Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is your answer more legitimate given the fact that there is no legal recognition of marriage among multiple people in the US and thus no precedent upon which to base a decision?

---

​

What courts do is use previous decisions of similar situations (not exactly the same ones) in order to make their interpretation.

---

But there is no similar situation, so what now? And with so many people in the US who are engaged in more-than-two relationships behaving as a maximally interconnected relationship rather than the hub-and-spoke method you claim, why should we assume hub-and-spoke?

quote:

---

This is why I gave you examples of similar situations where people have competing and equal claims to something: parents, and children

---

But parents/children have never had an exclusive right over their children/parents. It has always been a shared right unless made exclusive by the execution of power of attorney.Marriage, on the other hand, has always been an exclusive right.Therefore, in order to follow your argument, we have to change an exclusive right to a shared right (that could conceivably be made an exclusive right again through power of attorney). That necessarily means that the execution of the contract of marriage changes when we go from two people to more than two people.And this is why I keep asking you the same thing...you keep contradicting yourself. You claim that same-sex marriage would not change anything about the execution of the contract of marriage. But then you say that polygamy would change marriage less than same-sex marriage. Given that we have just shown that polygamy would require at least one change to the execution of the contract of marriage, how could same-sex marriage which you have said changes nothing be more of a change than polygamy?How is one less than zero?

quote:

---

It is very obvious.

---

No, it isn't.

quote:

---

They all have equal claim. They will settle it amongst themselves.

---

That isn't the answer I came up with. I was going to say that the one that does the least amount of irrevocable change is the one that gets followed. That is, pulling the plug would result in death which can't be undone. If one says to pull the plug while the other says not to, then we follow the latter.So since you and I came up with two different answers, it isn't obvious.

quote:

---

Marriage of every kind will end up in the courts

---

Logical error: Equivocation.You are shifting from "in the courts" meaning "changing the administration of the contract of marriage" to "in the courts" meaning "interpretation of the contract of marriage."That is, there is a difference between recognizing the existence of a rule and recognizing what the rule means.Same-sex marriage changes nothing regarding the existence or meaning of the rules of marriage. Any question regarding the meaning of the rules of marriage that would arise from a same-sex couple would also occur with regard to a mixed-sex couple. Ergo, the reason that it is in court is not because the couple is a same-sex couple. It is because they are a married couple seeking adjudication of what the rules of marriage mean.Polygamous marriage, on the other hand, changes the number and meaning of the rules of marriage. Exclusive rights now become shared rights. They no longer mean the same thing. Triads that go to court for adjudication will be asking questions that would never ever come up were it just a couple.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Of course, this is indulging your error of neglecting to remember the removal of sex restrictions from the law. "Husband" and "wife" become "spouse," "man" and "woman" become "person," "mother" and "father" become "parent." ...The entire point is that if we remove restrictions of the sex of the participants, what changes in the actual administration of the contract?

---

​

Yet you seem to miss that the same thing goes for if you remove the number of participants.

---

You just contradicted yourself.You said that same-sex marriage would not change the administration of the contract of marriage if we replaced "husband" and "wife" with "spouse."Now you're saying that it will.Make up your mind.

quote:

---

Then rights move from exclusive, to shared.

---

But that changes the administration of the contract of marriage.Therefore, if same-sex marriage doesn't change the administration of the contract of marriage but polygamy does, how can polygamy change the administration of the contract of marriage less than same-sex marriage?How is one less than zero?

quote:

---

I believe there are no changes in the administration of the contract, once the definitions change.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?How can things be the same if they have been changed? If you change the definition of something, how is it the same?Same-sex marriage does not change the definition of marriage. There is nothing in the list of rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage that can only be performed by a woman. Similarly, there is nothing that can only be performed by a man. Ergo, marriage is not defined by the sex of the participants.Polygamy, however, changes the definition of marriage. As you agreed, exclusive rights become shared rights. That changes the definition of what "marriage" means. The rights and responsibilities of marriage require that one and only one person be allowed to do certain things under the current definition. Polygamy throws that out and changes it to multiple people.

quote:

---

That you are not, and never were concerned with addressing whether marriage is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman?

