In the land of the free, all should be allowed to marry…to do otherwise is hypocritical to the basic, though oft tread upon, principles of this country. ALthough, as far as I’m concerned, with the history of ridiculous discrimination against all who arent WASPS, I guess its only fair…
If you are honestly trying to tell me, that to develop an opinion on whether or not you agree/disagree with the rights of gay marriage, you need BB to interpret the law based decisions–whatever.
I hear Kleenex is better, but I’ve never had much use for either.
My opinion may change depending on information gathered, but please spare me how you have no opinions, you are just here to learn. Especially when every one of your non opinions argues a certain side.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
If you are honestly trying to tell me, that to develop an opinion on whether or not you agree/disagree with the rights of gay marriage, you need BB to interpret the law based decisions–whatever.
I hear Kleenex is better, but I’ve never had much use for either.
My opinion may change depending on information gathered, but please spare me how you have no opinions, you are just here to learn. Especially when every one of your non opinions argues a certain side.[/quote]
Gawd, could you please stop trying to hinder a discussion on this topic? Some of us aren’t so quick to turn this into nothing but back and forths simply because you don’t like someone. I could see if this happened once or twice, but damn, that seems to be the majority of your posts as of late.
I don’t see what the big deal is anyway-we are all part homo. Some more than others, but human sexuality is just much more complex than “Either you suck dick or you don’t suck dick” (andrew dice clay).
Some of the biggest, baddest dudes you have probably ever known, whether they are pro athletes, powerlifters, or tough guys, are either full homo or bi-sexual or got the occassional dick up the ass every few months.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
If you are honestly trying to tell me, that to develop an opinion on whether or not you agree/disagree with the rights of gay marriage, you need BB to interpret the law based decisions–whatever.
I hear Kleenex is better, but I’ve never had much use for either.
My opinion may change depending on information gathered, but please spare me how you have no opinions, you are just here to learn. Especially when every one of your non opinions argues a certain side.
Gawd, could you please stop trying to hinder a discussion on this topic? Some of us aren’t so quick to turn this into nothing but back and forths simply because you don’t like someone. I could see if this happened once or twice, but damn, that seems to be the majority of your posts as of late.[/quote]
I have nothing to say to you. Shut up
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sasquatch, those questions were directed at somebody other than you. Whether or not you “like” them is really not salient to the discussion.
Boston is doing a good job of educating me with respect to probable legal interpretation of those issues. If you already knew that in advance, good for you. I certainly didn’t.
Keep it up, I’ll buy stock in Scott Tissues.[/quote]
Thanks.
So anyway, the Romer decision fit in my little framework, but it was an exception – in Romer, the USSC claimed to be applying “rational basis” review, but actually overturned the amendment (this is actually the only example I can remember that the Court overturned something based on rational-basis review).
Allow me to be impersonate an adherent of judicial realism for a moment. This was the only way the Court could get a majority to agree to overturn in that case – they didn’t want to move sexual preference into an elevated Constitutional “suspect class”, but they really wanted to overturn an amendment to the CO state constitution that specifically aimed to deny gays specifically the politically popular (nationally, if not in Colorado) anti-discrimination laws. It had no other rationale other than the voters wanted to be free to disciminate against gays specifically – no other groups were included as specifically excepted from anti-discrimination laws. I still think Romer is wrongly reasoned, and the USSC hasn’t relied on its rationale since. Essentially, the personal mores of the judges were so offended by the amendment to specifically allow discrimination that 5 justices voted to overturn. Yet in the same term, the USSC refused to force the Boy Scouts to allow gay scout leaders, and again refused to apply “suspect class” classification to homosexuals.
I see the rationale in Romer as powerfully different than the case at bar, in which the rationale is that the legislature can preference what it wants to preference, and people are free to go and do what they want w/r/t their privacy rights and freedom of association. Also, this case obviously doesn’t single a certain group out for wholesale discrimination – it would merely refuse to extend the definition of a certain benefit requirement.
