US Court finds AL marriage laws unconstitutional

[homersapien 11,447]

Now that's not to say one cannot simply deny the science. That's obviously a common practice, especially on internet forums. But if you are hard set in your opinion that we all could be homosexuals had we only "decided" to go that way, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on to a different subject.

"Environmental" is not the same thing as saying "chosen."

Sure it is. Presumably the environment is what causes that particular "choice", if not, then homosexuality would be strictly biological.

And to be clear, if there is a choice at all, it is to act as you truly are.

I would suggest that you are misunderstanding what people mean when they say "environmental" as opposed to "nature" or "inborn." To say that there are environmental factors that affect sexual orientation is in no way saying that the person simply "decided" to be gay. I've no earthly idea what would make one try to make the one be synonymous with the other.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but my point is that one doesn't "choose" to have whatever biological pre-conditions they may possess. If they (hypothetically) "choose" to be gay, it is because they feel a same sex attraction as a result of those pre-conditions - perhaps in combination to their environment or not. In other words, they are gay, they didn't decide to become gay.

If they (hypothetically) "choose" not to be gay, it is because they do not feel a same sex attraction either from a lack of biological pre-conditions or a failure of environment to trigger those biological pre-dispositions.

This presumes that biological predispositions are not all the same.

Don't know if that clarifies things, but that's what I was getting at.

[homersapien 11,447]

Question:

If a person is born into a same-sex parent family, and remains mostly around those that are homosexual, and models that lifestyle in their relationships for many years, then "decides" one day that they aren't homosexual anymore, are they considered a biological homosexual or a choice-driven homosexual? Are they really homosexual or are they really not?

Serious question.

If such a thing happened - and I think the research says it does not - then they don't make a choice not to be homosexual, they never were a homosexual to begin with. Acting like - or even having sex - with a member of the same sex does not make one a homosexual.

Prisons are probably a good example of this. Furthermore, homosexual acts between prepubescent or pubescent heterosexuals is fairly common.

http://www.faqs.org/...rientation.html

Alfred Kinsey found that a large number of preadolescents (between ages eight and thirteen) engage in what he called homosexual sex play. Nearly half (48 percent) of the older males who contributed their histories reported having engaged in homosexual sex play in their preadolescence. In his study of females, Kinsey found 33 percent of the preadolescent females engaged in some sort of homosexual sex play and many reported that such experiences had taught them how to masturbate.

Interesting. The reason I asked is because I read the story of Michael Glatze. Granted, he didn't have homosexual parents, but was a prominent member of the gay community before declaring that he wasn't gay anymore. Was he ever really gay? His partner said that he was absolutely baffled with his decision.

Well it's impossible to say without knowing if he was ever truly attracted sexually to men or not. And some people can be sexually attracted to both men and women. In that case, they would be bisexual.

[quietfan 233]

So many comments in the last 3-4 pages I can barely keep up.. I was at first going to quote each post to which I was responding, but the posts and good questions have come so rapidly I won't bother. Rather, just addressing many of the above:

As several have suggested, it seem to me that religious marriage and legal marriage should have been decoupled when government and religion were decoupled.

If it were up to me, government would simple recognize domestic partnerships in the same way we recognize business partnerships. As with business partnerships, the only limitations should be that all parties are of legal age, are mentally competent to sign/execute said contract, and do so voluntarily, without concern for race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Religions are free to follow the teachings their faith as far as any religious definitions of marriage (although with the same constraints of consenting adults only of sound mental state.)

Legally, there should not be separate terms like "marriage" for heterosexual partners vs. "domestic partnership" for same-sex partnerships. "Separate but equal" definitions of domestic partnerships are no more constitutional than "separate but equal" schools were for race. Once you invoke the concept of "separate", things are no longer equal. That was the conclusion in Brown vs. Board of Education for racially segregated schools, and the same principle applies in the case of "separate but equal" titles for domestic partnerships based on gender. No matter what accommodations might be made to equalize technicalities like tax status, power of attorney, estate planning, "next of kin", etc., the words "marriage" vs. "domestic partnership" will not be equivalent as long as same-sex partners are allowed to use one but not the other. Now if all domestic relationships are referred to only as "domestic partnerships" in the legal realm and the term "marriage" dropped from legal jargon, then "domestic partnership" might be equal for all.

