The shameful gay marriage ban.

[west3man]

In the time it took to be rude, you could have linked to them or pasted them.

Getting ready to unsubscribe unless something worthwhile happens soon.

(Believe it or not ANOTHER CAR just had an accident in our driveway area.)

First, you might notice that you just said that to a different person. Secondly, you've clearly failed to actually read the stuff I've said otherwise you'd realize that not only did I challenge you to prove your case, I went ahead and restated many of my points.

By the way, the definition of bigotry isn't rooted in race-relations, as it turns out. It has more to do with obstinately holding tight to one's position despite overwhelming evidence. I'd say that fits more than one person in this thread.

Gonna scan one more time then probably unsubscribe, like I said.

I've concluded this is more about venting than anything else. I'll be back when and if that's something I need to do.

EDIT: Someone p.m. me or something if there's something you really want me to see. Peace.

[fly on the wall]

I don't personally think Greek myths should be considered particularly relevant to issues related to gay marriage.

On the other hand, there is every bit as much rational, logical ground for considering Greek myth as a basis for legal decision and social policy as there is for basing same on any modern religious doctrine - i.e., none at all.

Our social policies will always be effected by religious doctrine like Christmas celebrations will always be rife with paganism.

Now lets talk Ancient Greece.

The top dog city-state in Greece was Sparta who was ultra-gay. Most of the other Greek city states had varying levels of permissiveness toward gays. It makes sense because their "God the Father" (Zeus) was what we would call a pedophile. We've even got a moon (of Jupiter) named after Zeus's 'victim' (Ganymede).

The Greeks had no concept of 'Gay Marriage', because they saw child-bearing as a civic duty. The notion of grown men marrying each other would not have gone over in Ancient Greece. 'Gay Marriage' appears to be something new, at least legally. I don't know if any society has ever had Gay Marriage before, as obvious as it seems to us. Perhaps gays have been forming secret monogamous partnerships for many centuries.

The Athenians (and most Greeks) allowed adult males to have sex with teen-age males, as young as 13. But you weren't supposed to continue your affair after they grew older. It's a shame that Michael Jackson wasn't born in Ancient Athens. He'd have fit right in.

The Ancient Jews are responsible for the most of the gay-hating in the world although I've heard that every Major religion is anti-gay. Still homophobia of Christianity and Islam comes directly from the Ancient Jews.

Whenever we are busy saying anti-religious, anti-christian and anti-Islamic comments about the spread of homophobia, we should also point our fingers at the Jews, to be fair.

If you are in the mood to attack religion or religious groups, which sometimes we are.

[Crowley]

That's pretty funny coming from you.

The truth is I've just come to realize that I'm in a duel with an unarmed man. Hardly sporting.
Really?

I've directly addressed your points... you've dodged every single one of mine.

You reached in nearly every direction to smokescreen the real discussion here, global human rights, age of consent, polyamorous marriages, bestiality.

it's not that I'm unarmed... it's that you continue to use smokescreens

[Ian Boothby]

Getting ready to unsubscribe unless something worthwhile happens soon.

(Believe it or not ANOTHER CAR just had an accident in our driveway area.)

First, you might notice that you just said that to a different person. Secondly, you've clearly failed to actually read the stuff I've said otherwise you'd realize that not only did I challenge you to prove your case, I went ahead and restated many of my points.

.


Okay I thought you were a couple for some reason. Made an assumption and so I am an ass according to the old saw. Apologies.

Here's me proving my case...

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".

Gay folks should then by your own Declaration of Independance, have the same rights as straights. It doesn't say that all men shall be equal but c'mon people let's give it some time for folks to come around and in the meantime all men shall be equal except for those that shall have similar rights.

So gay marriage is a self evident right. Frankly that means I don't have to prove it. It is self evident.

Now what's your argument? And if you choose not to repeat it, link to it or cut and paste it here then I don't believe you have one.

[Crowley]

Our social policies will always be effected by religious doctrine like Christmas celebrations will always be rife with paganism.

Now lets talk Ancient Greece.

The top dog city-state in Greece was Sparta who was ultra-gay. Most of the other Greek city states had varying levels of permissiveness toward gays. It makes sense because their "God the Father" (Zeus) was what we would call a pedophile. We've even got a moon (of Jupiter) named after Zeus's 'victim' (Ganymede).

The Greeks had no concept of 'Gay Marriage', because they saw child-bearing as a civic duty. The notion of grown men marrying each other would not have gone over in Ancient Greece. 'Gay Marriage' appears to be something new, at least legally. I don't know if any society has ever had Gay Marriage before, as obvious as it seems to us. Perhaps gays have been forming secret monogamous partnerships for many centuries.

The Athenians (and most Greeks) allowed adult males to have sex with teen-age males, as young as 13. But you weren't supposed to continue your affair after they grew older. It's a shame that Michael Jackson wasn't born in Ancient Athens. He'd have fit right in.

The Ancient Jews are responsible for the most of the gay-hating in the world although I've heard that every Major religion is anti-gay. Still homophobia of Christianity and Islam comes directly from the Ancient Jews.

Whenever we are busy saying anti-religious, anti-christian and anti-Islamic comments about the spread of homophobia, we should also point our fingers at the Jews, to be fair.

If you are in the mood to attack religion or religious groups, which sometimes we are.
:rolleyes:

Ridiculous.

by that rational we should blame all christians for the holocaust, and if you want to play that game we could blame all christians for the crusades which is one of the reasons the Middle East hates us so.

Blame gets us nowhere, especially trying to blame ancient religions for situations in the 21st century.

Let's focus on the issue, enough smokescreens.

[the4thpip]

Oh please, the old testament had a steamy gay love story in it:

1 Samuel 18:1
...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself.

1 Samuel 18:3-4
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.


4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that [was] upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

1 Samuel 20:41
After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most.

2 Samuel 1:26
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

[Crowley]

http://www.rumela.com/albums/paris_hilton/paris_hilton00.jpg

that's hot.

[venuscameback]

There are probably other issues. We don't need to address every single one to support the point that all arguments against gay marriage are not necessarily based in hate.

I'd like to chime in here and say that no, not every single opponent of gay marriage will hold those views through hate. I'm sure quite a few hold views born of ignorance, too. and other reasons.


The problem is that for many people who agree with gay marriage, most of the people they encounter who strongly disagree with them are quick to show their hate for homosexuality par se; and many of those who claim to be opposed to gay marriage for non-hate reasons often seem to be using issues such as childcare or adoption as a disguise, as a euphemism for their hate. As if it's not acceptable for them to say "we don't want them gays to have any rights, nevemrind equal rights" so instead they say "it's a slippery slope ... think of the children!" and allude to and hint at hatred witohut directly speaking it. those who share that hate quickly pick up on the subtext of what they're saying - and so do those who support gay marriage and gay rights.


I'll grant you, west3man, that not every opponent of gay marriage is filled with or fuelled by hate. but almost every single one that i've encountered is, leading to such generalisations. Happy now?

I also don't recall seeing any public figure who argues against gay marriage who has simulataneously argued for gay rights in general. Which adds to my thinking that arguments over childcare and custody issues like west3man raised are usually smokescreens for more bigoted reasons.


DLW

[venuscameback]

Some parallels between gay marriage legal issues now and that of Blacks in America during and post-slavery are a valid. There are similarities. I don't want to just dismiss it as if it has zero merit. Otherwise, I'd be doing what I'm warning others against.

"All men are created equal" trumps "3/5 of a man," in my opinion. The legal ammunition was already there. We just needed to strike a direct hit.


this brings us back to legal and dictionary definitions ...


those who supported slavery and disenfranchisement for blacks didn't think they were men. they thought they were 3/5 of a man. Their definition of "men" didn't include blacks. UIt's not so long ago we had mainstream commentators explaining that blacks were actually a completely different species & having that view respected.


one of the ways that the black franchise was achieved was to change people's minds as to the definiton of "men" so that it became the concensus that it included all skin colours.


just as the definition of marriage needs changing to "two adults" instead of "a man and a woman". it's the same process, or at least has striking parallels.


DLW

[Samurai]

those who supported slavery and disenfranchisement for blacks didn't think they were men. they thought they were 3/5 of a man.

DLW
Just wanted to correct this common historical misconception... the issue was this: Since population of a state determines how many representatives a state gets, should slaves be counted as people in the population statistics? The northern states wanted slaves to not count at all, as this would give them a clear majority in the House. Southern states, where the slaves lived, wanted the slaves to count for 100% of a person, as this would give the south a majority in the House. It was finally agreed that they would count as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining members of the House of Representatives, as this would make the balance in the house pretty even between north and south. So ironically, it was the south that pushed for their slaves to be counted as full people, and the north that wanted them to not count at all!

[Pixies Chick]

Just wanted to correct this common historical misconception... the issue was this: Since population of a state determines how many representatives a state gets, should slaves be counted as people in the population statistics? The northern states wanted slaves to not count at all, as this would give them a clear majority in the House. Southern states, where the slaves lived, wanted the slaves to count for 100% of a person, as this would give the south a majority in the House. It was finally agreed that they would count as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining members of the House of Representatives, as this would make the balance in the house pretty even between north and south. So ironically, it was the south that pushed for their slaves to be counted as full people, and the north that wanted them to not count at all!

Samurai, what northern and southern states are you talking about?

[Samurai]

Samurai, what northern and southern states are you talking about?
The colonies in 1787...

