Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

endgamer,

For the record, I’m only 30, and have spent lots of time living in blue states and red states with lots of young whippersnappers who have all sorts of opinions on this issue… Hopefully I’m not THAT old…

Anyway, I have been offering legal analysis based on current law – perhaps it will change, or perhaps not. I really don’t think that the judiciary will expand its “suspect class” jurisprudence to include homosexuals, but perhaps they will find a new and creative way to fit them into a special category within the Equal Protection analytical schema.

As to banning gays in the military – separate issue, but definitely right now it fits into the “rational basis” analysis. I’ll grant you that it is another legal discrimination against gays that doesn’t involve a tax benefit though.

So back to marriage. There are certainly lots of laws that reference marital status, but almost all of them reference the contractual rights and responsibilities of marriage, which can be re-created by contracts such as Powers of Attorney, Living Wills, Wills, and the like.

I’m sure there are a few others that deal with things in certain localities such as requiring companies that offer insurance to offer spousal and family benefits (though I really don’t know – I assume there are such laws), but those items are best dealt with by the market. For instance, many companies offer “domestic partner” benefits, irrespective of the law – in fact, my fiancee is on my health insurance right now thanks to my firm’s policy on that. This is especially true of major markets, and companies that want to be viewed as “progressive” (which is almost all of them). Given how big companies need to be in order to offer health benefits these days anyway, I would guess (blindly) that this reflects the policies of the majority of companies offering health insurance.

Overall, it comes down to a couple big government benefits: tax and social security. Other than that the incidences of marriage can fairly easily be re-created. And as I stated before, I don’t think any of these marriage laws impact any individual rights like privacy or freedom of association. That’s my take anyway.

Other than that it’s about trying to get the law to mandate acceptance. That goes beyond “tolerance.” It doesn’t work, and if you’re correct about the trendline it really shouldn’t be necessary anyway, right? And that goes for judicial involvement as well.

162

I’m not trying to validate my thinking with it. You see, this shows where you are going astray. I was testing the rules to see how they applied.

Boston, the man who knows constitutional law, provided a rebuttal. He didn’t dismiss it as utter bullshit but explained why the thought probably would not fly.

You are too busy trying to ridicule my attempts to test the boundaries to understand the process of doing so.

Strangely, and perhaps you missed it, I see that without something approaching proof, the odds appear very low that there is any constitutional basis at this time. This is what I learned, in detail, from my “stupid” questions.

The same holds true with my rambling on the ethics of discrimination in general. You dismiss it as utter bullshit. Wiser men than you may see something worth at least thinking about. Perhaps not.

You treat it with derision. Perhaps you simply don’t get it? Perhaps your mind is closed? Why don’t you just tell me to shut up too?

163

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So is the arguemnt that it is or isn’t a choice one makes or is it an argument that it is or isn’t genetic?

I can only offer I don’t think it can be a choice one decides upon at puberty–does’t imply that it is not genetic though either.

I know that being heterosexual was not a chioce for me. No one told me that it was the right choice. But no one told be I was gonna be attracted sexually to redheads either (I just am). I know what is a choice though; decidibg to live as if your attractions to the same sex didn’t exist because society deemed it inappropriate. [/quote]

There are those on the pro-gay marraige side that say that homosexuality is not a choice - you are hardwired that way. It is out of your hands. In order for their argument to hold water - they must prove that homosexuality is hardwired - that the choice is out of a person’s hands. The only viable way to convince me, or many others on this side of the agrument is to show a genetic difference bewteen heterosexuals and homosexuals.

164

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The only viable way to convince me, or many others on this side of the agrument is to show a genetic difference bewteen heterosexuals and homosexuals.

[/quote]

Why is this based on anyone trying to convince you? Why don’t you convince everyone else that it is clearly a choice? You haven’t done that. You have shown no proof of it at all other than your opinion.

165

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why is this based on anyone trying to convince you? Why don’t you convince everyone else that it is clearly a choice? You haven’t done that. You have shown no proof of it at all other than your opinion. [/quote]

Because I’m not the one wanting to change the status quo, and guarantee preferential constitutional rights to homosexuals. They are making the charge that homosexuality is not a choice. The burden of proof is on them.

