difference does them being “abnormal” make? It happens enough for it to be well documented. There are people walking around TODAY like this who will assume a gender simply so they don’t stand out as freaks. Why ignore them? Why is that a strawman simply because it makes you think about your blanket policy?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Well, that’s the crux of the debate, isn’t it? Whether this should be the policy – and I think that’s inherently a political question - a values question, if you will - though others might disagree. And those types of questions are best settled via the electoral process, or at least via the legislature, which is one-step removed from direct democracy but is at least accountable, and should thus reflect the mores of most voters.[/quote]
What sort of values would one say they had if they sought to deny rights based on sexual preference and nothing more? A bigot? A racist? A misogynist?
We cannot legislate values–this is purely a question of rights–a matter of equal protection under the law.
How is it illegal to deny rights based on the color of ones skin, race, gender, or age–but not illegal to discriminate on one’s sexual preference? And if we can’t legislate morality and use religion as an argument for legality what then can we use? “All men are created equal” but should be treated unequally?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Well, that’s the crux of the debate, isn’t it? Whether this should be the policy – and I think that’s inherently a political question - a values question, if you will - though others might disagree. And those types of questions are best settled via the electoral process, or at least via the legislature, which is one-step removed from direct democracy but is at least accountable, and should thus reflect the mores of most voters.
What sort of values would one say they had if they sought to deny rights based on sexual preference and nothing more? A bigot? A racist? A misogynist?
We cannot legislate values–this is purely a question of rights–a matter of equal protection under the law.
How is it illegal to deny rights based on the color of ones skin, race, gender, or age–but not illegal to discriminate on one’s sexual preference? And if we can’t legislate morality and use religion as an argument for legality what then can we use? “All men are created equal” but should be treated unequally? [/quote]
Agreed. When you take away the religious component, all they are left with is I don’t like it, so let’s leave it up to the states. Ahh, states rights. Yes. That’s always worked so well for insuring the rights of the minority in the past.
Let’s not have the canard with respect to humans marrying animals. We are allowed to discriminate against species. Marriage is two humans at this point. I don’t think anyone sees it changing.
It’s real nice to bring up such fear factors, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the reality of the situation at all.
[quote]futuredave wrote:
Agreed. When you take away the religious component, all they are left with is I don’t like it, so let’s leave it up to the states. Ahh, states rights. Yes. That’s always worked so well for insuring the rights of the minority in the past.[/quote]
Gays are not a minority in the sense that you are using it. You are making huge assumptions that are not accepte, much less proven.
This is the problem with the entire gay-marraige argument. Prove that they are a minority in the sense that they qualify for protection under the constitution. You can’t.
Pro X,
Klinefelter’s Syndrome: is there a problem determining the sex of someone who suffers this? They are considered male.
Turner’s syndrome: again, any problem determining the sex of the individual? They are considered female.
There is no question that the sexual characteristics in each are malformed, but there is no debate on what their sex is. Bad examples.
My example - one that specifically referred to ‘exceptions’ in which sex was difficult to determine, such as a person with both sets of genitalia - shows that the exception is very small.
“What difference does that make? Like I wrote above, there is much controversy about assigning a gender at birth. Sometimes they are wrong.”
Let’s assume you are right - then let’s carve out an exception for the exceptions, per my idea. Those individuals who legitimately have biological problems determining sex can identify and marry accordingly. The rest, the overwhelming supermajority whose sex is straightaway, follows the law of the norm. What does this have to do with whether gays should be able to marry?
“Why is that a strawman simply because it makes you think about your blanket policy?”
You misunderstand. I’ve thought about my blanket policy - and it is a rare occurrence that I think the exception should determine the rule…see my example of sun allergies above.
I do not argue that biology is the lone determinant as to whether gay marriage should be permitted. My original foray into sex-based ‘exceptions’ came as a result of quizzing Vroom as to where he might draw a bright line as to who should be able to marry based on biology, ie, is it ok for a brother and sister to marry when they both claim the biological legitimacy of their sexual atrraction?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,
“Um…we do that now my friend! How many women can you marry (if you are a man)? Can you marry your sister (if you are a man)? Can you marry your dog?”
Zeb!!! Don’t you know that non-traditional forms of marriage like bigamy have nothing to do with the argument for non-traditional forms of marriage like gay marriage!!!
Pure heresy. Heh.
[/quote]
Oh…that’s right, homosexual marriage is completely different than any other sort of “change” to the institution of marriage.
Silly me, what was I thinking? Thanks for reminding me. 
