Do we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage??

[ronaldo]

I would like some good opinions here. I do not believe our forefathers drafted the constitution to have it torn apart by the "Religious Right". If two people of the same sex want to get married they should be allowed to.
I have not seen anything in the Bill of Rights about sexual preference.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
:mad:

Bush calls for gay-marriage amendment
President reassures religious conservatives at Baptist meeting
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8303545/


Constitutional law professor quips on the difference between the Bible and the Constitution.

"On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

[shetline]

I've made it clear elsewhere that I think such an amendment is a wretched idea, a horrible thing to do to gay people and to do the Constitution itself, a document which is at its best when it is expansive towards individual human liberty.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, however, if you go by some people's idea of "original intent" you could say -- and be completely correct -- that the original framers of the Constitution and the people who voted to ratify the Constitution would have been overwhelmingly against gay marriage, and would not have considered that document as something which barred any sort of discrimination against homosexuals.. The only reason sexual orientation isn't mentioned in the Constitution is that no one would have imagined the need to mention it.

But then again, no one felt the need to mention gender, and the race is only mentioned in relation to the notorius three-fifths compromise. It was "obvious" without mention at the time the Constitution was drafted that the only people who "really counted" were white males.

Yet nowadays you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believes, or at least who will readily claim, that because the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed, women aren't entitled to equal rights and equal protection under the law and under the Constitution.

I think it's better to look at the Constitution in light of the broad principles of free and liberty it represents and take those principles beyond the blind spots of the prejudices of the time in which it was written.

[dmz]

Until the make marriage mean something again, this whole thing is a flip-flop by GWB, [i]and a desperate attempt to round up a few votes in November. destroyed the cultural relevance of marriage a [i]long time ago.

And quite frankly, if ever got serious about raising men who could hold their marriages together without the aid of church-sponsored weekend 'retreats' -- this whole thing would be irrelevant. Cooing in Jesus' ear and knowing more about Richard Petty than Richard III is no substitute for instilling the virtues that hold people together in the long run.

In the meantime, I say pass a amendment guaranteeing gays as a protected minority, and start suing churches and pastors who say [i]anything different.

[Aurora]

No we dont but the republicans have nothing to run on except wedge issues. The party is Pathetic. This is more Draft dodger Karl Rove doing his thing.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Aurora
No we dont but the republicans have nothing to run on except wedge issues. The party is Pathetic. This is more Draft dodger Karl Rove doing his thing.

Right on

[BRussell]

Nick this is no more about definitions than slavery was about the dictionary entry for 'citizen,' or abortion is about the definition of 'person.' It's about rights, not some esoteric terminology debate.

It's also not just about marriage - this Federal Marriage Amendment treats gay civil unions in exactly the same way it treats gay marriage. And most of the state referenda and constitutional amendments banned not only gay marriage, but also gay civil unions. That doesn't seem consistent with the notion that it's only about the definition of marriage, does it?

I also don't believe for a second that it's about activist judges. Your California legislature passed a gay marriage law, and your Republican governor vetoed it, saying that he wanted it worked out by judges first. The Constitutional amendment supported by Bush and voted on by Congress during the last election would have prevented not just judges, but state legislatures from enacting gay marriage laws. The one that's coming around this time apparently has that taken out now, but that just shows to me that they're trying to reframe the issue into being about judges rather than yucky gays.

No, this isn't about dictionary definitions, or marriage vs. civil unions, or activist judges, it's about the fact that your party simply has an anti-gay agenda, even if you don't personally agree with that agenda and have instead layered other rationalizations on top of their actions.

[dmz]

On the other hand, this may be somewhat premature...

http://www.amconmag.com/2005a/2005_04_11/images/magcover.jpg

Republican Stepchildren (http://www.amconmag.com/2005a/2005_04_11/cover.html)

[rageous]

to be succinct:

no.

[Homestar06]

I don't think the intent is to bay gay marriage, moreso to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as established in the Bible. The Bible establishes marriage as a union between man and woman, and to change that would stray away from the Bible and God, which created marriage in the first place. On the other side, who are we do decide if gays can marry or not? Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. The Bible provided a foundation for the laws of the land when the forefathers created the law. I think it's pretty obvious that the forefathers would have been against such a thing, but times change. Personally, I think that marriage is between a man and a woman and should be kept as such a sacred covenant. I don't want to be the one who has to answer to God when He asked why we messed up one of His gifts to us(marriage).

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Homestar06
I don't think the intent is to bay gay marriage, moreso to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as established in the Bible.

MEEP!

The Bible has no bearing whatsoever on the constitution.

[BRussell]

I don't think he means "between a man and a woman, as established in the Bible," I think he means "between one man and a whole bunhca women, as established in the Bible," because that seems to have been the standard practice of the great religious leaders in the Bible.

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
IInstead we have a backlash. People claim the backlash is against homosexual marriage. I disagree because most states are going fully forward with civil unions. I think the backlash is against judges being able to tell society and people that words have no meaning. People do not want legal twisting to replace common understanding of words.

In the past, a judge could have easily determined that when the law states a man can vote, it really means women or all adults. Instead of having to have a debate about that, we pushed through amendments that said women are indeed women, men are indeed men, no one is screwing with your definitions and women now have sufferage as well.

Nick
I highly doubt the average American either cares or is intelligent enough to care about judges using "legal twisting to replace common understanding of words." The sheep are simply told to be outraged.

[BR]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think he means "between a man and a woman, as established in the Bible," I think he means "between one man and a whole bunhca women, as established in the Bible," because that seems to have been the standard practice of the great religious leaders in the Bible.
Yup, according to the old school god book, god literally blessed David with a multitude of wives. Who are we to go against god and not continue such a practice?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
BRussell, in the past the people waited until the rights were granted by terminology that was not debatable. Were there no debates during the many civil rights advancements made in the past?I'll happily be wrong on this if something has changed but I was told that what you are claiming was an issue with the 2002 version and that the 2004 version had more legal wiggleroom for such things. I'll gladly read any links you have that offer different views about the various versions or if there is a more recent version I have not read about. Well here's the text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment) of the current one before Congress:
.
.
Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
.
.
It still includes the exact same "legal incidents" language. The only real change made was to exclude the line about "state or federal law."

