Same old gay marriage argument.

[WARPIG]

Same old gay marriage argument.

A handful of us users have been arguing about whether same *** marriage had any legal ground to stand on.
I figured instead of reanimating the dead post I would create a new one so we could sort out where we all stood.
Hank has submitted that the US constitution has always provided protection and rights to homo******s. His position is that a "Civil Union" is a separate but equal alternative and that homo******s should not be discriminated against. He compares homo******s as a social class to black, asian, hispanic, women, etc.
2 sheds Jackson is a little less specific in his argument against gay marriage in that he believes that basic social functions and the psycho-social impact of gay marriage has negative and damaging affects. He has used many examples and fescecious scenarios to illustrate what gay marriage does and is doing to society. Although not as factual as Hank, 2 sheds touches on some pretty insightful realities.
Durandal, like 2 sheds, argues from a more fundamentally social standpoint. He feels that it would be more socially damaging to not allow gay marriage among other rights. Although he does not speak as if the law already supports gay rights, he believes that they should be protected.
My opinion on a personal level is against gay marriage. I have however restricted my argument to a more legal and social fundamentals. My position is that marriage laws were created to protect and regulate legal unions between a man and a women with the intent of creating a family. I also believe that the law does not recognize ****** orientation as a protected group or class.

Having summed that up, I hope to continue this possibly over-covered, controversial, but important subject.
I have watched my state ignore bills to create "all day kindergarten" despite the traditionally low educational standing nation wide. Instead, the State house spent the very limited time arguing about gay marriages. It is not legal in IN by the way. This subject has taken a lot of time away from some very important issues in our places of government and law. With reason, as many of us have differed on this subject there is one point we all seem to agree, the affects and content of homo****** rights goes deeper and is more complicated than many people realize.

Let's continue to keep it civilized and intelligent. On the same chord, don't pull punches. We have done a pretty good job sticking to the subject, albeit a few competitive jibes at each other.

[hank]

Well, that was a pretty good summup of where we have gotten. But, I feel like the point gets lost again and again.

Whatever you think about gay marriage is personal opinion. If we are posting those then I must say I disagree with it on religious grounds. Gays may not marry in my church and that is just the way it is.

Whether gay marriage is allowed under the constitution is another matter. In this respect I am steadfast that the EP clauses combined with freedoms of choice in the 1st 10 amendments do not allow states to deny marriage licenses to gays.

Separating the two is the key. First - personal opinion. Second - state of the law.

The cool thing is that if you answer #1 as no and #2 ends up being yes then we can fix that, right?

The law is not static - we can get what we want.

That being said - this poll says "banned" - so again I am not sure whether we mean ban in my personal opinion or whether a state may constitutionally abridge this right. I've already stated my opinion.

This is warpig's poll so I'll let him define that. It is an important distinction though b/c many may have different answers to the different questions, me as an example.

hank

[WARPIG]

Just to continue the link from the other posts..

Hank, I do understand that I have a limited undertanding of the Con. and who it protects. I think your over reading it. I also think you are comparing the wrong groups. You compared homo******s to blacks and asian. Regardless of my personal offense to that, I submit that it is more accurate to compare homo****** ( or othewise any ****** orientation) to religion. Both are not viewed as a condition of birth but a choice. Perhaps many will argue different but we will get to that later. US law is clear in it's involvement with religion yet many allowances and restrictions apply. So, my understanding of where the law may recognize or mention homo****** rights is of no real consequence. As is your postion of the US Con's protection even without mention. The impact and affect that such a protection is where the argument lies.
Another comparison made was of the ability of a gay couple to raise children compared to hetero******s and single parents... especially fathers. As a single father of 3.. I can tell you that I am at a great disadvantage. Male and female role modeling is a tuff thing to organize no matter your *** or situation. A stable,traditional family has the best situation but doesn't always work out. The reason is because ******ity in the media has become more of an influence than parenthood. Add that to having to understand why you have two moms but only one looks like a girl.. or two dads that have to explain childbirth or male ******ity while keeping sodomy or such activities in some sort of perspective.. you are definately fighting an up-hill battle.

Two things come to mind on this subject. One is that marriage does not technically ban homo******s from getting married. The law defines Marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Their ****** orientation is not really the case. Many state laws still include language on the ability of one party to consummate and/or conceive, but their ****** orientation is not considered.
The other is the general view of homo******s in the media and the coverage of same *** marriage.
Most images of homo******s in media today is generally positive. Homo******s are portrayed in movies and television generally as victims or in positive roles in society. This is a little exaggerated. Homo******s by their own admission are no better or worse than hetero******s. Knowing that, we are all capable of deviant behavior and promiscuity. Psycho****** sickness and problems exist in both and affect relationships equally. That being said, what is the most accurate description of homo****** society? Some argue that it is not a pshychological condition and that people are homo****** at birth. I can understand the theory but is really has no merit. If it did, and the law supported it.. I could, for instance, argue for my civil rights as a black man. I am not "black" by skin color, national origin, or heritige. I do feel that because I grew up with black people, do not relate to white society, and feel oppressed because of my "black" affiliation and demeanor.. that I have the right to pursue affirmitive action righs and benefits. My co workers call me a "wigger" and discriminate against me because of it.

In reality I am not "black" or a "wigger" but you get the analogy. This is what the people suddenly getting married because it has become contraversial sound like. Looking at images of lesbians using their children as advertisements to lobby gay rights is proof of the real reasons they want "marriage" rather than "unions." (Images of little kids holding signs at protests reading "let my mothers marry")
This same *** marriage popularity is a result of media hype. The reality is that homo****** relationship is largly based on "***." Lasting relationships do occur and are not generally uncommon but the basis of most gay relationships is ******.

[WARPIG]

In the interest of making this poll and discussion accurate.. let me know what you feel should be the choices and help me edit any of the choices or original post accordingly.

[Nondescript]

I don't think that gay-marriage should be banned. My personal reflection on this is that who am I to say that it's wrong, what makes me better than them. And the thing that someone would have two fathers or mothers that it's bad for them, just look at the stuff that goes on in different families, abuse, infidelity and divorce to name a few. Who can honestly say that a child is better of there, I would rather have two parents of the same *** that love each other.

I say you can think whatever you want about gay-marriage, but if a government decides to ban it, that's just wrong. Who says that two gay-people can't have a better relationship than a man and a woman, who has the right to say that it's immoral for two persons that love each other who happens to be of the same ***, to get married and enjoy the same rights as everyone else in society.

[hank]

WARPIG - agreed on your second post - I think that is something we just disagree about and this is all good in the game. i think you overlook the way the rights are intertwined - but not everybody even on the current court agrees how that works so that is to be expected. So we are on the same page.

I guess before I vote I need to know from what perspective we are talking - I have tended to deal here only with the constitutional aspects of it. So from that perspective I would have to say it should not, in fact cannot be banned by any state.

But, if we are talking personal preference then my answer would really be the same only if we discuss the license. I d not think gays should marry in my church, but what they are allowed to do at city hall is a different matter.

Make sense?

Are we talking about whether we want them to have the right to get teh license or after they have the license where they will get hitched? The answer is different for me.

I think Durandal's idea - well certainly others have espoused a similar ides - that everyone should get a civil union license and then go wherever they want to do the ceremony is the most sensible answer b/c it handles my constitutional concerns and my concerns that gays not marry at my church.