As for choice:

There is nothing that leads me to think homosexuality is a choice. There may be rare cases where one's sexual orientation is a matter of confusion at a younger age, and there are bisexuals attracted to both genders, but no one "chooses" their orientation. Whether roots of such are genetic or environmental seems irrelevant. Do any of you heterosexuals remember a particular time or reason that you suddenly decided "You know what, I think I'll be attracted to the opposite sex"? If, because of legal, religious, or social pressure, it became "proper/normal" for you to be attracted to your own gender and was considered "unholy" or "abnormal" for you to feel or act heterosexual, do you think you could choose to change? I'm a heterosexual male. I don't remember "deciding" I was going to be straight and turned on by women, but I can't imagine any factors that could lead me to "choose" to be turned on by men.

But why does it matter? "Choice" or not, marriage equality is a right!

I have not read much about the roots of handedness. Has a genetic link been identified for right- or left-handedness? Do environmental factors come into play? Who cares? It does not and should not effect one's status under the Constitution, and long gone are the days when some children were forced into using only their right hand in penmanship classes. That's the way I feel about homosexuality: Who cares? It should not affect one's standing under the Constitution, and there is no reason to attempt to force one particular gender orientation upon all. And like left or right handedness, it doesn't cross my mind when dealing with people, it would never occur to me to make them change, and I don't give a damn which hand their spouse/lover/soul mate uses.

[homersapien 11,447]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

One is purely natural. It's undeniable and there for the whole world to see. The other seems to have some biological components, but they are not determinative and there are other factors that contribute. It remains a rather key thing to point out when one is using "nature" as a reason for two things to be equated with each other.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

Despite the popularity of the twin studies, they are hardly conclusive. And the studies hardly covered all the various environmental or other factors involved. The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.

The fact that one is exclusively biological and the other may or may not be exclusively biological is material only in the scientific sense, not in the legal sense (equal rights).

(See Weegle? Back on topic! )

As for the twin studies, their "popularity" resides in the fact they are scientifically compelling. This is due to the powerful of the experimental design. Influential would be a better term than popular.

[Weegle777 78]

Question:

If a person is born into a same-sex parent family, and remains mostly around those that are homosexual, and models that lifestyle in their relationships for many years, then "decides" one day that they aren't homosexual anymore, are they considered a biological homosexual or a choice-driven homosexual? Are they really homosexual or are they really not?

Serious question.

If such a thing happened - and I think the research says it does not - then they don't make a choice not to be homosexual, they never were a homosexual to begin with. Acting like - or even having sex - with a member of the same sex does not make one a homosexual.

Prisons are probably a good example of this. Furthermore, homosexual acts between prepubescent or pubescent heterosexuals is fairly common.

http://www.faqs.org/...rientation.html

Alfred Kinsey found that a large number of preadolescents (between ages eight and thirteen) engage in what he called homosexual sex play. Nearly half (48 percent) of the older males who contributed their histories reported having engaged in homosexual sex play in their preadolescence. In his study of females, Kinsey found 33 percent of the preadolescent females engaged in some sort of homosexual sex play and many reported that such experiences had taught them how to masturbate.

Interesting. The reason I asked is because I read the story of Michael Glatze. Granted, he didn't have homosexual parents, but was a prominent member of the gay community before declaring that he wasn't gay anymore. Was he ever really gay? His partner said that he was absolutely baffled with his decision.

Well it's impossible to say without knowing if he was ever truly attracted sexually to men or not. And some people can be sexually attracted to both men and women.

He was involved with this guy for many years, so I suspect that he was. His story was one that really threw the gay community into a tailspin. Most were utterly shocked at his decision. He was one that many in the gay community really looked up to. That is why I ask.

[Weegle777 78]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

One is purely natural. It's undeniable and there for the whole world to see. The other seems to have some biological components, but they are not determinative and there are other factors that contribute. It remains a rather key thing to point out when one is using "nature" as a reason for two things to be equated with each other.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

Despite the popularity of the twin studies, they are hardly conclusive. And the studies hardly covered all the various environmental or other factors involved. The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.

The fact that one is exclusively biological and the other may or may not be exclusively biological is material only in the scientific sense, not in the legal sense (equal rights).

