Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

And no one has yet come forward to explain why "marriage" should NOT be used exclusively to define a civil union between members of opposite sexes.

---

You clearly didn't read the opinion of the California Supreme Court.What part of "separate but equal" are you having trouble with? If you're going to separate contracts that provide equal rights and responsibilities, then you must call them the same thing because it is constitutionally required. By calling them different things, you invite differential treatment which is prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.Note, "marriage" used to mean "between people of the same race." That law in California was struck down for the exact same reasons as the current law restricting marriage as being "between people of opposite sex."Are you saying it was improper to "redefine" marriage to be regardless of the race of the participants?

quote:

---

The gay crowd cannot explain why the word "marriage" needs to apply to them, especially when they already can, in certain states, get civilly united under the law.

---

On the contrary. It is not up to gays to explain why they should have equal rights. It is up to those who wish to deny equality to explain why full citizenship does not apply to gays.What part of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gays?

quote:

---

For them to insist on changing the historical meaning of the word "marriage"”The Sacred Covenant”is a reverse form of bigotry.

---

Huh? Are you seriously saying that if a black person and a white person get "married," that somehow affects the marriage of two white people?That's what "marriage" used to mean. There were laws against race-mixing. The California Supreme Court struck them down.Were they wrong to do so? Does the fact that people of different races can get married affect yours?Then you need to explain why people of the same sex getting married affects you.Be specific. If the neighbors next door get married, what will happen to you?Will your income tax rates go up?
Will your children be taken away?
Will you be deported?
Will you lose your health insurance?
Will you be put in prison?Be specific.

quote:

---

Why does the law need be involved with Sacred Covenants?

---

Since when did "marriage" mean "sacred covenant" with respect to the law? I was under the impression that the separation of church and state was established law.Atheists can get married. Should they not be allowed to?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lyx2no writes:

quote:

---

Then the gay couple can also get a civil union to complete the package

---

Except that a "civil union" is not the same as a "marriage." In not one state that has a "civil union," not even California, does the contract of "civil union" carry the same rights as that of "marriage."And no, I'm not talking about the federal rights of marriage for which there is no such thing as "civil union." I'm talking about the state rights. As the CSC's opinion pointed out, there are multiple rights that the California "civil union" contract does not provide that "marriage" does. Thus, they are not equivalent. Thus, equal protection necessarily applies. Thus, "marriage" must be made available to same-sex couples.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist:

quote:

---

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, has nothing to do with sexual attraction or love. It is just a social contract. And it does have some restrictions.

---

Then why does the INS take so poorly to "marriages of convenience"? Why do they look for signs of actual commingling of lives as would be expected by two people in love? Why do they ask about consummating the marriage?Why can a marriage be annulled if you haven't had sex? Annulment is not just another term for divorce. A divorce breaks the contract of marriage. Annulment means it never existed in the first place. Getting a divorce means you go through the various laws regarding the division of property, prenuptial agreements, etc. Annulment means none of that applies since there was never a marriage.Why is one of the reasons that you can sue for divorce lack of marital relations?Why is one of the reasons you can sue someone else loss of marital relations?Marriage is about sex. There are lots of other things attached to it, yes, but the big point is that it legitimizes a sexual relationship.

quote:

---

None of us have the RIGHT to marry someone we're attracted to.

---

Now you're just being silly. Nobody is saying you can force someone to get married simply because you are sexually attracted to them. We're saying that one of the big points about marriage is the legitimization of the sexual relationship. Why should only heterosexual couplings receive sanction?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

But, Rrhain, the opinion of the vast majority is that "gay marriage" is not the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman.

---

But Hoot Mon, the opinion of the vast majority is that "interracial marriage" is not the same thing as marriage between people of the same races. That was precisely the argument used to justify miscegenation laws.Were they legitimate then? If not, why does the sex of the participants matter?

quote:

---

How could it be? The parts don't fit together.

---

Strange...gay people seem to be able to have sex. What is it they know that you don't?Hint: There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Note, "marriage" used to mean "between people of the same race."

---

​

Please be specific about the law you are quoting.