---

Bingo."Tradition" has nothing to do with anything. The only question before us is what the Constitution requires (equality before the law) and what the current law is (the specific rights and responsibilities that occur in the contract known as "marriage").The Constitution requires equal treatment under the law. Allowing people of the same sex to get married changes absolutely nothing about the specific rights and responsibilities that come along with "marriage."Ergo, there is no reason to deny same-sex marriage.Allowing more than three people to get married, however, changes the specific rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage.Ergo, there may or may not be a reason to deny polygamy. However, those reasons have nothing to do with equality under the law. It has to do with the rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage.Same-sex marriage is about the Constitution. Polygamy is about the law.

quote:

---

And as far as that last sentence goes, the legal contract of marriage among samesex people would necessarily be manifestly different from how the current contract of marriage is defined.

---

How?Be specific.I've asked you for a list over and over again and you have never been able to come up with one. In fact, you screamed at the top of your lungs that same-sex marriage wouldn't be any different from mixed-sex marriage.So you can understand why I keep asking you the same things over and over. You keep contradicting yourself.Make up your mind.

quote:

---

Show me one thing which must be changed in the writing of the law, which will have to be changed (besides those of prereqs) in order to have polygamous marriage.

---

I already have. You've already agreed to it:Exclusive rights will become shared.Don't you remember your own words? They're in this very post: So since you agree that polygamy would require a change of rights, how can you sit there and say that you don't know of any difference in the rights of marriage between couples and triads?

quote:

---

Please confine your arguments to whether the H&S legal contract is capable of capturing legally the group social dynamic any group may wish to devise.

---

Suppose one member of a triad wishes a divorce. How many are needed?In a H&S model that emulates a maximally interconnected arrangement, two are needed because that person has two contracts.In a maximally interconnected arrangement, only one is needed because there is only one contract.Ergo, a H&S marriage, even though it may establish legal connections that emulate a MI marriage, can never be equivalent to a MI marriage.

quote:

---

The H&S contract is versatile enough to capture whatever situation you want.

---

Incorrect. H&S can never achieve maximal interconnection because it introduces multiple contracts in order to emulate MI.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I agree with just about everything you said, though I am still sceptical that orientation is locked in at three.

---

That's what the evidence seems to suggest. There is no way to change sexual orientation...no matter how early one tries to "intervene." And before the age of three, there is no reliable method of communication and thus no way to "intervene" in the first place.

quote:

---

I think it is more of a predisposition.

---

Then all you need is a good gay lover? You really could change your sexual orientation if you put your mind to it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The big data point regarding a genetic basis for sexual orientation are the studies regarding identical twins, fraternal twins, and non-twin siblings. If sexuality were a fetal hormone issue, then identical and fraternal twins would have similar outcomes. Instead, fraternal twins seem to have similar rates of outcome to non-twin siblings while identical twins tend to go together.

---

​

This is EXACTLY why I feel the way I do. I am an identical twin. We share some basic rules of attraction, but our sexualities (orientations) are quite different.

---

Oh surely you aren't going to claim that identical twins are absolutely identical in every single trait simply because they have the same genes, are you? Surely you understand that just because you have the same genes does not mean they are expressed in the same way, don't you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy writes:

quote:

---

Biologically, the genders were made to fit each other.

---

And themselves, too.This is obviously so, or gay people couldn't have sex. Since gay people obviously do have sex, and do so quite successfully without any difficulty, then it must necessarily be the case that male "fit" other males and females "fit" other females just as easily as males "fit" females.To be blunt, if a penis wasn't meant to go into an anus, then it wouldn't fit in there so well, would it? Doesn't the fact that the best way to massage the prostate gland is to insert something into the anus indicate that there is something to be said for anal intercourse?

quote:

---

Everyone knows that Men are from Mars and Woman are from Venus, right?

---

No. I thought everybody knew that was nothing more than psychobabble claptrap.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If that were the case, then there would be a fertility test for marriage and a marriage could be annulled for non-issue.

---

​

Believe it or not, in my state, while they do not make a case of this BEFORE the marriage, it can be a reason for divorce.

