And what of Gay Marriages?

[MartialArtsChic]

It's my opinion that people are born gay. I did theater for 8 years and have numerous gay friends. Some have been together for 15 years or more.

The way I see it, if you're lucky enough to find someone to be by your side, laughing, loving and sharing for the rest of your life, who cares what the genders are.

As for gay marriages - sure, let 'em get married, have it recognized in every way.

 

[Arthur]

Gay marriage… interesting how much attention this has taken up in my life lately. I wouldn’t have expected it, after all how much does it affect me. Yet there is this part of me, and maybe it’s the same part of me that has attracted me to martial arts all my life, that has a huge issue with unfairness and abuse of power.


I just moved from Massachusetts, the state that put all this back in the news. The topic is certainly on our minds in this area… on all the talk radio shows, and generally all around the local water coolers.

Generally speaking if you wanted to paint me in a political corner you’d probably call me conservative. I believe in less government, I believe the money I earn is mine, I believe I have a right to buy and own a gun, and I place the concerns of my country above those of world opinion. However recently in regards to this issue I’ve found myself on the opposite of the debate. Separate and disparate from my friends and local talk show hosts.

I hear all around me how this court decision is “legislating from the bench”, how the decision will destroy the institution of marriage, and how its just plain silly. Its sad to me that I’ve heard these things from people I normally listen to because they have a good foundation in law, and make decisions based on facts and logic rather than emotions, religion or personal passions.

The fact is from a legal perspective Gay marriage is a given. Each state has a different constitution (and in theory states have rights, but the “civil” war might argue), and while they vary… the Massachusetts constitution has a very familiar relationship with the US constitution.

Which brings us to the issue of two different clauses … the “establishment clause” of the first amendment and the “equal protection” clause from the 14tth amendment.

The establishment clause is interesting, in that it talks about religion and society and government. This clause is often taken out of context in modern society. While we could argue specifics and interpretation for eons, basically it comes down to saying that the state shouldn’t be making religious laws to either engender or prohibit religion. Or to paraphrase government should stay out of the biz of religion.

And in this idea, we hit the first snag regarding “gay marriage”. If government should stay out of the biz of religion… it really has no right creating a state version of a Judeo-Christian ritual called marriage. The very idea of the state institution of marriage is basically un constitutional as it is a establishment of a state sanctioned religious institution.

Then we come to the 14th amendment… and the part often referred to as the “equal protection” clause. To paraphrase, this clause basically says that all citizens deserve the same rights as all other citizens.

A strict interpretation of the 14th amendment is probably the best argument for civil unions… if we only look at the “equal protection” part. However the full amendment speaks of limiting states rights in light of equality laws. This basically nullifies the federal defensive marriage act! So when you consider the federal mandate of the 14th amendment, along with the equal protection clause and the 1st amendment… it becomes apparent that from a legal standpoint… that outlawing gay marriage is unconstitutional.

From a legal standpoint, it would seem the Massachusetts Supreme Court did its job, and admirably so in face of fierce opposition.

From a religious standpoint there are two issues as I see it… one… we go back to the first amendment… the state has no biz making a religious judgment or law! And two.. as was mentioned above the catholic church not only condoned… but encouraged gay marriage for centuries. Yes they used that word, they had specific ceremonies and were fully invested in it!

For those that want to argue from a naturalist point of view… saying its just abnormal and wrong… might I point out that there deer population produces “gay” deer in direct proportion to the deer that can’t be fed in the local area. This is but one of many studied that shows that homosexuality has a direct impact on the positive viability of race. Its easy to look at procreation on the individual level… but m any social scientists will tell you… that society must be looked at as a whole, to understand its realities.

The realities is there are many biological, societal and other reasons for homosexuality, and the arguments made for hetero marriage equally apply to gay marriage. To other wise is to expose extreme ignorance and arrogance, IMO.

 

[Arthur]

PS

Did I mention that getting married by US law is a lot like eating in a "white only" restaurant!

think about it!

Arthur

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Gay deer?

Danged Gay deer should all be SHOT, if'n ya ask me.

For one to properly cook a venison steak, quick sear it on both sides to keep the juices in, and then slow cook it to taste.

THERE I GO AGAIN...jeez, you'd think I was complusive with food.
----------------------

Good post Arthur.