---

Let's not play dumb. Go look up Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711.You did actually read the court's ruling in the marriage cases, yes? Footnote 32: Note the point: One of the first things the California legislature did as a new state was to nullify interracial marriage. One hundred years later, the CSC overturned that law.Were they wrong to do so? Again, from the ruling on same-sex marriage: You seem to be upset that the court was applying the law.

quote:

---

Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. Please explain to me why they don't.

---

Gay people can't get married.
Gay people can't serve in the military.
Gay people can be fired for being gay.
Gay people can lose custody of their children for being gay.
Gay people can be denied housing for being gay.
Gay people can have their wills overturned for being gay.
Gay children can be legally tortured by their parents in attempts to make them straight.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Huh? Are you seriously saying that if a black person and a white person get "married," that somehow affects the marriage of two white people?

---

​

No, I never said anything of the sort.

---

But you said that about gay people. If the race of the participants in a marriage doesn't affect the marriages of other people, why would the sex of the participants do so?The arguments you are making are exactly the same ones, word for word, that people used to deny marriage to people of different races. If it was illegitimate in the question of race, why is it suddenly legitimate in the question of sex?

quote:

---

I don't care who gets married, so long as the law stays out of it.

---

Why don't I believe that? Why aren't you at the county clerk's office right now protesting the contract of marriage? Why is it that this sudden upwelling of disgust with regard to the state having a contract for interpersonal relationships only seems to come up when the people wishing to avail themselves of the contract happen to be gay?You admit to having been married three times. Are you saying you never had it licensed by the state?

quote:

---

What affects me is that I, via the law, have to be a party to it.

---

Huh? You're going to be forced into a marriage you don't want because gay people can get married? That makes no sense. What, precisely are you "being a party to"?

quote:

---

I'm not objecting to civil unions between gays. But I object to anything that conflates government with religion, as is prohibited by the First Amendment.

---

But marriage isn't a religious contract with regard to the state. It's a civil contract. So what's the problem?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was under the impression that the separation of church and state was established law.

---

​

I believe you are under the right impression.

---

So why are you invoking religion in your argument? We're talking about the civil contract of marriage. When you go to the county clerk's office, you ask for a "marriage" license. No religion involved.

quote:

---

Well, I'm an atheist, and I've been married three times.

---

So since you are quite clear on the subject of how marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one, I have to wonder why you are invoking religion as your justification for denying marriage to all citizens.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

I really don't care either way if gay people get married or not. I just don't think we should "turn on the lightswitch" on a federal level that redefines marriage to be between any two people.

---

You do realize that there is a severe problem with at least one of those sentences, yes?There appears to be a contradiction: If you don't care if gay people get married, why do you care if marriage is "redefined" as between people regardless of their sex? Either you care or you don't.Too, just to make sure you aren't being disingenuous, nobody is saying marriage should be "between any two people." The question of marriage as it applies to the sex of the participants does not have anything to say to the question of, say, the familial relationship or the mental capacity of the participants.

quote:

---

Another thing I don't like is drawing up lines and creating new groups of people and then finding some way that they are discriminated against so that laws can be made more liberal.

---

So when the laws against miscegenation were struck down, that was a bad thing, right?Blacks and white shouldn't be allowed to get married to each other, right?"New groups of people"? You mean there were no gays until recently?

quote:

---

Its those small nudges to the left over and over again that are eventually going to push us over the edge.

---

(*chuckle*)Yeah, all that talk about "freedom and justice for all," that's just "liberal" claptrap.Well, actually, when you get right down to it, it is quite liberal. The idea that human beings are entitled to equal protection under the law is a liberal idea, not a conservative or centrist one. Given your reaction to all things "liberal," it is starting to make sense why you hold the Constitution in such contempt.It's a liberal document.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

They have every right that I have. I can't marry someone of the same sex either. This talk of them being denied rights is bullshit.