---

Um, I didn't say divorce. I said annulled.There is a difference. In a divorce, you were once married, the contract of marriage was a valid one, and there is no changing of the past. In an annullment, the marriage never existed in the legal sense.That's why marriage is about sex, not about children. If you don't have sex, you can get an annullment. If you do have sex but don't have children, you'll have to settle for divorce.You need to stop thinking about "tradition" and start looking at the law.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What you haven't managed to discuss is how a gay couple is any different from an infertile straight couple.

---

​

I have, they are the same.

---

Then you just contradicted yourself. Now you understand why I keep asking you the same thing over and over. Make up your mind.If a same-sex couple is no different from an infertile straight couple, how could same-sex couples have more issues concerning custody than mixed-sex couples?Surely you aren't equivocating "more" in a raw numerical sense and "more" in a list of types sense, are you? That is, you're absolutely right that custody issues in same-sex couples are always going to be concerned with issues of adoption since the child will not be the issue of the two people directly (at least, not until cloning becomes available). But since an infertile straight couple can be in the exact same scenario, then the scenario is not unique to same-sex couples and thus, same-sex couples do not have "more" issues. They just have "more common" issues.Can you give me a single legal question that a same-sex couple could introduce that an appropriate mixed-sex couple could never come up with?

quote:

---

What you have not discussed is how that is going to help gays out of all the thorny issues they will run into with paternity.

---

Why does it matter? The question is not how we are going to make marriage "better." It is about how we are going to make marriage equal.Since we do not deny marriage to infertile straight couples, even though we know that there are potential problems regarding custody should there be children, then that cannot be used as a reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

quote:

---

You will also find that unlike infertile straight couples, there are laws specifically against gays adopting or restricting artificial insemination. I am not arguing this is fair but they do exist. Giving gays marriage rights will NOT change those laws at all.

---

I never said they would. Adoption rights are not the same as marriage rights.However, some of the arguments used to validate same-sex marriage are applicable to adoption by gay people (there is no difference in outcome between children raised by gay people and those raised by straight people, therefore, in the interest of the children, equality of the law must prevail and there can be no discrimination against gay people with regard to adoption.)

quote:

---

In fact your own argument that marriage is just about legitimizing sex, and not about family, would UNDERCUT gay efforts to be able to adopt children if they manage to get marriage rights.

---

Incorrect. The two have nothing to do with each other. Adoption is about finding a stable family. Just because you are married does not mean you are good adoption candidates.

quote:

---

They would suddenly become WHOLLY SEPARATE rights issues, and so states could continue to maintain "concern" over the effects of gay parentage, and restrict them legally.

---

They could do that, yes, but the result is still the same:There is no difference between children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents. Since we require equal treatment under the law and since gay people and straight people are identical when it comes to raising children, then for the sake of the children we cannot deny adoption rights to gay people.

quote:

---

In reality they are the same, legally they are different.

---

But not by any rational basis. You do understand the difference between a law based upon a rational, real situation (the issue of the ability to give consent and the inability to test every single individual giving rise to the practical need for an "age of consent" law) and a law that has no rational, real basis (gay people are icky and will corrupt children and thus need to be kept away from them thus a law that prevents gay people from having custody of children.)Indeed, there are laws that prevent gay people from adopting children.That doesn't mean they are justified.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to NosyNed:

quote:

---

You will note that it said identical twins go together on orientation.

---

Incorrect. Read what I actually said, please: Now, compare what I actually said to what you thought I said.Does the phrase "tend to" mean anything to you?

quote:

---

If they said that fraternal and identical twins tend to go together, with perhaps a slight increase in correlation in identical twins, it would still undercut the genetic basis of orientation.

---

Indeed. But, that's not what the studies found.Instead, they found that fraternal twins and non-twin siblings have similar ratios of gay to straight members. Identical twins, on the other hand, tend to share orientation.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

ex libres writes:

quote:

---

The thing about the animals- they do that out of an instinct response.

---

And then follows it up with:

quote:

---

Same sex sex is an unnatural act

---

OK, now you do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes?If animals do it instinctively, then it's natural. But how could that be if it is "unnatural"?Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. If animals are gay because of their instinct, then why can't humans be gay instinctively, too? If being gay is unnatural, then what did the animals do to become unnatural aberrations?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to berberry:

quote:

---

My position is that gay marriage will not require wholesale changes to marriage laws in order to make them possible. All it takes is changes to defs and reqs. This is the same as plural marriage.