You can read more about the compromise here:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/006049.html
http://projects.edtech.sandi.net/roosevelt/constitution/virginiaplan.htm
The southern states wanted to count the slaves as population for representation. The northern states did'nt want the slaves to count if they had no rights as citizens. They thought this would give the South an unfair advantage in votes taken in the House of Representatives. Finally the two sides reached a compromise. The slaves would count as 3/5 of a person for representation to the House of Representatives
http://www.teachingcompany.com/cp4/MDHickey.html

For representation and taxation, there was the "3/5th compromise". This compromise was widely misunderstood by the public. Many people think that it was that Blacks were considered to be 3/5th human, which is not at all true. The decision was solely for the purpose of taxation and representation. Since it was decided that slaves would be counted in the census for the purpose of taxation, Southerners wanted their slaves counted in the opportunity of representation also. Northerners felt that counting the slaves for the number of state members to the House of Representatives would provide an unfair advantage to the slave states, where 90% of the slaves were located. In order to suffice both the North and South, a compromise was made where in Blacks were counted as 3/5th of a person towards taxation and representation.
http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/552/The_ThreeFifths_compromise

The issue of how to count slaves split the delegates into two orders. The northerners regarded slaves as property who should receive no representation. Southerners demanded that blacks be counted equally with whites. The compromise clearly reflected the strength of the pro-slavery forces at the convention. The “Three-fifths Compromise” allowed a state to count three fifths of each black person in determining political representation in the House.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yep, Sam is correct about this. The North didn't want slaves counted, but the South realized they'd be horribly outnumbered in the House if slaves weren't counted, so the 3/5 compromise was created. Neither side showed any concern for blacks in said decision.

[Adam Crocker]

Disregard. Brain fart.

[venuscameback]

Yep, Sam is correct about this. The North didn't want slaves counted, but the South realized they'd be horribly outnumbered in the House if slaves weren't counted, so the 3/5 compromise was created. Neither side showed any concern for blacks in said decision.

although my knowledge of ther historical detail proved lacking, the underlying point remains accurate.

Which is that although the constitution effectively said and says that all men are equal in the eyes of the law, that was swiftly set aside for some categories of folk, in this case slaves. The States decided to make slaves an exemption from the all men are equal rule, which is in effect changing the definition of what "men" is, byt defining slaves as something other, inequal and inferior to that.

DLW

[venuscameback]

I was asked in a couple of posts a few pages back how Atoning influenced my change of position from supporting civil relationships but feeling awkward about using the words "gay marriage" to coming round to supporting gay marriage full stop.

lots was said about the merits of both the hammer and the stick but without checking exactly what it was that caused the change. Some said "his mind wasn't changed by yelling at him and trying to shame him, it was changed by eloquent arguments. so the stick fails". The truth is more complex.

When I first discussed this with Atoning, I thought I had come to a reasonable and fair position that said that couples who were married in a Church and took vows before God could use the word married - including gay couples who marry in the Churches that do support gay marriage - and those who preferred a civil wedding service - gay or straight couples - could call themselves lifetime partners in a civil partnership. with equal benefits.

I thought this a fair and sensible and fairly liberal suggestion, in line with my fairly liberal views. Atoning and I discussed this a little but in the end he was clearly not in agreement and while I don't recall the specific words he used (maybe I have the e-mails to check) I was left feeling as though I'd been classified with the homophobic, nasty, small-minded bigots and my suggestions dismissed as something I should be ashamed of. I asked Atoning to explain what was so terrible about my suggestions, and he declined to do so, perhaps not realising that I was genuinely open to hearing and learning another perspective on the subject. I felt embarrassed and ashamed, and disappointed that my supposedly liberal views hadn't been met with approval.

big stick waved, although not fiercely so.

I thought little more about the subject until then reading this thread, still looking (but not actively searching) for an understanding of where the other side was coming from, trying to understand what was so unreasonable aobut my line of thinking.

Which eventually led me to this thread and to Atoning's post discussing the subject, which I found eloquent and persuasive. What really struck me was the importance of the word "marriage" to Atoning, both in the way that refusing to allow gay couples to use that word to describe themselves immediately sets them apart as different and unworthy but also in the wiggle room such a bill would leave bigots to then pass laws that discriminate against people who aren't married, or in possesion of the "marriage" word according to State law. I quickly saw in Atoning's post how some small and mean-minded folk would use such a law to pass legislation banning, for example, unmarried couples or civil partnership coules from adopting, or to minimise their adoption rights etc etc.

and I'm not prepared to surrender to them such power and an opportunity to completely change the spirit of what I was suggesting in the future without actively confronting the homophobia behind their desires - which is exactly what we saw happen in some the State propsals passed recently, where proposals to ban gay marriage but allow civil partnerships were campaigned against with the pretence that they were trying to ban gay marriage. which was never mentioned in the proposals.

So that's what changed for me - combination of being told my views were offensive and illiberal, followed by a constructive attempt to listen to what else there was to say on the subject. both carrot and stick.

but it's also important to note that I was already prepared to listen; there's no point in entering debate with folk whose minds are made up and who are not interested in listening or discussing.

As other posters have mentioned, most major moves to reform against prejudice have been the results of a combination of velvet gloves and big sticks. There's plenty of room for both.

DLW

[Pixies Chick]

The colonies in 1787...

You can read more about the compromise here:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/006049.html
http://projects.edtech.sandi.net/roosevelt/constitution/virginiaplan.htm

http://www.teachingcompany.com/cp4/MDHickey.html


http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/552/The_ThreeFifths_compromise

Gotcha. Yes, the White southern males wanted the population of all the people they owned to be included in determining how much power they (the White males) had in the U.S. House.

I was a little thrown off by the "North" and "South" reference, since I remember hearing about the thirteen colonies in three separate groups - northern (mainly puritan), mid-Atlantic, and southern. They just describe them as north and south now?

[Phoney Bone]

Forgive me if this has already been touched on...

The way I see it, the institution of marriage has already been turned into a big joke among movie, television, and music stars; politicians; and ordinary people. When two people, no matter what sexual orientation, love each and are COMMITED to each other (by that I mean a life-long commitment, not just a few months or years), forsaking everybody else, then I'm all for it.

I think it should be even harder for any couple to get married. I'm talking blood tests, counceling, miles and miles of red tape. The couples who are truly commited to each other will stick it through, regardless of their lifestyle.

[the4thpip]

Forgive me if this has already been touched on...

The way I see it, the institution of marriage has already been turned into a big joke among movie, television, and music stars; politicians; and ordinary people. When two people, no matter what sexual orientation, love each and are COMMITED to each other (by that I mean a life-long commitment, not just a few months or years), forsaking everybody else, then I'm all for it.

I think it should be even harder for any couple to get married. I'm talking blood tests, counceling, miles and miles of red tape. The couples who are truly commited to each other will stick it through, regardless of their lifestyle.
It's what Huey meant in Boondocks when he asked "how could a gay marriage be any less legitimate than a Jennifer Lopez marriage?"

Or maybe that was Cesar.

[For the Good of X]

I've GOTTA ask, then... Do you think it's not a big deal?
Well, it's a big deal for me, but not as big a deal as many are making it out to be. I don't understand how it's a big deal to people on whose lives it would have no effect. It's marriage. I think that ranks well below things like war, famine, disease, taxes, jobs, health care, etc. It's a social event and a legal contract and a spiritual union, but if you don't have a marriage you still have to deal/think about/ponder the above examples (and other things) nonetheless.

[Pixies Chick]

Forgive me if this has already been touched on...

The way I see it, the institution of marriage has already been turned into a big joke among movie, television, and music stars; politicians; and ordinary people.

You know, I hear this complaint too, but I don't believe it. I just watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and it's a very pro-commitment story. The Incredibles, and even True Lies, were very pro-marriage, as were tons of other films.

People are more apt to get divorced than in the past, but movies, TV - I'd be willing to bet that the divorce rate of TV characters is lower than the rate for the American public. Actors and actresses (real people) may have higher rates than average.

[Ian Boothby]

The Incredibles is an odd kid's film in that neither of the parents are dead. Very rare.

[howyadoin]

Well, it's a big deal for me, but not as big a deal as many are making it out to be. I don't understand how it's a big deal to people on whose lives it would have no effect. It's marriage.This is the part a lot of people don't get - if you give your government the right to discriminate against a group, you establish a dangerous precedent and give them the right to discirminate against any group. Equal rights aren't any such thing unless we all have them.

Anybody remember this from WW2?

"In Germany, they first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up."

Class dismissed.

[Ian Boothby]

In Germany, they first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and I said, "What about the Muslims?" and they went, "Oh man we forgot about the Muslims" and then the truck was full up and everything worked out fine for me.

[mgs]

See, that's our point. The core opposition to gay marriage is really just bigotry. People don't like homosexuals, but they can't come out and say that, so they tell themselves (or other people) that they're doing it for tradition, or for Jesus, or whatever they need to say to make it palatable.yeah, i guess that's basically correct. btw, all my friends opposed to gay marriages and basically, voted for bush, were male. every girl I know voted for kerry. but, in keeping with the famous phrase, these guys and gals, with very strong, opposing feelings on the subject, are dating. :confused:

[Nick Soapdish]

In the time it took to be rude, you could have linked to them or pasted them.

It's kind of a long thread and I personally don't plan on reading through it again. He could be trying to avoid the same thing.

But I recall that one of them was for financial reasons. If gays are allowed to marry, the benefits that they get would cost the state, their employers, and insurance companies more money.

It sounds more like an excuse than a reason to me though. WHY are we willing to spend money and grant benefits to those in straight marriages and deny them to gays? I suppose that someone could be taking the position that any benefits that married people get are unfair so that they would prefer to see those benefits rolled back and certainly don't want those benefits expanded. I doubt that it's a majority position though, even among the confirmed bachelors and bachelorettes.

I don't remember any of the others, but I remember similar impressions of them.

[Ian Boothby]

It wasn't just me, other posters didn't know what he was referring to. And even if he didn't want to cut and paste or rewrite what he said before, a link to where on the board the comments were would have done fine.

And I agree with you that the scenario you mention is unfair.

[Evan Waters]

You know, I hear this complaint too, but I don't believe it. I just watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and it's a very pro-commitment story. The Incredibles, and even True Lies, were very pro-marriage, as were tons of other films.

People are more apt to get divorced than in the past, but movies, TV - I'd be willing to bet that the divorce rate of TV characters is lower than the rate for the American public. Actors and actresses (real people) may have higher rates than average.