---

(*chuckle*)You really don't know much about American jurisprudence, do you?As Anatole France put it: Now, he was French, but that sentiment has been taken up by the American judicial system. Laws that technically apply across the board are still discriminatory if in practice they really only affect one class of people.By your logic, miscegenation laws were perfectly OK as nobody was denied any right: A black person couldn't marry a white person just as much as a white person couldn't marry a black person. Equal, right?So the CSC and the SCOTUS were both wrong to strike down miscegenation laws, rights?

quote:

---

Know that marring someone you love or want to fuck has nothing to do with the law. The law sees marriage as a social contract, with limitations.

---

Then why does the INS take so poorly to "marriages of convenience"? Why do they look for signs of actual commingling of lives as would be expected by two people in love? Why do they ask about consummating the marriage?Why can a marriage be annulled if you haven't had sex? Annulment is not just another term for divorce. A divorce breaks the contract of marriage. Annulment means it never existed in the first place. Getting a divorce means you go through the various laws regarding the division of property, prenuptial agreements, etc. Annulment means none of that applies since there was never a marriage.Why is one of the reasons that you can sue for divorce lack of marital relations?Why is one of the reasons you can sue someone else loss of marital relations?Marriage is about sex. There are lots of other things attached to it, yes, but the big point is that it legitimizes a sexual relationship.

quote:

---

Because some states were going to marry gays anyways, even though it wasn't legit.

---

Huh? That's not what it was. The Hawaii Supreme Court was about to decide that the fundamental right of marriage, as declare by the SCOTUS, could not be denied to gay people. But before they could publish their ruling, the people of Hawaii voted for a constitutional amendment to ban equality in marriage, rendering the decision moot.Thus, there were no states that were going to marry anybody. And yet, the US Congress felt the need to pass DOMA. Considering that marriage is not a contract carried out by the feds, one has to wonder why they bothered.It wasn't that equal marriage isn't legitimate. It's that there was a threat of recognizing the legitimacy of equality in marriage.

quote:

---

They passed it to defend the definition of marriage, hence the name, not to go on the offensive against gay people.

---

BWAHAHAHA!Yeah, right! And the "Clear Skies Initiative" is actually about reducing pollution. The reason they called it the "Defense" of Marriage Act is precisely because they were going on the offensive against gay people. To call it the "Discrimination Against Citizens Act" wouldn't have had nearly as many sponsors.Question: If gay people get married, exactly how many straight people will be legally prevented from getting married and how many will be legally required to get divorced or have their marriages annulled?If the answer is none, then one has to wonder what the threat was such that marriage needed "defending." I'm a bit confused how allowing more people to get married is a threat to marriage.Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

They aren't being denied those rights in the sense that the State explicitly says that they cannot have them.

---

Huh? If certain rights only come with marriage and if marriage is explicitly denied, how does one come to the conclusion that those rights are not being explicitly denied?

quote:

---

The 14th amendment says that a State cannot have a law that deny's priviledges to its citizens.

---

So gay people aren't citizens?

quote:

---

There isn't a law that deny's gays priviledges.

---

So why can't gay people get married?
Why can't gay people serve in the military?
Why can gay people be fired for being gay?
Why can gay people lose custody of their children for being gay?
Why can gay people be denied housing for being gay?
Why can gay people have their wills overturned for being gay?
Why can gay children be tortured by their parents in attempts to make them straight?

quote:

---

So yeah, it sucks for gay people that they don't have those benefits and it'd be nice if they got those benefits.

---

Huh? Now I'm confused. First, you said there aren't any rights that gay people don't have and now you say that there are rights that gay people don't have. Which is it?

quote:

---

You know the 14th was written for slaves.

---

What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously claiming that the various rulings that rely upon Fourteenth Amendment justifications are all null and void simply because we don't have slavery anymore? If that's the case, then what on earth is the point of even having the Fourteenth Amendment? The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.You seem to hold the Constitution in extreme contempt. As mentioned previously, I think I can understand why:It's a liberal document. With your severe reaction against all things "liberal," it is not surprising to find that you consider equality to be distasteful. It's a "liberal" value.

quote:

---

The gay partner doesn't count as a spouse. That's why all that occurs, not because of homophobic bigots.