---

How can this be if plural marriage necessarily requires the exclusive rights granted by the current definition of marriage to become shared rights?How is that not a wholesale change in marriage law?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Lizard Breath writes:

quote:

---

I am going to say that changing from homosexual sex to no sex is possible.

---

And this is supposed to be a good thing?You're saying that a person who is not sick or ill or damaged or in any way anything but absolutely normal should be celibate and sublimate his perfectly natural and inoffensive sexual desires?And you seriously think this won't cause serious pyschological harm?I'm not saying that being celibate causes harm. I'm saying that insisting that somebody be celibate who wouldn't normally want to be is harmful.

quote:

---

After some time the mind and body get a chance to cool down instead of having the lust satisfied with a sexual tra la la

---

So you're saying gay people are incapable of love? When they have sex, it is purely for lust?What an arrogant attitude you have.And what a low opinion you have of lust.

quote:

---

If the hold can be broken and the smoke is allowed to clear, and the person pursues an otherwise normal life, at least there is room for Mrs. Right to be recognised if she appears on the scope.

---

Not if you're a gay man.You see, gay people aren't gay because they're trapped in lust. They're gay because they fall in love with people of the same sex.Tell us: Did you come to the realization that you were straight before or after you had sex?

quote:

---

I don't know but I get the idea that for Gay's, they find a much larger safe zone emotionally with a relationship with another man and they feel squeezed and vulnerable with a woman.

---

You're right: You don't know.Instead, gay people fall in love with people of the same sex and don't have those same feelings with people of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with feeling threatened or "vulnerable." It's simple love.

quote:

---

The sexual act with another man then reinforces the safe zone mind set because it's predictable, good and men don't have all of the crazy mood swings that women constantly have each month.

---

My, how sexist of you. You seem to think that there are only men in the world.If this were the case, why on earth are there any gay women?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry writes:

quote:

---

unless his oath does not state that he will uphold the state constitution. In most cities I think the mayoral oath would contain that promise, but I have no first-hand knowledge of the San Fran oath.

---

I don't know why the city of San Francisco is hiding the oath of office for Mayor, but they are. I can't seem to find it anywhere. However, the Preamble to the City Charter reads: The City Charter makes reference to the California Constitution, but that's really vague. The Charter tells the powers of the Mayor, describes how to hold an election, etc., but does not say what the oath of office is.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

By your same logic, our apparatus could "fit" inside of a dog. Or a goat. Or a cow. Does that make it ok? In a sexual relationship, one person seeks to serve another person. The favor is reciprocated. For the Christian, The Highest relational position "serves" the lower position. Thus, God served Man by dying for us. Man should serve his wife. She should serve the kids. They should honor their parents. And all should honor God. If God is taken out of the equation, however, humans look only to serve themselves with whatever fits. And thus, sex without a purpose becomes its own greatest good and glory.

Do you believe that a goat or a dog could give meaningful consent to sexual activity?If not, then why the hell did you bring it up in a discussion about what consenting adults can and can't do? Because it seems rather irrelevant to me. A 30-year-old man's penis fits in the vagina of a 14-year-old girl. That's also irrelevant to adults having sex.

With every post I am more disappointed in you. You seem to always cloud what I am saying in order to make some point I am not even talking about... and thus paint me into a position I would never hold.

quote:

---

You are the one who picked out porn in your original post as a cause from the USA side. I was replying to that accusation, and pointing out the view of the terrorists' Islam belief toward porn and other (i.e. not just porn) decadence is a greater reason than what you cite.

---

Take the above as a great example, what does the first sentence have to do with the second at all? You have shaped your own argument in responding to my own.All I said is that in order to appease their rightwing base's desire to rid the US of porn, the Bush-Ashcroft administration shifted counterterrorism assets to fight porn. This weakened our national security at a time when national security should have been a major issue (esp for republicans).If you have something to dispute this please do so, but give me a break with trying to make it like I am saying the greater criminals are in the Bush administration. They are the greater NEGLIGENT administrators. If the sheriff dismisses all the deputies, he is not the criminal who breaks the laws in the wake of this, but he is the idiot who allowed more criminals to break the law.

quote:

---

you seem to blame us more than them

---

For the NEGLIGENCE in national security, yes. For hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, no. Make sure you don't confuse my issues with your own.

quote:

---

The only thing he can really influence though, is making it more difficult for kids to get it. I don't think that's so bad.