I think that's what he was talking about- not characters, but actual celebrities having 22-hour marriages and the like. Of course, non-celebs have likely done the same, without us hearing about it.

[Phoney Bone]

I think that's what he was talking about- not characters, but actual celebrities having 22-hour marriages and the like. Of course, non-celebs have likely done the same, without us hearing about it.
Yeah..should have read "movie stars, television stars, and music stars..." My bad, Pix.

A lot of brain fartin' goin' around. :D But, I made extra sure to include non-celebrities as well. It was not my intent to put the blame on Hollywood.

Interesting historical note about "free" states and "slave" states:

The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to become a slave state when it was accepted into the Union; but, the state of Maine was created as a free state to keep the balance of political power. Also, that same document stated the slavery would be "prohibited" above the 36/30 parallel.

[Boldido]

It wasn't just me, other posters didn't know what he was referring to. And even if he didn't want to cut and paste or rewrite what he said before, a link to where on the board the comments were would have done fine.

And I agree with you that the scenario you mention is unfair.

Your original post essentially ordered another poster to go through thread and do your reading for you. It came across as superior and rude and was thoroughly deserving of the less than friendly treatment that it received.

To answer it directly, however, it was much quicker to point out that you haven't read all of the posts to which you were responding rather than comb through over eighty pages of posts. This was evident by the fact that your post came at the tail end of a discussion between West3man and Jeffrey about poly-amorous relationships which was started by the suggestion that some people feel that if we allow gay marraige, that it would open the door to the recognition of other less traditional relationships being legitimized and to the possible deterioration of the family structure via the dreaded "slippery slope". This isn't an argument I happen to agree with, but it did fit the category of a non-religious based argument against gay marraige that was being asked for.

[Phoney Bone]

yeah, i guess that's basically correct. btw, all my friends opposed to gay marriages and basically, voted for bush, were male. every girl I know voted for kerry. but, in keeping with the famous phrase, these guys and gals, with very strong, opposing feelings on the subject, are dating. :confused:
Yep...we have that phenomenon here as well. :D

I look at it this way, if a conservative like Mary Matlin and a liberal like James Carville can stay married to each other for so long and raise a family, ANY two adults who are truly comitted to each other can.

It just goes to show that love goes well beyond political beliefs. And that is a wonderful thing.

(sniff)

[Ian Boothby]

To answer it directly, however, it was much quicker to point out that you haven't read all of the posts to which you were responding rather than comb through over eighty pages of posts. This was evident by the fact that your post came at the tail end of a discussion between West3man and Jeffrey about poly-amorous relationships which was started by the suggestion that some people feel that if we allow gay marraige, that it would open the door to the recognition of other less traditional relationships being legitimized and to the possible deterioration of the family structure via the dreaded "slippery slope". This isn't an argument I happen to agree with, but it did fit the category of a non-religious based argument against gay marraige that was being asked for.

Okay, that's two non religious arguments. It would cost more $ and it might lead to polygamy. The polygamy post off on its own tangent and frankly I forgot that it was connected to gay marriage. Both examples don't hold water but at least they don't involve religion.

I read all the posts when they first came up but I can't remember all 1280 of them by heart so when you (or West3man) says "I talked about this before" gimme some kind of map as to where the post is. And if I remember correctly he also said that he wrote about this on another thread and didn't want to go over it again here. So I'm supposed to track those posts down too?

Basically he said that he'd made the posts before but couldn't be bothered to say when or where. Then you both got snarky when people asked to see these posts.

I am a bit short and maybe rude when it comes to this topic because I'm angry at the way the vote went and I honestly would love a real logical reason when good decent folk would have voted that way. But when I ask I'm told the answer is obvious or that they're too busy to tell me. Then when I pursue them on it they get angry.

It's the same angry people get when they're caught in a fib. "What? Are you calling me a liar? Why I've never been so offended!".

[Boldido]

I am a bit short and maybe rude when it comes to this topic because I'm angry at the way the vote went and I honestly would love a real logical reason when good decent folk would have voted that way. But when I ask I'm told the answer is obvious or that they're too busy to tell me. Then when I pursue them on it they get angry.

It's the same angry people get when they're caught in a fib. "What? Are you calling me a liar? Why I've never been so offended!".

I'm pretty pissed about the way the vote went too, Ian. I also want you to know that I don't buy any of the religious or non-religious reasons opposing gay marraige. The sole purpose of my posts were to try to illustrate that not all opposition to gay marraige stems from hatred. I agree with many here who say that if it doesn't stem from hatred then it probably comes from ignorance. I have yet to encounter the argument against gay marraige that can withstand the light of reason. When I suggested civil unions, I did so as a stepping stone to the ultimate goal, marraige and adoption rights.

I also wrote a lengthy post to Tom that my 4 year old deleted. It basically said that I am not oblivious to the idea that what I'd like to see the gay community do is extremely difficult and borderline offensive to ask. I am suggesting they not show hatred or anger to a group of people that are passing legislation that hurts them, badly. I believe that the more people who come out, the greater the likelihood is that someone opposed to gay marraige now, will change his mind later once he realizes that gays aren't the negative stereotypes that the christian right puts in their propaganda videos, but rather, their brothers and friends and people close to them. By being open and non-offensive toward them while they come to see this truth, it may make their change come sooner.

I also think that there is something to be said for Kramer's carrot and stick argument.

[Ian Boothby]

I wish I could believe that but I don't see how homosexuality being even more out in the open will change anyone's mind. It's out there but people make the choice not to see the facts. They choose ignorance because it's more confortable. So making the ignorant more comfortable with their ignorance doesn't seem to be a strong path, in fact it seems dangerous.

It's okay to shame people when they do something shamefull and as this thread states the gay vote was just that. When you shame someone you get them angry and defensive but that's okay, because then they have to defend their views and since they don't have a defence it outs them as ignorant. I'm in favor of that kind of outing.

I can't see any civil right from the past that would have been better served by waiting it out and letting things change at their own pace. I'm not for violence but I am for anger in the right place and this is the right place.

[Tom]

I also wrote a lengthy post to Tom that my 4 year old deleted. It basically said that I am not oblivious to the idea that what I'd like to see the gay community do is extremely difficult and borderline offensive to ask. I am suggesting they not show hatred or anger to a group of people that are passing legislation that hurts them, badly. I believe that the more people who come out, the greater the likelihood is that someone opposed to gay marraige now, will change his mind later once he realizes that gays aren't the negative stereotypes that the christian right puts in their propaganda videos, but rather, their brothers and friends and people close to them. By being open and non-offensive toward them while they come to see this truth, it may make their change come sooner.
Where is this hatred and anger you're seeing from the gay community?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I also wrote a lengthy post to Tom that my 4 year old deleted. It basically said that I am not oblivious to the idea that what I'd like to see the gay community do is extremely difficult and borderline offensive to ask. I am suggesting they not show hatred or anger to a group of people that are passing legislation that hurts them, badly. I believe that the more people who come out, the greater the likelihood is that someone opposed to gay marraige now, will change his mind later once he realizes that gays aren't the negative stereotypes that the christian right puts in their propaganda videos, but rather, their brothers and friends and people close to them. By being open and non-offensive toward them while they come to see this truth, it may make their change come sooner.

I also think that there is something to be said for Kramer's carrot and stick argument.

Roger, I think the reasoning behind my argument shows why your suggestion, while well-meaning, is not very viable.

Consider, if you will, the history of the Civil Rights movement. From the end of Reconstruction until the late 1950s, black rights in this country went essentially *nowhere*, despite nearly a century of blacks being civil, cordial and patient (in part because they continued to face the very real risk of being lynched, firebombed, etc.). Only when the protests started did *any* progress occur... and when the first militant civil rights folk started up, the process *really* moved forward in terms of the decision-makers starting to openly back the goals of the mainstream civil rights movement.

[Melissa]

I wish I could believe that but I don't see how homosexuality being even more out in the open will change anyone's mind. It's out there but people make the choice not to see the facts. They choose ignorance because it's more confortable. So making the ignorant more comfortable with their ignorance doesn't seem to be a strong path, in fact it seems dangerous.

It's okay to shame people when they do something shamefull and as this thread states the gay vote was just that. When you shame someone you get them angry and defensive but that's okay, because then they have to defend their views and since they don't have a defence it outs them as ignorant. I'm in favor of that kind of outing.

I can't see any civil right from the past that would have been better served by waiting it out and letting things change at their own pace. I'm not for violence but I am for anger in the right place and this is the right place.

I'm agreeing here. Every March we have the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, a parade down Oxford Street in Sydney. Always gets TV coverage (mainly due to the likelihood of seeing topless girls on bikes) and huge ratings. Yet, in a way it keeps us as a circus oddity, performing for the straights.

We're out already. They know we're here. We're all over the TV. Ignorance in this instance is a choice.

[stealthwise]

I'm agreeing here. Every March we have the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, a parade down Oxford Street in Sydney. Always gets TV coverage (mainly due to the likelihood of seeing topless girls on bikes) and huge ratings. Yet, in a way it keeps us as a circus oddity, performing for the straights.

We're out already. They know we're here. We're all over the TV. Ignorance in this instance is a choice.

TV is one thing.

However, I believe that I have met two openly gay people in my entire life. There have probably more who weren't "out" (or I was just unaware that they were). It's not as common as one might think, particularly in a lot of isolated regions throughout North America.

Not that I disagree with what you guys are saying (just in case you haven't hit some of my earlier posts in this thread).

[Noah Johnson]

However, I believe that I have met two openly gay people in my entire life. There have probably more who weren't "out" (or I was just unaware that they were). It's not as common as one might think, particularly in a lot of isolated regions throughout North America.

I see where you're coming from here, but then I remember a great quote from one of the players on Mike Piazza's team when Piazza's sexuality was being discussed. Reporters asked this guy "Tell me, how does it feel to have a gay teammate?" He said, "Look, guys, I've been playing ball for quite a while now, on several different teams. I've probably had a couple hundred teammates over the years. So I've already had gay teammates, most likely. Never bugged me before."