---

(*chuckle*)You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes?"The gay partner doesn't count as a spouse" is an inherently homphobic, bigotted remark.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

VirtuousGuile writes:

quote:

---

Also I get tried of being an evil homophobic if I don't support the perspective favourable to homosexuality.

---

Hey, I understand the response.But if one cannot accept the equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation, that that necessarily makes one a bigot and if your attitude is that gay people are to be denied complete equality at all levels, then that necessarily makes you, in your words, "an evil homophobic."Nobody likes to think that they are evil. So if you don't like being evil, then stop what you're doing that makes it so.Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex lives?

quote:

---

A marriage as I believe the conception of the general majority is a life long commitment between a man and a woman.

---

So rights are only for the popular?Not that helpful if the only things that are "rights" are things that nobody would think of denying in the first place. The point of a "right" is to defend those things that are unpopular. It's that whole "tyranny of the majority" thing.The general majority in many countries used to think that black people weren't citizens but instead were chattel.Did that make slavery right? We here in the United States went to war over it. Are you saying that was a bad idea?

quote:

---

In N.Z. the legal rights are provided to those who enter a civil union which is also available to homosexuals.

---

...except it's not the same. A civil union in New Zealand is not equivalent to marriage.And surely you're not saying that your entire objection to equality is a semantic one, are you? If the sticking point for you truly is the word, then why don't you change the word for your relationship? The rest of the world will keep the word "marriage" and you can have your "special friendship" or whatever you want to call it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

VirtuousGuile responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

A civil union in New Zealand is not equivalent to marriage.

---

​

Yes legally it is the same. Culturally no it is not.

---

Ahem: Same-sex couples cannot adopt in New Zealand while married couples and single people can so no, they are not legally the same.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So rights are only for the popular?

---

​

They only get support if someone thinks they're popular.

---

So you agree. Rights only exist if they aren't necessary. After all, if everybody thinks the right is important, then they don't go around denying it. But isn't the point of a right that it is to be upheld even if it is unpopular? The right to free speech is worthless if it doesn't protect people from expressing unpopular opinions as well as popular ones.

quote:

---

It is not an established right.

---

Who cares about establishment? Are you saying that there was no right not to be enslaved until people decided so? That it was actually acceptable to enslave people until it became popular to think otherwise?

quote:

---

It is not clear to me that the case for nature versus nurture has yet been made.

---

Why does that matter? What possible effect can the etiology of sexual orientation have on whether or not people should have the same regardless regardless of sexual orientation?

quote:

---

As a right it only has a basis as nature.

---

So freedom of thought, expression, religion, association...none of those are rights because they aren't based in nature. If I managed to convince enough people that it would be just peachy for me to enslave you, you wouldn't complain in the slightest because your right to be free doesn't exist since it isn't based in "nature."

quote:

---

It is very clear that to disagree with homosexuality is a taboo but that is not a reason to recognize it as right.

---

Indeed. It isn't a right simply because a lot of people recognize it as such.It's a right because it is wrong to deny it.

quote:

---

It it harder to say that black man is not a man.

---

So gay people are what?

quote:

---

So sir by your own words I have a reason for my position

---

Incorrect. You have no reason for your position other than your own personal squick factor and that isn't good enough.Time for you to be specific: Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex lives?

quote:

---

the slur bigot is common if one does not agree with the homosexual position.

---

That's because, by definition, it is bigoted to deny equality to people in all areas based upon their sexual orientation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But Hoot Mon, the opinion of the vast majority is that "interracial marriage" is not the same thing as marriage between people of the same races.

---

​

Do you believe this? If so, you're deluded.

---

Oh no? Do you really think most people would be happy if their daughters decided to marry someone of a different race?At any rate, at the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the American population felt that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to get married. That's more than the current percentage of people who think that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. And yet, the SCOTUS struck down miscegenation laws.Were they wrong to do so?

quote:

---

quote:

---

There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't.

---

​

Straight men don't try to have sex with other men. Straight women don't try to have sex with other women. Do these count for anything?

---

Huh? What kind of sex do people of the same sex have that people of the opposite sex cannot have?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gay people can't get married.