---

Given your apparent political bias I am unclear whether this statement is made in ignorance or trying to assuage fears about your party. Read up on Bruce Taylor, releases from the Justice Department on their intent to go after mainstream porn for ADULTS, and then ask what bringing in Taylor at this time means.I might also ask you to explain what the prosecution of Seymour Butts had to do with making it more difficult for kids to get.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay this will be a first for me. While I have read all of your posts, I am not going to answer them.First of all because they are so many and at length. Second because they seem to follow your similar formula of incredulity... apparently caused by your habit of treating my posts as phrase by phrase and so miss the actual messages in my post. Third because you show no credible knowledge of how the law operates, and have ignored links I made to sites regarding marriage law, in order to repeat some very ignorant viewpoints on the nature of marriage and family law.But I will give a few answers here that could use explaining...1) I did misread the frat-id twin study conclusion. I am uncertain why you think I am saying something much different than you though. I agree that whatever the genetic makeup, it is how the genes are expressed that are the most important factors in orientation. I guess it could be analogized this way: Genes are the blueprints, Hormonal/physical environmental influences the construction crew and materials, and the social environment the interior/exterior decorator.I do believe that people can change orientation given different experiences, though who they find more attractive will probably not. I do not believe attraction (which is a tendency) to be identical with orientation. For example a man may really love men and find no attraction to women, yet also have no sexual interest in men based on other feelings regarding sexual practices.2) Your inability to comprehend law and changes in law.ME: My position is that gay marriage will not require wholesale changes to marriage laws in order to make them possible. All it takes is changes to defs and reqs. This is the same as plural marriage.YOU: How can this be if plural marriage necessarily requires the exclusive rights granted by the current definition of marriage to become shared rights? How is that not a wholesale change in marriage law?The answer is actually within my statement and earlier posts... All that needs to be changed in written law is defs and reqs (which is the same for both gay and polygamy)... Shared versus exclusive rights are not written into marriage laws. Find them if you want to share them. All this really has to do with is application and interpretation of rights in the courts.If one person has a primary claim then it is BY DEFAULT exclusive, if more than one person has a primary claim (which can be seen in parents or children or business partners) then it is BY DEFAULT shared. This is set by the nature of the claim. Multiple spouses having equal marriage contracts would then BY DEFAULT have shared rights. I am uncertain why this is so hard to comprehend.3) Inability to understand H&S covering all sorts of situations.This one is extra laughable. Please give me the legal situation that people might want to get into that cannot possibly be covered by simply using multiple H&S, or H&S plus prenup contracts. And please do not use your incorrect reading of law to make a circular argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

A reply to godsmac in the "Homosexuality, the natural choice?" thread: This same twisted logic makes a ban on interracial marriage justifiable: "It's not discrimination; all members of the opposite sex have the same right to marry somebody of their own race."What's at stake here is the right to marry somebody you love. And you'd restrict that to certain kinds of couples, which is fine if that's your opinion. What I can't understand is how you refuse to see that as discriminatory. What I can't understand is how you think a union between Adam and Steve somehow makes your own union weaker."No rights to the benefits of marriage?" I'd say that any two people trying to raise children together deserve the rights of marriage. And don't try to act like a good percentage of homosexuals for whom marriage is an issue aren't parents. Pointing out that they can't beget offspring is just a diversion.

From the previous thread Crashfrog was refering to: Godsmack's point of calling homosexuals abnormal is justified if spoken in a room of straight people who view homosexuality as such, but if posed in the line of all those waiting for a marriage certificate in SanFrancisco I believe those people would have a diffferent opinion on whether they're sexual orientation is abnormal or not. It is a matter of opinion .{I know that I gave referenced to topic a temporary closure, because material belonging in this topic kept showing up there. Now we have (some) material (more or less) belonging there, showing up in this topic.

​

Please wait for the other topic to re-open - Which probably will be soon. Thanks - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]