[VALIS_]

Pants-of-Dog


Jews and homosexuals are not the same thing. Are you trying to bait me into saying something racist? But I do resent the way the Palestinian question dominates so much of US foreign policy while Jews are such a minority in the same manner that same sex marriage annoys me. While my refusal to accept the findings "of trained and experienced professionals," may not make for the best argument I can't help but notice your avoidance of the fact that esteemed psychologists once (not all that long ago) thought exactly the opposite as they do now. No links to these trained and experienced findings?

As I said in my post I'm not completely opposed to homosexuals raising children. My mention of the transgender thing is a separate issue, you are right, but it's still at least connected. Transgender activism and gay activism are almost always wrapped up in the same rug - thus the LGBT acronym.

That link about higher HIV rates due to marriage bans is misleading. Gay marriage has almost always been banned, everywhere. Now if there was a law passed in say Indiana which stipulated that any man or women engaged in any type of homosexual activity could have their hands cut off then yes I could see how it would promote 'underground' sexual activities which would most likely be more dangerous and lead to higher infection rates.

As I said originally there could be some kind of tweaking to where common law marriage includes all of the benefits of traditional marriage you mentioned. Though, I guess I get it, if everyone else can be traditionally married why not gay people? I just detect a mocking/attacking tone in a lot of same sex advocates arguments that make it seem like forcing tolerance onto people who belong to the right seems to be the true reward as opposed to actually ending any kind of marriage ban.

[Rainbow Crow]

As a Californian, we have the whole "proposition 8" and "gay marriage vs. civil union" issue going on.

I say allow civil unions, but not to allow "gay marriage." An analogy is sometimes made, usually incorrectly, to segregation. Segregation was illegal because there was a clear physical difference in the quality of facilities and services that blacks and whites got. But there is no difference at all between a civil union and a gay marriage. The only difference is in the words used. And if gay people think that the religious right will become more accepting of them because the term "marriage" was applied to them through force of law, they're likely wrong. The word marriage is taken from a religion that finds homosexuality repugnant and forcing it to be applied to homosexuals will only offend the religious right more. And if homosexuals are actually in it just to offend the religious right, that's also not a good reason.

I find the whole debate going on in California pretty Orwellian to be honest. We already have civil unions with the full panoply of rights, but they want the law to require that the same word be used to describe homosexual civil unions as is used for heterosexual people, even though the state voted against that terminology change. Since when do the courts tell the legislature how to use language? Finally, how can an amendment to the California constitution be unconstitutional, under the California constitution? One part of the constitution is now suddenly stronger than other parts? The whole idea flies in the face of basic rules of legal interpretation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants-of-Dog


Jews and homosexuals are not the same thing. Are you trying to bait me into saying something racist? But I do resent the way the Palestinian question dominates so much of US foreign policy while Jews are such a minority in the same manner that same sex marriage annoys me.

I am pointing out that your argument is invalid. You claimed that gay marriage was insignificant because it affects such a small percentage of the population.

If this is true, it should be true for all groups that are that small in number. Jews are that small in number. Therefore, according to your argument, Jewish marriage is insignificant because it affects such a small percentage of the population.

Now, I am going to make a personal assumption about you and believe that you are a good person who does not have any real opinion on Jews except that they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Consequently, you probably would not agree if Congress said Jews could not marry. You would probably not agree even if Congress claimed that they were doing it because it affects such a small percentage of the population that it didn't really matter anyway.

While my refusal to accept the findings "of trained and experienced professionals," may not make for the best argument I can't help but notice your avoidance of the fact that esteemed psychologists once (not all that long ago) thought exactly the opposite as they do now. No links to these trained and experienced findings?

Feel free to post them. We can compare them to mine and see which has a more rigourous methodology. We can judge them objectively.

That link about higher HIV rates due to marriage bans is misleading. Gay marriage has almost always been banned, everywhere. Now if there was a law passed in say Indiana which stipulated that any man or women engaged in any type of homosexual activity could have their hands cut off then yes I could see how it would promote 'underground' sexual activities which would most likely be more dangerous and lead to higher infection rates.

Well, it did not really say that one causes the other. What the study says is that where you see no ban on gay marriage, you also see less HIV. It is not saying how they are related, just that they seem to be related.

As I said originally there could be some kind of tweaking to where common law marriage includes all of the benefits of traditional marriage you mentioned. Though, I guess I get it, if everyone else can be traditionally married why not gay people? I just detect a mocking/attacking tone in a lot of same sex advocates arguments that make it seem like forcing tolerance onto people who belong to the right seems to be the true reward as opposed to actually ending any kind of marriage ban.

I can imagine that many LGBT advocates are tired of having the debate over and over again, and sometimes this turns into some cynical humour at the expense of our opponents. But if it works, I am not complaining.

[Drlee]

I just detect a mocking/attacking tone in a lot of same sex advocates arguments that make it seem like forcing tolerance onto people who belong to the right seems to be the true reward as opposed to actually ending any kind of marriage ban.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But I will admit it is a wonderful side benefit.

I object to the use of the term "people who belong to the right". Many people who have right of center politics have no objection to gay marriage. This:

Dick Cheney: "I think freedom means freedom for everybody," said the former vice president, "and you ought to have the right to make whatever choice you want to make with respect to your own personal situation."

"I certainly don't have any problem with it," he added

then he said:

"So you're not against gay marriage?" Walters asked.

"That's right," Lynne Cheney said, nodding as the crowd applauded

You would not call him a lefty, would you?

The National Libertarian Party supports gay marriage.

While it is true that the topic is a weapon of mass distraction in the republican party.

Poll:

According to a new report from the Public Religion Research Institute, only 31 percent of Americans over age 65 support gays getting hitched, compared to 62 percent of Americans under 30.

Want a big surprise?

Same poll:

Today, support for gay marriage is nearing 50 percent among even the most conservative of American youth, like Republicans and white evangelical Christians.

So this is almost a done deal. Next generation it will just be a historical curiosity. Like the fact that I used to take swim lessons at a "restricted" country club. This means that it did not accept Jews. (Blacks? Don't be silly.)

[Suska]

PoFo always seems like a ridiculous circus of selective consciousness once the Drlee-unit has had its say.

[Drlee]

Sorry to pea on your unbrella Suska. Get used to the idea of gay marriage. Before I acheive room temprature it will be the law of the land. No doubt you think that this will spell Armageddon but never fear. Just sleep on your back and you will be fine......Well as fine as you can be.

[Suska]

We've had this conversation. Just stop claiming to be conservative and I won't bother you. Apart from that I don't care what you say, you don't know what you're talking about, let alone understand me.

[Rainbow Crow]

Nobody understands me either

I feel as if civil unions are already gay marriage, though. I like being able to assume that when the term "husband" is used, there's a wife involved somewhere.