I think that’s also a key difference with Lawrence v. Texas, which really only held that states couldn’t criminalize private behavior – this was basically an application of a strict scrutiny review on a made-up, but historical, individual right: privacy.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I have nothing to say to you. Shut up[/quote]
That pretty much sums up all you have to offer on this forum. You should make that your sig line. Then again, that would actually require you to say nothing which we all know is well outside your capabilities.
no, but somehow you’ve established a strict reading of marriage, based on what? the constitution? no. Tradition? yes. Is tradition relevant to equal rights? no.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Um…it matters a whole lot!
If it is not genetic and it is not a preference then it must be some sort of mental problem. This sounds harsh, but not as harsh as it seems.
You have certain preferences for things. If you are compelled toward a thing (whatever it is) and you do not conscious want that thing, nor are you genetically determined to want that thing, then that is indeed a disease (or mental problem) of some sort.
There is a group of people who have a great desire to drink alcohol on a regular basis. They become drunk (sometimes) and it is very difficult for them to stop imbibing alcohol. We call them alcoholics. We also say that they have a disease!
The reason we call it a disease is because while they do not have an alcoholic gene they get hooked on something that they would rather not do: Drink alcohol.
According to your theory if homosexuals are not genetically determined, and they actually do not have a preference for someone of the same sex (but want them anyway) then I would put them in the class of the alcoholic.
This of course is my answer to your supposition and not necessarily my personal answer to homosexuality, as I have none and unlike the Gay lobby and the social liberals I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know how one becomes a homosexual.
However, if this is true then it does explain why those who are highly motivated are able to leave homosexuality behind after long term therapy. Don?t they say that the only way an alcoholic can give up the bottle is if he is highly motivated to do so?
If this is the case (and I?m not claiming it is) we are doing a grave injustice to every homosexual in the country by even suggesting that gay marriage be allowed!
[/quote]
horrible comparison.
[quote]100meters wrote:
horrible comparison.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is. ZEB does that sometimes. Ya know, try to associate something he doesn’t like with another thing which is universally known to be bad.
I think a better analogy would be like let’s say one of my favorite posters here – let’s say his handle is something that rhymes with REB – has a thing about ice cream. Let’s say that he really likes vanilla, but hates chocolate ice cream. He dislikes it to the point that it sickens him to look at it, and he doesn’t like the fact that it’s carried in the stores, but he sucks it up and tolerates the fact that there’s chocolate on the freezer shelves. A small price to pay for living this life I guess. Now being the ice cream lover that he is, he always likes his vanilla on a cone, and it made him glad that the only ice cream available on a cone was vanilla. Now all of a sudden, the guys at the counter want to make chocolate available on a cone, too. What an outrage!!
hehehe
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Essentially, the personal mores of the judges were so offended by the amendment to specifically allow discrimination that 5 justices voted to overturn. Yet in the same term, the USSC refused to force the Boy Scouts to allow gay scout leaders, and again refused to apply “suspect class” classification to homosexuals.
[/quote]
Well Duh! The BSA is a voluntary association, while a government is not.
The USSC delays to give sexual orientation the suspect class status for good reason. Once that is done, the fat lady has sung. I expect the court avoids this because, with the lesson of Roe v. Wade in front of it, far from being inclined to activism, it would rather see the heavy lifting done in the legislatures (those that don’t go completely off the rails). But there is only so much time for this. Pretty soon science will provide the details to show why orientation is very far from a lifestyle choice. At that point, the jig will be up.
The recent work on pheromones however does not cut at the issue of causation, not quite. It does show that orientation is very deeply rooted. From this work it is pretty clear that after you have gotten wired up as homosexual, it is going to take a lot more intervention to change that than therapy groups or getting prayed over in relays. Moreover, without adjustment of the underlying physiology, any change in behavior can bring only misery, not happiness (other than the happiness of getting a bunch of red-necks off your back, I suppose).
So is it actually true that gay people have the choice of marrying outside their gender? From what we already know, certainly not. At any rate, not consistent with that much ballyhooed pursuit of happiness.
Is there a gay gene? Almost certainly not, because who turns out to be homosexual seems to depend only very indirectly on heredity. It shows up in all families. Does the non-existence of a gay gene really matter? No. Even if orientation is not settled at conception, suppose the matter is found to be determined very early, say in utero, or by the tender age of six months, or even four years, and the developmental mechanisms are understood in detail. Now what? Fear and loathing is going to have a real hard time, that’s what.