That's a total approximation, but still. Great sentiment.

[Pixies Chick]

I see where you're coming from here, but then I remember a great quote from one of the players on Mike Piazza's team when Piazza's sexuality was being discussed. Reporters asked this guy "Tell me, how does it feel to have a gay teammate?" He said, "Look, guys, I've been playing ball for quite a while now, on several different teams. I've probably had a couple hundred teammates over the years. So I've already had gay teammates, most likely. Never bugged me before."

That's a total approximation, but still. Great sentiment.

Statistically, makes sense to me.

Atrios posted this yesterday:

In 1999, the GAO prepared a report listing all of the rights and benefits of civil marriage. They came up with 1,049 of them. http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf You can read their list here.


Here's a shorter list. Obviously, if gay people had these rights civilization would end.

I've bolded a few of the ones which aren't explicitly financial and which would be difficult or impossible to establish by private contract.


Marriage Rights and Benefits
Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life.

Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family. http://atrios.blogspot.com/

And a big cookie to anybody who made it to the bottom: scroll up on Atrios to see Bush's tighty-whiteys.

[Nick Soapdish]

:eek: Nice picture.

And here's (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1505&ncid=1505&e=1&u=/afp/20041123/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyle_us_gays_041123172604) an example of why those rights are important (although in this case, it's referring to a civil union).

[mmurphy1968]

What?! LOL Gays and lesbians are just as capable of procreating as heterosexuals, the difference being that they don't partner up with people of the opposite sex. However, many queer folks are parents, and could benefit enormously from legal recognitions of civil unions. I've personally known people who went through Hell trying to maintain custody of their kids in battles with vengeful ex-spouses. The insistence on rigid definitions of "family" is what the supporters of gay marriage want to challenge, not the privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Um, no they are not able to procreate. That is a physical imposiblity. Adoption is not procreation, it is a way to gain legal custody of a child without procreating. If you are going to argue against a point then at least make sense, especially when you choose to open your argument by laughing instead of making a vaild, logical openining statement.

[Tom]

Um, no they are not able to procreate. The hell?

Yes they are. They need a person of the opposite sex to do so (like, y'know...EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET), but obviously gays and lesbians can procreate.

[Melissa]

The hell?

Yes they are. They need a person of the opposite sex to do so (like, y'know...EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET), but obviously gays and lesbians can procreate.
Not together, which I think is the point. Sure, an individual has as much potential to be able to physically breed as the next individual, regardless of orientation, but a gay couple or Lesbian couple can not procreate.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Not together, which I think is the point. Sure, an individual has as much potential to be able to physically breed as the next individual, regardless of orientation, but a gay couple or Lesbian couple can not procreate.


By themselves, no. But neither can some straight couples.

[Tom]

Not together, which I think is the point. Sure, an individual has as much potential to be able to physically breed as the next individual, regardless of orientation, but a gay couple or Lesbian couple can not procreate.
Yeah, but tangentman addressed this in his response and mmurphy still claimed it was an impossibility.

[Ian Boothby]

Pia here...

So are you going to tell a straight couple who decide to get in vitro through a sperm bank (because one or both may be infertile) that they aren't procreating? Give me a bloody break. Gay couples take this route all the time (either by in vitro, through a surrogate or through adoption). They raise kids, they deal with all the same crap straight couples do and yet they can't be treated the same simply because the kid arrived a little unconventionally? The procreation part takes place over a year or so, the raising a family part takes place over a lifetime. Guess which part is more important in the definition of a marriage?

[stealthwise]

I like the idea of changing the concept of "family" from the traditional nuclear unit of a man, a woman and two and a half kids (or whatever the average is purported to be), into something more like two women and a man, or two men and a woman. I'm not talking into a three-person sexual group, but several parents who will all raise and watch over their children.

[the4thpip]

The hell?

Yes they are. They need a person of the opposite sex to do so (like, y'know...EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET), but obviously gays and lesbians can procreate.
...and they do.
The level of ignorance in some people is astonishing, and probably explains why many think that passing amendments like the one in Ohio is not a big deal, while it's really tearing families (WITH children) apart.

[the4thpip]

And a timely news items, torn from today's headlines:

US court rules same-sex partners have same rights over kids as married couples

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Same-sex couples joined together in a civil union have the same rights regarding their children as do heterosexual couples, a judge in Vermont ruled, contradicting an earlier court decision in Virginia, according to a newspaper report.

The ruling last week by Judge William Cohen conflicts with an earlier Virginia court's ruling, which gave only the biological parent custody of the child.

Cohen said that Janet Miller-Jenkins of Fair Haven, Vermont has the same rights as a parent of two-year-old Isabella as does Lisa Miller-Jenkins, who gave birth to her using artificial insemination before the couple split up, the Rutland Herald reported on Sunday. Lisa Miller-Jenkins now lives in Virginia with the child, the daily noted.

[b["Parties to a civil union who use artificial insemination to conceive a child can be treated no differently than a husband and wife who, unable to conceive a child biologically, choose to conceive a child by inseminating the wife with the sperm of an anonymous donor," Cohen ruled.[/b]

A judge in Virginia had ruled earlier that only the biological mother could have custody of the child.

Cohen noted that under those same rules, "the husband would be no more than a mere stepparent and would be required to adopt the child in order to be considered a parent in the eyes of the law.

"This argument is without merit," he concluded.

Sources cited by the daily said the two conflicting decisions would likely take the issue of gay parents' rights before the US Supreme Court.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1505&u=/afp/20041123/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyle_us_gays_041123172604&printer=1

You may also notice how judges from Freedomia rule differently from those in Jesusland. Decide for yourself which one makes more sense, but I hope that Scalia will have a bad case of the flu when this one is before the Supreme Court so it can actually be decided based on the constitution, and not the bible.

[Corrina]

There is hope legally for the recognition of civil unions nationwide.

A couple of differences between divorce and custody issues, though.

According to the husband (lawyer) as homosexual couples join in civil unions or even marriage ceremonies, when they divorce, civil court judges are going to take even a marriage ceremony as an indicator of intent and how serious the relationship was before the split. As the cases build up, there's going to start to be nationwide case law of how property is divided (including cash) that will increasingly rely on the recognition of civil unions in other states or marriage ceremonies.

In other words, civil judges assigned to solve property issues between homosexual couples who've split up are probably going to be the first to legally recognize the importance of civil unions or even a marriage ceremony.

The custody issue is a different matter. Those are handled by family court (different part of the legal system) and because minors are involved, there is a different standard of proof than just showing intent to make the relationship permanent--for that, you need recognition of a valid legally-binding relationship like Vermont's civil union or Massachusetts new gay marriage.

And so far, the federal Defense of Marriage Act says other states don't have to recognize that.

Which brings us to the case posted--and it was only a matter of time before it did happen. This isn't the first time states have disagreed on custody issues--that happens quite a bit with heterosexual custody fights. And usually the appeal goes up to the federal level.

Until the Supreme Court rules one way or another that Vermont's civil unions or Massachusetts marriages can be applied to custody cases, you're going to have different federal judges probably ruling different things.

It's hard to know how the Supreme Court would rule. Custody law is pretty complicated and messy legally to begin with, and they could easily rule on a technicality of a specific case rather than address the gay marriage issue. And even the conservatives justices sometimes like to assert federal rights over state law--and there may something along those lines in custody case law. (For instance, they may personally disagree with gay marriages but feel the Defense of Marriage Act violated a previous ruling on the power of the federal government, and thus rule in favor of something that supports gay rights.)

Or not. Not a constitutional scholar.

I do find it somewhat ironic that it's divorce proceedings that may be responsible for the ultimate recognition of gay marriages by the courts. :)

[Loren]

Roger, I think the reasoning behind my argument shows why your suggestion, while well-meaning, is not very viable.

Consider, if you will, the history of the Civil Rights movement. From the end of Reconstruction until the late 1950s, black rights in this country went essentially *nowhere*, despite nearly a century of blacks being civil, cordial and patient (in part because they continued to face the very real risk of being lynched, firebombed, etc.). Only when the protests started did *any* progress occur... and when the first militant civil rights folk started up, the process *really* moved forward in terms of the decision-makers starting to openly back the goals of the mainstream civil rights movement.

But I see a big difference between the civil rights efforts of that day and of the gay marriage issue today. The two biggest civil rights issues facing blacks, segregation and disenfranchisement, were precisely the reasons that slow reform didn't work any better than it did. Black people generally couldn't engage the white public in debate or discussion, because they often weren't allowed the opportunity to do so. They couldn't go to the same places as whites, or conduct the same activities. Even peaceful protest marches turned into instances of civil disobedience because blacks could be denied parade licenses. Furthermore, they couldn't express their opinions at the polls, because they often were denied the right to vote or run for office.

(And it didn't help that black activists had a bad habit of gettng murdered. Has anything similar happened to prominent gay activists?)

None of that is present in our current debate. Gays have never been prohibited from voting, and there's nothing keeping the debate from the public's attention. Rather, it's caused major discussion nationwide.

And at least from my perspective, I think we've seen a lot of change in a short amount of time. Was there any widespread public discussion about gay marriage at all pre-1990? I seem to recall that the general stance of the time was "What people do in their own bedrooms shouldn't matter" (which, at least to me, is a virtual 180 from "It shouldn't matter, but it should get gov't recognition.") The fact that a large percentage of the public would OK civil unions, when only a minority would just 5 years ago, strikes me as an awfully fast turnaround in public opinion.

Edit: Another thing about speed. You make mention of how the process "really moved forward." Brown v. Board, which required schools to desegregate, was decided in 1954. When my mother graduated from a Georgia high school in 1965, her high school was *still* segregated, and the black kids still went to an all-black school. Some counties around here didn't finally desegregate until almost 1970. Thus, even with a decree from a unanimous Supreme Court, simple implementation took over 15 years. Our current debate has barely even been going on that long.