That being said I'm not really sure how to vote.

Maybe the choices should simply specify license or ceremony.

I am gald you are back though.

hank

[El'Potato]

I'm certanly going with Nondescript on this one!

Who are we, to judge other people? Are we to say that it's wrong to eat rice with a spoon? What one thinks over in China might be so awfullingly wrong for someone in Brazil, opinions are opinions. But a human being is a human being!

I thought the USA fought for mans right in ww2? To free the oppressed? Isn't restricting one group of other human beings the exact same thing?

Why are you viewing homo******s as lesser beings? And don't say you aren't, you want to deny them the rights that you got yourself! What is it with hetero******s that make them so special and much better?

To point where I'm going at, why won't we start over with a new arian revolution, obviously they are a superior kind of human beings borned with muscles, good looking and best of all: Blue eyes!!

But to be honest, I myself don't find homo******s making out or what ever they do nice, rather groose. But I find certain food types groose to, do I want to ban them to?

People are different, people tend to like different things and that's why we are having democracy in the western world, to be able to choose what we like! And not restrict other peoples interests or what ever!

All I say is, that if you say you're fighting for freedom, then restricting minority groups rights smells hypocracy and 3rd reich Vol.2 to me...

[WARPIG]

Just to keep some perspective here... this discussion isn't about banning homo******ity. As far as I know... homo******s are not banned from marrying. Marrying someone of the same *** is not legal in many states and there is a lot of hype generated on that regard but like my analogy above. ... what right have we violated by not allowing same *** marriage? Marriage of minors? Marriage of those who are deemed not of sound mind? Marriage of more than one person? Marriage to family members? Civil Unions will encompass all of those if the situation warrants it. ( I also am like that idea.) But, ****** orientation is no basis for consideration. If I feel like I am a black woman in my mind and in my heart.. even though I am a Caucasion man... do I also get all the rights and priveleges of Affirmative action for minorities and minority business tax breaks, and etc? That is what homo******s are asking. They are saying that because they prefer *** with the same gender, and intimate relationships with the same gender.. that they should be considered a protectect group under civil rights.
I have mentioned in posts before that my opinion of homo******s or any ****** orientation is not in question here. Even if same *** marriage becomes a nationally legal act.. it does not take away from me or my upcoming marriage. (Hetero****** by the way)

Hank, I guess the disconnect from my vantage is not really on where the law protects or does not protect homo******s.. but that my take on it is that ****** orientation is not a valid consideration.

As far as your vote.. let me know how to make the question less vague. Maybe more choices or maybe simplify it.

[El'Potato]

The thing is, they are not asking for minority groups tax breaks and the like, heck, I didn't even know there were those, I say treat equal and be equal, having special treatment for minorities is perhaps worse than looking down upon them, since that will grow hatred and a feeling of unjust.

All they ask for, is being treated as adults that can make their own choices! They're not some kids, they are considered adults because of age and of course should be treated like ones!

And warpig, you say they _choose_ to have *** with the same gender? God damn, what are you thinking?! They were BORN that way! It's their capabilities that makes them fall in love/get attracted by the same gender in the EXACT same manner as you fall in love/get attracted by a CERTAIN type of women! You DON'T choose to love, you simply DO!

So just because I like blond girls the most, it gives me the right to think and or say and or want to deny brownhaired girls their right to get married with brownhaired boys?

If you think I'm harsch, then I'm sorry. Don't mean to be, but I get attached to these questions because they're about peoples rights.

[dhfactory]

I'm not in your country so my opinion doesn't really matter to you guys but i hope it gets banned here in AUS.

On the news here yesterday they said they are going to try and ban gay adoption. So that's a step in the right direction.

-Sean

[Haiw]

The thing is, they are not asking for minority groups tax breaks and the like, heck, I didn't even know there were those, I say treat equal and be equal, having special treatment for minorities is perhaps worse than looking down upon them, since that will grow hatred and a feeling of unjust.

All they ask for, is being treated as adults that can make their own choices! They're not some kids, they are considered adults because of age and of course should be treated like ones!

And warpig, you say they _choose_ to have *** with the same gender? God damn, what are you thinking?! They were BORN that way! It's their capabilities that makes them fall in love/get attracted by the same gender in the EXACT same manner as you fall in love/get attracted by a CERTAIN type of women! You DON'T choose to love, you simply DO!

So just because I like blond girls the most, it gives me the right to think and or say and or want to deny brownhaired girls their right to get married with brownhaired boys?

If you think I'm harsch, then I'm sorry. Don't mean to be, but I get attached to these questions because they're about peoples rights.
Just the reason I stayed out of the discussion in the last thread; WARPIG doesn't start with a realistic definitoin of homo******ity in the first place, so how could that ever be basis for a fruitfull discussion?

[El'Potato]

The thing is, they are not asking for minority groups tax breaks and the like, heck, I didn't even know there were those, I say treat equal and be equal, having special treatment for minorities is perhaps worse than looking down upon them, since that will grow hatred and a feeling of unjust.

All they ask for, is being treated as adults that can make their own choices! They're not some kids, they are considered adults because of age and of course should be treated like ones!

And warpig, you say they _choose_ to have *** with the same gender? God damn, what are you thinking?! They were BORN that way! It's their capabilities that makes them fall in love/get attracted by the same gender in the EXACT same manner as you fall in love/get attracted by a CERTAIN type of women! You DON'T choose to love, you simply DO!

So just because I like blond girls the most, it gives me the right to think and or say and or want to deny brownhaired girls their right to get married with brownhaired boys?

If you think I'm harsch, then I'm sorry. Don't mean to be, but I get attached to these questions because they're about peoples rights.
Just the reason I stayed out of the discussion in the last thread; WARPIG doesn't start with a realistic definitoin of homo******ity in the first place, so how could that ever be basis for a fruitfull discussion?


I don't know actually... I just want to contribute and perhaps make some realize a human is a human wether he/she likes something and the others like other stuff.

[Nawlins]

My major reservation regarding the legal issues of gay marriage is this: If we change the laws to allow gays to marry, then would it be fair or correct or even possible to keep polygamy and even more deviant (meaning different from the norm, not pathological) forms of marriage from being legal? Once you open that door, it's going to be awfully hard to shut it again.

[WARPIG]

The thing is, they are not asking for minority groups tax breaks and the like, heck, I didn't even know there were those, I say treat equal and be equal, having special treatment for minorities is perhaps worse than looking down upon them, since that will grow hatred and a feeling of unjust.

All they ask for, is being treated as adults that can make their own choices! They're not some kids, they are considered adults because of age and of course should be treated like ones!

And warpig, you say they _choose_ to have *** with the same gender? God damn, what are you thinking?! They were BORN that way! It's their capabilities that makes them fall in love/get attracted by the same gender in the EXACT same manner as you fall in love/get attracted by a CERTAIN type of women! You DON'T choose to love, you simply DO!

So just because I like blond girls the most, it gives me the right to think and or say and or want to deny brownhaired girls their right to get married with brownhaired boys?

If you think I'm harsch, then I'm sorry. Don't mean to be, but I get attached to these questions because they're about peoples rights.
Just the reason I stayed out of the discussion in the last thread; WARPIG doesn't start with a realistic definitoin of homo******ity in the first place, so how could that ever be basis for a fruitfull discussion?


I don't know actually... I just want to contribute and perhaps make some realize a human is a human wether he/she likes something and the others like other stuff.

First off, I thought I made it clear that this was a continuation of some previous threads... but it doesn't seem fair to new parties to just pick up without some background. I posted my personal view of homo******ity and included my where my legal standpoint came from. Hank's position and legal theory is a little different from mine. He personally feels the same as I do but sees the law as protecting the rights of homo******s as a civil rights protected group. He believes that the same *** marriage issue is protected in that regard.
My position is that same *** marriage is illegal although nothing bans homo******s from marriage. I also don't agree that ****** orientation is or ever has been protected by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. None of that has anything to do with my personal, religious, or ****** views of homo******ity. My analogy further illustrates what legal similarities occur when ****** orientation or preference is considered a group or minority.


All they ask for, is being treated as adults that can make their own choices! They're not some kids, they are considered adults because of age and of course should be treated like ones! <<<adults using children to advertise their argument... adults who only recently jumped on the marriage bandwagon when it became controversial... adults who want to be treated equally but make it a point to have parades, stage protests, display rainbow stickers, and any number of dramatic behaviors in an effort to stand out. I reminds me of being an adolescent wanting to be "different" so they can fit in with other adolescents. Again.. my personal opinion.

Speeking of adolsescent behavior......
And warpig, you say they _choose_ to have *** with the same gender? God damn, what are you thinking?! They were BORN that way! It's their capabilities that makes them fall in love/get attracted by the same gender in the EXACT same manner as you fall in love/get attracted by a CERTAIN type of women! You DON'T choose to love, you simply DO!
There is no proof, social, psychological, scientific or otherwise that shows that ****** orientation is other than a choice. Re-read my analogy between ****** orientation and being "black" or a "wigger" as the derrogatory term suggests.
Just a little advice, from a person who has been around the block a little... your compassion and passion is appreciated and very honorable.. don't change. But.. love has nothing to do with ***. I think you know that. So, saying that if by chance I fall in love with my soul mate.. it might turn out that I am gay after all.. is pretty far fetched. People may feel early on in their life that they don't see the opposite *** the same as others. This could happen for many, many reasons. ******ity developes throughout childhood and into adult hood. It is a result of pshychological, social, and physical, input. You don't have to be abused, neglected, or deviant to be gay. Something in your life has grown this state of being. Most of us have most of the same social inputs that tell us we are here to pro-create and make families. Once you come to the conclusion that you don't fit that mold.. ******ity doesn't fit in either. I am quit open minded and comfortable in my ****** preference and the preference of others.. to include homo******s. I actually have several friends and associates that are homo******.
[/quote]

[WARPIG]

Just to make it clear.. I do believe that homo******ity is a behavior, not a sickness, not a condition at birth. It is pshycho-****** by nature and I have both read and witnessed proof along that line. I have considered the arguement of people being "born" gay and there is very little credibility in it. (that I have seen so far)

If you feel I am uninformed, or disinformed.. educate me. Hank has brought a great deal to the legal aspect of this discussion and even though it seems we are at polar opposites in this debate.. we see things more similarly than it appears. I do see the grounds for equal rights arguement in our laws but feel that they are misdirected.
If there is proof, evidence, or anything that shows ****** orientation as a condition of birth, and not personal choice.. I think it should be protected.

[Haiw]

Ooh god, where to start... :roll:

First off, I thought I made it clear that this was a continuation of some previous threads... but it doesn't seem fair to new parties to just pick up without some background. I posted my personal view of homo******ity and included my where my legal standpoint came from. Hank's position and legal theory is a little different from mine. He personally feels the same as I do but sees the law as protecting the rights of homo******s as a civil rights protected group. He believes that the same *** marriage issue is protected in that regard.
My position is that same *** marriage is illegal although nothing bans homo******s from marriage. I also don't agree that ****** orientation is or ever has been protected by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. None of that has anything to do with my personal, religious, or ****** views of homo******ity. My analogy further illustrates what legal similarities occur when ****** orientation or preference is considered a group or minority.
Okay...you don't ban homo******s from marrying...yet....you don't want to let them marry with the person they prefer. Absolutely BRILLIANT!
'Hey, you black people can marry whoever you want, as long as the other person is black!' Seriously...that...does not...make sense. See below for my reaction on the rest you wrote for further explanation.



All they ask for, is being treated as adults that can make their own choices! They're not some kids, they are considered adults because of age and of course should be treated like ones! <<<adults using children to advertise their argument... adults who only recently jumped on the marriage bandwagon when it became controversial... adults who want to be treated equally but make it a point to have parades, stage protests, display rainbow stickers, and any number of dramatic behaviors in an effort to stand out. I reminds me of being an adolescent wanting to be "different" so they can fit in with other adolescents. Again.. my personal opinion.

Yeah...your opinion. They never jumped on the marriage bandwagon because it became controversial they only started it now because they finally had the opportunity. An opportunity they didn't have for ages. The rest of your blatant generalisation..well...let's just leave it at that. Generalisations. Oh, do you actually have any idea how many people are gay? I once read 1 out of 10 people. I'm willing to be generous and say 1 out of 25. Still makes a helluva lot more than I see going around being a hippie. Uuuh...what did I just say? Aren't there hetero****** hippies as well?


There is no proof, social, psychological, scientific or otherwise that shows that ****** orientation is other than a choice. Re-read my analogy between ****** orientation and being "black" or a "wigger" as the derrogatory term suggests.
Just a little advice, from a person who has been around the block a little... your compassion and passion is appreciated and very honorable.. don't change. But.. love has nothing to do with ***. I think you know that. So, saying that if by chance I fall in love with my soul mate.. it might turn out that I am gay after all.. is pretty far fetched. People may feel early on in their life that they don't see the opposite *** the same as others. This could happen for many, many reasons. ******ity developes throughout childhood and into adult hood. It is a result of pshychological, social, and physical, input. You don't have to be abused, neglected, or deviant to be gay. Something in your life has grown this state of being. Most of us have most of the same social inputs that tell us we are here to pro-create and make families. Once you come to the conclusion that you don't fit that mold.. ******ity doesn't fit in either. I am quit open minded and comfortable in my ****** preference and the preference of others.. to include homo******s. I actually have several friends and associates that are homo******.
Maybe you actually talk to those homo****** persons for once in a while... or just think further then your nose is long. At least I did... I've got an uncle who's homo****** (and who's had the same male partner for at least 10 years or so), and I've had some homo****** classmates. Even a homo****** teacher, and a recent very good friend of mine happens to be a homo******.

Any idea how hard it is for a person to come out for being a homo******? For a person to finally conclude '...damn... it seems I'm not capable of 'conventional' love'. It's not a 'choice'. It has nothing to do with *** or anything like that. Geez, if it was only about ***, why the hell would want to marry in the first place?! Yeah, there's the occasional homo****** Midtown, but the majority don't really differ much from you and I, except for their other 'preference'.
Saying that people 'become' homo****** because of how they're raised sounds like a big load of crap to me. Tell me how out of 9 children only 1 is a homo******. Or out of 3 children 1 is a homo******. Doesn't exactely make sense, huh? Besides, one doesn't just 'suddenly' become gay.
Besides, gayness would be a result from a lack of inputs that tell you to pro-create and make families? Quick! Go tell all the married couples without children that they're gay!

To summarize my last rant; being gay isn't just about ***... a person is generally just born gay, and there's nothing a person can do about it. You might class ****** preference under the same group as hair color, skin color, etc. I suppose we learned not to differentiate on that, so I suppose we should know learn not to do it on ****** preference either...

[Jack Mehoff]

Haiw,

Aren't the same person who says something about polygamy evil?
I guess some people can't practice what they preach

[Haiw]

Hey, you never heard me say polygamy is evil. For all I care you could have relationships with hundreds of women. As long as they're all fully consenting adults, who am I to stop them. About marrying them; I honestly don't really know, though like I said before; when you see marrying as the highest bonding of two people it kind of doesn't make sense for polygamy, no?

Anyway, IMO polygamy has nothing to do with homo******ity. Unless of course you'd want a polygamous homo****** marriage... ;)

[Jack Mehoff]

Hey, you never heard me say polygamy is evil. For all I care you could have relationships with hundreds of women. As long as they're all fully consenting adults, who am I to stop them. About marrying them; I honestly don't really know, though like I said before; when you see marrying as the highest bonding of two people it kind of doesn't make sense for polygamy, no?

Anyway, IMO polygamy has nothing to do with homo******ity. Unless of course you'd want a polygamous homo****** marriage... ;)

If polygamy doesn't make sense to you, what make you think homo******ity makes sense to straight people?

Liberal: "We must open our minds and hearts to all people regardless of their ****** preference."

Liberal: "I see a polygamist couple. Let's go lynch that son of a bitch!"

[WARPIG]

Well, I asked for some proof.. sources.. something to "educate" me in my theory of homo******ity. I have helped counsel friends in the military, where homo****** acts or admissions are a fast ticket out.. I have friends that I worked with during college, and co-workers presently that speak along the same lines. The ones I speak with come from typical childhoods. And yes.. out of 10 or so people I know.. 1 is likely to be gay. I have written several papers in college, years ago I admit, for Law and Psychology class regarding homo******ity. Yet instead of giving me some info, insight or knowledge further than my own experience and education.. you instead take on a tone of insult and resentment.
One more piece of advice friend. If you don't have the intellectual fortitude to provide a viable arguement.. don't ramble or rant based on heresay. I say again.. show me where I am wrong. Anyone. Give me some sort of publication, study, factoid.. anything that shows that ****** orientation is other than a behavior that is learned.

On top of that Haiw.. if you feel that my poll choices are not accurate.. I will be happy to change them for a better description. You have so far provided none.

[Haiw]

Hey, you never heard me say polygamy is evil. For all I care you could have relationships with hundreds of women. As long as they're all fully consenting adults, who am I to stop them. About marrying them; I honestly don't really know, though like I said before; when you see marrying as the highest bonding of two people it kind of doesn't make sense for polygamy, no?

Anyway, IMO polygamy has nothing to do with homo******ity. Unless of course you'd want a polygamous homo****** marriage... ;)


If polygamy doesn't make sense to you, what make you think homo******ity makes sense to straight people?
Well...it makes sense to me, and I ain't gay...


Liberal: "We must open our minds and hearts to all people regardless of their ****** preference."

Liberal: "I see a polygamist couple. Let's go lynch that son of a bitch!"
Polygamist couple? Isn't that a contradiction? ;)
Anyway, what I just said that when you marry multiple purpose, how much of the whole promise of 'staying faithfull to each other' and all is still left?
Anyway, I'm not all that 'strong' against polygamy...honestly, I don't have any experience at all with polygamy, I've never even heard of anything like it. So personally, I don't really have any big oppinion about polygamy, as I simply don't have any experience with it. All I can say is that it doesn't really relate to homo****** marriages in anyway, and that IMO you could do polygamous marriages, but they just wouldn't make much sense... that's all.

[WARPIG]

Just so we keep things clear... my take on same *** marriage and homo******ity come from two different places. Maybe the poll and post do not reflect that and I would like to see comments on both. On the legal front I have had an enormous education from a few posters here.. hand and durandal. On my opinion and view of homo******ity as a choice however.. no arguement with any credibility so far. I will see you all tomorrow and hopefully will have some enlightening info to catch up on.

[Haiw]

Well, I asked for some proof.. sources.. something to "educate" me in my theory of homo******ity. I have helped counsel friends in the military, where homo****** acts or admissions are a fast ticket out.. I have friends that I worked with during college, and co-workers presently that speak along the same lines. The ones I speak with come from typical childhoods. And yes.. out of 10 or so people I know.. 1 is likely to be gay. I have written several papers in college, years ago I admit, for Law and Psychology class regarding homo******ity. Yet instead of giving me some info, insight or knowledge further than my own experience and education.. you instead take on a tone of insult and resentment.
One more piece of advice friend. If you don't have the intellectual fortitude to provide a viable arguement.. don't ramble or rant based on heresay. I say again.. show me where I am wrong. Anyone. Give me some sort of publication, study, factoid.. anything that shows that ****** orientation is other than a behavior that is learned.

On top of that Haiw.. if you feel that my poll choices are not accurate.. I will be happy to change them for a better description. You have so far provided none.
You just repeat my same other reasons for staying out of the last discussion; your rather annoying and insulting ARROGANCE. Step of the high horse... There's no 'lack of inttelectual fortitude', and no rambling or ranting based on heresay. You accuse me of a tone of insult, yet in your posts you basically insult anyone with homo****** feelings in this world.

I just showed you your wrongs from my PERSONAL experience. Personally, I couldn't care less about what some pencil-licking guy produced to get his psychology degree... especially since those kind of 'researches' have a tendency to be outdated when they're published; at time X a researcher finds out fact A, while at time X+1 a researcher proves the opposite of A, etc. etc.

About the poll choices; you could make endless poll choices, since most people have different reasons, or different thoughts, etc. etc. It's better to just keep it at a simple yes or no and let people explain in their own words.

[El'Potato]

Because Jack, Polygamy involves 3 or more people, homo******ity involves 2 people only, just like in every couple? (if couple means 2 of course, English isn't my native language after all) And therefor you can't compare the two in anyway!

It could rather be compared by this: Couldn't 2 people from different religions get married? Or from different parts of the world?

And to you Warpig, do you really suggest that you CHOOSE to love? Do you have a wife? And if you do, are you going to tell me that you in your mind bought up a couple of girls/women and then decided = This one I'll love! Now did you?

If you did FALL in love with her, now what can even suggest that's not the case with homo******s? It's not something you _learn_ when you grow up?! How could it be that way??

Are you suggesting that I have become to learn that I will fall in love with blonde girls? 'Cus that's the way I've understood you. And I have as well learned to like/appreciate military stuff, politics?

No, that's what I've become to like. I've realized that this is what I like to do or to love. Sure you can learn, but you can't learn basic instincts, and that's what love is all about. It's an emotion triggered when you see something that is special to YOU.
It's like everything else, we are all special and we like our own special things!