See Weegle? Back on topic! ;D/>

The only reason I posted that is because he did the same thing to me in this thread, saying that I was derailing the thread. He deserved it.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

One is purely natural. It's undeniable and there for the whole world to see. The other seems to have some biological components, but they are not determinative and there are other factors that contribute. It remains a rather key thing to point out when one is using "nature" as a reason for two things to be equated with each other.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

Despite the popularity of the twin studies, they are hardly conclusive. And the studies hardly covered all the various environmental or other factors involved. The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.

The fact that one is exclusively biological and the other may or may not be exclusively biological is material only in the scientific sense, not in the legal sense (equal rights).

See Weegle? Back on topic!

We were on topic the whole time.

It matters when you put forth 'nature' as a reason to equate race and sexual orientation with regard to marriage laws. When one is clearly 'nature' and the other 'may be' or nature may have some influence, it's not as simple as equating racial issues and sexual orientation issues anymore.

[homersapien 11,447]

.... The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.

I certainly agree human sexuality is more complex that we would normally assume, but I don't know what other causes - other than nature or nurture - it could be reduced to. That pretty much covers the possibilities.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

The only reason I posted that is because he did the same thing to me in this thread, saying that I was derailing the thread. He deserved it. ;D/>

I'm going to leave this one up here simply to answer you once and for all on this. After that, this sidebar is over.

You posted it because you got butthurt. Your theological treatise on law and grace is too far off the path as discussion of the legalities of same sex marriage AND it had gotten to be such a detailed discussion it already had its own thread. So it made sense to continue that discussion there, not here. The discussion me and homer have been having is very much on track with the legalities surrounding SSM as the inevitable comparisons to anti-discrimination laws regarding racial minorities are frequently put forth as support for SSM.

I'm sorry that you didn't care for me redirecting you back to the Law and Grace thread for that discussion. And I'm sorry that you really think that the discussion me and homer have had is anywhere near the same in tone as the kinds of retorts you were firing back at aubfaninga over theology. But they simply aren't.

Thus concludes this tangent. Further comments can be handled via PM. They will be deleted on this thread.

[homersapien 11,447]

So many comments in the last 3-4 pages I can barely keep up.. I was at first going to quote each post to which I was responding, but the posts and good questions have come so rapidly I won't bother. Rather, just addressing many of the above:

As several have suggested, it seem to me that religious marriage and legal marriage should have been decoupled when government and religion were decoupled.

If it were up to me, government would simple recognize domestic partnerships in the same way we recognize business partnerships. As with business partnerships, the only limitations should be that all parties are of legal age, are mentally competent to sign/execute said contract, and do so voluntarily, without concern for race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Religions are free to follow the teachings their faith as far as any religious definitions of marriage (although with the same constraints of consenting adults only of sound mental state.)

Legally, there should not be separate terms like "marriage" for heterosexual partners vs. "domestic partnership" for same-sex partnerships. "Separate but equal" definitions of domestic partnerships are no more constitutional than "separate but equal" schools were for race. Once you invoke the concept of "separate", things are no longer equal. That was the conclusion in Brown vs. Board of Education for racially segregated schools, and the same principle applies in the case of "separate but equal" titles for domestic partnerships based on gender. No matter what accommodations might be made to equalize technicalities like tax status, power of attorney, estate planning, "next of kin", etc., the words "marriage" vs. "domestic partnership" will not be equivalent as long as same-sex partners are allowed to use one but not the other. Now if all domestic relationships are referred to only as "domestic partnerships" in the legal realm and the term "marriage" dropped from legal jargon, then "domestic partnership" might be equal for all.

As for choice:

There is nothing that leads me to think homosexuality is a choice. There may be rare cases where one's sexual orientation is a matter of confusion at a younger age, and there are bisexuals attracted to both genders, but no one "chooses" their orientation. Whether roots of such are genetic or environmental seems irrelevant. Do any of you heterosexuals remember a particular time or reason that you suddenly decided "You know what, I think I'll be attracted to the opposite sex"? If, because of legal, religious, or social pressure, it became "proper/normal" for you to be attracted to your own gender and was considered "unholy" or "abnormal" for you to feel or act heterosexual, do you think you could choose to change? I'm a heterosexual male. I don't remember "deciding" I was going to be straight and turned on by women, but I can't imagine any factors that could lead me to "choose" to be turned on by men.