Loren

[Loren]

Yes they are. They need a person of the opposite sex to do so (like, y'know...EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET), but obviously gays and lesbians can procreate.

"They need a person of the opposite sex to do so, but obviously gays and lesbians can marry."

Using the exact same words, this sounds contrary to the argument that gays and lesbians are being denied the right to marry. What distinguishes the latter statement from the first?

Loren

[Tom]

"They need a person of the opposite sex to do so, but obviously gays and lesbians can marry."

Using the exact same words, this sounds contrary to the argument that gays and lesbians are being denied the right to marry. What distinguishes the latter statement from the first?
The word "need." And c'mon, it's bit disingenuous of you to frame your question that way. Obviously, the point to gay marriage is that gay couples can't marry each other.

We've gone several rounds on this aspect of the topic before, Loren and you know where I stand on it. Straight people get to marry their person of choice because by definition, their person of choice will always be a person of the opposite sex. They meet someone, decide they're right to build a life and possibly a family together and they marry, instantly gaining all the civil benefits that come with that. Gay people don't get that option. You've framed the question in such a way as to suggest that gay people could or should marry a straight person, a concept that in my opinion subverts the institution of marriage far more than allowing two gay people to marry because it suggests that a gay person should simply marry a straight person (or gay person of the opposite gender) just to gain the civil benefits, ignoring the fact that it still denies those benefits to gay people who enter into honest relationships with each other.

[Loren]

The word "need." And c'mon, it's bit disingenuous of you to frame your question that way. Obviously, the point to gay marriage is that gay couples can't marry each other.

But then it's not exactly a civil rights issue anymore, is it? Rights belong to individuals, not couples. "All men are created equal," not "all relationships."

That's my chief gripe with the debate, the framing of it. I do see a major fairness issue in it, but not a civil rights one. To claim "gay people aren't allowed to marry" is pretty much equivalent to claiming "gay people aren't allowed to procreate." If you change the framing to couples, as in "gay couples can't marry each other," then you can say the exact same thing for procreation: "gay couples can't procreate with each other."

We've gone several rounds on this aspect of the topic before, Loren and you know where I stand on it. Straight people get to marry their person of choice because by definition, their person of choice will always be a person of the opposite sex. They meet someone, decide they're right to build a life and possibly a family together and they marry, instantly gaining all the civil benefits that come with that. Gay people don't get that option. You've framed the question in such a way as to suggest that gay people could or should marry a straight person, a concept that in my opinion subverts the institution of marriage far more than allowing two gay people to marry because it suggests that a gay person should simply marry a straight person (or gay person of the opposite gender) just to gain the civil benefits, ignoring the fact that it still denies those benefits to gay people who enter into honest relationships with each other.

There's an elderly woman I know named Lottie. She's about 80 now, and living in an assisted living home. For almost 30 years, Lottie lived with another woman named Mildred. They shared a house, and they shared a bedroom. And they loved each other.

Mildred passed away around 1990. Lottie was left alone in the house, as neither of them had ever had any children. Lottie was entitled to no civil benefits of Mildred's before she died, and she received none afterwards. Lottie couldn't receive Mildred's Social Security benefits, for example. Mildred did, I believe, leave virtually her entire estate to Lottie by will.

And you know how gay marriage or civil unions would have changed this? Nada. Because Lottie and Mildred were sisters. They loved each other, but their love wasn't sexual. They shared a bedroom, but with separate beds. Neither ever married. For 30 years they depended and relied on each other as much as many a husband and wife, and longer than most too, but they reaped no civil benefits.

This is why I can't see the issue as one of civil rights. Right now, the state treats a man/woman relationship different than a man/man one. If gay marriage were approved, the state would then treat committed relationships grounded in sexual love different than those grounded in non-sexual love. If the first form of discrimination between types of relationships is a violation of civil rights, then why isn't the second form of discrimination a violation too? If it's unacceptable to draw distinctions based on the type of sexual relationship, why is it acceptable to draw a distinction based on there being a sexual relationship?

"Straight people get to marry their person of choice." I doubt that would be much consolation to Lottie. She never found a man she wanted to marry. Rather, she found a 'life partner' in her sister, and the two of them lived out a long relationship together. No one is standing up for relationships like hers and claimng that the gov't violated her civil rights. And they're not doing so because there wasn't a violation. The gov't is entitled to distinguish between types of relationships, and while some people are inevitably going to get short-shrifted because of the distinctions, that doesn't mean there's a civil rights issue there.

Loren

[Spackling Compound]

Just a thought...

I know many states allow persons 16 and maybe younger to consent to sex and/or get married.

If a 40 year old man and a 15 year old girl were involved in a sexual, non-marital relationship would that be the same as a 40 year old man and a 15 year old boy?

Maybe all those clergymen, scout leaders and other so called "pedophiles" would be absolved if they allowed gay marriage. Maybe the travesty is the consenting teen was not allowed to marry his adult lover and therefore brought about legal proceedings.

Hmmm..

[Sam]

In most states (maybe all, but I'm not sure), teenagers are able to consent and have sex with other teenagers. If an adult tries it, it's still illegal.

[Yoda]

In most states (maybe all, but I'm not sure), teenagers are able to consent and have sex with other teenagers. If an adult tries it, it's still illegal.

Read strictly most states statutory rape laws apply to both teens and adults. So if two twelve year olds have sex, they are both guilty of statutory rape. Which is strict liabilty also in most states. Those cases are just never prosecuted but they technically could be.

[Loren]

If a 40 year old man and a 15 year old girl were involved in a sexual, non-marital relationship would that be the same as a 40 year old man and a 15 year old boy?

It'd be the same, with one possible exception. In the Georgia code, the incest statute defines "incest" as being between a father and daughter, or mother and son, etc., but not between a father and son or mother and daughter.

So if the 40-year-old was the 15-year-old's father, he would be subject to an incest charge if the child was a girl, but not if the child was a boy. At least, that's the way I read it. All the other charges (statutory rape, child molestation) would be the same.

Loren

[Tom]

But then it's not exactly a civil rights issue anymore, is it? Rights belong to individuals, not couples. "All men are created equal," not "all relationships."This ignores the fact that married couples are granted rights and benefits.
That's my chief gripe with the debate, the framing of it. I do see a major fairness issue in it, but not a civil rights one. To claim "gay people aren't allowed to marry" is pretty much equivalent to claiming "gay people aren't allowed to procreate." If you change the framing to couples, as in "gay couples can't marry each other," then you can say the exact same thing for procreation: "gay couples can't procreate with each other."And this ignores the difference between a biological issue and a legal one. "Gay couples can't procreate with each other" is a biological issue. "Gay people aren't allowed to marry each other" is a legal issue. It's not equivalent at all. It's like arguing that "Men can't bear children" is equivalent to saying "Men aren't allowed to raise children."


There's an elderly woman I know named Lottie. She's about 80 now, and living in an assisted living home. For almost 30 years, Lottie lived with another woman named Mildred. They shared a house, and they shared a bedroom. And they loved each other.

Mildred passed away around 1990. Lottie was left alone in the house, as neither of them had ever had any children. Lottie was entitled to no civil benefits of Mildred's before she died, and she received none afterwards. Lottie couldn't receive Mildred's Social Security benefits, for example. Mildred did, I believe, leave virtually her entire estate to Lottie by will.

And you know how gay marriage or civil unions would have changed this? Nada. Because Lottie and Mildred were sisters. They loved each other, but their love wasn't sexual. They shared a bedroom, but with separate beds. Neither ever married. For 30 years they depended and relied on each other as much as many a husband and wife, and longer than most too, but they reaped no civil benefits. This is why I can't see the issue as one of civil rights. Right now, the state treats a man/woman relationship different than a man/man one. If gay marriage were approved, the state would then treat committed relationships grounded in sexual love different than those grounded in non-sexual love.
They already do. If Lottie was Mildred's brother, the state would make the same distinctions.
If the first form of discrimination between types of relationships is a violation of civil rights, then why isn't the second form of discrimination a violation too? If it's unacceptable to draw distinctions based on the type of sexual relationship, why is it acceptable to draw a distinction based on there being a sexual relationship?Because a committed same-sex relationship is exactly the same in every relevant way as a committed opposite-sex relationship. A filial relationship is not. It's granted at birth as a matter of biology and the state has its own recognitions for that.

"Straight people get to marry their person of choice." I doubt that would be much consolation to Lottie. She never found a man she wanted to marry. Rather, she found a 'life partner' in her sister, and the two of them lived out a long relationship together. No one is standing up for relationships like hers and claimng that the gov't violated her civil rights. And they're not doing so because there wasn't a violation. The gov't is entitled to distinguish between types of relationships, and while some people are inevitably going to get short-shrifted because of the distinctions, that doesn't mean there's a civil rights issue there.
If either Mildred or Lottie got sick, the other could visit them in the hospital and even go so far as to make medical decisions for them. Neither Mildred nor Lottie ever had to fear deportation because one of them isn't American. If Mildred dies, her family can't come in and take her belongings away from Lottie because Lottie is already family. If Mildred had a child that she and Lottie chose to raise together and Mildred died, Lottie would almost certainly retain custody of the child.

No one is standing up for relationships like theirs because familial, blood relationships don't need standing up for. The legal protections are inherent in the relationship. Not to mention that your argument ignores the clear differences between marriages and familial bonds. You wouldn't compare a brother/sister relationship to a husband/wife relationship.

Both Mildred and Lottie - from the time they reached legal adulthood - had the option to marry and receive all the social and civil benefits that come with that. Had either of them met someone worthy of spending their life with, nothing would have impeded that. You simply can't say the same of gay people.

Yes, the government distinguishes between blood relationships and married relationships. The point is - the point has always been - the government offers absolutely no protections for same-sex couples (unlike familial relationships) and has not provided a compelling reason for doing so.

[Nick Soapdish]

Just a thought...

I know many states allow persons 16 and maybe younger to consent to sex and/or get married.