A couple points, first Arnald obviously didn't have the balls to go through with his own views because he ran as pro-homosexual rights. Secondy I posted positively on that bill and declared it to be homosexual marriage done the right way, via the legislature instead of the courts. Third I think Arnold paid a clear credibility price on that matter. I doubt he will be reelected because he has burned both sides of the political spectrum. OK.

Sounds like the process is working as it should then to me. I stated this is about judges and not strictly about gay marriage. DOMA is a defensive act. It basically states nothing more than a definition that judges cannot redefine at their whim. It is likely this amendment action will fail as well and perhaps the third version will finally hit on judges and word definitions instead of homosexual marriage.

I've described these amendments as reactions, backlashes, etc. You have to assign plenty of blame to the parties that are causing the action though. You can't complain that someone isn't running the right offense when all they are playing is defense.I think you mean FMA, not DOMA. The only state where a court has said it is unconstitutional to prevent gays from getting married is Massachusetts, and they had a chance to overturn the court's decision, and defeated it by 4 to 1. Where's the federal crisis?

Come on, admit it, you think this is a sham so Bush can suck up to his base, and nothing more.

[southside grabowski]

This is a serious issue, but not worthy of changing the Constitution. Many feel homosexuality is wrong. Most who feel it is wrong, like me, also feel that the Gov has niether a right nor a responsiblity to interfere. Others, whom I understand but do not agree with, beleive that we, as a people, have a responsibility to stop this behavior. They belive that, by allowing this behavior, we too are guility and vulnurable to wrath. Many of these folks believe that 911 and Katrina were a part of this wrath directed at a nation that refused to enforce natural law.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Do we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage??

No.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ronaldo
I do not believe our forefathers drafted the constitution to have it torn apart by the "Religious Right".

I do not believe our forefathers drafted the constitution to have it torn apart by [insert anyone/any group here].

Let's not simply use one group ("Religious Right") as a punching bag on this.

[Ra]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Constitutional law professor quips on the difference between the Bible and the Constitution.

"[. . .] Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.
Awesome.

[Ra]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
[. . .] They belive that, by allowing this behavior, we too are guility and vulnurable to wrath. Many of these folks believe that 911 and Katrina were a part of this wrath directed at a nation that refused to enforce natural law.
Those people are idiots.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
This is a serious issue, but not worthy of changing the Constitution. Many feel homosexuality is wrong. Most who feel it is wrong, like me, also feel that the Gov has niether a right nor a responsiblity to interfere. Others, whom I understand but do not agree with, beleive that we, as a people, have a responsibility to stop this behavior. They belive that, by allowing this behavior, we too are guility and vulnurable to wrath. Many of these folks believe that 911 and Katrina were a part of this wrath directed at a nation that refused to enforce natural law.

While still others, who I understand but do not agree with, feel that tiny people who live in the bushes whisper secret instructions to homosexuals on how best to recruit children into their depraved lifestyle, so that allowing gay marriage is a tacit endorsement of tiny people who live in the bushes, which is likely to enrage the giants who live in the mountains.

It's important to consider all sides of the issue.

[Voxapps]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Bush calls for gay-marriage amendment

I wish the administration would get its priorities straight. First you pass the anti-flag burning amendment, then you pass the gay marriage ban. We all know that flag burning and gay marriage are the two most significant problems facing the country now, right? I mean, since every other issue is pretty much taken care of at this point.

And conservatives (who, by definition, seek to reduce the scope of federal government) wouldn't be mucking with the Constitution unless these were the most critical issues, would they?

[jamac]

Originally posted by Homestar06
I don't think the intent is to bay gay marriage, moreso to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as established in the Bible. The Bible establishes marriage as a union between man and woman, and to change that would stray away from the Bible and God, which created marriage in the first place. On the other side, who are we do decide if gays can marry or not? Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. The Bible provided a foundation for the laws of the land when the forefathers created the law. I think it's pretty obvious that the forefathers would have been against such a thing, but times change. Personally, I think that marriage is between a man and a woman and should be kept as such a sacred covenant. I don't want to be the one who has to answer to God when He asked why we messed up one of His gifts to us(marriage).

The marriages in the bible were arranged by the parents and they sold their kids at age 9 (Mary, mother Jesus). I think that would really make a great amendment to the constitution. The bible also talks about daughters doing their father (Lot), and god giving out big real estate to the sexually perverted (Abraham).
Now thinking about it maybe we should go with bible morale here.. morality, :lol: :lol: :D

[Placebo]

I don't understand why anybody could possibly give a shit about people marrying. It's just stupid dissenting; it's not even worth the effort. All you're doing is preventing people from doing what they want. There is no morality involved; these people have no plans to "corrupt society" or touch your children, they just want to marry each other. Give up, it's not worth it.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I do not believe our forefathers drafted the constitution to have it torn apart by [insert anyone/any group here].

Let's not simply use one group ("Religious Right") as a punching bag on this.

I agree. Ishould not have bashed just one group.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by addabox
While still others, who I understand but do not agree with, feel that tiny people who live in the bushes whisper secret instructions to homosexuals on how best to recruit children into their depraved lifestyle, so that allowing gay marriage is a tacit endorsement of tiny people who live in the bushes, which is likely to enrage the giants who live in the mountains.

It's important to consider all sides of the issue.

So lets hear from all sides of the issue.

[Northgate]

It's simply an election season wedge issue. Period. It has no chance whatsoever of passing the senate. It's only designed to get Bubba all worked up and hating Dems again.

Watch this issue go completely silent in December. Like it did last election cycle.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Northgate
It's simply an election season wedge issue. Period. It has no chance whatsoever of passing the senate. It's only designed to get Bubba all worked up and hating Dems again.