But why does it matter? "Choice" or not, marriage equality is a right!

I have not read much about the roots of handedness. Has a genetic link been identified for right- or left-handedness? Do environmental factors come into play? Who cares? It does not and should not effect one's status under the Constitution, and long gone are the days when some children were forced into using only their right hand in penmanship classes. That's the way I feel about homosexuality: Who cares? It should not affect one's standing under the Constitution, and there is no reason to attempt to force one particular gender orientation upon all. And like left or right handedness, it doesn't cross my mind when dealing with people, it would never occur to me to make them change, and I don't give a damn which hand their spouse/lover/soul mate uses.

Good post.

And the point you made about the use of the word "marriage" by the state is a good one. That ship has sailed and it's too late to restrict the term to a religious context.

[homersapien 11,447]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

One is purely natural. It's undeniable and there for the whole world to see. The other seems to have some biological components, but they are not determinative and there are other factors that contribute. It remains a rather key thing to point out when one is using "nature" as a reason for two things to be equated with each other.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

Despite the popularity of the twin studies, they are hardly conclusive. And the studies hardly covered all the various environmental or other factors involved. The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.

The fact that one is exclusively biological and the other may or may not be exclusively biological is material only in the scientific sense, not in the legal sense (equal rights).

See Weegle? Back on topic!

We were on topic the whole time.

It matters when you put forth 'nature' as a reason to equate race and sexual orientation with regard to marriage laws. When one is clearly 'nature' and the other 'may be' or nature may have some influence, it's not as simple as equating racial issues and sexual orientation issues anymore.

I disagree. First, IMO, there is indisputably a "natural" element of homosexuality, that for many cases, is all that is required.

Secondly, to quietfan's point, what does it matter from a legal and philosophical standpoint if environment can play a role in other cases?

The law doesn't make a distinction between natural and cultural differences when it comes to equal rights.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

One is purely natural. It's undeniable and there for the whole world to see. The other seems to have some biological components, but they are not determinative and there are other factors that contribute. It remains a rather key thing to point out when one is using "nature" as a reason for two things to be equated with each other.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

Despite the popularity of the twin studies, they are hardly conclusive. And the studies hardly covered all the various environmental or other factors involved. The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.

The fact that one is exclusively biological and the other may or may not be exclusively biological is material only in the scientific sense, not in the legal sense (equal rights).

See Weegle? Back on topic!

We were on topic the whole time.

It matters when you put forth 'nature' as a reason to equate race and sexual orientation with regard to marriage laws. When one is clearly 'nature' and the other 'may be' or nature may have some influence, it's not as simple as equating racial issues and sexual orientation issues anymore.

I disagree. First, IMO, there is indisputably a "natural" element of homosexuality, that for many cases, is all that is required.

Secondly, to quietfan's point, what does it matter from a legal and philosophical standpoint if environment can play a role in other cases?

The law doesn't make a distinction between natural and cultural differences when it comes to equal rights.

Well that's because the issue doesn't entirely revolve around this one nature/environmental matter. It was just the one aspect we were batting about.

We deny the right to call all sorts of arrangements between consenting adults the title of "marriage" already. Gay couples aren't being discriminated against by marriage being understood as a particular thing and not some other list of things we come up with any more than the polyamorous, or a brother and sister or 1st cousins are. We make distinctions as to what marriage is and isn't (largely based on what thousands of years of human history have show us to be best) and we have decided that marriage has certain requirements. It doesn't and shouldn't include whatever combo we can cook up. We don't deny these people the right to do whatever they do in private, but we don't confer marital rights on them simply because they want all the rights and privileges of the title.

[homersapien 11,447]

First, the presence of a strong biological determiner is not really in doubt. The twin studies alone proved that.

That's what I said though. There's a biological factor and an environmental one. It's complex.

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

I don't understand why that would or should make a difference.

You are the one that put forth "nature" (as opposed to environmental or other factors) as a reason for race and sexual orientation being the same. Wouldn't pointing out that one is not entirely based on nature while the other one is be a key thing to mention?

Not to me. The fact that they are not identical is not as important as acknowledging they are both a result of natural determinants.

One is purely natural. It's undeniable and there for the whole world to see. The other seems to have some biological components, but they are not determinative and there are other factors that contribute. It remains a rather key thing to point out when one is using "nature" as a reason for two things to be equated with each other.

And incidentally, as the twin studies showed, homosexuality doesn't necessarily require environmental influences to manifest itself.

Despite the popularity of the twin studies, they are hardly conclusive. And the studies hardly covered all the various environmental or other factors involved. The bottom line is that sexuality is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to simple "nature" or "environmental" causes.

The fact that one is exclusively biological and the other may or may not be exclusively biological is material only in the scientific sense, not in the legal sense (equal rights).

See Weegle? Back on topic!

We were on topic the whole time.

It matters when you put forth 'nature' as a reason to equate race and sexual orientation with regard to marriage laws. When one is clearly 'nature' and the other 'may be' or nature may have some influence, it's not as simple as equating racial issues and sexual orientation issues anymore.

I disagree. First, IMO, there is indisputably a "natural" element of homosexuality, that for many cases, is all that is required.

Secondly, to quietfan's point, what does it matter from a legal and philosophical standpoint if environment can play a role in other cases?

The law doesn't make a distinction between natural and cultural differences when it comes to equal rights.

Well that's because the issue doesn't entirely revolve around this one nature/environmental matter. It was just the one aspect we were batting about.

We deny the right to call all sorts of arrangements between consenting adults the title of "marriage" already. Gay couples aren't being discriminated against by marriage being understood as a particular thing and not some other list of things we come up with any more than the polyamorous, or a brother and sister or 1st cousins are. We make distinctions as to what marriage is and isn't (largely based on what thousands of years of human history have show us to be best) and we have decided that marriage has certain requirements. It doesn't and shouldn't include whatever combo we can cook up. We don't deny these people the right to do whatever they do in private, but we don't confer marital rights on them simply because they want all the rights and privileges of the title.

Well that's fine if you want to believe that, but the simple fact is gay couples will define their "civil union" as a marriage regardless of what other people think. They will also have marriage ceremonies in churches that are sympathetic to their point of view.

Likewise, the government will legally recognize their marriages because it is far too late and too problematic to legally restrict the meaning and use of the term as inherently religious.

Not to mention that would essentially imply that all "marriages" that have been done are legally unconstitutional and perhaps null and void.

Now that would have some interesting implications for us married folk....

[WarTim 3,457]

It is never to late to do the right thing...

[selias 2,398]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Applying a standard of procreation to marriage opens up a whole different can of worms. What about people that are sterile, high-risk pregnancy, choice of having children, etc...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Well that's fine if you want to believe that, but the simple fact is gay couples will define their "civil union" as a marriage regardless of what other people think. They will also have marriage ceremonies in churches that are sympathetic to their point of view.

That's all fine and good. But it's also a separate matter that is of little concern to me. Polygamists, the polyamorous and other currently disallowed pairings and groupings like to refer to their arrangements as marriage too. What's at issue and what we're discussing is whether the government should actively sanction it as 'marriage' too.

Likewise, the government will legally recognize their marriages because it is far too late and too problematic to legally restrict the meaning and use of the term as inherently religious.

That's a great reason. Laziness.

Not to mention that would essentially imply that all "marriages" that have been done are legally unconstitutional and perhaps null and void.

Not anymore than declaring that polyamorous groupings are not 'marriage' in a legal sense means that any current heterosexual marriages are null and void.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two?

[selias 2,398]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two?

It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two?

It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes.

But that's not what's happening. The government is getting more involved by creating, out of thin air, a new definition of marriage that now scraps the notion of it being one man and one woman and can now be two men or two women. So do you feel the government is denying polygamists and polyamorists the full rights, benefits and privileges of being Americans? Does that deny freedom to the and undermine everything we are built on? Are there any limits you would impose? What if an adult brother and sister wanted to marry? If they promised to both be sterilized would refusing them the legal recognition of marriage be undermining who we are as a country?

[selias 2,398]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two?

It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes.

But that's not what's happening. The government is getting more involved by creating, out of thin air, a new definition of marriage that now scraps the notion of it being one man and one woman and can now be two men or two women. So do you feel the government is denying polygamists and polyamorists the full rights, benefits and privileges of being Americans? Does that deny freedom to the and undermine everything we are built on? Are there any limits you would impose? What if an adult brother and sister wanted to marry? If they promised to both be sterilized would refusing them the legal recognition of marriage be undermining who we are as a country?