---

​

Wrong! NOTHING prohibits them from marriage, so long as they do it with members of opposite sexes.

---

Which means they can't get married. Gay people don't marry people of the opposite sex except under duress.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gay people can't serve in the military.

---

​

What ever happened to "Don't ask. Don't tell."?

---

Discharges went up. That's what happened. DADT didn't actually make it OK for gay people to serve. You don't have to say or do anything. All it takes is for somebody else to say something. What DADT did is force gay people to become liars. And by lying, that makes a person subject to discharge.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gay people can be fired for being gay.
Gay people can lose custody of their children for being gay.
Gay people can be denied housing for being gay.
Gay people can have their wills overturned for being gay.
Gay children can be legally tortured by their parents in attempts to make them straight.

---

​

Are you saying then that gays can do a lot of this that straights can't do?

---

Oh, you have got to be kidding me. Could we possibly keep this in the realm of rationality? Are you saying that it's an honor and privilege to be fired, lose your children, kicked out of your house, have your will overturned?Are you saying people should be grateful to be tortured?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The arguments you are making are exactly the same ones, word for word, that people used to deny marriage to people of different races. If it was illegitimate in the question of race, why is it suddenly legitimate in the question of sex?

---

​

Fundamental flaw: Race and sexual orientation are two entirely different things.

---

Indeed. But what is it about sexual orientation that makes it OK to torture people while it would be beyond the pale to do so on the basis of race?

quote:

---

For you to imply, by way of your assertion, that a black man's plight in our culture is equal to that of a gay man then you are a bigot of the highest order.

---

Huh? It hasn't been legal to lynch black people for years.It's still OK to torture gay people. It's called "reparative therapy."We are on the brink of electing a black person to be president. We would never countenance electing a gay person. For crying out loud, the US Senate refused to confirm James C. Hormel ambassador to Luxemborg specifically because he was gay even though Luxemborg was specifically requesting him.And while I am loathe to bring it up for fear of invoking Godwin's Law, I should point out that when the concentration camps were liberated during World War II, the gay people were not freed but instead sent to prison because it was still illegal to be gay.It is not an implication, I'm directly saying it: The plight of gay people is equivalent to those who aren't white and to deny it is bigotry of the highest order. The most common reason for youth suicide in this country is being gay. Your parents don't throw you out of the house when they find out your race since you don't have to tell people your race. The most common reason for youth homelessness in this country (outside of the parents also being homeless) is because their parents have kicked them out for being gay.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're going to be forced into a marriage you don't want because gay people can get married? That makes no sense. What, precisely are you "being a party to"?

---

​

Have you forgotten that our government is constituted to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? This put ME right in the middle of what my government does.

---

That doesn't answer the question. The government allows neo-Nazis to march in the streets, Pat Robertson to claim that the terrorist attacks were god's punishment because of gays, feminists, pagans, and abortion, and all sorts of other things I'm sure we all agree we would rather see less of.Are you saying that the government forces you to be a bigot simply because it allows people to express bigotry?What in your life will change if gay people are allowed to get married?Be specific.

quote:

---

The problem is that the state needs to get out of the business of "marriage" and restrict its jurisdiction to civil unions.

---

But you don't really believe that. The only time you ever seem to make this statement is when the topic of conversation turns to gay people getting married. If you truly believed this, you'd be down at the office of the registrar picketing against marriage.Since you were married three times yourself, you clearly don't believe that at all unless you're saying you never had any of your marriages licensed.

quote:

---

There are no valid arguments for why the state should do the business of the church.

---

But marriage isn't a religious contract with regard to the state. It's a civil contract. So what's the problem?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

A bigot is someone who is unwilling to respect another person's opinion.

---

And who here is unwilling to respect your opinion? Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do, are they?If gay people were to be equal in all aspects of life, what would change in your life?Be specific.Refusing to accept intolerance is not intolerance.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I didn't choose to be heterosexual either. Do you know for sure that gay people do not choose to be homosexual?