Something to note on the issue of conservatism versus liberalism- Most of us have our own line item veto when it comes to various issues. Our society tends to polarize politics. We MUST be one or the other, and to debate a topic...a single topic...defines us as to our political orientation. So the thinking goes, anyway.

Many of us are thus left with a hand wringing existential angst regarding our political stance in life. Witness, as example, my own views:

Am I a liberal, or a conservative? I believe in gun rights, ergo I'm a conservative. BUT, I'm pro-labor, so I must be a liberal. I believe in a strong national defense...mmm, must be conservative. I also believe in certain social programs for the poor and elderly. Jeez...I must be a liberal. NO WAIT...I believe in freedom of religion. I'm a conservative. I believe in freedom from religion...dang...I'm a liberal again. I'm very, very pro-law enforcement. Okay...okay...I'm really a conservative. Yet I'm for the legalization of marijuana. Whoa, duuuuude...I'm back to being a liberal, like, wow. I sing the National Anthem and stand at attention when the Marine Corps hymn is played at football games (and tell the idiot behind me to shut up or "I'll rip your lips off your face, freak" when he tells me "down in front")...yet I think a person should have the right to burn that flag in political protest...liberal. I believe child molesters should be hammered by the law. Conservative. I think Gays should have full rights. Liberal. I think Alan Colmes is a pencil neck wimp...like any good conservative. I think Sean Hannity is a bully...gotta be a liberal. I rather admire Donald Rumsfeld for his handling of the press...without doubt I'm a right wing neo-nazi. I think Ann Coulter is a fascist psychopath who probably dresses in chains and rubber and carries a whip on the weekends...man, I must be a bleeding heart.

I could never bring myself to shoot a deer, gay or not. I'm a Bambi advocating, tree hugging liberal.

If any ya'll shoot a deer...don't throw away its liver, heart or kidneys. Send them to me. I'll make orzo stuffing with red pepper, liver and fresh herbs, venison heart en mole, and kidneys with mushrooms and vermicelli.

Aw, crap. I'm so confused...no conservative eats THAT part of a deer. You're supposed to feed it to your dogs.

BACK TO THERAPY.


Regards,

Steve

 

[ABN]

Steve,
After your therapy session meet me at Starbucks for a latte, I'll bring my new issues of American Rifleman & Wine Spectator.

Arthur,
I agree with you in every aspect of your post.

I am a practicing Catholic and, like HHJH and Arthur, predominantly conservative in my political views. That being said I find myself wholeheartedly in favor of Gay marriage. I know many people who are gay and who have had "partnerships" for as long as I've been alive.

From a totally pragmatic and "conservative" standpoint, when I consider the contributions to society (and the tax base) they have made as artists, teachers, musicians, financial types, philanthropists, waiters, bartenders, or whatever, I think its rather discriminatory not to give these people the same rights, financial incentives, advantages, and protections, that their heterosexual contemporaries are allowed.

From an emotional perspective, I would like to see my gay friends accorded, the same recognition of commitment that their heterosexual contemporaries are afforded.

Personally I think the whole debate is fallacious and an attempt to superimpose the view of one group upon the whole. There are far greater things going on in the world that deserve our attention. All we would be doing is granting official recognition to something that has been taking place since the beginning of recorded history. Will it take some time to adjust? Absolutely but, to use Arthur's reference, it took people down south a little while to get used to seeing everybody use the same water fountain as well.

andy

 

[someguy]

People dhould learn the old saying.
Live and let live.
I think I dont really care what a person does for this debate so they should have equal rights. People aminly need to get over there fefars of diffrent people.

 

[MisterMike]

If it happens in the animal kingdom, is it "Love"? I didn't know animals could love. And if it isn't Love then isn't it just sexual urges? If so, then the same would have to apply to humans. Love and sex can be totally independant of each other.

It sounds to me that by some social practice homosexual acts have become a symbol of love between the same sex. But it's not something any other species does in the same way(because they cannot love).

As for the "gay gene" - I'm not convinced if some lab in the Netherlands makes a press release.

It's wrong, it's a defect and that's my belief. This just makes another reason to explain our morals and beliefs to our children before they're engrained by TV and public school systems.

BTW, it's also wrong to hate. (Just so I don't come off like some biggot)

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Love and sex can be totally independant of each other.

True. But we can not dictate to consenting adults that they have sexless love.