If a 40 year old man and a 15 year old girl were involved in a sexual, non-marital relationship would that be the same as a 40 year old man and a 15 year old boy?

Maybe all those clergymen, scout leaders and other so called "pedophiles" would be absolved if they allowed gay marriage. Maybe the travesty is the consenting teen was not allowed to marry his adult lover and therefore brought about legal proceedings.

Hmmm..

How many of those teens were consenting anyway? I thought the problem was that they weren't.

I'm pretty sure that the 40-year old man would be guilty of statutory rape in most states. A 17-year old could get away with it, but not someone that much older.

[Corrina]

Read strictly most states statutory rape laws apply to both teens and adults. So if two twelve year olds have sex, they are both guilty of statutory rape. Which is strict liabilty also in most states. Those cases are just never prosecuted but they technically could be.

I do not think that's correct. Usually statutory rape laws have some sort of age-differential built in.

What's your source, as it's always possible I'm wrong.

[Melissa]

I do not think that's correct. Usually statutory rape laws have some sort of age-differential built in.

What's your source, as it's always possible I'm wrong.

Not sure how it works in the various states over there, but in Australia that's exactly the case. There was a girl (okay, there were more than one, but this is the example I choose) that got pregnant to her (same age) boyfriend at 15 and her family wanted to prosecute him for carnal knowledge (the charge over here) until it was pointed out to them that she could also be charged.

[Loren]

This ignores the fact that married couples are granted rights and benefits.

Married couples aren't granted rights and benefits, married individuals are. Getting married may make two people one in a spiritual sense, but not in a legal one. Two persons remain two persons. The unit has no rights.

They already do. If Lottie was Mildred's brother, the state would make the same distinctions.

That's my point. Creating same-sex marriage doesn't do away with discrimination, it simply adjusts the bar that separates recognized relationships from unrecognized ones. You don't think Lottie and Mildred's type of relationship deserves the rights and benefits that my parents have, and a lot of people don't think your and Desi's type of relationship deserves those rights either. Both views involve discrimination between types of relationships, they just put the dividing line in different places.

Because a committed same-sex relationship is exactly the same in every relevant way as a committed opposite-sex relationship.

But that's an opinion, and directly influenced by your view of what is "relevant" and the "same." Lots of people do not believe that a committed same-sex relationship is exactly the same as an opposite-sex one in every relevant way. And that's their opinion, influenced by their view of what is relevant and the same.

A filial relationship is not. It's granted at birth as a matter of biology and the state has its own recognitions for that.

But Lottie and Mildred (who I might as well mention were my cousins) did not have a merely filial relationship. They weren't like my great-uncle and great-aunt, who are both single and live in separate countries. Lottie and Mildred spent 30 years in the same house, depending on each other financially and emotionally in a long-term fashion that is not the norm for two siblings. They had a relationship over and above the expected relationship between two sisters, and closer than some married couples I've known. They had a "committed same-sex relationship," just without the sex.

If either Mildred or Lottie got sick, the other could visit them in the hospital and even go so far as to make medical decisions for them.

Y'know, one institute did some research about this claim, since it tends to be one of the most common and emotional in this debate. And you know what it found? They couldn't find a hospital that had denied visitation to a gay partner. In fact, these policies rarely actually exist at all, except in extreme medical circumstances. Rather, hospitals tend to put near-full control of visitation in the hands of cognizant patients.

Neither Mildred nor Lottie ever had to fear deportation because one of them isn't American.

I didn't say they were both born in the US (though they were). If Mildred was born in the UK, and Lottie after their parents moved to the US, Lottie's American citizenship wouldn't have kept Mildred here. She still could've been deported.

If Mildred dies, her family can't come in and take her belongings away from Lottie because Lottie is already family. If Mildred had a child that she and Lottie chose to raise together and Mildred died, Lottie would almost certainly retain custody of the child.

Lottie might retain custody, but they could not both be legal parents to the child. Also, as I already mentioned, Lottie was not entitled to any Social Security survivor's benefits after Mildred died. When Mildred was alive, neither was covered by the other's health care. Mildred still had to leave a will, because intestate succession would have split the estate among all siblings, leaving Lottie with just a portion. Lottie had no estate tax benefit. They couldn't file their taxes jointly. Lottie couldn't have claimed a privilege on the witness stand if asked to testify against Mildred. Etc.

No one is standing up for relationships like theirs because familial, blood relationships don't need standing up for. The legal protections are inherent in the relationship

Funny, I seem to have listed a bunch of legal rights that they weren't provided with. Despite their close and long-term relationship, they got no more benefits than if they'd avoided each other their whole lives.

Not to mention that your argument ignores the clear differences between marriages and familial bonds. You wouldn't compare a brother/sister relationship to a husband/wife relationship.

Why not? Why should the government bestow benefits on individuals in sexual relationships but not similar benefits on individuals in similar non-sexual relationships? Why should, say, Eric Menendez and his wife (who have never lived together) get more legal rights than Lottie and Mildred?

My point isn't to suggest that any two siblings should get benefits equivalent to marriage. My great-uncle and great-aunt rarely speak, and they certainly don't deserve any bonuses. I used Lottie and Mildred as an example because of their close and long-term relationship. Had they been allowed to file their taxes jointly, I'm sure they would have done it for 30 years. But their type of uber-sibling relationship gets no sort of gov't recognition.

Both Mildred and Lottie - from the time they reached legal adulthood - had the option to marry and receive all the social and civil benefits that come with that. Had either of them met someone worthy of spending their life with,

But they did: each other. In a platonic rather than a sexual relationship. I don't see any legal difference between saying Lottie could have found a husband and saying that a lesbian could do the same. To do so within the context of a "civil rights" argument ends up drawing civil rights distinctions on the grounds of the kinds of emotions one feels.

The point is - the point has always been - the government offers absolutely no protections for same-sex couples (unlike familial relationships) and has not provided a compelling reason for doing so.

There. That's more or less the way I think the debate should be framed. Not in a "civil rights" context.

Loren

[Loren]

I do not think that's correct. Usually statutory rape laws have some sort of age-differential built in.

They do, but not in such a way to make the act not a crime. Regular statutory rape is a felony. It's common in the laws that if the two participants are within 2-3 years of each other, and both are over 11 or so, then it's only a misdemeanor.

Loren

[Nick Soapdish]

Married couples aren't granted rights and benefits, married individuals are. Getting married may make two people one in a spiritual sense, but not in a legal one. Two persons remain two persons. The unit has no rights.

Thus gay individuals that are denied the right to marry their loved one are denied those rights.

Personally, I have no problem with allowing civil unions that will grant Lottie and Mildred all the rights of a married couple, I mean the individuals in a married couple. But I think that sort of civil union should be distinct from letting gays and lesbians marry. They aren't the same sort of relationship.

[the4thpip]

I find Loren's attempts to explain away injustice with semantics disgraceful.
No offense, Lor. But your reasoning offends me.

[Tom]

Married couples aren't granted rights and benefits, married individuals are. Getting married may make two people one in a spiritual sense, but not in a legal one. Two persons remain two persons. The unit has no rights.Okay, the individuals are granted rights because they're in the unit. They also lose those rights should they dissolve the unit. Don't you think you're splitting the hair a little finely?

That's my point. Creating same-sex marriage doesn't do away with discrimination, it simply adjusts the bar that separates recognized relationships from unrecognized ones. I don't think there's anyone promoting the idea that same-sex marriage would do away with discrimination.
You don't think Lottie and Mildred's type of relationship deserves the rights and benefits that my parents have, and a lot of people don't think your and Desi's type of relationship deserves those rights either. Both views involve discrimination between types of relationships, they just put the dividing line in different places.You're comparing apples and oranges here. If a brother and a sister were granted relationship rights that were denied a sister and a sister, you'd have a more valid comparison.
But that's an opinion, and directly influenced by your view of what is "relevant" and the "same." Lots of people do not believe that a committed same-sex relationship is exactly the same as an opposite-sex one in every relevant way. And that's their opinion, influenced by their view of what is relevant and the same.I'm not trying to be rude here, but tell me something I don't know.
But Lottie and Mildred (who I might as well mention were my cousins) did not have a merely filial relationship. They weren't like my great-uncle and great-aunt, who are both single and live in separate countries. Lottie and Mildred spent 30 years in the same house, depending on each other financially and emotionally in a long-term fashion that is not the norm for two siblings. They had a relationship over and above the expected relationship between two sisters, and closer than some married couples I've known. They had a "committed same-sex relationship," just without the sex.Loren, you are ignoring a ton of differences between married couples and siblings. Not the least of which is the notion of commitment, something a married couple enters into, not something basically granted to them at birth.
Y'know, one institute did some research about this claim, since it tends to be one of the most common and emotional in this debate. And you know what it found? They couldn't find a hospital that had denied visitation to a gay partner. In fact, these policies rarely actually exist at all, except in extreme medical circumstances. Rather, hospitals tend to put near-full control of visitation in the hands of cognizant patients.Did this study ask the hospitals or the patients? Because I've heard and read dozens of first hand accounts of people who went through this. I'm aware that plenty of hospitals allow it, but there's no legal protection enforcing it.
I didn't say they were both born in the US (though they were). If Mildred was born in the UK, and Lottie after their parents moved to the US, Lottie's American citizenship wouldn't have kept Mildred here. She still could've been deported.You're taking a highly unusual relationship and adding convoluted what-if's in an attempt to prove your case here. Don't you think it's getting a little far from reality? There's two gay people in this thread alone who are dealing with the citizenship issue (me being one of them). Could you even find a sibling relationship like the one you've described who also have to deal with possible separation because of citizenship issues?
Lottie might retain custody, but they could not both be legal parents to the child. Which is still better than having the child taken away from her. Also, as I already mentioned, Lottie was not entitled to any Social Security survivor's benefits after Mildred died. When Mildred was alive, neither was covered by the other's health care. Mildred still had to leave a will, because intestate succession would have split the estate among all siblings, leaving Lottie with just a portion. Lottie had no estate tax benefit. They couldn't file their taxes jointly. Lottie couldn't have claimed a privilege on the witness stand if asked to testify against Mildred. Etc.



