Thread: Three days until North Carolina Amendment One and Marriage Protected

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Being black is not a choice being gay is.......Dont compare the too cause there is not comparison.

Reading comprehension son. I wasn't comparing black people to gay people. I was demonstrating that fact that biased people create biased studies.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Reading comprehension son. I wasn't comparing black people to gay people. I was demonstrating that fact that biased people create biased studies.

You used black people as a model to say how oppressed homo's are.....There is no comparison. Your problems are divergent from your CHOICES a black persons problem are cause of how he was born.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You used black people as a model to say how oppressed homo's are.....There is no comparison. Your problems are divergent from your CHOICES a black persons problem are cause of how he was born.

Noooooo... I used studies that were clearly biased against black people to show how it is not uncommon for people to let their biases taint the results of a "study."

And BTW.... many people far more educated on the subject than you, DO believe that homosexuality is innate.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Noooooo... I used studies that were clearly biased against black people to show how it is not uncommon for people to let their biases taint the results of a "study."

And BTW.... many people far more educated on the subject than you, DO believe that homosexuality is innate.

Except homosexuality is a abnormal action...................

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Except homosexuality is a abnormal action...................

Clearly you are correct. Only freaks of nature engage in sexual relations with those that they love and are attracted to. No normal person does that.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Except homosexuality is a abnormal action...................

Just out of curiosity, according to whom?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Just out of curiosity, according to whom?

That's a good question, actually. Who decides these things?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You used black people as a model to say how oppressed homo's are.....There is no comparison. Your problems are divergent from your CHOICES a black persons problem are cause of how he was born.

So since religion is a choice, you'd be in favor of an official state religion?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Beastiality, rape, necrophilia and pedophliia and other ABNORMAL sexual behavior are 'sexual orientations' too but we don't give legal sanction to them.

None of those things involve consensual relationships between adults. On the other hand, there are a whole host of deviant sexual behaviors that you and I might find truly disturbing (for more information, see: The Internet) that do not preclude marriage.

Bisexuality is a sexual orientation but we do not make an exception against polygamy based on that sexual orientation.

Bisexuality does not imply polygamy any more than heterosexuality or homosexuality does (in fact, polygamy has generally been a heterosexual proposition). In all cases, out of the universe of people to whom we are sexually attracted, we are only allowed to marry one.

Prohibiting polygamy does not infringe on the bisexual community's right to equal protection.

This is simply an ignorant post, ignorant of the history of marriage even though it has been explained repeatedly to you. Heterosexual couples can produce offspring and heterosexual couples cannot. It is the potential that has historically mattered.

It is a fact that homosexual couples can, and do, produce offspring through the same technologies that infertile heterosexual couples use. And it is very likely that, in fairly short order, science will allow for two women to have a child who is the biological child of both of them. At which point, if you are to be intellectually consistent, you'll be arguing for lesbian marriages, but not male homosexual marriages. Reproductive science, it seems, is wreaking havoc on your worldview.

In any case, I wasn't making a historical argument. I was talking about equal protection under the law, and the law simply does not take procreation into account when granting marital benefits. Infertile couples, post-menopausal women, couples who have no interest in child-rearing and couples who choose to adopt, are all allowed to marry. And since the law makes no distinction between couples that can (and wish to) have children and couples that can't (or don't wish to), excluding a group on that basis clearly violates equal protection, because you are subjecting one group to a legal requirement that the other group is not subject to.

Now, there is a solution to this: Pass laws in order to limit marriage to couples in which both partners are fertile. At that point, homosexuals would be excluded from marriage and, since it would also exclude infertile heterosexual couples, everyone would be treated equally under the law. Obviously, heterosexuals wouldn't go for that because, they would rightly insist, marriage isn't just about offspring.

But what you fail to understand is that, to the extent that marriage pertains to offspring, it isn't about producing offspring. After all, offspring were produced long before marriage existed, and are produced without marriage even to this day. In reality, to the extent that marriage pertains to offspring, it is about raising children; that is to say, it is believed that a married couple will do a superior job raising children. And homosexuals do raise children, both biological and adopted, so if that is the basis for marriage, marital benefits should be extended to them as well.

To make your case, you rely on statistics rather than biology. You have to further subdivide heterosexual couples, a gross error in data analysis akin to rejecting the claim that men are generally bigger than women but only including men who are smaller than women in your analysis. Your statistical analysis is suspect, to say the least. The biological potential for homosexual behavior is beyond dispute in NOT producing offspring.

You have made the argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they lack the ability to procreate. I used statistics to demonstrate that marital benefits are routinely extended to individuals who lack the ability (or desire) to procreate.

Your politics is to equate CAN with CANNOT.

My politics is to believe in the importance of both freedom FROM and freedom TO.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I’m not sure anyone really knows what sexual orientation means in its most fundamental sense. Rather, I think it’s one of those deals where psychologists throw their hands up in the air [they do that a lot] and say ‘this is the best we can do‘. No one knows what causes some people to be straight and others gay---but everyone has an opinion.

It is true that the term "sexual orientation" is more descriptive than explicative, but that's fine, provided that we both agree that sexual attraction is an important, defining characteristic of an individual.

The consensus is that they are born one way or the other [hence, the ‘preference‘ for the term sexual orientation over sexual preference]; however, as recent developments in other areas have taught most of us---consensus does not a scientific theory make.

Yes, scientific understanding tends to change over time — usually, but certainly not always, in the direction of greater knowledge. One thing we do know about homosexuality, though, is that it is an enduring, pan-cultural, facet of human sexual behavior.

But this is not say that gays aren’t a legally legitimate category. So are Frisbee throwers, gun owners and host of other groups, for that matter.