---

Huh? You're perfectly willing to accept that you didn't choose your sexual orientation but you have nothing but doubt for other people who say the same thing?At any rate, why does it matter? If sexual orientation were as fluid as religion, then it would still be bigoted and unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for precisely the same reason: You have the right to yourself.

quote:

---

And let's suppose that science discovers a cure for it: gene therapy; dietary supplements, surgical procedures. Now, given a real chance to reverse their homosexuality, would gay people choose to be cured?

---

Excuse me? "Cure"? You mean like "curing" brown eyes, kinky hair, and dark skin? Given a real chance to reverse being black, would black people choose to be cured?

quote:

---

There are already claims of therapies being available for correcting sexual orientation (see NARTH).

---

(*chuckle*)You do know that they involve the use of torture and don't actually work, yes? The "reparative therapy" movement doesn't actually keep track of their outcomes since they know that they don't actually work.And on top of that, we find that those who go through "reparative therapy" are much more likely to be depressed and commit suicide than those who don't.

quote:

---

We're suppose to change the law because of choices people make for themselves.

---

Yeah, that whole freedom of religion, expression, and association...it's all a bunch of bullshit and should be repealed as soon as possible. It causes nothing but trouble.You claim to be an atheist, Hoot Mon. By your logic, you would have no problem with the theists in this country making your choice not to believe a capital crime.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

But they ought to be civilly united if they wish, so as to get their equal rights under the law.

---

"Separate but equal"? Didn't we already learn this lesson? There ain't no such thing.Look, if you want to have your "special friendship," then why don't you pass a law that those people of the opposite sex who wish to have a "special friendship" can get one while those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex who choose to do so can get "married."If the problem is semantic, then the solution is for you to come up with a new word to describe your "special friendship." Everybody already understands what "married" means and for two people of the same sex to say that they are "married" causes no confusion.You're the one having the trouble. You're the one who wants to keep your "special friendship" separate from all the other marriages. Therefore, you should figure out what you want to call it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon, you have a serious flaw in your argument. Here is the big indicator:

quote:

---

you are wrongly conflating two different things: race and sexual orientation. And, by doing so, you are asserting that both have genetic roots, or at least roots in heritable characteristics.

---

You see, Hoot Mon, it doesn't matter where sexual orientation comes from. And while we know that it cannot be changed, it doesn't matter if it could. What you have yet to explain is why you are so obsessed with the sex lives of other people. How does it affect you if the people next door get married? Will your income tax go up? Will your children be taken away? Will you be forced to grant them an easement?Thus, you are incorrectly separating sexual orientation from equivalent things such as race and religion. We don't countenance discrimination based upon who you fundamentally are whether you are born that way or you choose it.

quote:

---

But you COULD choose your sexual orientation, and many do.

---

Well, no, you couldn't and nobody does. You, yourself, admitted that you didn't choose yours and if you didn't, what makes you think anybody else does? Despite numerous attempts by "reparative therapists" to do so, there has yet to be a successful conversion. In fact, "reparative therapy" groups specifically avoid claiming that there will be any change in sexual orientation and even more telling, don't keep records of the outcome of their torture...er..."therapy." Don't you find it interesting that the founders of Exodus (the premier "reparative therapy" organization) fell in love with each other and quit the group? Isn't it interesting that all of their poster boys for the "ex-gay" movement have been found in gay bars after their "success"? Do you truly not remember Paulk? In fact, those who go through "reparative therapy" are more likely to be clinically depressed and attempt suicide.But even so, it is irrelevant. We don't discriminate on the basis of religion, either, which is clearly an indoctrinated and chosen trait. To pretend that there is something about sexual orientation that makes it uniquely worthy of torturing other people that race or religion does not is disingenuous in the extreme.I call upon you and others contributing to this discussion who believe that race and sexual orientation can not be compared to re-examine your assertions. For you to deny the struggle of minority sexualities in this country, especially ones who are literally sent to torture chambers to this very day in this very country, with the "whimsy" of whites who assert the "white man's burden" is a public embarrassment for you. By doing so, you reveal yourself as an ignorant bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

But I’m the one of the ones here calling for civil unions between gays to protect their legal rights.