Watch this issue go completely silent in December. Like it did last election cycle. The only benefit to Bush doing this is that, by associating this cynical anti-gay ploy with his failed presidency, it probably sets back their cause.

[Northgate]

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf.

Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea?

Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage. This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base.

This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by jamac
The marriages in the bible were arranged by the parents and they sold their kids at age 9 (Mary, mother Jesus). I think that would really make a great amendment to the constitution. The bible also talks about daughters doing their father (Lot), and god giving out big real estate to the sexually perverted (Abraham).
Now thinking about it maybe we should go with bible morale here.. morality, :lol: :lol: :D

Then it should be up to the church, not the constitution.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause. I believe you're missing his last word there. I believe his last word was "bitch".

And by the way. You guys are delusional if you think anyone is doing this for political gain. ;)

That was a brilliant reply by the way.

[midwinter]

For some reason, I just don't feel rallied. I do feel a little like it's October, 2004. But I don't feel rallied. I do feel, however, that fixing this gay marriage crisis is crucial to fixing the immigration crisis, which is crucial to fixing the social security crisis, which is crucial to fixing the terrorism crisis, which is crucial to fixing the DAMNED LIBRULS WANNA TAKE OUR BIBLES AND OUR GUNS AWAY!

Shit like this makes me incredibly angry, not because of the issue itself, but simply because it's so brazenly cynical.

[shetline]

How about we propose an amendment that illegal aliens must marry members of the same sex in order to remain in the country? :D

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by midwinter
DAMNED LIBRULS WANNA TAKE OUR BIBLES AND OUR GUNS AWAY!


That about sums it up. The left wants to eliminate Christianity from our nation and they want to take away folks rights to weapons. We don't want to be dependant like the left. We want to be able to take care of our own problems. A skilled man with a gun is worth alot more than a leftist with a cell phone calling 911.

[Ra]

Harry Reid gets it right:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Democratic_leader_enumerates_issues_gay_marriage_0 605.html
[. . .]

In spite of the many serious problems we have just discussed, what is the United States Senate going to debate this week?

A new energy policy? NO.

Will we debate the raging war in Iraq? NO.

Will we address our staggering national debt? NO.

Will we address the seriousness of global warming – NO

Will we address the aging of America? NO.

Will we address America’s education dilemma? NO.

Will we address rising crime statistics? NO.

Will we debate our county’s trade imbalance? NO.

Will we debate Stem Cell Research? NO.

[. . .]

But what we will spend most of the week on is a constitutional amendment that will fail by a large margin, a constitutional amendment on Same Sex Marriage—an effort that failed to pick up a simple majority, when we recently voted on it. Remember, an Amendment to our Constitution requires 67 votes.

[. . .]

Each issue begging the President’s attention, each issue being ignored—valuable time in the Senate spent on an issue that today is without hope of passing.

These issues are not Democratic issues. These issues are not Republican issues. There must be bipartisan efforts to address America’s ills.

I will vote no on the Motion to Proceed, as it is not a measure meant to bring America together. Rather, it is an effort to cover and conceal the issues necessary to make America more competitive, caring, considerate and stronger.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Ra
Harry Reid gets it right:

That has been Dubya's problem from dat one. He has never wanted to address the real issues of this country.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
That about sums it up. The left wants to eliminate Christianity from our nation and they want to take away folks rights to weapons. We don't want to be dependant like the left. We want to be able to take care of our own problems. A skilled man with a gun is worth alot more than a leftist with a cell phone calling 911.

Are you being serious or ironically hyperbolic?

I'm a raging liberal, and I own a rifle.

My mom's a raging liberal, and she's a devout Christian.

None of those generalizations is remotely true.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
That about sums it up. The left wants to eliminate Christianity from our nation and they want to take away folks rights to weapons. We don't want to be dependant like the left. We want to be able to take care of our own problems. A skilled man with a gun is worth alot more than a leftist with a cell phone calling 911.

I agree (http://www.rickross.com/reference/republic/republic2.html).

[Placebo]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
That about sums it up. The left wants to eliminate Christianity from our nation and they want to take away folks rights to weapons. We don't want to be dependant like the left. We want to be able to take care of our own problems. A skilled man with a gun is worth alot more than a leftist with a cell phone calling 911.
"Taking care of your own problems" with a gun is going to create a nice number of more severe problems that a gun can't take care of.

And Christianity is hardly necessary for the well-being and moral integrity of a nation. Especially when a leader uses it to justify war.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Placebo
And Christianity is hardly necessary for the well-being and moral integrity of a nation. Especially when a leader uses it to justify war.

Which nation and leader is that?

[Powerdoc]

The key reason for this amendment is internal politic. The last polls about Bush are a disaster. This amendment is a smoke screen in order to focus republicans on other subjects.
Many member of the congress including many republicans are pissed by this : "we have more important subjects to debate than the Gay marriage"

[progmac]

Originally posted by Homestar06
I don't think the intent is to bay gay marriage, moreso to protect marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as established in the Bible. The Bible establishes marriage as a union between man and woman, and to change that would stray away from the Bible and God, which created marriage in the first place. On the other side, who are we do decide if gays can marry or not? Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. The Bible provided a foundation for the laws of the land when the forefathers created the law. I think it's pretty obvious that the forefathers would have been against such a thing, but times change. Personally, I think that marriage is between a man and a woman and should be kept as such a sacred covenant. I don't want to be the one who has to answer to God when He asked why we messed up one of His gifts to us(marriage).
The party supporting this political nonsense is the most immoral, corrupt bunch of goons possible. If you really think God is throwing his lot in with these guys, you're insane. I mean, we're talking about a party that has literally and directly led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/).

And since when are we a Theocracy? And, if you are a christian, your job is to love God and try to serve him, not be a freakin' moral policeman. (and if you think 'serving him' means taking up nonsensical politcal causes, you should really take a look at your faith)

[jamac]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Then it should be up to the church, not the constitution.

What exactly is "the church"?

I know the constitution is a piece of paper which supposedly allows every human living in a certain country a specific set of rights.