As for the "gay gene" - I'm not convinced if some lab in the Netherlands makes a press release.

What's your point? That science in the Netherlands is defective? Perhaps you require something more substantial?

Here's some other references, then:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=PubMed

That's about 177 Journal entries.

Here's a nice little slideshow:

http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/psychology/homosexuality/

In the slide show we find the following:

Pillard et al. (1981, 1982) discovered that when male probands reported other gay and lesbian relatives, they usually came from the maternal side of the family. This seemingly lends support to the idea that homosexuality is heritable, and may be connected to a region on the X chromosome (Pattatucci, 1998).

Males (genetic XY) who are unable to utilize testosterone normally are feminized, as are male babies whose mothers were subject to high dosages of estrogen while pregnant.

This research is supported by the earlier conclusions of Meyer & Bahlburg (1993) who proposed that high concentrations of androgenic hormones are required during the period of sexual differentiation of the brain to masculinize the neural substrate relevant to sexual orientation and neurocognitive function.

And lastly, we find this:

The etiology of homosexuality remains unclear, but the current literature and the vast majority of scholars in this field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice, that is, individuals no more choose to be homosexual than heterosexual.

---American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Adolescence

It's wrong, it's a defect and that's my belief. This just makes another reason to explain our morals and beliefs to our children before they're engrained by TV and public school systems.

Define "defect". Defect of character?

What would you do/say if your child came to you and admitted homosexuality? Who/what institution would you blame?

Regards,

Steve Scott

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by MisterMike

It's wrong, it's a defect and that's my belief. This just makes another reason to explain our morals and beliefs to our children before they're engrained by TV and public school systems.

BTW, it's also wrong to hate. (Just so I don't come off like some biggot)

MisterMike,

Hi, How are you?

I also would like to understand your comment about defect.

Is it your belief system that states this is a defect? A social Defect? A biological defect? A moral defect?

Could Homosexuality be a population control built into the species given a current conditions of the person or the mother during pregnancy? Could this population control be due to stress put on certain individuals that may or may not line up with geneitc traits that allow for this characteristic?


Is the Genetic Disorder of the Liver, called Gilbert's Syndrome a true disorder or is it a mutation or is it just a representation of certain genetic traits. Gilbert's is where the liver does not process the by products in the blood well, this makes the person have elevated Billirubins, most likely an enlarged liver do to working harder and more consistent, an enlarged spleen that is always working to also clean the blood. This also makes the person more suseptible to alcohol and processing it. Yet, this also means that the person's system is always on elevated alert and handles the common germ much more readily. The negative to this, is when they get sick they get really sick, since it had to over come the natural resistance of the system that others would have to ramp up to speed on.

So, some would call this a defect, others call it a syndrome, others cal it a genetic mutation. This is why I ask you for further clarification, to understand your point of view.

Thank You
:asian:

 

[arnisador]

Please, keep on topic--homosexual marriage.

Feel free to start another thread for related topics. I can move some posts from this thread to another if that would be desirable.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[michaeledward]

Thanks MisterMike for a dissenting opinion.

I was really quite surprised by how supportive of gay marriages the posters on this board are. As I mentioned earlier .... I am a very left leaning liberal type, and I expected much more of the opposing point of view.

Homosexuality, whether by nature or nurture or design or defect, is a minority state of being, therefore, will always have some who do not accept, respect, or endorse it. Fortuneately, we live in a society where one of the priciples we adhere to is that we will respect the rights of the minorities; and the minorities will in turn accept the results of the majority. When all of us act with good will, the society will, mostly, hold a correct attitude or at least be moving in a correct direction.

I really expected to hear more opposition on this post. I really respect MisterMike for being bluntly truthful about his opinion. So many of those commentators ... those voices on talk radio ... are couching their dissent in words that just don't ring true; "they are legislating from the bench", "the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman", "I just want everyone to be happy", "I want a marriage for my commune".

Each of those arguments have the stench of 'I need to present myself so that I am not prejudiced against xyz ... but there is no way in hell I want them moving in next door.'

Again, thank you MisterMike for your honesty. I respectfully disagree and hope that we can agree to disagree on this.

Peace - Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Arnisador,

I would suggest it isn't TOO much of a digression to discuss homosexual etiology briefly insofar as it impacts justification for Gay marriage.