[quote]vroom wrote:
Let’s not have the canard with respect to humans marrying animals. We are allowed to discriminate against species. Marriage is two humans at this point. I don’t think anyone sees it changing.
It’s real nice to bring up such fear factors, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the reality of the situation at all.[/quote]
“Fear factors?” Think again!
20 years ago we would not be having a conversation about homosexuals marrying. Please name one instance where things actually got more conservative when it came to social issues.
There are several things we can look forward to if Gay marriage is actually ratified:
We will hear more from weirdo’s at the man/boy association (what the heck is their name anyway).
You will hear from the polygamists. It’s only a small leap from Gay marriage to polygamy.
I also think you will hear from the perverts that want to marry their pets. If you deny them the right to happiness isn’t that discrimination?
No wait…I know what will happen! After Gay marriage is ratified and accepted in our culture everything will then be fine. Not one more perversion to the institution of marriage will occur. Yea…that makes sense. LOL
[quote]rainjack wrote:
futuredave wrote:
Agreed. When you take away the religious component, all they are left with is I don’t like it, so let’s leave it up to the states. Ahh, states rights. Yes. That’s always worked so well for insuring the rights of the minority in the past.
Gays are not a minority in the sense that you are using it. You are making huge assumptions that are not accepte, much less proven.
This is the problem with the entire gay-marraige argument. Prove that they are a minority in the sense that they qualify for protection under the constitution. You can’t. [/quote]
Prove that they are a minority. Prove they qualify for protection. Prove it’s genetic.
Clearly they are in the minorty. Clearly, all American’s should be afforded equal protection. And whether or not it’s genetic is immaterial.
I would think the burden is on the anti[i] anti-hetero[/i] crowd to prove that denying these people the right to marriage is a harm to this country.
You can’t.
So, you grasp at straws by trying to say they are not a minority in who deserves protection.
Why don’t you prove they don’t deserve to marry by citing the damage that’s been done in Mass. during the last year.
You have a year’s worth of data to prove your case. Please show us the harm in granting this non-minority minority their equal rights.
And please, let’s be more original that “Well, what if a duck marries a cat.”
Zeb,
That is just fear mongering, even if you don’t realize it.
Those issues are very extreme. It doesn’t matter if some quack in Alaska wants to marry his seal or something stupid like that.
The issues that would have to be discriminated against in those instances are not the same.
First, those activities are currently accepted as illegal.
Second, we are allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of age.
Third, limiting quantity within a marriage has nothing to do with the sex involved, again, meaning that a restriction is not preferentially being put in place based on sex.
If you choose to spread such alarmist material, that is up to you, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Anyone who thinks about it for even one moment will realize this.
[quote]futuredave wrote:
rainjack wrote:
futuredave wrote:
Agreed. When you take away the religious component, all they are left with is I don’t like it, so let’s leave it up to the states. Ahh, states rights. Yes. That’s always worked so well for insuring the rights of the minority in the past.
Gays are not a minority in the sense that you are using it. You are making huge assumptions that are not accepte, much less proven.
This is the problem with the entire gay-marraige argument. Prove that they are a minority in the sense that they qualify for protection under the constitution. You can’t.
Prove that they are a minority. Prove they qualify for protection. Prove it’s genetic.
Clearly they are in the minorty. Clearly, all American’s should be afforded equal protection. And whether or not it’s genetic is immaterial.
I would think the burden is on the anti[i] anti-hetero[/i] crowd to prove that denying these people the right to marriage is a harm to this country.
You can’t.
So, you grasp at straws by trying to say they are not a minority in who deserves protection.
Why don’t you prove they don’t deserve to marry by citing the damage that’s been done in Mass. during the last year.
You have a year’s worth of data to prove your case. Please show us the harm in granting this non-minority minority their equal rights.
And please, let’s be more original that “Well, what if a duck marries a cat.” [/quote]
I think you have it backwards!
No one has to “prove” gay marriage will harm society. As it stands there is no such thing as gay marraige. You have to prove why there should be, as you want to change the status quo! Do you understand this?
You don’t want to hear about any other alternative marriage unions: "And please, let’s be more original than “Well, what if a duck marries a cat.” However, in reality are you not being somewhat closed minded yourself?
Why can’t someone bring up the fact that it may also be equally discriminatory (if you think that it is in fact discriminatory to deny homosexual unions) to deny polygamists the right to marry? Why are you so closed minded to the fact that some people may want to marry their children? Are they not being discriminated against? There are many other similar unions that could easily take place.
Do your socially liiberal opinions only go so far as accepting homosexual marriage?
Bigot!