The church in contrast disallows people their individual right in order to please some fictitios being or con that same being into somehow showing benevolence toward people selfish enough to believe such things. Church leaders only have to study a very limited amount, whilst constitutional lawyers have to study massive amounts of cases and precedence.

If people were moral religion would not be needed.
Gay people are just as moral as any other person. If god doesn't like gay marriage he can always send a new flood or let brimstone rain upon San Fran.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by jamac
If people were moral religion would not be needed.

Religion is the very basis of many people's ethical values, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If a person let's a "church" control their minds and what they can and can't do, their loss. I'm Christian, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to the bullshit spewed by Pat Robertson and friends. I'm also not Christian out of family tradition, nor because I was otherwise being told to be that way, but out of personal choice.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chucker
I'm Christian, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to the bullshit spewed by Pat Robertson and friends.

You mean you DON'T believe he can leg press 2000 lbs?!?! ;)

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Which nation and leader is that?
George Bush, if you believe the liberal agenda.

[Aurora]

A better amendment would be to never allow the Republicans to run all 3 branches of govt.This President and his Party are pathetic and derilect of duty to this country. Millions of mexicans,War in Iraq, 45 Million without healthcare,Immigration system broke, A Space program that cant get into Space and this president wants to talk about the threat of gay marriage. Iam convinced he and his party are Assholes.

[shetline]

Originally posted by SDW2001
First thing's first. The State already regulates personal behavior, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. It's forbidden in 45 States. So let's not go around pretending that this is a new thing.
Who cares if it's new? What does newness have to do with anything here? There are plenty of laws on the books which represent bad principles of public governance, some blatantly unconstitutional, some in a gray zone, some which might pass Constitutional muster but which still don't represent good public policy and don't balance compelling public interest against individual liberty.
Now, you come back to the worn out argument of "how does it hurt you?" That's completely irrelevant and not a logical standard to make something legal.
The question of what public interest is served by a law, especially when that law limits individual freedoms, is hardly irrelevant. Enforcement of laws, and access of citizens to public works and institutions, should not be controlled by arbitrary or capricious exercise of state power. That concept might not be explicitly written into the Constitution, but it lies behind many constitutional protections, and is frequently a part of legislative and judicial debate.

When a law limits individual freedom without protecting a clearly superseding public interest ("how does it hurt you?"), that law can certainly be described as arbitrary and capricious -- even when such a law is favored by a majority, even when that law reflects predominant public sentiment. Wanting to use the law as a way of publicly enshrining a moral sentiment (religiously motivated or not), as a way of expressing a "public value", especially when such an act is not merely a symbolic proclamation but results in a law which can be enforced through the police power of the state, is an abuse of state power over the individual.
Equally worn out is the insistence on making the debate personal. It's a neat little trick you're pulling there. If you can just paint me as a bigot without actually saying that word, your argument becomes a lot easier, doesn't it?
Where exactly did I paint you as a bigot? Perhaps you consider it too subtle a distinction to make a difference, but to the extent that the word "bigot" has even been used by me (and only so far, I believe, in response to trumptman's explicit use of the word), I have only used the word, and much more often talked about insufficient appreciation of individual freedom vs. public authority, to describe certain opinions and viewpoints, not the people who hold them.

I obviously find something wrong with the anti-gay marriage viewpoint, or I wouldn't be arguing against it! What do I need to do to make you happy? Disagree less strongly? I do consider the desire to block or ban gay marriage bigoted -- it is a form of intolerance, even if you think you're being "sufficiently" tolerant in other ways, I clearly disagree with that, and do not think I've been over-the-top in my expression of that disagreement. YMMV.
In fact, choice has everything to do with this debate.
I agree -- what proper business does government have in limiting individual freedom for one adult to choose any other consenting adult as a marriage partner?
What you are advocating is changing a centuries old definition of marriage based on a behavior that contains an element of choice.
There is no single "centuries old definition" of marriage -- there are many definitions from many cultures and times. Granted not many definitions, if any, have recognized same-sex marriage, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the concept somewhere in the historic past. Incestuous marriage seems to be okay if you're "royal". Lots of cultures seem to go for polygamous marriage, mostly one male and multiple females, but sometimes the other way around.

The legal institution of marriage in the US is obviously an outgrowth from a Christian heritage -- but so what? How much need I respect tradition over principles of good government and individual liberty?

I don't really give a damn about the word "marriage". I'd prefer it if the only thing recognized by government was the civil union, for everyone, gay or straight. But as long as some standardized, state-sponsored, state-recognized, state-administered status and contractual arrangement for the pairing of two people exists -- call it marriage, civil union, ball-and-chainitude, I don't care -- that institution should be administered, treated, and defined in a government context according to principles of good governance and individual liberty. History and majority opinion be damned.
Moreover, the majority of the US does not want to see that change. You attempt to counter that argument by comparing being gay to being black 50 years ago, where the majority did not want interracial marriage. But that's where the choice element gets in the way and why you cannot show that someone who opposes gay marriage is merely a behind-the-times bigot.
One is intolerance of an in-born trait. The other is intolerance of something so damned close to an in-born trait as to make very little difference. Religion, at least for an adult, is a totally free choice. Yet we're supposed to be tolerant of religious affiliation.

You could argue that it was choice, not an inborn trait, which is what anti-miscegenation laws had restricted. Those laws, after all, didn’t make being black itself illegal. You might not be able to help being born black, but it's certainly a matter of the exercise of personal choice whom you marry. Since blacks have the option of marrying other blacks or not getting married at all, why should anti-miscegenation be considered any more wrong that giving gay people the wonderful options of marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not getting married at all?

What is the compelling state interest in limiting marital choices by sex? It's not like we have a public emergency of massive population decline or that homosexuality is so potentially appealing to so many people that we run some terrible risk of a population crisis in the future due to "excessive" homosexual pairing. Hell, even if we were in a desperate situation calling for draconian measures and unusual crisis-induced infringements on personal liberty, perhaps enough lesbian couples might pitch in via artificial insemination to solve the problem. :)
But the government, which represents its constituients, is therefore supposed to recognize it? On what grounds? Just because you and the minority opinion in this country think so?
Because of principles of good governance and personal liberty, liberty which should not be limited without a compelling reason to do so.