And polygamists.

If gays have an inherent right to legal marriage polygamists have the identical right.

You are correct that people can be divided up into any number of categories, but very few of them qualify as a "protected class." For instance, we cannot discriminate against someone because of their race or gender or religion, but we can ban Frisbees if we want and Frisbee throwers would not be able to claim that their equal protection rights have been violated. (Not that I have anything against Frisbee throwers. Some of my best friends throw Frisbees. Back in college, I threw a Frisbee or two myself...)

Let me see if I can break this down:

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, a defining human characteristic that many of us believe should be a "protected class" and in many places already is. Marriage is a legally sanctioned living arrangement involving two people. The Equal Protection argument is that since heterosexuals can avail themselves of this legally sanctioned two-person arrangement, homosexuals should be able to avail themselves of this as well. But the Equal Protection argument, as applied to marriage, is only possible because heterosexuals already enjoy these legal benefits. If the state did not sanction heterosexual marriage, there would be no argument that they should sanction homosexual marriage.

By contrast, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation; it is simply a living arrangement involving more than two people. And since that particular living arrangement has been legally sanctioned for absolutely no one, and polygamists (who are simply people who prefer a living arrangement involving multiple marriages) are not a protected class (on what basis would they be?) there is no Equal Protection argument.

As for studies, all of them must be approached with caution... and hopefully with some understanding of what constitutes a valid study and how to read and apply statistical results. Poorly constructed, or grossly misinterpreted, studies are definitely problematic (and studies in politically- and religiously-charged areas like gender and sexuality pose additional challenges in terms of agenda and bias); but so, too, are unchallenged assumptions. Not everything we "know" to be true turns out to actually be true.

Do gay marriages have the same effect? I don’t know and I don’t know how anyone could do a side by side comparison until gay marriage has been around long enough so that a sufficient number of children that are ‘born’ out of them grow up to be at least young adults.

At that point, you could probably draw some tentative conclusions. But for now, it’s a social experiment and the long term effects on society remain to be seen. Which is precisely why some people are apprehensive about it---and they are being entirely rational.

Gay marriage has been around for a while in other countries (nearly 25 years in Scandinavia, I believe) and from what I can tell, the doomsayers have been proven wrong. Most significantly, I have seen no evidence that same-sex marriage has destroyed heterosexual marriage.

Well again, I don’t think formal studies are necessary for every proposition. But it’s generally true that males of a given species have an innate inclination to impregnate as many females as possible; and, in some instances, they will fight to the death in doing it. That’s a pretty strong inclination. Also, species that mate for life are the exception and not the rule.

So, from a purely biological standpoint, the chances are much better than even that human males have a similar instinct. Which, I think, puts the ball in your court in terms of providing statistics to the contrary.

I have no problem believing your hypothesis that men cheat more than women... and I think the research bears you out. None of this contradicts my argument, though.

With due respect, I don’t think you have a hold of the objection. The threat isn’t to a given marriage; rather, to whatever extent gay marriage [actually, redefining marriage to include other than heteros, to state it most precisely] is a threat---it is a threat to the institution of marriage, itself.

But this doesn't seem like an answer to my question. How can something be a threat to the institution of marriage without being a threat to actual marriages?

And if marriage is a human construct, it is one that has served us well down through the millennia.

You don't have to sell me on marriage. I am as pro-marriage as they come. I like it so much I want to share it with my gay and lesbian friends.

But let us be honest: For a very long time, marriage was a very oppressive institution for women and it is only recently in human history that women have achieved equal status with men (and in many parts of the world, that still hasn't happened). Hideous prejudice against women, and homosexuals, has survived for thousands of years, but that doesn't make it right. (And yes, I understand you are not supporting either of those things; my point is simply that it is not only the good ideas that stand the test of time.)

I promise that my next post will be a lot shorter.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Just out of curiosity, according to whom?

According to the fact that Doug and Steve cannot reproduce.........Weird my computer just went nutso

Originally Posted by thanatos144

According to the fact that Doug and Steve cannot

Cannot what?

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

None of those things involve consensual relationships between adults.

Why are you using that as a standard? As I said the "adult consent" merely transfers the discrimination from ABNORMAL behavior to age. I noticed you were silent on that point.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Bisexuality does not imply polygamy

In the context of sex in marriage, which is what we are talking about, it sure does!

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Prohibiting polygamy does not infringe on the bisexual community's right to equal protection.

The perversion of equal protection you are using is on the name of the ceremony not on the inequality of the underlying behavior.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

It is a fact that homosexual couples can, and do, produce offspring through the same technologies that infertile heterosexual couples use.

In other words not via their homosexual behavior, which is the point. In other words, not from the natural result of their homosexual behavior. You are AGAIN equating things that are unequal: Infertility, a physical defect, to homosexuality, an abnormal behavior; the process to the result, the means to the ends.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

In any case, I wasn't making a historical argument. I was talking about equal protection under the law, and the law simply does not take procreation into account when granting marital benefits.

This has been proved wrong over and over again. It has been this way for 2,000 years.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Now, there is a solution to this: Pass laws in order to limit marriage to couples in which both partners are fertile.

LOL. There is no problem other than opposition to your desired social engineering. But your proposal s fine with me.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

You have made the argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they lack the ability to procreate. I used statistics to demonstrate that marital benefits are routinely extended to individuals who lack the ability (or desire) to procreate.

I already pointed out that use of statistics is invalid as you are comparing things unequally. SOME heterosexual behavior results in no offspring; ALL homosexual behavior results in no offspring.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

My politics is to believe in the importance of both freedom FROM and freedom TO.

An entitlement is not freedom.