Let's cut to the chase, the only thing I would against is bestiality and that's because an animal cannot consent. As it currently stands, poly relationships are "gaming" the system. If you want to get your freak on with your sister and/or brother, go for it. Just don't expect the state to handle the offspring's care.

I'm a governmental minimalist. I used to identify as a Libertarian but I'm not a full blown anarchist.

[WarTim 3,457]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two?

It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes.

But that's not what's happening. The government is getting more involved by creating, out of thin air, a new definition of marriage that now scraps the notion of it being one man and one woman and can now be two men or two women. So do you feel the government is denying polygamists and polyamorists the full rights, benefits and privileges of being Americans? Does that deny freedom to the and undermine everything we are built on? Are there any limits you would impose? What if an adult brother and sister wanted to marry? If they promised to both be sterilized would refusing them the legal recognition of marriage be undermining who we are as a country?

Titan. Thank you for stating this case. Where does it end? With certain folks, it will continue to be bastardized to NO end.

[Aufan59 80]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two?

It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes.

But that's not what's happening. The government is getting more involved by creating, out of thin air, a new definition of marriage that now scraps the notion of it being one man and one woman and can now be two men or two women. So do you feel the government is denying polygamists and polyamorists the full rights, benefits and privileges of being Americans? Does that deny freedom to the and undermine everything we are built on? Are there any limits you would impose? What if an adult brother and sister wanted to marry? If they promised to both be sterilized would refusing them the legal recognition of marriage be undermining who we are as a country?

No, banning polygamous marriage does not deny anyone the full rights, benefits and privileges of being an American. It doesn't matter which three people want get married. It is illegal regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, religion, etc of those involved.

Gay marriage should be (and is becoming) illegal, because it restricts marriage based on gender.

The fact that this comparison is made is evidence that you, and others, don't understand that banning gay marriage is discrimination based on gender.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Which brings my attention back to the discussion.

Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way?

(I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking)

If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how.

It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom.

Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two?

It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes.

But that's not what's happening. The government is getting more involved by creating, out of thin air, a new definition of marriage that now scraps the notion of it being one man and one woman and can now be two men or two women. So do you feel the government is denying polygamists and polyamorists the full rights, benefits and privileges of being Americans? Does that deny freedom to the and undermine everything we are built on? Are there any limits you would impose? What if an adult brother and sister wanted to marry? If they promised to both be sterilized would refusing them the legal recognition of marriage be undermining who we are as a country?

Let's cut to the chase, the only thing I would against is bestiality and that's because an animal cannot consent. As it currently stands, poly relationships are "gaming" the system. If you want to get your freak on with your sister and/or brother, go for it. Just don't expect the state to handle the offspring's care.

I'm a governmental minimalist. I used to identify as a Libertarian but I'm not a full blown anarchist.

You're still not quite answering the question though. We aren't debating whether or not a brother and sister can shack up and have sex. Or whether two women and three men can all live together and swap partners every night. We already permit people to do such things if that's what floats their boat. Call it a "passive" right if you will.

What we are debating is whether the gov't has any obligation to offer an "active" right...to sanction these varying arrangements as a marriage with all the rights and privileges thereof...including, if you've paid much attention to the headlines over the last year or two, the right to coerce private business owners to materially participate in your wedding ceremony such as accepting a job as your wedding photographer.

If you asserting that if we do not confer said rights on all these arrangements that we've somehow lost who we are as a country undermined everything we were built on?

[Aufan59 80]

Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period.

Genetically and biologically speaking, race is a relatively meaningless distinction.

Race is mostly a cultural construct, defined by things like skin color. And skin color definitely has a huge environmental factor.

[homersapien 11,447]

Well that's fine if you want to believe that, but the simple fact ..... Likewise, the government will legally recognize their marriages because it is far too late and too problematic to legally restrict the meaning and use of the term as inherently religious.

That's a great reason. Laziness.

Actually, I was referring to the futility of it. Not trying to undo what has already been done doesn't necessarily mean one is lazy.

My other point is that such a notion is inherently unconstitutional.