[dmz]

An interesting article. (http://worldmag.com/articles/11925)

Pollster George Barna released a study in 2004 putting the soaring divorce rate in context for Christians. The findings were disturbing: Born-again Christians are as likely to get divorced as non-Christians. Mr. Barna found the same divorce rate in both groups: 35 percent. Nearly one quarter of the Christians surveyed had been divorced two or more times. The study found that Christians are more likely to characterize divorce as a sin, but even those figures weren't encouraging: Only 25 percent of Christians in the survey said divorce without adultery is sinful.

...Mr. Köstenberger supports government programs that encourage marriage. But he also says Christians should remember that the current marriage crisis is ultimately spiritual, not political...

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
An interesting article. (http://worldmag.com/articles/11925) It's a very uplifting article... it makes me feel great that I don't live in North Carolina, and that I don't live in mindset of that magazine's readership. :)

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by shetline
Who cares if it's new? What does newness have to do with anything here? There are plenty of laws on the books which represent bad principles of public governance, some blatantly unconstitutional, some in a gray zone, some which might pass Constitutional muster but which still don't represent good public policy and don't balance compelling public interest against individual liberty.

The question of what public interest is served by a law, especially when that law limits individual freedoms, is hardly irrelevant. Enforcement of laws, and access of citizens to public works and institutions, should not be controlled by arbitrary or capricious exercise of state power. That concept might not be explicitly written into the Constitution, but it lies behind many constitutional protections, and is frequently a part of legislative and judicial debate.

When a law limits individual freedom without protecting a clearly superseding public interest ("how does it hurt you?"), that law can certainly be described as arbitrary and capricious -- even when such a law is favored by a majority, even when that law reflects predominant public sentiment. Wanting to use the law as a way of publicly enshrining a moral sentiment (religiously motivated or not), as a way of expressing a "public value", especially when such an act is not merely a symbolic proclamation but results in a law which can be enforced through the police power of the state, is an abuse of state power over the individual.

Where exactly did I paint you as a bigot? Perhaps you consider it too subtle a distinction to make a difference, but to the extent that the word "bigot" has even been used by me (and only so far, I believe, in response to trumptman's explicit use of the word), I have only used the word, and much more often talked about insufficient appreciation of individual freedom vs. public authority, to describe certain opinions and viewpoints, not the people who hold them.

I obviously find something wrong with the anti-gay marriage viewpoint, or I wouldn't be arguing against it! What do I need to do to make you happy? Disagree less strongly? I do consider the desire to block or ban gay marriage bigoted -- it is a form of intolerance, even if you think you're being "sufficiently" tolerant in other ways, I clearly disagree with that, and do not think I've been over-the-top in my expression of that disagreement. YMMV.

I agree -- what proper business does government have in limiting individual freedom for one adult to choose any other consenting adult as a marriage partner?

There is no single "centuries old definition" of marriage -- there are many definitions from many cultures and times. Granted not many definitions, if any, have recognized same-sex marriage, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the concept somewhere in the historic past. Incestuous marriage seems to be okay if you're "royal". Lots of cultures seem to go for polygamous marriage, mostly one male and multiple females, but sometimes the other way around.

The legal institution of marriage in the US is obviously an outgrowth from a Christian heritage -- but so what? How much need I respect tradition over principles of good government and individual liberty?

I don't really give a damn about the word "marriage". I'd prefer it if the only thing recognized by government was the civil union, for everyone, gay or straight. But as long as some standardized, state-sponsored, state-recognized, state-administered status and contractual arrangement for the pairing of two people exists -- call it marriage, civil union, ball-and-chainitude, I don't care -- that institution should be administered, treated, and defined in a government context according to principles of good governance and individual liberty. History and majority opinion be damned.

One is intolerance of an in-born trait. The other is intolerance of something so damned close to an in-born trait as to make very little difference. Religion, at least for an adult, is a totally free choice. Yet we're supposed to be tolerant of religious affiliation.

You could argue that it was choice, not an inborn trait, which is what anti-miscegenation laws had restricted. Those laws, after all, didn’t make being black itself illegal. You might not be able to help being born black, but it's certainly a matter of the exercise of personal choice whom you marry. Since blacks have the option of marrying other blacks or not getting married at all, why should anti-miscegenation be considered any more wrong that giving gay people the wonderful options of marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not getting married at all?

What is the compelling state interest in limiting marital choices by sex? It's not like we have a public emergency of massive population decline or that homosexuality is so potentially appealing to so many people that we run some terrible risk of a population crisis in the future due to "excessive" homosexual pairing. Hell, even if we were in a desperate situation calling for draconian measures and unusual crisis-induced infringements on personal liberty, perhaps enough lesbian couples might pitch in via artificial insemination to solve the problem. :)

Because of principles of good governance and personal liberty, liberty which should not be limited without a compelling reason to do so.

And as I recall our government and constitution were originally set up to protect the minority from the majority.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by ronaldo
And as I recall our government and constitution were originally set up to protect the minority from the majority.

Shhh. You're blowing it! ;)

[addabox]

Originally posted by Placebo
George Bush, if you believe the liberal agenda.

Wait, I thought the trouble with liberals is that they have no agenda.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
Wait, I thought the trouble with liberals is that they have no agenda.

Liberals have an agenda; they just don't have any ideas.

Or something.

[addabox]

I also think it's kinda funny the way a fusty and bureaucratic little world like agenda has been pressed into service to mean something like "sinister totalitarian scheme the party in question never talks about but which we just know actually characterizes their plan". Apparently an organized left or politically active affinity group one disagrees with is cheating, somehow.

Look out! They have an orderly plan to accomplish certain tasks! Is there nothing that they won't try?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
Chase the ball boy... chase the ball.

Some of us are just making fun of it.