Should it be proven, with reasonable satisfaction, that homosexuality is in fact biologically driven and not an issue of choice or immorality, then the stance against Gay marriages is badly weakened. Further, if that research I posted is valid, any discrimination against Gays is a profound injustice.

But we should not get too far off onto that topic, I agree. It was dealt with in another thread. Still, not all here posted to that thread before it was closed.

I would be more than happy to start another thread, or have you do so with the previous posts. The other thread shut down I believe because it got off topic or got too heated. Can we pick it back up? Do the mods decide that? I'm not clear on the rules.


Regards,

Steve

 

[freddrinkwine]

As a society we should support gay marriage. We should support two consenting adults that love eachother enough that they want to make a life comitment. We need to start intervening and saying wer'e not allowed to kill; not who wer'e not allowed to love. And for all the people talking about protecting the sanctity of marriage - look at the sad state of straight marriage: over 50% fail. And that doesn't mean the other 50% are good. The conservatives railing against gay marriage - look at them - their marriages are riddled with infidelity and every other perversion.
Get over it - gays have always been around - they always will be. Let them be and move on to things that actually matter. I am a happily married straight man and have no problem with gay people any more than people with red hair or people who like classical music or people who are Jewish or people who are black or people who are whatever.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
True. But we can not dictate to consenting adults that they have sexless love.



What's your point? That science in the Netherlands is defective? Perhaps you require something more substantial?

Here's some other references, then:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=PubMed

That's about 177 Journal entries.

Here's a nice little slideshow:

http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/psychology/homosexuality/

In the slide show we find the following:

Pillard et al. (1981, 1982) discovered that when male probands reported other gay and lesbian relatives, they usually came from the maternal side of the family. This seemingly lends support to the idea that homosexuality is heritable, and may be connected to a region on the X chromosome (Pattatucci, 1998).

Males (genetic XY) who are unable to utilize testosterone normally are feminized, as are male babies whose mothers were subject to high dosages of estrogen while pregnant.

This research is supported by the earlier conclusions of Meyer & Bahlburg (1993) who proposed that high concentrations of androgenic hormones are required during the period of sexual differentiation of the brain to masculinize the neural substrate relevant to sexual orientation and neurocognitive function.

And lastly, we find this:

The etiology of homosexuality remains unclear, but the current literature and the vast majority of scholars in this field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice, that is, individuals no more choose to be homosexual than heterosexual.

---American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Adolescence



Define "defect". Defect of character?

What would you do/say if your child came to you and admitted homosexuality? Who/what institution would you blame?

Regards,

Steve Scott

I'm not dictating anything, and I wouldn't call those conclusions any more "substantial"

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
MisterMike,

Hi, How are you?

I also would like to understand your comment about defect.

Is it your belief system that states this is a defect? A social Defect? A biological defect? A moral defect?

Could Homosexuality be a population control built into the species given a current conditions of the person or the mother during pregnancy? Could this population control be due to stress put on certain individuals that may or may not line up with geneitc traits that allow for this characteristic?


Is the Genetic Disorder of the Liver, called Gilbert's Syndrome a true disorder or is it a mutation or is it just a representation of certain genetic traits. Gilbert's is where the liver does not process the by products in the blood well, this makes the person have elevated Billirubins, most likely an enlarged liver do to working harder and more consistent, an enlarged spleen that is always working to also clean the blood. This also makes the person more suseptible to alcohol and processing it. Yet, this also means that the person's system is always on elevated alert and handles the common germ much more readily. The negative to this, is when they get sick they get really sick, since it had to over come the natural resistance of the system that others would have to ramp up to speed on.

So, some would call this a defect, others call it a syndrome, others cal it a genetic mutation. This is why I ask you for further clarification, to understand your point of view.

Thank You
:asian:

Hi Rich,

I guess I was leaning towards a mental/psychological defect. And defect shouldn't be taken as negative. Maybe it is something inheritable, but then, aren't some mental illnesses?

For you second question, I don't think it is some Darwinian thing where it is to ensure overpopulation doesn't happen.

It's something that has been around since the early ages. But the covenant of marriage was set up to be between a man and a woman. That's the spiritual aspect. What the state does is another thing. This was my original post wayyy up the thread.

If they want civil union, or whatever you want to call it, I think we are all protected under equal rights. Go for it.

Hospital visitations and all the rest of the things that should be afforded people who care about each other should be available.