Change happens. Deal with it or not. Your choice.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
larryb wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100M-
That proves nothing other than gay men are feminine.
A true pheromone response is hard-wired - not a “mental” process, so it would prove a biological basis for homosexuality.
Show me the gay gene and you win.
If homosexuality is not a preference, does it matter whether or not the cause is genetic?
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Locating the gay gene would prove that gay is biological. You hetero-phobes can keep massaging all the bullshit you want to, but it doesn’t make your position any more valid.
[/quote]
Why would you assume I am a “hetero-phobe”? I stated no position on the topic at all, only an objection to your abuse of logic and misunderstanding of pheromone response and genetics.
There are numerous valid ways in which you could attack the results of this study or their application to any question of preference: dispute that a true pheromone response was detected, dispute that the measured response was sexual, suggest that the researchers were biased and the results bogus, quote the lead researcher who said “I want to be extremely cautious – this study does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain.”, etc. etc. Instead, you responded “That proves nothing other than gay men are feminine.” In fact, if you assume the study to be valid and to have measured a true sexual pheromone response (which is not something you should do), it would not prove or even suggest that gay men are feminine, and it would essentially prove that sexual orientation is hard-wired, because pheromone response is, by the standard definition, hard-wired (it has been argued that sexual pheromone response in humans, if it exists, may be unrelated to sexual orientation - I consider that a contradiction in terms).
Also, as others have pointed out, you seem to be under the naive impression that “we are our genes”, which is just silly.
[quote]100meters wrote:
no, but somehow you’ve established a strict reading of marriage, based on what? the constitution? no. Tradition? yes. Is tradition relevant to equal rights? no.[/quote]
I didn’t establish a strict “reading” of marriage. That’s the statutory definition of marriage. There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and it doesn’t touch on privacy, association, or current Equal Protection doctrine.
So none of it is “relevant” to equal rights, and you end up with rational-basis review – unless the Court decides to make up a new right.
[quote]MikeShank wrote:
I don’t see what the big deal is anyway-we are all part homo. Some more than others, but human sexuality is just much more complex than “Either you suck dick or you don’t suck dick” (andrew dice clay).
Some of the biggest, baddest dudes you have probably ever known, whether they are pro athletes, powerlifters, or tough guys, are either full homo or bi-sexual or got the occassional dick up the ass every few months.
[/quote]
I don’t know how the others feel who have been hotly debating the finer legal points of gay marriage, but I personally want to thank you for raising the level of discourse on this thread. 
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
100meters wrote:
horrible comparison.
Yeah, it is. ZEB does that sometimes. Ya know, try to associate something he doesn’t like with another thing which is universally known to be bad.
I think a better analogy would be like let’s say one of my favorite posters here – let’s say his handle is something that rhymes with REB – has a thing about ice cream. Let’s say that he really likes vanilla, but hates chocolate ice cream. He dislikes it to the point that it sickens him to look at it, and he doesn’t like the fact that it’s carried in the stores, but he sucks it up and tolerates the fact that there’s chocolate on the freezer shelves. A small price to pay for living this life I guess. Now being the ice cream lover that he is, he always likes his vanilla on a cone, and it made him glad that the only ice cream available on a cone was vanilla. Now all of a sudden, the guys at the counter want to make chocolate available on a cone, too. What an outrage!!
hehehe
[/quote]
lothario,
I have to tell you brother, I think you are slipping!
I stated: “This of course is my answer to your supposition and not necessarily my personal answer to homosexuality.”
That however was not mentioned in your little (ridiculous) comparison.
Think about it my man, the fellow I was responding to does not think it’s genetic and he also says it is not a preference. If that’s the case (in his opinion) then a comparison to alcoholism is actually quite accurate! In fact, who is to say that it makes less sense than homosexuality being genetic? There is no proof for either.
I do get a kick out of you social liberals. No…I really do…now go embrace a bum on the corner while singing “we are the world.”