[a_greer]

Be you for or against gay marage, any one who is read up can clearly see that this is a shameless ploy to try to boost a hated presedent -- his approval ratings last week were at like 30% or less; suddenly he takes a firm side on an issue that is devided at maybe 60/40 and takes the 60% side, thus boosting his ratings by lets say 20 points or more on just this one issue, he is using it, playing gay marrige like a fiddle!

[addabox]

Originally posted by a_greer
Be you for or against gay marage, any one who is read up can clearly see that this is a shameless ploy to try to boost a hated presedent -- his approval ratings last week were at like 30% or less; suddenly he takes a firm side on an issue that is devided at maybe 60/40 and takes the 60% side, thus boosting his ratings by lets say 20 points or more on just this one issue, he is using it, playing gay marrige like a fiddle!

Well, not so much "playing like a fiddle" as "pounding on overturned garbage cans", which is apparently music enough for some.

By the way, this tune seems so hauntingly familiar, but it was on and off the charts so fast it's hard to remember...... could it have been...... the last time there was an election?

[a_greer]

Originally posted by addabox
Well, not so much "playing like a fiddle" as "pounding on overturned garbage cans", which is apparently music enough for some.

By the way, this tune seems so hauntingly familiar, but it was on and off the charts so fast it's hard to remember...... could it have been...... the last time there was an election? Well, I am pissed at both parties...I plan to vote for all third parties, people say that is a vote waisted, I say that if enough people "waist" their votes we may just see real change in DC.

[Placebo]

Okay, here's the thing about gay marriage: unlike other issues such as affirmative action, drilling in ANWR, and gun ownership, gay marriage has no effect whatsoever out of its own realm. IT HAS NO TRANSCENDENT EFFECT ON POLITICS OR THE WORLD, OTHER THAN TO END THE BITCHING ABOUT IT. Compared to other issues that effect the world economically and politically, gay marriage has no effect except to make a bunch of Christians angry.

My god.

[dmz]

Actually, the best thing to happen would be for homosexuals to get protected legal status -- the gay lobby could then easily begin a litigious war of attrition against every church in the country.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Placebo
Okay, here's the thing about gay marriage: unlike other issues such as affirmative action, drilling in ANWR, and gun ownership, gay marriage has no effect whatsoever out of its own realm. IT HAS NO TRANSCENDENT EFFECT ON POLITICS OR THE WORLD, OTHER THAN TO END THE BITCHING ABOUT IT. Compared to other issues that effect the world economically and politically, gay marriage has no effect except to make a bunch of Christians angry.

My god. Think of all the panties that would be up in a bunch. Won't somebody think of the panties?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
Actually, the best thing to happen would be for homosexuals to get protected legal status -- the gay lobby could then easily begin a litigious war of attrition against every church in the country. Not every church, only those that discriminate against them :p (which isn't all of them by far).

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Outsider
Won't somebody think of the panties? :raises hand: I will!

[tonton]

Originally posted by Outsider
Think of all the panties that would be up in a bunch. Won't somebody think of the panties?

New sig. :p

[Bergermeister]

More than one to stop gay marriage (which I agree is rather harmless), we should pass an amendment outlawing ignorance and intolerance, without which none of this would be a problem and people (especially the WH) could have more time to focus on things that are truly important (which is a rather long list).

[Bergermeister]

?

[Relic]

This thread is so gay!

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Relic
This thread is so gay!
http://forumspile.com/Gay-PinkGuy.jpg

[shetline]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
?
I think trumptman doesn't consider you "tolerant" unless you tolerate his intolerance. Oh, and you can't think of his intolerance as intolerance, you need to be thinking more like "an honest difference of opinion", in a let's-all-sing-Kumbaya sort of way.

By some strange conception of the word "self", if you aren't happy and pleased as punch that a bunch of people exercise "self determination" by controlling what another group of people can or cannot do, you're not only intolerant, but totalitarian.

"?", indeed.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Outsider
http://forumspile.com/Gay-PinkGuy.jpg
If you let him marry another man, this man promises not to ask you if this outfit makes him look fat.

[Chris Cuilla]

I guess we can move on now.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

[BRussell]

So the anti-gay amendment went down today. Apparently, a constitutional amendment to outlaw burning the flag is next on the agenda. :no:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I guess we can move on now.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Clearly, the Senate has sold out the people.

[Northgate]

Would that be an ad-hom?

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Northgate
Would that be an ad-hom?

Wouldn't, in that case, shetline's post be one as well?

[Northgate]

Nearly every post in every one of these threads is an ad-hom. For Tumpt to get all hoity toity suddenly about ad-homs seems a little...well, ironic.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Northgate
Nearly every post in every one of these threads is an ad-hom. For Tumpt to get all hoity toity suddenly about ad-homs seems a little...well, ironic.
Mr. T seems to have an even larger than usual bug up his ass this week for some reason.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by shetline
Mr. T seems to have an even larger than usual bug up his ass this week for some reason. I'd be in a bad mood if I felt I had to defend this government and these policies too.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be in a bad mood if I felt I had to defend this government and these policies too.

Then what is everyone elses (liberals, D's, etc.) excuse?

;)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Root vegetable. Probably a root vegetable. I think it's a religious thing.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
As for the response, if you don't like the effect, don't engage in the cause.The effect of you seeming like you have an unusually large bug up your ass? Nope, I don't mind that effect a bit. :D

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by shetline
The effect of you seeming like you have an unusually large bug up your ass? Nope, I don't mind that effect a bit. :D

Thanks very much for all the good discussion here. Liberals rule.

[jimmac]

Here you go!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by jimmac
Here you go!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Right on top of things.

:rolleyes:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Right on top of things.

:rolleyes:


Awwwww poor baby!:lol:

[ronaldo]

Is this guy a Dork or What?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/28/frist-marriage/

Sen. Bill Frist on Gay Marriage and Flag Burning, America’s Most Pressing Priorities
If this guy really thinks that these two issues are our most pressing issues, we really are in deep shit.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by ronaldo
Is this guy a Dork or What?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/28/frist-marriage/

Sen. Bill Frist on Gay Marriage and Flag Burning, America’s Most Pressing Priorities
If this guy really thinks that these two issues are our most pressing issues, we really are in deep shit.