It just that should the State throw the term marriage around it's a slap to those who really know where it was derrived from.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Thanks MisterMike for a dissenting opinion.

I was really quite surprised by how supportive of gay marriages the posters on this board are. As I mentioned earlier .... I am a very left leaning liberal type, and I expected much more of the opposing point of view.

Homosexuality, whether by nature or nurture or design or defect, is a minority state of being, therefore, will always have some who do not accept, respect, or endorse it. Fortuneately, we live in a society where one of the priciples we adhere to is that we will respect the rights of the minorities; and the minorities will in turn accept the results of the majority. When all of us act with good will, the society will, mostly, hold a correct attitude or at least be moving in a correct direction.

I really expected to hear more opposition on this post. I really respect MisterMike for being bluntly truthful about his opinion. So many of those commentators ... those voices on talk radio ... are couching their dissent in words that just don't ring true; "they are legislating from the bench", "the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman", "I just want everyone to be happy", "I want a marriage for my commune".

Each of those arguments have the stench of 'I need to present myself so that I am not prejudiced against xyz ... but there is no way in hell I want them moving in next door.'

Again, thank you MisterMike for your honesty. I respectfully disagree and hope that we can agree to disagree on this.

Peace - Mike

Hi Mike,

Those are good points you make. I see many fronts on this issue.

1. How it is being handled legislatively and judicially as you noted.

The Judicial branch is to interpret the law, not write it. But the exteemists know which courts to bring their cases to just for this reason.

2. How it is being introduced to our schools

For me, I have my own set of values, as does everyone else. As a parent it is my responsibility to pass these onto my children until they are able to make decisions for themselves. Hopefully things will stick, sometimes they don't. But we as parents do our best. Now more than ever we have to compete with a lot of propaganda and outside influences to keep our kids out of trouble. Schools, TV, radio, internet. The list goes on. All of these are means by which the extremists(and there are some in every minority group) are using to push their agenda.

3. The issue of separation of church and state

As I stated in other posts. There's a difference between civil union and marriage to the informed. Call it what you want but more words are distorted every day.

I think it's all good for discussion and although I may have been blunt I certainly tried to articulate it with compassion.

Thanks,

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
The other thread shut down I believe because it got off topic or got too heated. Can we pick it back up?

Yes, I'll unlock that thread.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by MisterMike
Hi Rich,

Mike,

Thank You for the clarification. I was not trying to say you were wrong, only trying to understand your point.

Once again thank you for the reply
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

How, precisely, does anybody know how the, "covenant of marriage," was set up?

It's a real question: my guess would be that most of the folks on this thread are taking what they take to be the Biblical account of the institution--and that's exactly the problem. Last time I checked, none of us had the right to impose our religion, or our religiously-based ideas, on everybody else.

It's kinda like the dreaded abortion question: since this can only be settled in terms of faith and personal belief, the Court has basically said that we have no business making this choice for anybody but ourselves.

I still don't see why this is any of my beeswax. I understand that there are lots of folks who think that gay marriage undermines the family, threatens religious institutions, etc. etc.--but does it really do that more than the spectacle of Liza Minelli, MacCauley Culkin, Michael Jackson getting, "married?" That's legal and moral and family-enhancing, but gay marriage ain't?

I guess I assume that gay pople are just as dumb as straight ones, and have the right to act just as stupidly.

Next: the fantasy of being, "straight."

 

[MA-Caver]

My take on it all... gays are going to cohabitate no matter what. They want to have the term "Marriage" to be "legally" applied to their relationship. About 20 years ago I attended a lesbian wedding "ceremony" where the two lovers had exchanged vows of fidelity and love and bla bla bla and thus they called it marriage and co-habitated together.
Since they've been persicuted <sic> (a lot less now than before)they've been looking for equality. They're going to fight for it in the courts and they're going to win state by state over the next 15-20 years.
The Commonwealth of Mass, is breaking those barriers down. Texas helped with the removal of the anti-sodomy law and Vermont had it's hand as well as Hawaii and several other states of the union.
It's going to happen whether we like it or not. We can choose to live with it or face possible consenquences of our negativity.

The hardest states for the Gays to battle will be those of the "deep" south and Utah. It'll take a while but eventually those states will be forced to accept/legalize Gay marriages. The end result may not be pretty.

:asian: