Gay Marriage?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

But don't claim its "equal" since it is clearly not.

Of COURSE it's equal. I want to be able to marry a man and then you'll be able to also. EVERYONE could marry a man. What's unequal about that?

(Of course our lesbian sisters will also be able to marry women, just like straight men and straight women and everyone.)

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

The "same" rights would mean being able to marry who you choose to marry, assuming both (or all?) of you are consenting adults. As heterosexuals, we have that right; homosexuals do not.

Hence they want *special* not equal.

If you want to argue for them to have *special* rights....Please feel free.

But don't claim its "equal" since it is clearly not.

??? They want the exact same right of being able to marry who they choose (as long as the other person is a consenting adult). There is nothing "special" about that - it is "equal".

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have to ask what you think of polygamy? is that ok in your book? so now we have gay marriage and marrying poodles and now polygamy.....where is the line? Space aliens, do they count? If it's just about love why leave them out.

It's like pissing into the wind, but I'll repeat what others have told you - the Constitution protects citizens of the USA. It doesn't cover dogs or [space] aliens. It partially covers illegal aliens. It's not about love, it's about each citizen have equality and the right to pursue happiness, independent of majority prejudices.

Polygamy - I can't see a compelling reason to ban it. Current laws on benefits and survivor rights probably aren't well written to cover it, but I can't offer a non bullshit rationale against it on a legal basis. There is something a bit funny about it in this conversation - the Mormon Church has probably spent more than anyone else to promote these marriage amendments in the various states.

This is in contrast to sibling/cousin relations that have serious consequences to the public, and to any offspring.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It wouldn't be a special right if it were granted. If it were granted, then YOU would also be free to marry a man. Hence, it wouldn't be special. Just new.

Quote

Special:
Surpassing what is common or usual;

Distinct among others of a kind: a special type of paint; a special medication for arthritis.

Peculiar to a specific person or thing; particular: my own special chair; the special features of a computer.

Having a limited or specific function, application, or scope: a special role in the mission.

Arranged for a particular occasion or purpose: a special visit from her daughter.

While with time it would become "normal" the fact that 10% of the poulation according to many makes them a minority. So to grant something to a small segment is in fact special treatment

Quote

Harry Hay gave Kinsey that credit when Hay read in 1948 that Kinsey found "10%" of the male population homosexual. Following the successful path of the Black Civil Rights movement, Hay, a long-time communist organizer, said 10% was a political force which could be melded into a "sexual minority" only seeking "minority rights." With Kinsey as the wind in his sails, Hay formed the Mattachine Society.

However other studies have show that fiqure to be wrong and quite overblown.

It should be noted that Kinsey used 1,400 people that according to todays standards would be classified as "Sexual Preditiors". Some think that Kinsey's use of this group as part of his study made the numbers skewed. Kinda like using Skydivers to see how many Americans use Aviation as a hobby.

Quote

Alan Guttmacher-sponsored study of men aged 20-39, which estimated that only 1.1% of men had had only male homosexual partners within the last 10 years

Alan Guttmacher Institute interviewed over 3,300 men throughout the country in 1991, found that only 2.3 percent of those interviewed admit to a same sex experience in the last ten years; only 1.1 percent say they have been exclusively Gay.

Quote

NY Times election poll buried: A journalism seminar reviewing 1992 nominated the NY Times for one of the most significant "buried" stories of the year. The Times own presidential election exit polls asked about voters’ sexual orientation and found less than 3% claimed to be gay. Times staffers couldn’t believe the results, being so much lower than the standard 10%, and so they did not report the story.

Some other research:

Quote

Bell/Weinberg 1970 – < 2% total M and F (ratings of siblings)

Cameron/Ross 1975-78 – 3.1% M, 3.9% F

FRI 1983 – 5.4% M, 3.6% F (4,340 respondents)

Trocki 1988-89 – 3% M, 2% F

NCHS 1988-91 – ² 3.5% M (over 50,000 respondents)

Catania/NABS 1992 – 2% M, 2% F (4% in urban areas; 10,600 respondents)

Billy/Battelle 1993 – ³ 1.1% M

A national study of 316,800 Canadians found that 1.7% considered themselves to be bisexual or homosexual. (Stats Canada, 2004).

A study of 5,514 Canadian college and university students under the age of 25 found 1% who were homosexual and 1% who were bisexual. (King et al., 1988).

A study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% had had "any homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever." (Johnson et al., 1992).

A French study of 20,055 people found that 4.1% of the men and 2.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime. (ANRS, 1992).

A Danish random survey found that 2.7% of the 1,373 men who responded to their questionnaire had homosexual experience (intercourse). (Melbye, 1992).

The American National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included "You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time." (Dawson, Hardy, 1990-1992)
In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. (Sundet et al., 1988).

So being that it is a small group, asking for something applicable only to them....It is by the very nature *special*

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpergirl 0]

It wouldn't be applicable to only them! It would be for everyone! Everyone would have the same rights... to marry WHOEVER they choose, be it same or opposite sex. We would ALL be free to marry a man or a woman, regardless of our own sex.

Period.

Ron... <<>>

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...It's like pissing into the wind, but I'll repeat what others have told you - the Constitution protects citizens of the USA. It doesn't cover dogs or [space] aliens. It partially covers illegal aliens. It's not about love, it's about each citizen have equality and the right to pursue happiness, independent of majority prejudices.

I'd substitute "opinion" for "prejudices" here....one word is neutral and the other is inflammatory.

Hmmmmm....your last phrase is not true (regardless of choice of words)....I'm researching court rulings to see when the last minority opinion took precedence over a majority opinion.....get right back to 'ya....

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So being that it is a small group, asking for something applicable only to them....It is by the very nature *special*

We covered this enough time to retire it, I thought.

They're asking for the right to marry the person they desire. You have that right, they don't.

You insist on rephrasing it as marry a man so it works out with your semantics.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So being that it is a small group, asking for something applicable only to them....It is by the very nature *special*

Of course this means that freeing the slaves was also a "special right".

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'd substitute "opinion" for "prejudices" here....one word is neutral and the other is inflammatory.

If the shoe fits...

The distinction is that an opinion would have a valid basis to it, any valid argument. All we have here is that the Bible suggests its immoral and all the straight couples don't want to share their inequitable benefits and taxation policies with gay couples.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

I'm researching court rulings to see when the last minority opinion took precedence over a majority opinion.....get right back to 'ya....

Not a court ruling, but wasn't only a minority of Americans allowed to vote for over a century?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Ron 10]

Quote

It wouldn't be applicable to only them!

sure it would...The MAJORITY would not want it.

Quote

Everyone would have the same rights... to marry WHOEVER they choose, be it same or opposite sex.

Or multiple partners or animals....Remember if you change the definition to suit you...Then you need to be willing to change it to suit others dreams as well.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Shotgun 1]

I think we should not allow Americans to marry French people... because marrying a French person would be just as horrible as marrying a chimp (I'm sure the bible says so).

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

Quote

It wouldn't be applicable to only them!

sure it would...The MAJORITY would not want it.

Then the MAJORITY can ignore it and go about their lives as they are now.

Quote

Quote

Everyone would have the same rights... to marry WHOEVER they choose, be it same or opposite sex.

Or multiple partners or animals....Remember if you change the definition to suit you...Then you need to be willing to change it to suit others dreams as well.

I agree there has to be a limit. But, as someone else stated just a few posts up, the Constitution guarantees the rights of the US citizens, not the US animals. The multiple partners is another issue that I'm not educated enough to try to argue.

[Ron 10]

Quote

They're asking for the right to marry the person they desire. You have that right, they don't.

Not true. They have the same rights I have. They choose not to exercise them and instead want special rights as defined by granting a minority something that the majority does not wish to have.

Simple english here folks...You want to grant them the right? Don't pretend its equality they are after since they have the SAME rights I have.