Electon ploy tactics. Works every time.

And guess what? It's not the he think that these two issues are pressing. He KNOWS that's what American's really care about. Discriminating against minorities they fear and being patriotic. They want to "feel" safe even if they know they're not. It's warm and cozy.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by Northgate
Electon ploy tactics. Works every time.

And guess what? It's not the he think that these two issues are pressing. He KNOWS that's what American's really care about. Discriminating against minorities they fear and being patriotic. They want to "feel" safe even if they know they're not. It's warm and cozy.

Damn man, you are on a tear in multiple threads. Cheer up :p

[Outsider]

Wouldn't an attempt to protect marriage keep people who get married together rather than prevent people from marrying?

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by Outsider
Wouldn't an attempt to protect marriage keep people who get married together rather than prevent people from marrying?

Good point. The divorce rate in the US is very high and one of the links found somewhere on AI to a Chrsitain site moaned about the failures of the church (the church had the same rate as the rest of society - I love how they separate the groups).

[shetline]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
Good point. The divorce rate in the US is very high and one of the links found somewhere on AI to a Chrsitain site moaned about the failures of the church (the church had the same rate as the rest of society - I love how they separate the groups).
Think of all the new divorces which will happen if gay marriage becomes legal all over the place, as millions of couples break up so that one or both members can flee the charade of heterosexuality they've been living under and run off to marry the same-sex partner of their dreams.

Why, just knowing that same sex marriage is possible, who knows how many people who were completely heterosexual before, and happy about it, will suddenly choose to become gay!

[jamac]

This nails it (http://cartoonbox.slate.com/bobgorrell/2006/06/06/)

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Flounder
Damn man, you are on a tear in multiple threads. Cheer up :p

Hey, for the last few years I've firmly believe that Dem success was about the right message, the right spin, the right ideas, the right framing and getting the message out. I believed that the American people would eventually rebuke lies, fraud, cronyism and corruption.

I no longer believe that. I think this is what the American really want. And this is what they got. Long live the Republican party.

[ronaldo]

Originally posted by Northgate
Hey, for the last few years I've firmly believe that Dem success was about the right message, the right spin, the right ideas, the right framing and getting the message out. I believed that the American people would eventually rebuke lies, fraud, cronyism and corruption.

I no longer believe that. I think this is what the American really want. And this is what they got. Long live the Republican party.

Amen

[Placebo]

Originally posted by BRussell
So the anti-gay amendment went down today. Apparently, a constitutional amendment to outlaw burning the flag is next on the agenda. :no:
Because after all, burning the American flag is a right of liberty that people exercise daily.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by Placebo
Because after all, burning the American flag is a right of liberty that people exercise daily. It's pandemic. Forget automobile pollution or smokestacks on the horizon. The thick black smoke from nation wide flag burning is going to kill most life on this planet when the sun is blocked for hundreds of years. The smoke will be blacker than the color of Ann Coulter's heart.

[Northgate]

Charles Krauthammer. Ugh.

[Chucker]

That article stopped being worth reading at this point:
Since the main business of Congress is to devise ever more ingenious ways (earmarked and non-earmarked) to waste taxpayers' money

I don't like the current administration, but I don't like such bullshit either.

[shetline]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So here is a question: Are all professional opinions valid? Have you never gotten a "second opinion" on something?
You've often got to go with the best data, opinions, and evidence you have at any given time. It's disingenuous to trumpet evidence only when it's in your favor, but play up every bit of doubt and minor dispute you can find when things aren't going your way. I'm not saying it wrong to question professional and scientific authority -- if fact, it's a good dynamic to have lots of healthy debate about most things -- but when there's no willingness to even consider tentatively going along with professional and scientific authority even until every slightest doubt is answered according to practically impossible standards of evidence, and when those high standards are only brought to bear when one doesn't like what one is hearing, that's a very suspect approach to evidence.

Think about Bush admin response to evidence in favor of going into Iraq vs. Bush admin response to evidence in favor of global warming, and you kind of get a picture of the kind of selective response to evidence and its quality that I'm talking about.

Besides looking at available evidence, there's the obvious common sense question, "If being gay is a choice, why on earth would anyone choose to be gay?". How often do you imagine a man thinks to himself, "I don't find men attractive at all, but I've decided I'm going to work really hard at changing that, because being gay is going to be so great!"
There is an element of choice in being gay for some people, at least among the entire population that describes itself as the same. There is far more evidence to suggest that statement is accurate than there is to support claims that being gay is never a choice. That's really the end of it.
Is the end of what, pray tell? That's the end of any debate about whether laws or constitutional amendments against gay marriage are a good idea? It's somehow "obvious" that anything which can be a possibly, remotely be a choice for even just a few people should be subjected to legal regulation if that's how the barest majority wants things to be?

If it becomes possible to choose what race you are (looks like Michael Jackson has already proved that possible), would that suddenly re-justify racist policies? At what threshold of likelihood to change race, or with what percentage of people having access to race-changing technology, would racism suddenly become acceptable?

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are right up there at #1 in the Bill of Rights, and that's all about protecting choices -- what to say, what to express, what to believe -- not about protecting inborn traits.

Is the terrible specter of any increase at all in the number of people who might "choose" to be gay the imagined overriding state interest here, that individual marital choices should be limited to head off the dire prospect that maybe, just maybe, there might be a few more gay people in a country without legal restrictions against gay marriage than there would be if gay marriage were banned?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
Besides looking at available evidence,

Such as?

Originally posted by shetline
there's the obvious common sense question, "If being gay is a choice, why on earth would anyone choose to be gay?".

:rolleyes:

...wonders when people are going to stop using that profoundly stupid argument...

Originally posted by shetline
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are right up there at #1 in the Bill of Rights, and that's all about protecting choices -- what to say, what to express, what to believe -- not about protecting inborn traits.