My opinion is the opinion of the vast majority of americans - judging from the last election I believe “my opinion” prevailed by a 2-1 margin. Hardly something I just thought up while taking a shit this morning.

166

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Other than that it’s about trying to get the law to mandate acceptance. That goes beyond “tolerance.” It doesn’t work, and if you’re correct about the trendline it really shouldn’t be necessary anyway, right? And that goes for judicial involvement as well.[/quote]

A great deal of our law references marital status, having to do with everything from child care to motor vehicle operation. At any moment, some legislature may enact new statutes that reference marital status. The piecemeal approach to equivalence that you suggest does not provide the necessary protection. At best it constitutes separate but equal treatment. The issue is not at all merely one of tolerance or acceptance, nor is it entertained that these things could ever be legislated or ruled. Neither is the distinction purely symbolic: why should homosexuals need to pay lawyers to have the arrangements others put into force with a simple license from the county?

As for how it will happen, we must wait and see. If history is any guide, those who drag their heels too long must expect to be embarassed in the end, usually by some court somewhere.

167

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What is so hard to understand about this? there is a genetic difference between men and women. There is a genetic difference between races. Show me the genetic differentialtion between gays and straights, and then they will be considered their own group entitled to protection under the constitution. A study in Amsterdam done in the 1990’s studying the hypothalmus gland is not sufficient.

Until such time - homosexuality is a choice that garners no preferential treatment under the constitution.

This is not a valid agrument. Do you need to see the actual gene pattern–the fact of the matter is the a complete map of the humn genome has not been completed.

DNA in the human genome is arranged into 24 distinct chromosomes–physically separate molecules that range in length from about 50 million to 250 million base pairs. A few types of major chromosomal abnormalities, including missing or extra copies or gross breaks and rejoinings (translocations), can be detected by microscopic examination. Most changes in DNA, however, are more subtle and require a closer analysis of the DNA molecule to find perhaps single-base differences.

taken from: Human Genome Project Information Site Has Been Updated

I am not arguing that you are wrong just that you are making a gross misinterpretation to the facts. If there is a genetic difference between you and I by simple fact that our parents are different then how can you make claim that there is no genetic difference betwn races–or even sexuality for that matter?[/quote]

No, you see the argument is: Is there a genetic homosexual gene. Thus far none has been found. Therefore, it is a decison of sorts. You follow?

168

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why is this based on anyone trying to convince you? Why don’t you convince everyone else that it is clearly a choice? You haven’t done that. You have shown no proof of it at all other than your opinion.

Because I’m not the one wanting to change the status quo, and guarantee preferential constitutional rights to homosexuals. They are making the charge that homosexuality is not a choice. The burden of proof is on them.

My opinion is the opinion of the vast majority of americans - judging from the last election I believe “my opinion” prevailed by a 2-1 margin. Hardly something I just thought up while taking a shit this morning.[/quote]

You might be further ahead taking that crap than trying to explain the obvious to some people…

169

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Other than that it’s about trying to get the law to mandate acceptance. That goes beyond “tolerance.” It doesn’t work, and if you’re correct about the trendline it really shouldn’t be necessary anyway, right? And that goes for judicial involvement as well.

endgamer711 wrote:
A great deal of our law references marital status, having to do with everything from child care to motor vehicle operation. At any moment, some legislature may enact new statutes that reference marital status. The piecemeal approach to equivalence that you suggest does not provide the necessary protection. At best it constitutes separate but equal treatment. The issue is not at all merely one of tolerance or acceptance, nor is it entertained that these things could ever be legislated or ruled. Neither is the distinction purely symbolic: why should homosexuals need to pay lawyers to have the arrangements others put into force with a simple license from the county?

As for how it will happen, we must wait and see. If history is any guide, those who drag their heels too long must expect to be embarassed in the end, usually by some court somewhere.[/quote]

I’ll have to take your word on that – motor-vehicle laws and child-care laws weren’t on the bar exam, nor in my course of study. Though, on a digression, I will say that w/r/t child custody, my personal opinion is that, applying the “best interest of the child” standard, the laws applicable to homosexual couples who adopt are superior to those that apply to married couples who adopt, in that the difference is that homosexual couples are required to designate ex ante who would get custody and sole parental rights in the case of a split. At least that is my understanding of the difference here in VA, from overhearing my fiancee’s co-worker describe her situation at a cocktail party.