(thanks for the belly laugh)
Endgamer, interesting analysis. Especially the part where the courts are trying to avoid making a massive leap to “suspect status”.
Also, certainly plausible.
[quote]larryb wrote:
Why would you assume I am a “hetero-phobe”? I stated no position on the topic at all, only an objection to your abuse of logic and misunderstanding of pheromone response and genetics.[/quote]
At no other time in history has a lifestyle choice been so desparate to be something else. Homosexuality is a choice. A persons response to pheramones means dick. You can find the ‘black gene’. We know right where the X and Y chromosome are located. In fact - you can genetically explain almost every physical feature of the human condition. Hetero-phobes want to be considered a genetic condition as well. “We were born this way” - Bullshit.
Why hetero-phobes? I’m sick and fucking tired of being labeled a homo-phobe. I have no irrational fear of gays - yet speak out against them and that is the label you are given. So instead of waiting on the label - I’m putting it where ever the irrational thoughts/fears are.
So then you agree that homosexuality is a choice? Because if it’s not then it must be genetic. You are very confusing. First you say hetero-phobes are ‘hard-wired’ to be gay because the smell differently - then you say that we are not our genes.
Which is it pal?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
At no other time in history has a lifestyle choice been so desparate to be something else. Homosexuality is a choice. A persons response to pheramones means dick. You can find the ‘black gene’. We know right where the X and Y chromosome are located. In fact - you can genetically explain almost every physical feature of the human condition. Hetero-phobes want to be considered a genetic condition as well. “We were born this way” - Bullshit. [/quote]
The “black” gene? Could you please let me know where the “black” gene is? I mean, just one picture of the “black” gene is all I ask for. Is it right next to the “white” gene or futher down the chromosome by the “red” gene and the “brown” gene?
For the record, there is no “black gene”. You have genes responsible for certain phenotypes but none that exclaim what race you are. This is why there are BLACK albinos…but you knew that, right? Your genes simply dicate how much melanine you produce in your skin. Your comments nearly range on the ancient thinking that races are different species.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The “black” gene? Could you please let me know where the “black” gene is? I mean, just one picture of the “black” gene is all I ask for. Is it right next to the “white” gene or futher down the chromosome by the “red” gene and the “brown” gene?[/quote]
Okay smart ass - we can identify distinct genetic dfferences among the various races - which means that you are african, anglo, or oriental because of the genetic material donated from your parents/ancestors. I know I’ve probably screwed this explanation up as well - so I’m going to borrow a standard ProfX line here and say - “you know what I mean”.
[quote]Your comments nearly range on the ancient thinking that races are different species.
[/quote]
No - they don’t - they were made assuming that the informed reader would have a fucking clue what was intended - not literally said.
But I would be willing to bet that if I had said “red” gene instead of ‘black’ - I wouldn’t have heard a fucking peep out of you. Would I?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But I would be willing to bet that if I had said “red” gene instead of ‘black’ - I wouldn’t have heard a fucking peep out of you. Would I?
[/quote]
Actually, you would ahve, if for no other reason than this statement:
[quote]
At no other time in history has a lifestyle choice been so desparate to be something else. Homosexuality is a choice. [/quote]
Homosexuality, again something I don’t religiously agree with, is not new. It has been here since the beginning of time so your statement as if it is a fad is a little off. I agree that the femininization of America needs to stop. We have entered into a very strange time where guys think that he who has the skinnest physique, the shiniest (richly colored hair), and the most colorful clothes wins. In effect, we have become a nation of peacocks. In that circumstance, your “heterophobe” stance may have some substance. However, when it comes to claiming that anyone who isn’t trying to hinder two gay women from hooking up in marriage is a “heterophobe” you have overstepped the line. I personally could care less what two gay guys do. You seem to get really worked up over it. that is something I just don’t understand. Two gay people getting married will affect you how? In what way?
The rest of your statement is simply assumption. You don’t know one way or the other whether being gay is a choice or a biological factor. Instead of admitting that, you run around claiming that it definitely is a choice. That is false and you know it. You simply don’t like it and are trying your hardest to make sure that your will is imposed on the rest of the world. Odd really.