They want different rights. Call it wat you want, but it is special by definition.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelel01 1]

The animal argument has to go. It needs to vacate this thread. It's no more relevant than wondering whether chimps in outer space could hear a tree fall in the forest. People are people - animals are not . . . no matter how much some PETA people want to throw around the phrase "Pets are people, too".

[Ron 10]

Quote

Of course this means that freeing the slaves was also a "special right".

The Constitution has a little phrase about all men being made equal.

So nice try, but go fish.

What is so hard about admitting you want a special right?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

I think we should not allow Americans to marry French people... because marrying a French person would be just as horrible as marrying a chimp (I'm sure the bible says so).

You may have to stick with poodles then. Or Frilled Neck Dicks.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Or multiple partners or animals....

Why do you keep comparing homosexuals to animals? Do you really not see any difference? Are you suggesting that homosexuals should be treated like chimps? Do you think that two people of the same gender having sex with each other is equivalent to beastiality?

As for the multiple partners, I have no problem with that as long as they are all consenting adults.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Then the MAJORITY can ignore it and go about their lives as they are now.

Not that easy. We already have one person on here saying he would cancel health insurance to his ee's since he would nto want to support a homosexual lifestyle. And by law he would not be allowed to only pay to provide healthcare to his hetero workforce.

So it does effect more than you want to admit.

Quote

I agree there has to be a limit. But, as someone else stated just a few posts up, the Constitution guarantees the rights of the US citizens, not the US animals. The multiple partners is another issue that I'm not educated enough to try to argue.

show me one reference that adresses homosexuality in the US Constituition.

I asked the same question with the Bible and no one was able to provide one.....So someone find me where in the US Constituition it says that Homosexuals have the right to marry.

Here is a hint...There is nothing in there about marriage at all.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

The animal argument has to go. It needs to vacate this thread

Why becasue YOU say so?

So its a case of your definition of what you want is better than anyone elses?

Sorry, once you start defining things you ahve to also grant others the same right otherwise you become the very thing you claim to be against

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpergirl 0]

[reply

Quote

I agree there has to be a limit. But, as someone else stated just a few posts up, the Constitution guarantees the rights of the US citizens, not the US animals. The multiple partners is another issue that I'm not educated enough to try to argue.

show me one reference that adresses homosexuality in the US Constituition.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Why do you keep comparing homosexuals to animals?

I NEVER compared them.

I simply stated taht if you want to change the definitions of something to fit YOUR definition. Then you need to allow others to do the same, otherwise you become the thing you hate.

So if you want to grant homosexuals the right to marry...Then you must also allow poligamy, the right for siblings to marry, and the right for "Bob" to marry his cat since he loves it so much.

Because if you don't allow "anything" then you are in fact doing what you claim others are doing.

I mean as long as the cat does not seem to mind, what right do you have to keep "Bob" from being happy?

Quote

As for the multiple partners, I have no problem with that as long as they are all consenting adults.

Why do they have to be adults? I mean in some countries 13 year olds can wed.

Why not allow anything?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I think we should not allow Americans to marry French people... because marrying a French person would be just as horrible as marrying a chimp (I'm sure the bible says so).

You may have to stick with poodles then. Or Frilled Neck Dicks.

Wow, now that you mention it... It is a pretty crazy world where I am allowed to marry a Frilled Neck Dick (a freakin' _Aussie_ for chrissakes!) but I am NOT allowed to marry a nice American woman.

[Shotgun 1]

Oh well... You and I just have different ideas of what it means to have equal rights... So be it...

[kelel01 1]

I cannot believe I'm gettin sucked into another one of these inanely stupid arguments, but here goes . . .

No. Not because I say so. Because common sense says so. A person cannot fall in love with an animal. A person cannot have meaningful, 2-sided conversations with an animal. A person can't gaze into an animal's eyes, feeling electricity between them, knowing that they've found their soulmate.

Or, maybe YOU can, and that's why this argument seems so pertinent to you.