As to the license encompassing the contractual rights, that kind of gets back to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? Which is whether the legislature can preference heterosexual unions for whatever reason. As of now, yes it can. If the law is expanded and or changed, perhaps not.

Just out of curiousity, would you then reject a separate and different “domestic partnership” statute on principle, just because it was similar to a “separate but equal” solution?

Also, I wouldn’t place too much faith in the courts. While recent history has seen courts expand rights, they could just as easily contract them if given too much power and a changing of the political winds. It’s better for everyone if the court stays out of political questions that don’t have obvious Constitutional answers.

170

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Just out of curiousity, would you then reject a separate and different “domestic partnership” statute on principle, just because it was similar to a “separate but equal” solution?
[\quote]

Yes. For the reason cited above, which is that “separate but equal” can only ever be temporarily and precariously equal, if that. However I’d be happy to see the state reduced to dealing out domestic partnerships to all comers, and leave marriage per se to the churches or whomever else wants to dabble in the occult, forsaking all reference to anything other than civil union in common law.

It seems simpler if the state would just let homosexuals get married.

171

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I imagine the sites are just as unbiased as your sites are.
[/quote]

You’re joking right? The only site I posted was to allpsych.com which is supposed to be a basic psychology site. Did you even read the article? It didn’t say that homosexuality was genetic, it simply outlined both sides of the nature/nurture debate. In the end, it didn’t favor either one. How is that biased?

In my only other post on this thread, I posted several abstracts from professional journals that I found on Medline. How are those journals biased?

172

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Because I’m not the one wanting to change the status quo, and guarantee preferential constitutional rights to homosexuals. They are making the charge that homosexuality is not a choice. The burden of proof is on them.

My opinion is the opinion of the vast majority of americans - judging from the last election I believe “my opinion” prevailed by a 2-1 margin. Hardly something I just thought up while taking a shit this morning.[/quote]

This is why I have said repeatedly that this country probably isn’t ready for gay marriage. Oh well.

RJ: I see you’re still hung up on the choice vs. nature thing. A conscious choice can only be made by a self-aware person, right? Then why are there gay animals? Do a google for “gay animals”… it’s weird. Gayness is a part of nature.

Vroom: Nice pontification post earlier. I wish sometimes that we could all act more like dogs. Dogs don’t care what breed they each are, they’ll run around and chase sticks or whatever with each other just fine. Even the gay dogs. :slight_smile:

173

Gay Marriage, is this for real? Why are people gay… This is the question one should ask themselves. The real question should be: “Why would a man want a dick up his ass?”

My only reasoning:

  1. Confused about Colon Cleansing

  2. Confused about gender

  3. Doesn’t know what a dick is

  4. Shouldn’t have dropped the soap

Men = Masculine

  • Lift heavy things
  • Fix, repair, modify when and where needed
  • Be a good role-model for your kids
  • Worship your wife like a queen
  • Make enough money to support the family

Women = Feminine

  • Take care of their body, hair, face
  • Gourmet Chef in the kitchen, Sex Goddess in the bedroom
  • Pop pimples on my back
  • Cheer their man on who just scored a touchdown

Why is this so confusing???

OD

174

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
RJ: I see you’re still hung up on the choice vs. nature thing. A conscious choice can only be made by a self-aware person, right? Then why are there gay animals? Do a google for “gay animals”… it’s weird. Gayness is a part of nature.
[/quote]

You are mistaking sex for lifestyle. Dogs will fuck anything. Prisoners will fuck anything. Cattle will fuck anything. That doesn’t make them gay. At least not in the same context as Bob and Tom getting married, sharing a life together and demanding recognition of their special relationship by the rest of the United States.

That is a choice - not an occurance of nature. Sorry.