I will disagree with you that it's something you can choose, because if so I would choose to be a real mastermind/brain right now, since that is something I can do. I'm in NO way hindered by my genes or anything :roll:

[Haiw]

Oh, and so that I don't sound like a total jackass who can't find a single source to back his rants up:

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5148 (dated Oct 2003)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031022062408.htm same story, different website

http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin3/020527a.asp
Small part that's particularly interesting about that article:

The study does not determine a cause of the correlation between homo******ity and having older brothers. However, there is growing evidence in other research that it may be pre-natal in nature, based on findings that gay men with older brothers tend to weigh less at birth than straight men with older brothers.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html
Another rather long article discussing that homo******ity might have its roots in hormones during pregnancy

Just the first few I picked....there's more, just like there's propably just as much saying exactely the opposite. Just like there's both researches saying 2 glasses of wine everyday is good and bad... Quite frankly I just don't put too much value at such studies...

[Jack Mehoff]

Because Jack, Polygamy involves 3 or more people, homo******ity involves 2 people only, just like in every couple? (if couple means 2 of course, English isn't my native language after all) And therefor you can't compare the two in anyway!

It could rather be compared by this: Couldn't 2 people from different religions get married? Or from different parts of the world?

And to you Warpig, do you really suggest that you CHOOSE to love? Do you have a wife? And if you do, are you going to tell me that you in your mind bought up a couple of girls/women and then decided = This one I'll love! Now did you?

If you did FALL in love with her, now what can even suggest that's not the case with homo******s? It's not something you _learn_ when you grow up?! How could it be that way??

Are you suggesting that I have become to learn that I will fall in love with blonde girls? 'Cus that's the way I've understood you. And I have as well learned to like/appreciate military stuff, politics?

No, that's what I've become to like. I've realized that this is what I like to do or to love. Sure you can learn, but you can't learn basic instincts, and that's what love is all about. It's an emotion triggered when you see something that is special to YOU.
It's like everything else, we are all special and we like our own special things!

I will disagree with you that it's something you can choose, because if so I would choose to be a real mastermind/brain right now, since that is something I can do. I'm in NO way hindered by my genes or anything :roll:

So now what? You changed the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman, but it's wrong if I change it to fit my agenda. :roll:

[11F5S]

.. adults who want to be treated equally but make it a point to have parades, stage protests, display rainbow stickers, and any number of dramatic behaviors in an effort to stand out. I reminds me of being an adolescent wanting to be "different" so they can fit in with other adolescents. Again.. my personal opinion.


Irish-Americans who want to be treated equally but make it a point to have parades, stage protests, display shamrock stickers, drink green beer, dress as leprechauns, dance the Irish Jig* (http://crafterscatalogs.com/cards/stpatty/) and display any other number of dramatic behaviors in order to stand out. It reminds me of what makes America great.....just my personal opinion.

*To enhance your experience, please click on Irish Jig

PS. There's another group that marches in parades proudly displaying
Rainbow patches (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/42id.htm)

[El'Potato]

So now what? You changed the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman, but it's wrong if I change it to fit my agenda. :roll:


Marriage: union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-*** marriage

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

Now exactly which defination did I change?

[Jack Mehoff]

Nice try!! Make sure next time you provide ALL definition and not cut and paste the one you choose


The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-*** marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

[hank]

The thing is, they are not asking for minority groups tax breaks and the like, heck, I didn't even know there were those, I say treat equal and be equal, having special treatment for minorities is perhaps worse than looking down upon them, since that will grow hatred and a feeling of unjust.

Well - the tax break is for a married couple - the standardized deduction is different depending on whether you file as married or married filing jointly.

Let's keep it civil - I left out the GD - but this is neither the time or place for that.

WARPIG is sying that blonde hair is an inherent trait and homo******ity is not, that's all.

hank

[hank]

My major reservation regarding the legal issues of gay marriage is this: If we change the laws to allow gays to marry, then would it be fair or correct or even possible to keep polygamy and even more deviant (meaning different from the norm, not pathological) forms of marriage from being legal? Once you open that door, it's going to be awfully hard to shut it again.

check out the previous post on this. Deviant ****** behavior would not be affected from a legal perspective. Polygamy is a close call - but reality is probably not. Both, in all likelihood would not fit the exception carved out for civil union/gay marriage. I will haul out the reason why deviant ****** behavior will not work if you can't find it. Just let me know - pm or post the question later.

hank

[El'Potato]

To Jack: Well, I provided a link so you all could see, and since I wanted to prove my case I took the example that was relevant, since we all know that a man and woman are allowed to marry, right?

To Hank: Well, I meant taste... I like blonde girls, and another guy maybe likes other guys. That was my point, but well...

[11F5S]

Main Entry: mar·riage
****unciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite *** as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law(2): the state of being united to a person of the same *** in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-*** marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriagee

[hank]

Well, I asked for some proof.. sources.. something to "educate" me in my theory of homo******ity. I have helped counsel friends in the military, where homo****** acts or admissions are a fast ticket out.. I have friends that I worked with during college, and co-workers presently that speak along the same lines. The ones I speak with come from typical childhoods. And yes.. out of 10 or so people I know.. 1 is likely to be gay. I have written several papers in college, years ago I admit, for Law and Psychology class regarding homo******ity.

10% is the historical number I learned in college. That is the norm though historians think during the peek of hte Roman Empire it could have been higher. I could probably find soemthing concrete on that - and I will try if necessary. But that is my recollection of what I learned in college honors class on the subject.

hank

[hank]

Main Entry: mar·riage
****unciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite *** as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law(2): the state of being united to a person of the same *** in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-*** marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriagee

Please - everybody - try to differentiate between the ceremony in a church and the rights under the license, OK. My God I must have written about 1000 lines of text about that distinction and I am tired right now. Let me know if you don't get it and I will try again.

If you don't take that distinction into account then you are just spouting irrelevant opinions that have no bearing.

hank

[Haiw]

Well I suppose to that last thing there's 3 (or 4) slices to the cake; a ceremony (whether in church, or not...), the symbolic value of being married (pretty much the main reason most hetero******s marry) and the economical / law side...

Of course we aren't argueing about ceremonies in church, as that is something the state has absolutely nothing to do with. Whatever you may think of it, the church's opinion on this matter has nothing to do with wether gay marriages are legal by law or not.

[hank]

Hey, you never heard me say polygamy is evil. For all I care you could have relationships with hundreds of women. As long as they're all fully consenting adults, who am I to stop them. About marrying them; I honestly don't really know, though like I said before; when you see marrying as the highest bonding of two people it kind of doesn't make sense for polygamy, no?

Anyway, IMO polygamy has nothing to do with homo******ity. Unless of course you'd want a polygamous homo****** marriage... ;)

If polygamy doesn't make sense to you, what make you think homo******ity makes sense to straight people?

Liberal: "We must open our minds and hearts to all people regardless of their ****** preference."

Liberal: "I see a polygamist couple. Let's go lynch that son of a bitch!"

Jack - just so we are clear on this - as I have written numerous times before - the analysis of the constitutional right to polygamy is very different from gay marriage b/c of the societal interest that is non-religiously based that justifies denying polygamy. Taht being said, I think that polygamy should be re-analyzed to try and see if there are still good reason. Health was always a cited reason for no polygamy - unhealthy in the Old West for men to have ongoing ****** relationships with numerous women - probably not true today.

But don't get it in your mind that the two ideas are synonymous - they are not. I'll explain again if I have to.

hank

[hank]

Everybody - the keys to debating this topic are twofold:

1) Think about the contrary ideas that are posted - look for merit and weakness and then respond. So much of what happens here is half-cocked and does not help.