---

But a "civil union" doesn't protect legal rights. Instead, it discriminates. We've already been down this road and found it constitutionally incoherent: There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By treating it differently, you necessarily insist that it is different, inviting later legislation that will codify that difference.Notice that despite the attempts by the various states to create a "separate but equal" contract of "civil union," not one of them provides complete equality.The only way to ensure equality is to have a single contract.

quote:

---

I’m out to give them everything they want . everything except legalized “marriage.”

---

And that's what makes you a bigot: You don't want to give them anything because the only thing that is the equivalent of "marriage" is an actual marriage called "marriage" and using the same "marriage" contract as every other couple. Instead, you want to provide a separate and necessarily lesser contract, enshrining in the legal code second-class status.

quote:

---

And I ask a simple question: Why should the law officiate in marriages anyway?

---

Because it's a civil contract. Marriage establishes next-of-kin relationship. That is an inherent government act. Many of the legal effects of marriage can be established in other ways (power of attorney, wills, property agreements, etc.), but the marriage contract includes legal relationships that are not provided by any contract no matter what the name. Too, the legal cost of establishing all of the other contracts is massive and prohibitive compared to the cost of establishing a marriage contract.

quote:

---

The business of the law is sanctioning civil unions, not serving as ersatz churches.

---

Huh? Marriage is a civil contract. No religion involved. What's your problem? You claim to be an atheist and also to have been married three times. Are you saying that you never had these marriages certified by the state? Then why are you calling them "marriages"?

quote:

---

I would prefer to leave the churches in charge of marriages, as it should be.

---

And since marriage is a civil contract with no religion involved, one wonders why you keep harping about this.

quote:

---

But I do care what the laws do; I have a lot to do with them, and they have a lot to do with me.

---

And how would your life change if the neighbors got married? How would the long arm of the law come down on you? You say it has something to do with you, so it is time for you to be specific. Would the neighbors getting married increase your income tax? Would it cause you to lose your job? Would the government exert emminent domain upon your property?

quote:

---

There is nothing bigoted about believing that the word “marriage” should apply only to unions of members of opposite sexes.

---

There is everything bigoted about it as it declares gays to be second-class citizens, unworthy of equal protection and full rights across all areas of society.

quote:

---

Is it bigoted to give baby girls pink booties and baby boys blue ones?

---

"Give" them? Not necessarily. Prevent girls from wearing blue booties? Yes.

quote:

---

the current laws encourage heterosexuality, which means it discourages homosexuality. Why don't they make a case over that, too?

---

That already happened. Lawrence v. Texas. Laws that discriminate against gays specifically because of their sexuality are inherently unconstitutional because the law has no place in discouraging homosexuality.

quote:

---

If they already have the same rights as I do, which they do, then how are they being discriminated against?

---

Because they don't have the same rights as you.Gays don't have the right to get married.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay.
Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.
Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.

quote:

---

You want society to bend for them as if they had been enslaved for inheriting racial characteristics.

---

They have. Why do you think the word "faggot" came to be used for gay men? Because a "faggot" was the bundle of sticks you used to start a fire and gay men were the ones you burned on the fire. When we liberated the concentration camps in Europe, there was no freedom for the gays: They were sent to prison because it was still illegal to be gay.It's been illegal to lynch someone for being black for decades in this country.It is still legal to torture gays, though.

quote:

---

And you want to make it seem as if homosexuality and race are on the same page for comparative purposes where suffering is concerned.

---

That's because they are.

quote:

---

Furthermore, you want to call people bigots for disagreeing with your position on this issue.

---

That's because they are.Now, you have the freedom to be a bigot. What you don't have the right to do is force that bigotry into the law. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex and you'll never have to deal with it.How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Will you be required to sell your car? Will you be demoted at work? Will you be deported?Be specific.

quote:

---

I will be more likely to agree with you, bluescat48, when you can show me how a person becomes homosexual in the same way a person becomes black.

---

Why does it matter? You claim to be an atheist. By your logic, you would have no problem with the theists in this country passing a law forcing you to pay a disbelief tax since your philosophical stance isn't genetic.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.