Funny, I seem to have listed a bunch of legal rights that they weren't provided with. Despite their close and long-term relationship, they got no more benefits than if they'd avoided each other their whole lives.Yes, you've pointed out certain benefits not granted them. What you haven't done is shown me where the discrimination lies. Their relationship is not like a marriage and on most levels except the most esoteric, not like a same-sex relationship. They are granted the same rights that two brothers or a brother and sister living under the same conditions would have. A commited same-sex relationship flows exactly along the same lines as a marriage. Two people meet, usually fall in love, and decide to build a life - and in many cases, a family together. The only major difference is in their genitals. Lottie and Mildred did not meet, nor did they fall in love. They did not start a family and it sounds to me like they did not choose to spend their lives with each other, rather they wound up spending their lives together.
Why not? Why should the government bestow benefits on individuals in sexual relationships but not similar benefits on individuals in similar non-sexual relationships? Why should, say, Eric Menendez and his wife (who have never lived together) get more legal rights than Lottie and Mildred?There are plenty of studies demonstrating the beneficial effects of marriage on both society and the individuals involved. Married couples are more likely to own property, invest, and raise children. They are less likely to engage in criminal activities. They are more likely to better themselves either through career ambition or education. I'm not aware of any studies demonstrating the same effects on close siblings.
My point isn't to suggest that any two siblings should get benefits equivalent to marriage. My great-uncle and great-aunt rarely speak, and they certainly don't deserve any bonuses. I used Lottie and Mildred as an example because of their close and long-term relationship. Had they been allowed to file their taxes jointly, I'm sure they would have done it for 30 years. But their type of uber-sibling relationship gets no sort of gov't recognition.No. Gay couples get no recognition. Siblings already have built in protections. The fact that siblings don't get the same protections as married couples isn't the same thing as saying gay couples don't get the same protections as married couples.
But they did: each other. In a platonic rather than a sexual relationship. I don't see any legal difference between saying Lottie could have found a husband and saying that a lesbian could do the same. To do so within the context of a "civil rights" argument ends up drawing civil rights distinctions on the grounds of the kinds of emotions one feels.Not exactly. There is real, measurable damage to families (almost always ending in divorce and causing a great deal of pain and suffering to the children (if any result) when a gay person attempts to marry a straight person. There are thousands upon thousands of examples of this but I'll just point to the pictures of the McGreevey family when Jim outed himself.
There. That's more or less the way I think the debate should be framed. Not in a "civil rights" context.Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly how the issue was framed in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Court?

[Tom]

I find Loren's attempts to explain away injustice with semantics disgraceful.
No offense, Lor. But your reasoning offends me.
I don't find it offensive, I just find it a little intellectually dishonest. Loren is a conservative Christian who has stated his distaste for homosexuality. This is one of a series of different arguments (incest and polygamy being two that I can remember right now) he has put forth questioning the logic of gay marriage. Because his arguments are usually interesting and iintellectually challenging, I can respect him on that level, but the fact remains that his argument has shifted many times yet still returns to the same conclusion - the one that supports his personal beliefs

I do mean no offense by that, Loren. I respect both your beliefs and the logical, intellectual way in which you attempt to argue them. You really are one of my favorite people here and I almost always find our debates interesting and challenging.

[Samurai]

I don't find it offensive, I just find it a little intellectually dishonest. Loren is a conservative Christian who has stated his distaste for homosexuality. This is one of a series of different arguments (incest and polygamy being two that I can remember right now) he has put forth questioning the logic of gay marriage. Because his arguments are usually interesting and iintellectually challenging, I can respect him on that level, but the fact remains that his argument has shifted many times yet still returns to the same conclusion - the one that supports his personal beliefs

I do mean no offense by that, Loren. I respect both your beliefs and the logical, intellectual way in which you attempt to argue them. You really are one of my favorite people here and I almost always find our debates interesting and challenging.
Well, to be fair, I doubt his views have actually shifted... rather, he disagrees with gay marriage for a variety of reasons, and is discussing them 1 at a time. It's hard to fully explore 3 or 4 topics at the same time... better to present 1, discuss it, then present another, etc.

[Loren]

I don't find it offensive, I just find it a little intellectually dishonest. Loren is a conservative Christian who has stated his distaste for homosexuality. This is one of a series of different arguments (incest and polygamy being two that I can remember right now) he has put forth questioning the logic of gay marriage. Because his arguments are usually interesting and iintellectually challenging, I can respect him on that level, but the fact remains that his argument has shifted many times yet still returns to the same conclusion - the one that supports his personal beliefs

I can see why it might look that way, but I think I can explain it.

First, like Samurai said, I do have more than one argument to bolster my position, and they aren't all relevant on the same points. My analogy to cousin marriage is only relevant if Full Faith & Credit is being discussed. My comparison and contrast of gay marriage with anti-miscegenation laws (and the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia) is only worth bringing up if somebody has already argued the precedential value of that decision. I'm generally reactive in these debates, after all. My Lottie & Mildred argument is one I recently thought up, and when I saw the civil rights angle here, I decided to try it out.

(On a side note, I think it's sorta funny that for an 83-year-old woman, Lottie's most significant mention on the web is in a gay marriage discussion. I doubt she'd have ever guessed that. In fact, I doubt she knows what the internet is.)

Second, my position on gay marriage has actually changed over time, during my years at college and here at CBR. Back when I started here, I was pretty much flat-out opposed to gay marriage, period. (And that's still the opinion of my family and many of my friends.) Today, I'm a lot more laissez-faire on the subject. If it comes to pass, that's cool. It's just an evolution of societal mores, and one of the reasons I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment is because it would prevent any natural evolution. Part of me does see some fairness issues at stake now. If it doesn't happen, I think that's acceptable too. There may be fairness implications, but like I've said above, I don't see this as an issue of civil rights, and I definitely don't see Constitutional issues.

And that leaves me with the only aspect of the debate that I *do* feel strongly about, and that's the reasoning of the Massachusetts decision. Because I don't believe there are civil rights or Constitutional issues, I think the Massachusetts decision was flat-out wrong. Plus, there's all manner of poor reasoning and argumentation in the majority opinion (not the least of which is one of the worst uses of the rational basis test I've ever seen). If a state legislature wants to pass gay marriage now, or if it was a ballot resolution, I wouldn't oppose it (like I didn't vote for Georgia's amendment). But I don't think a court has any real ground to stand on. Similarly, there was a time when the Supreme Court struck down minimum wage laws on the grounds of "freedom of contract." I'm OK with minimum wage laws, and I'm OK without them, but virtually every legal scholar agrees that the Court was being (conservatively) activist, and was just plain wrong.

And this has impacted the gist of my posts for a while now: I don't argue anymore whether we should or shouldn't pass laws recognizing gay marriage, but rather focus on the legal and Constitutional arguments underlying challenges to the status quo. Hence the arguments on Full Faith & Credit, legal precedent, and Lottie (which is really an Equal Protection argument in disguise).

I hope that serves to explain the variation in my posts.

I do mean no offense by that, Loren. I respect both your beliefs and the logical, intellectual way in which you attempt to argue them. You really are one of my favorite people here and I almost always find our debates interesting and challenging.

Thanks Tom. And I should say the same about you. I don't know whether you see my above shift-of-opinion as much of a change, but if you do, a lot of the credit for that change goes to you.

Loren

[Tommy]

30% of the world is Christian
2% of the world is gay.

When it comes to America 43% of Americans attend church weekly. The majority of those people are attending fundamentalist churches who generally encourage their constituents to vote against gay marriage. While many do not blatantly tell their members how to vote (in fundamentalism there is a defendant view that the church should stay out of the secular world) they will almost universally tell their members that homosexuality is a sin.

While I happen to be one of those people who attends church every Sunday (Lutheran otherwise known as the most Christian Church) I do not believe my privately held beliefs should ever be placed upon another person. If I disagree with abortion I should open a clinic to help women right next to Planned Parenthood.

In this last election 1/3 of people voted for Kerry, 1/3 of people voted for Bush and 1/3 of people didn't vote at all.

How exactly is less than 2% of the population supposed to raise enough funds and garner enough political support over the well funded, well staffed political machines of the Fundamentalist right and get their basic civil liberties?

The only way I can see is through the courts. The whole point of the courts was to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

[Ian Boothby]

30% of the world is Christian
2% of the world is gay.
.

Where are these numbers from?

[the4thpip]

Where are these numbers from?
My best guess: a backwards pointing bodily orifice. The numbers seem to change with whoever funds the research. Wording of the question seems to play a large role, some of the surveys don't count anyone as gay who has ever had sex with the opposite sex, as their definition of homosexuality is "inability to have sex with the opposite sex" (not making this up).
I think 5% of self-identified gay people is a likely number, with a somewhat larger number of 7-10% of people who "swing that way" on occasion.

[the4thpip]

Oh, and I did not mean this as any offense to Emmy here, who seems to be a good gal.

[Spike-X]

How exactly is less than 2% of the population supposed to raise enough funds and garner enough political support over the well funded, well staffed political machines of the Fundamentalist right and get their basic civil liberties?

For that matter, how does granting marriage rights to a mere 2% (to quote their numbers) of the population pose such a threat to the fabric of society that specific laws have to be made against it?

[Pixies Chick]

Married couples aren't granted rights and benefits, married individuals are. Getting married may make two people one in a spiritual sense, but not in a legal one. Two persons remain two persons. The unit has no rights...

Loren

No, I disagree. Look at the list from Atrios I posted earlier. Married couples are treated as a legal entity in a special sense that entitles them to rights and privileges that don't exist in any other relationship. They don't make sense as individual rights. In many cases, they can't be acted on individually, only as a married couple.

I think this is actually the point of the debate - homosexual couples are denied the ability to create this legally recognized entity, despite their willingness to take on the responsibilities of the relationship.