2) Civility - name calling does not help

That is why I always appreciate Durandel and WARPIG. Even when we disagree I see that they have thought about it. Don't just midlessly spout someone else's idea. Come up wit hyour own and offer it honestly. if that happens we may learn - and ultimately if we don't want to learn from this thread then the exercise is in vain.

hank

[11F5S]

Please - everybody - try to differentiate between the ceremony in a church and the rights under the license, OK. My God I must have written about 1000 lines of text about that distinction and I am tired right now. Let me know if you don't get it and I will try again.

If you don't take that distinction into account then you are just spouting irrelevant opinions that have no bearing.

hank

There isn't anything I don't understand about the issue.

a. I didn't state an opinion...I simply posted one dictionary's definition of the word marriage.

b. I agree that we must to differentiate between civil law and religious custom. Civil law is the issue here not religion.

[hank]

Please - everybody - try to differentiate between the ceremony in a church and the rights under the license, OK. My God I must have written about 1000 lines of text about that distinction and I am tired right now. Let me know if you don't get it and I will try again.

If you don't take that distinction into account then you are just spouting irrelevant opinions that have no bearing.

hank

There isn't anything I don't understand about the issue.

a. I didn't state an opinion...I simply posted one dictionary's definition of the word marriage.

b. I agree that we must to differentiate between civil law and religious custom.

I did not mean to direct that comment at you 11F5S. Sorry if it came across that way. I only quoted you b/c you mentioned the definition of marriage and I think if you (collectively not individually) really understand the issue as it comes up the license and the rights associated are at stake. Nothing that happens in any court will force your (again collectively) church to marry two men. Seeing the distinction between the ceremony and the license is the first step.

hank

[Nawlins]

My major reservation regarding the legal issues of gay marriage is this: If we change the laws to allow gays to marry, then would it be fair or correct or even possible to keep polygamy and even more deviant (meaning different from the norm, not pathological) forms of marriage from being legal? Once you open that door, it's going to be awfully hard to shut it again.

check out the previous post on this. Deviant ****** behavior would not be affected from a legal perspective. Polygamy is a close call - but reality is probably not. Both, in all likelihood would not fit the exception carved out for civil union/gay marriage. I will haul out the reason why deviant ****** behavior will not work if you can't find it. Just let me know - pm or post the question later.

hank

I'm not saying it would be affected right away. But we would be effectively opening a door to change the definition of marriage. Once you change it from a man and a woman to just two people, who's to say you can't change it again, to more than two people, or two people in the same family, and on and on.... I don't think the original exception for gay marriage would include these either, but there's no way to know what other exceptions would be pushed for in the future.

[James]

I don't feel that homos can do any damage to the institute of marriage that hasn't been done already... How many marriages between breeders end in divorce these days? 50% or more?

Many of you probably don't see gay marriage as a right or a freedom, but I do - two consenting adults making a choice to be legally committed to each other for the rest of their lives. I am not at all comfortable with the notion of passing a law that restricts a right from a designated part of our population. It is kind of the flip side to what I've read here re: polygamy. From this perspective, what's to stop us from taking the vote away from women, making blacks 3/5 again, etc. Granted, it's outlandish, but I think it is another slippery slope.

[hank]

My major reservation regarding the legal issues of gay marriage is this: If we change the laws to allow gays to marry, then would it be fair or correct or even possible to keep polygamy and even more deviant (meaning different from the norm, not pathological) forms of marriage from being legal? Once you open that door, it's going to be awfully hard to shut it again.

check out the previous post on this. Deviant ****** behavior would not be affected from a legal perspective. Polygamy is a close call - but reality is probably not. Both, in all likelihood would not fit the exception carved out for civil union/gay marriage. I will haul out the reason why deviant ****** behavior will not work if you can't find it. Just let me know - pm or post the question later.

hank

I'm not saying it would be affected right away. But we would be effectively opening a door to change the definition of marriage. Once you change it from a man and a woman to just two people, who's to say you can't change it again, to more than two people, or two people in the same family, and on and on.... I don't think the original exception for gay marriage would include these either, but there's no way to know what other exceptions would be pushed for in the future.

There is a good answer to that and I am going to direct you to the previous post for this. Slippery slope arguments are not really the way to go in a constitutional setting b/c the issue is competing interests. Once you have competing interests where the state's interest is valid (i.e. protecting children for pedophiles who want to "marry" children and society's interest in not allowing one man to hae more than one wife for health, safety, and many other reasons that have been put forth - these are just two examples) then the state may regulate as it sees fit.

Alos - the question is not opening the door in a constitutional setting - b/c no new law is created - just something that has not gone unchallenged before is now challenged - just like slavery was always unconstitutional if gays get the right to get the marriage it means it was always there and just not challenged.

Very different from passign a law that legalizes previously illegal behavior. I had a long post about this in the previous thread.

hank

[Nawlins]

My major reservation regarding the legal issues of gay marriage is this: If we change the laws to allow gays to marry, then would it be fair or correct or even possible to keep polygamy and even more deviant (meaning different from the norm, not pathological) forms of marriage from being legal? Once you open that door, it's going to be awfully hard to shut it again.

check out the previous post on this. Deviant ****** behavior would not be affected from a legal perspective. Polygamy is a close call - but reality is probably not. Both, in all likelihood would not fit the exception carved out for civil union/gay marriage. I will haul out the reason why deviant ****** behavior will not work if you can't find it. Just let me know - pm or post the question later.

hank

I'm not saying it would be affected right away. But we would be effectively opening a door to change the definition of marriage. Once you change it from a man and a woman to just two people, who's to say you can't change it again, to more than two people, or two people in the same family, and on and on.... I don't think the original exception for gay marriage would include these either, but there's no way to know what other exceptions would be pushed for in the future.

There is a good answer to that and I am going to direct you to the previous post for this. Slippery slope arguments are not really the way to go in a constitutional setting b/c the issue is competing interests. Once you have competing interests where the state's interest is valid (i.e. protecting children for pedophiles who want to "marry" children and society's interest in not allowing one man to hae more than one wife for health, safety, and many other reasons that have been put forth - these are just two examples) then the state may regulate as it sees fit.

Alos - the question is not opening the door in a constitutional setting - b/c no new law is created - just something that has not gone unchallenged before is now challenged - just like slavery was always unconstitutional if gays get the right to get the marriage it means it was always there and just not challenged.

Very different from passign a law that legalizes previously illegal behavior. I had a long post about this in the previous thread.

hank

I'm sorry I haven't been around much and I don't know where your previous post is. That argument makes alot of sense though, thanks.

[Nawlins]

I don't feel that homos can do any damage to the institute of marriage that hasn't been done already... How many marriages between breeders end in divorce these days? 50% or more?


Sorry for the double post. Yes, the official stats say that 50% of marriages end in divorce. But those include people who have been married two or more times, who are much more likely to divorce than people who have only been married once. Divorce with first marriages is much lower, though I don't know the official stat. It's not quite as bad as the media makes it sound.

[WARPIG]

Because Jack, Polygamy involves 3 or more people, homo******ity involves 2 people only, just like in every couple? (if couple means 2 of course, English isn't my native language after all) And therefor you can't compare the two in anyway!