175

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

Vroom: Nice pontification post earlier. I wish sometimes that we could all act more like dogs. Dogs don’t care what breed they each are, they’ll run around and chase sticks or whatever with each other just fine. Even the gay dogs. :)[/quote]

Monkeys don’t care about sniffing their fingers after they shove them up their ass! Does this make them gay??? Nope… Just makes them monkeys…

OD

176

To reprise my point, legal interpretations under the Constitution as to whether such preferences are permissible can also change simply due to changes in our understanding of the circumstances in which these preferences apply. The job can get done from either the state house or the court house, and the two seem to be in sort of a “slow race” at the moment.

BTW, I’m not sure lack of visibility has much applicability here. Put two homosexuals together and they are quite visible. Some bigots insist you don’t even need to go that far.

177

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
To reprise my point, legal interpretations under the Constitution as to whether such preferences are permissible can also change simply due to changes in our understanding of the circumstances in which these preferences apply. The job can get done from either the state house or the court house, and the two seem to be in sort of a “slow race” at the moment.[/quote]

No - the court house is not where legislation takes place. At least that’s not where it supposed to take place. The court has overstepped it’s bounds by jumping out in front of the lawmakers and creating legislation from the bench - which is the original argument presented in this thread.

[quote]BTW, I’m not sure lack of visibility has much applicability here. Put two homosexuals together and they are quite visible. Some bigots insist you don’t even need to go that far.
[/quote]

WTF does that even mean?

178

In conclusion, homosexuality is obviously not a choice. Do you think gays are debating right now whether heteros choose to be that way or not? Who can control what they’re attracted to? We’re talking about a complex combination of hormones controlling desires and emotion–that are obviouslly beyond control.

Why would someone choose to love someone of the same gender? Isn’t the whole coming out thing a realization of one’s attraction to the same gender? There was no choice there, anymore than my choice to fall in love with my wife. Being against gay marriage is just not an intellectually honest argument.Why should straight people have the right to marry?

Are you seriously going to present tradition, and religion to Mr. Constitution? (Keep in mind hating gays also is an invalid point) I just don’t get the real “agenda” for the objection. It’s not constitutional (hence the amendment wanted). It’s not religous (nobody cares about atheist getting married, or hindus, eskimos, etc.) It can’t be tradition (slavery was a tradition, women’s inferiority was a tradition, stigma on interracial marriage was a tradition). It’s NOT logic. So what’s left appears to be a bias towards butt sex between men (because I’m sure the bias isn’t towards just butt sex, I’ve seen the ass threads on these boards). That being the case, then I’ll remind you that similar attitudes in men led people to not liking “coloreds” in the same room with whites, and if shit like that was “left up to the states” well we’d still have those Jim Crow laws today(That’s why we got those post-civil war amendments-- Because when you leave things up to the states then select groups can get pissed on–just like Liberal Lincoln learned.)

179

Can you prove you didn’t “choose” to be heterosexual. Can you prove you’re genetically heterosexual. Isn’t it most likely that genetics (seen the study on gay twins?) and biology influence one’s sexuality given the paltry psychological evidence?

we know that homones in utero have an influence.

we know the pheromes.

we know the biological differences.

(At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab’s and Allen’s results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind. )

and

(Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the “homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior”, and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2].)

we have the neuroendocrine studies.

(The neuroendocrine viewpoint’s basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7]. )

we have the gay twins study

(J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females.)

and then we have the ZEB theory of gayness—gays are like alchoholics.(debunked)

all this, and no evidence of choice—but still you say choice. Sexuality(either way) is obviously not a choice!

180

[quote]100meters wrote:
Can you prove you didn’t “choose” to be heterosexual. Can you prove you’re genetically heterosexual. Isn’t it most likely that genetics (seen the study on gay twins?) and biology influence one’s sexuality given the paltry psychological evidence?
[/quote]

You are totally missing the point. The pro gay marraige clan is crying that gays are made that way - hardwired. (honestly, I’ve typed this same damn thing 20 times today). The burden is on them is to show that they are different because of genetic differences - not environmental differences.

The studies you cite, while making the anti-hetero crowd feel all warm and fuzzy, proves nothing other than there are some exterior factors that can come into play to make a person more effeminate(sp). Being girly is not being gay. No one is denying the gays the opportunity to be gay. It’s not my life - I don’t care what they do.

But the argument here is that they should not be afforded special treatment under the constitution because of their choice to persue a lifestyle - regardless of what’s going on in their hypothalmus gland.