Corrina's dead-on with her analysis, IMO. When it's broke, courts will have to form laws to define gay marriage.

[The Xenos]

Again, I'm for separating legal marrage and marrage in the church. Call all legal marrages, gay and straight, Civil Unions or something and leave marrage in the church. The gay rights activists would be much better off if they layed off the term marrage.

Anyway, I mainly stopped by to point out that Brian K Vaughn's Ex Machina over at Wildstorm will be dealing with this issue next issue. Well, bit of a spoiler form last issue, but don't see how else to pimp out this wonderful book about the mayor of NYC (who happens to be an ex-superhero).

-Xenos

[Samurai]

30% of the world is Christian
2% of the world is gay.

When it comes to America 43% of Americans attend church weekly. The majority of those people are attending fundamentalist churches who generally encourage their constituents to vote against gay marriage. While many do not blatantly tell their members how to vote (in fundamentalism there is a defendant view that the church should stay out of the secular world) they will almost universally tell their members that homosexuality is a sin.

While I happen to be one of those people who attends church every Sunday (Lutheran otherwise known as the most Christian Church) I do not believe my privately held beliefs should ever be placed upon another person. If I disagree with abortion I should open a clinic to help women right next to Planned Parenthood.

In this last election 1/3 of people voted for Kerry, 1/3 of people voted for Bush and 1/3 of people didn't vote at all.

How exactly is less than 2% of the population supposed to raise enough funds and garner enough political support over the well funded, well staffed political machines of the Fundamentalist right and get their basic civil liberties?

The only way I can see is through the courts. The whole point of the courts was to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
Blacks were only about 10% of the population... if Whites wanted to keep them slaves, they had a 9:1 majority on them. But many whites were abolishonists and supported the end of slavery, or at least weren't opposed to it. Gays could do the same thing today, and in fact there are quite a few straight folks in favor of gay marriage or civil unions. When enough people have been convinced, it'll probably happen, but the courts should not be making laws from the bench. That is against the Constitution, and a VERY dangerous precedent.

[Samurai]

My best guess: a backwards pointing bodily orifice. The numbers seem to change with whoever funds the research. Wording of the question seems to play a large role, some of the surveys don't count anyone as gay who has ever had sex with the opposite sex, as their definition of homosexuality is "inability to have sex with the opposite sex" (not making this up).
I think 5% of self-identified gay people is a likely number, with a somewhat larger number of 7-10% of people who "swing that way" on occasion.
And from which orifice did you get your numbers? Before you get nasty, or Ian starts questioning the numbers, why not try a google search and see what turns up? This site has a ton of research and well-documented figures from over 35 studies:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

[Tom]

I hope that serves to explain the variation in my posts.It does. Very well. And I just want to thank you for not taking my previous post the wrong way. I was afraid it sounded too much like a personal attack.
Thanks Tom. And I should say the same about you. I don't know whether you see my above shift-of-opinion as much of a change, but if you do, a lot of the credit for that change goes to you.
That means an awful lot to me. And yes, I have noticed your shift to a more laissez faire opinion.

[Tommy]

Blacks were only about 10% of the population... if Whites wanted to keep them slaves, they had a 9:1 majority on them. But many whites were abolishonists and supported the end of slavery, or at least weren't opposed to it. Gays could do the same thing today, and in fact there are quite a few straight folks in favor of gay marriage or civil unions. When enough people have been convinced, it'll probably happen, but the courts should not be making laws from the bench. That is against the Constitution, and a VERY dangerous precedent.

Everyone was perfectly happy to keep blacks separate but equal. Had it not been for Brown vs. Board of Education I doubt it would ever have changed. Personally I do not think that waiting around for enough people to say "Well maybe this isn't a good idea" would have been the right thing to do. That was basically what the Massachusetts courts did.

And civil unions are great but they only offer state benefits. There are still over 1,000 national benefits.

And 2% is the current accepted statistic for number of actual self-described gay people. It fluctuates wildly. In major cities it is higher and in rural areas much lower.

[Samurai]

Everyone was perfectly happy to keep blacks separate but equal. Had it not been for Brown vs. Board of Education I doubt it would ever have changed. Personally I do not think that waiting around for enough people to say "Well maybe this isn't a good idea" would have been the right thing to do. That was basically what the Massachusetts courts did.

And civil unions are great but they only offer state benefits. There are still over 1,000 national benefits.

And 2% is the current accepted statistic for number of actual self-described gay people. It fluctuates wildly. In major cities it is higher and in rural areas much lower.
I disagree that "everyone was perfectly happy with seperate but equal." There were quite a few whites who felt that was wrong too, and helped push black civil rights forward.

Also, I never said people should just "sit around and wait" for people to change their minds... they can and should actively engage in dialogue and awareness activities in order to change peoples minds. Just as the other side has a right to do the same for their views. May the best arguments win...

If civil unions are federally recognized, even if their existance is voted on state by state, those federal benefits will go along with them. That isn't an argument against civil unions, IMO. The federal govt would have to legally recognize gay marriage too, or else it'll just be a state construct with little real power. And the Federal govt, thanks to Bill Clinton, has determined that marriage is between a man and a woman. (per the Defense Of Marriage Act, or DOMA)

[stealthwise]

And 2% is the current accepted statistic for number of actual self-described gay people. It fluctuates wildly. In major cities it is higher and in rural areas much lower.

Is a "current accepted statistic" actually functional/useful though, given with the basic human rights we're talking about here?

[Samurai]

Is a "current accepted statistic" actually functional/useful though, given with the basic human rights we're talking about here?
Depends upon whether you consider a human-created socio-religious ceremony/custom (and the associated tax exemptions, legal rights/obligations, etc) to be on the same level as life, liberty, and other basic human rights... I thought we were talking about "Should the govt aknowledge gay marriages or civil unions", not "should gays be allowed to live"? Besides, I think her point was that they are a very small minority petitioning the govt and the populace at large for a major change in a law that has existed for centuries, and a bit of humility, patience, willingness to compromise, and respect for the rest of the culture's beliefs and feelings might go a long way toward smoothing the road to full acceptance...

[Tommy]

Actually I think that Gay marriage is the ultimate act of compromise. It is pretty much saying that the gay community wants to just be normal people living in the suburbs and taking their children to school and soccer practice in hideous SUVs like everyone else....

When gays can marry and are free from public discrimination is there really a point any more to Gay Pride?

[Samurai]

Actually I think that Gay marriage is the ultimate act of compromise. It is pretty much saying that the gay community wants to just be normal people living in the suburbs and taking their children to school and soccer practice in hideous SUVs like everyone else....

When gays can marry and are free from public discrimination is there really a point any more to Gay Pride?
Now that blacks (and other minorities) have not just full legal equality, but Affirmative Action to discriminate in favor of them, is there any reason for Black Pride to still exist? I'd say yes... you should be proud of who you are and your cultural background/history. I have some pride in my Hungarian background, and Hungarians haven't been actively discriminated against in the US for decades.

[Loren]

No, I disagree. Look at the list from Atrios I posted earlier. Married couples are treated as a legal entity in a special sense that entitles them to rights and privileges that don't exist in any other relationship. They don't make sense as individual rights. In many cases, they can't be acted on individually, only as a married couple.

I disagree. Just because an act requires consent of more than one individual, that does not mean that a separate legal entity with its own rights exists. For instance, a child typically cannot be given up for adoption without the consent of both biological parents. Even if the child's mother and father only had a one-night fling and never dated again, neither parent can individually choose to let the child be adopted. Despite not having any formal relationship between themselves, they still must act as a couple.

Or take a business partnership, for example. Corporations have rights, because the state views corporations as artificial individuals (thus preserving the 'only individuals have rights' idea). Partnerships, on the other hand, don't have rights. The people in the partnership have special rights with regard to partnership property, and as to what the other partner can do, but the partnership itself does not possess any rights. To cite two distinctions, corporations must have their own names, and are subject to corporate taxes. Partnerships don't have to have separate names, and only the partners are taxed, not the partnership itself. Marriage has certain similarities to partnerships, but it has very little in common with the corporation.

In fact, now that I look it up, my bar review book sums this all up pretty simply: "While it is generally said that marriage is a contract, this is not accurate. Marriage is actually a status, or relationship between persons." And a status is not a separate legal entity.

Loren

[Tommy]

Now that blacks (and other minorities) have not just full legal equality, but Affirmative Action to discriminate in favor of them, is there any reason for Black Pride to still exist? I'd say yes... you should be proud of who you are and your cultural background/history. I have some pride in my Hungarian background, and Hungarians haven't been actively discriminated against in the US for decades.

That was not the way I meant it. I meant it as will there be marching in the streets, demonstrations, kiss ins and what not. I wouldn't think so. There would still be gay organizations, gay clubs, gay sections of the town, but I can pretty much see their political activity going from being a bunch of people in the streets to people just living their lives.

[stealthwise]

Depends upon whether you consider a human-created socio-religious ceremony/custom (and the associated tax exemptions, legal rights/obligations, etc) to be on the same level as life, liberty, and other basic human rights... I thought we were talking about "Should the govt aknowledge gay marriages or civil unions", not "should gays be allowed to live"? Besides, I think her point was that they are a very small minority petitioning the govt and the populace at large for a major change in a law that has existed for centuries, and a bit of humility, patience, willingness to compromise, and respect for the rest of the culture's beliefs and feelings might go a long way toward smoothing the road to full acceptance...

The "should gays be allowed to live" question has been dealt with, this seems to just be a natural extension of the same issue. I think that it's pretty obvious that the associations with the UN's definition of human rights applies in this case, as pointed out in probably the past billion pro-gay marriage posts in this thread alone. But let's break it down.

"Life" refers to the right to live. Pretty basic and it's been dealt with here for our purposes. "Liberty" refers to, what, the basic right to choice how one lives their own lives right? Wouldn't that pertain to the right to be legally and societally recognized as a couple with the person you lo