It could rather be compared by this: Couldn't 2 people from different religions get married? Or from different parts of the world?

And to you Warpig, do you really suggest that you CHOOSE to love? Do you have a wife? And if you do, are you going to tell me that you in your mind bought up a couple of girls/women and then decided = This one I'll love! Now did you?

If you did FALL in love with her, now what can even suggest that's not the case with homo******s? It's not something you _learn_ when you grow up?! How could it be that way??
Are you suggesting that I have become to learn that I will fall in love with blonde girls? 'Cus that's the way I've understood you. And I have as well learned to like/appreciate military stuff, politics?

No, that's what I've become to like. I've realized that this is what I like to do or to love. Sure you can learn, but you can't learn basic instincts, and that's what love is all about. It's an emotion triggered when you see something that is special to YOU.
It's like everything else, we are all special and we like our own special things!

I will disagree with you that it's something you can choose, because if so I would choose to be a real mastermind/brain right now, since that is something I can do. I'm in NO way hindered by my genes or anything :roll:

It is kind of obvious that your speaking from a little bit of disinformation friend. I have a fiance'.. as I have mentioned and you seemed to miss.. and I do love her. I am under the impression that we are soul mates and have loved her even before I met her. Yes.. I get that. Guess what.. she and I are a Christian couple. (figure out what that means) We fell in love without ***. My love for her and hers for me have nothing to do with ***.

I honestly get that there are some very meaningful relationships among gay couples. I never have nor will I ever allude or outright say that homo******s have less meaningful relationships than hetero******s. Whether homo or hetero, many relationships are based in ***. Some are fortunate not to be. As mine is. This is not a gay bashing post. This is about:
1. Legal/illegal same *** marriage
2. Whether homo******ity or any ****** orientation is a civil right protected under the law
and possibly 3. What homo******ity is

[WARPIG]

To Jack: Well, I provided a link so you all could see, and since I wanted to prove my case I took the example that was relevant, since we all know that a man and woman are allowed to marry, right?

To Hank: Well, I meant taste... I like blonde girls, and another guy maybe likes other guys. That was my point, but well...

****** taste, ****** preference, etc. Choice? Or was I born with an inherent instinct to like brunettes?

[WARPIG]

I am also thinking along the same lines as Nawlins. I don't feel threatened at all by same *** marriages but it does make sense that other types of "marriages" could be considered. Polygamy to start.
A few have posted varied definitions of the word marriage. Most english definitions in dictionarys still quote the "man and women" as the main def. but some have added " two persons" or something similar. Legal definitions, state by state, mostly define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. If this is what law makers are trying to change..I can see some controversy but not much in the way of fall out.
Hank's position of same *** marriage is that homo******s are looking claim civil rights as they are being pushed into civil unions instead of legal marriages. "seperate but equal" This is where the most damage could be done. I don't condone any inequality among men (women include of course) on the basis of race, gender, or religious preference. ****** preference is another thing entirely. Although religion is also a choice, it is fundamentally different than ****** orientation. For obvious reasons.
What is the bottom line? If we as Americans, feel strongly enough about homo******ity as being a protected right.. should we not include all ****** orientation? What about other rights? If I believe that I am hispanic in spirit, or black in my heart.. even though I am so white that it borders on being translucent.. do I also get to benefit from affirmative action? Does my personal business get the benefits that minority businesses do?

[hank]

A few have posted varied definitions of the word marriage. Most english definitions in dictionarys still quote the "man and women" as the main def. but some have added " two persons" or something similar. Legal definitions, state by state, mostly define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. If this is what law makers are trying to change..I can see some controversy but not much in the way of fall out.

Dude - you need to go to law school! You understand the framework better than 40% of UT's Class of 2004. It is only the details that give you any problem - and that being said you are at least consistent even if I disagree with you.

One thing about this expanding rights concern - consider the example you give. If you say you are "black woman inside" and I get to depose you for the lawsuit I will slay you and make you look crazy. There are fundamental issues about the plaintiff that occur b/f teh SC would ever even hear the case. I promise you that the SC would just deny cert for your example and it will never come up. But even if it did - the constition does not protect subjective beliefs about race - it protects race. In that case if I were defending it I would put you to your proof about your ethnic origin and when you could not do it - I would get that lawsuit dismissed.

Sometimes these "hard" cases like gay rights make people think that the legal system is out of whack - it is not. Meritless claims get dismissed everyday in every court in the USA. I can't remember the percentage - but it is very high. Something like 75 % or civil litigation never makes it to the judge ot jury b/c it gets dismissed or settled. That is b/c frivolous claims like your "think I'm black" example are just that - frivolous.

You ARE right about the fundamental difference b/w religious choice and *** choise b/c religion is one of the few enumerated rights in the con - the definition of fundamental - but omission of a potential right has never been a complate barrier to a right being classified as fundamental.

Maybe a fundamental area in which we disagree is the idea of choice of ****** preference. I don't think it is. You obviously do. Who is right? Only time will tell. But if ouy think about it in light of Roe v Wade and the right to privacy of you body then it is likely that it does not matter. That type of choice - even if it is a choice - is not a silly subjective classification like "I think I'm black" but a fundamental choice like "I don't want to have to raise this baby". Misguided or not - that is where the court is right now. IMHO that is the right place - even though I desagree with abortion in all circumstances.

The slippery slope thing that nawlins mentioned - does everybody understand that pedophilic marriage can neve be OK under the con? The state's duty to protect children incapable of consent willl ALWAYS win over anyone's desire to marry children. That analysis will only occur if it was foudn to be a right and it would likley never even get that classification. Without a "right" classification the state can ban it at will with no reason necessary.

hank

[WARPIG]

Thanks for the insight hank.
I do think my original analogy could hold water "if" ****** orientation is overtly given standing in civil rights. Let me reiterate. Let’s say I am typically white by birth. Perhaps mostly Irish or German. I grow up in a typically black neighborhood. From kindergarten to highschool, I associate, speak, act, and socialize with and like the typical black community. If you only speak to me on the phone, you would assume I was black. I even lose job opportunities because of how I appear and act. As I apply to admission to College, and apply for Federal Aide, would I have the right to apply as a black man? I don’t relate to caucasian society, and have not known any point in my life where I had a choice. I may not have been born black but was raised that way and live that way today.
I do get that there is the theory that says that homo******ity is not a learned behavior. I have yet to be convinced. (Despite Haiw’s meager attempts.) I am open to any credible study.
Perhaps I am looking at it in a polar way. When I think of it. There are many factors that contribute to hetero******ity. It would be rather naïve to attribute only one thing to homo******ity.
Social climate, natural instinct to procreate, religion, psychological and physical stimulus… all factors in hetero******ity. Homo must be equally complicated. The religious and natural instinct to procreate is obviously not there or at least very low in affect. I believe that besides the natural instinct to procreate, most hetero****** behavior is learned. We can go into it later.. I am still waiting for someone to speak on it intelligently.
I do have some idea of the details of law. At least in criminal or military law. I also understand that some cases are simply ridiculous. I think that the fictional scenario I use could have a platform if ****** orientation is considered a civil right. I definitely do not envy our lawmakers.

[hank]

Thanks for the insight hank.
I do think my original analogy could hold water "if" ****** orientation is overtly given standing in civil rights. Let me reiterate. Let’s say I am typically white by birth. Perhaps mostly Irish or German. I grow up in a typically black neighborhood. From kindergarten to highschool, I associate, speak, act, and socialize with and like the typical black community. If you only speak to me on the phone, you would assume I was black. I even lose job opportunities because of how I appear and act. As I apply to admission to College, and apply for Federal Aide, would I have the right to apply as a black man? I don’t relate to caucasian society, and have not known any point in my life where I had a choice. I may not have been born black but was raised that way and live that way today.

Ok - maybe this is where I have not effectively communicated the basis for my distinctions.

In the case you describe in this quote - neither the US con or Title VII or EP or any of that stuff would protect you. There is no prohibition against discrimination against behavior. If you don't like the way a black person acts - then you can say for that individual - I will not hire him. For example - if you run a clothing store that caters to older, affluent white professional men you may be justified in not hiring 50 cent to sell ties. If your reason is a blanket "he is black" then you will undoubetedly lose under the con or Title VII. If, however, you have a good lawyer ;) you will say that you did not hire him b/c in your business experience 50 cent would not effectively be able to sell the ties b/c 1) your clients do not like rappers - whether they be white or black rappers 2) 50 cent does not know anything about the clothes you sell and 3) it would unduly burden you to train 50 cent to sell the ties. You SHOULD win this lawsuit if 50 cent sues - b/c that is a racially neutral policy that would hare eminem as much as 50 cent. Ultimately I think you would - especially if you hire me to represent you!

Before you go find a case that will effectively refute what I just wrote - readth next paragraph for an explanation of why that clotheir might lose a discrim suit in a different factual situation.

Now - if you implement that policy for 100 years and in that time yoo hire no blacks - you could and and probable WOULD lose a different type of lawsuit called adisparate impact claim. Title VII, 42 USC 1381 + 1383, the con in the first 10 ams, and the 14th EP all prohibit disparate impact - so you could win against a state, a school, a private clothier, even the federal government itseld if you could prove that the otherwise facially neutral policy created invidious discrimination. These cases have typically been hard to win against small employers - but more successful against states (many southern state university systems operate under court orders - yes, TN + MS are examples) b/c they lost diaparate impact lawsuits. Memphis TN got its ass handed to it for a racially neuitral policy in hijring firefighters that made it nearly impossible for blacks to move up the ranks. Typically these employers lose b/c the policy is not directly related to job performance. For that reason I think the clotheir might still win but if he just sold clothes to everybody - like a Dillards - the nhe would probably lose the disparate impact lawsuit.

Don't confuse these two different animals of lawsuits. The problem with this idea that a white could sue b/c he acted black is that at a base level he is white and if the reason for hiring him is the behavior then he would not by necessity ever even get to the point where he could talk about not getting hired b/c of his actions. That person in the example would lose, meaning get his case dismissed before the defendant even had to answer the complaint. He would not meet the elements of a con or Title VII challenge - he is not in protected class. That is your argument against gays. But, even if you are right and he is protected he would not survive a motion to dismiss - he would lsoe b/c the employer in your example can legally not hire him for the way he acts. The only prohibition is racial discrimination against his race. Race is a fact that must be proved. He did not get hired b/c he acts like a thug rapper. Whether white or black that is a valid reason.

Also - understand that the basis for the assertion that gays want EP is not their behavior but the characteristic of being gay. B/c if the behavior was the basis - JUST the behavior - then you would undeniably be right.

Here is an example to think about.

If you run a *** club - assuming it is legal to run a *** club - and you decide that only man/women ******l *** partners can join then you may exclude two men who want butt ***. That is right b/c the behavior is the basis for membership. What you may not do, assuming I am right that gay as a characteristic is protected, is not deny the applicant to man the desk simply b/c he is gay. The answer must be this way b/c if he is gay but abstains from *** you have no behavior to discriminate against and if he is active ******ly the behavior has nothing to do with the job requirements of ansering the phone and greeting the hetero visitors.

hank

[WARPIG]

I think you misinterpreted my analogy hank. I know that "behavior" is not protected by civil rights or the con. Thanks for dumming it down for me though. ;) And that's fiddy cint by the way.

My premise was that most studies show that even though ******ity is not changeable it is a behavior. Homo******, hetero******, or bi******. It is a combination of biological and psychosocial affectors.
I have to officially concede my previous posts as ******ity being a choice. That was, of course, my opinion. I have recently re evaluated my opinion and realized that I cannot simply choose to be gay. In no stretch of the imagination would I be able to make a decision to choose *** with the same gender.
No credible research points to genetics as the cause of homo******ity. At the very best there is limited research that shows a possibility of genetic abnormality that creates a possiblity of homo****** propensity but the rest is based on psychosocial input. No different than hetero****** behavior.

This change in opinion does not effectivly change my belief in the legal status nor my position on whether same *** marriage should be legal. I do however feel that homo******s do have some credible arguement for civil rights protection. What will this cost? Perhaps a door opent to other "behavioral" protections by groups that feel discriminated against. Like my analogy, many people exhibit other human behaviors, ******, deviant, criminal, or otherwise.. I don't think we want to open that door.

[hank]

I think you misinterpreted my analogy hank. I know that "behavior" is not protected by civil rights or the con. Thanks for dumming it down for me though. ;) And that's fiddy cint by the way.

My premise was that most studies show that even though ******ity is not changeable it is a behavior. Homo******, hetero******, or bi******. It is a combination of biological and psychosocial affectors.
I have to officially concede my previous posts as ******ity being a choice. That was, of course, my opinion. I have recently re evaluated my opinion and realized that I cannot simply choose to be gay. In no stretch of the imagination would I be able to make a decision to choose *** with the same gender.
No credible research points to genetics as the cause of homo******ity. At the very best there is limited research that shows a possibility of genetic abnormality that creates a possiblity of homo****** propensity but the rest is based on psychosocial input. No different than hetero****** behavior.

This change in opinion does not effectivly change my belief in the legal status nor my position on whether same *** marriage should be legal. I do however feel that homo******s do have some credible arguement for civil rights protection. What will this cost? Perhaps a door opent to other "behavioral" protections by groups that feel discriminated against. Like my analogy, many people exhibit other human behaviors, ******, deviant, criminal, or otherwise.. I don't think we want to open that door.

I can see that. At least you acknowledge that it is more than choice. I mean I don't know what it is b/c I ain't no genetecist but it has to be something more than choice - cause I, like you, COULD not make that choice.

It seems to me thought that the less choice and the more genetics it is the more it is like teh marginal handicaps. Think about ADHD in kids. The IDEA makes schools deal with ADHD kids in a way that is appropriate for them b/c the thought is that they can't help it. Well, that is only true in extreme cases. Some ADHD kids don't need different treatment they jsut need a pill and they are cool. Well, what is good for one must be good for the other. I realize that is different b/c it is kids and ed is not a fundamental right.

I guess my point it that once you are one the spectrum away from choice it gets harder and harder to differentiate, IMO.

I did not mean to dumb that down - but the white kid that thinks he is black CANNOT sue for racial discrim same as a black. Course in a lot of situations not getting hired b/c you are white would violate Title VII. Check out the Abercrombie case in the 9th Circuit for great ideas on that.

hank

[hank]

nawlins - check this out for more in depth on the deviant problem. We covered it well, I thought.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9158

hank