True, but don't be so disingenous as to suggest that all behavioral choices or retaltional structures are constitutionally protected. Clearly they are not. In fact, in the area of marriage alone there are quite a number of legal restrictions.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Such as?



:rolleyes:

...wonders when people are going to stop using that profoundly stupid argument...



True, but don't be so disingenous as to suggest that all behavioral choices or retaltional structures are constitutionally protected. Clearly they are not. In fact, in the area of marriage alone there are quite a number of legal restrictions.


Chris you've been given all the info on this you deserve.

Legal restrictions are one thing. Saying one group can have certain rights while others can't is....well you said it : " Profoundly stupid ".


Besides the proposal crashed and burned already. So that's pretty much the end of it.

I wouldn't look for any sucessful resurrections any time soon as the political atmosphere is changing.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Such as?
This is an internet forum, not a PhD thesis. I'm not going to go back and track down citations to research to back up every article I've read, TV show I've watched, and conversation with professionals in psychology I've had for you -- anyone interested in the topic knows that current research points strongly to the conclusion that being gay is either never or hardly ever a matter of personal volition. All that really remains for serious debate are the specific genetic and environmental factors which contribute to sexual orientation, their interaction, and their relative importance.

Besides, I know exactly how you handle evidence, and how you think that hyper-skepticism against whatever point of view doesn't suit your fancy makes you think you're being the oh-so-scientific one. You wouldn't make it worth my effort or anyone else's to compile scads of references for you.
...wonders when people are going to stop using that profoundly stupid argument...
Show me where the stupidity lies, and I hear you out. Until then, I'll keep saying what sounds awfully damned sensible to me.

Even when people choose to do something that goes against basic impulses and desires -- like smoking and drinking, for example, which most people find unappealing on first try -- their is some sort of upside, like increasing social acceptance among certain peers, or stimulant/depressant effects. Some choices to try to overcome basic impulses are healthy, like trying to convince yourself that you love exercise (a trick I never managed to pull off, even after exercising regularly and strenuously for seven years, hating damn near every minute of it).

What's the upside, however, in choosing to be gay, even if you really could pull it off? It doesn't increase social acceptance, it has no health benefits -- where's the gain? All in all -- due to the intolerance and bigotry of other, not anything that's wrong with being gay itself -- being gay would at best be a neutral choice, and typically a bad one. Further, to truly be gay and not bi, you'd also have to choose to put yourself through some form of aversion training or therapy, trying to force yourself to dislike something that had been very appealing to you.
True, but don't be so disingenous as to suggest that all behavioral choices or retaltional structures are constitutionally protected. Clearly they are not. In fact, in the area of marriage alone there are quite a number of legal restrictions.
I've never suggested such a thing. As good as it is and as positive a development in human history as the US Constitution is, I don't think it goes quite far enough in explicitly expressing the principle of protecting individual and minority rights and freedoms against majority opinion, where the majority has no compelling interest to interfere. That notion of freedom is clearly what I have advocated -- not complete freedom to do anything which derives from personal choice, but the freedom to be left alone until you interfere with another person's right to enjoy the same degree of freedom you enjoy.

This principle of freedom, however, does lie behind much constitutional thought, can reasonably be found by judicial interpretation within the Ninth Amendment, and contributes often to thoughtful legislative debate. I will always champion this notion of freedom in any legal, political, or constitutional debate.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
This is an internet forum, not a PhD thesis. I'm not going to go back and track down citations to research to back up every article I've read, TV show I've watched, and conversation with professionals in psychology I've had for you -- anyone interested in the topic knows that current research points strongly to the conclusion that being gay is either never or hardly ever a matter of personal volition. All that really remains for serious debate are the specific genetic and environmental factors which contribute to sexual orientation, their interaction, and their relative importance.

So, briefly, you are unwilling to support your assertions with facts.

Originally posted by shetline
Besides, I know exactly how you handle evidence, and how you think that hyper-skepticism against whatever point of view doesn't suit your fancy makes you think you're being the oh-so-scientific one. You wouldn't make it worth my effort or anyone else's to compile scads of references for you.

So, briefly, you are unwilling to support your assertions with facts.

Originally posted by shetline
Show me where the stupidity lies, and I hear you out. Until then, I'll keep saying what sounds awfully damned sensible to me.

The stupidty lies in the fact that people (for no explicible reasons whatsoever) choose to do lots of things for which you or I (or many) could never come up with a reason. It is a terribly faulty line of argumentation. But it is the standard one used. "Of course it must not be a choice, I cannot think of any reason why someone would choose to..."

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by shetline
Even when people choose to do something that goes against basic impulses and desires -- like smoking and drinking, for example, which most people find unappealing on first try -- their is some sort of upside, like increasing social acceptance among certain peers, or stimulant/depressant effects.

And of course, in regard to homosexuality, there is none of that.

Originally posted by shetline
What's the upside, however, in choosing to be gay, even if you really could pull it off? It doesn't increase social acceptance, it has no health benefits -- where's the gain? All in all -- due to the intolerance and bigotry of other, not anything that's wrong with being gay itself -- being gay would at best be a neutral choice, and typically a bad one. Further, to truly be gay and not bi, you'd also have to choose to put yourself through some form of aversion training or therapy, trying to force yourself to dislike something that had been very appealing to you.

I understand that your "argument" requires that you only imagine the negative aspects of the choice.

Originally posted by shetline
the freedom to be left alone until you interfere with another person's right to enjoy the same degree of freedom you enjoy.

Homosexuals have the "the freedom to be left alone".

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So, briefly, you are unwilling to support your assertions with facts.



So, briefly, you are unwilling to support your assertions with facts.



The stupidty lies in the fact that people (for no explicible reasons whatsoever) choose to do lots of things for which you or I (or many) could never come up with a reason. It is a terribly faulty line of argumentation. But it is the standard one used. "Of course it must not be a choice, I cannot think of any reason why someone would choose to..."

:rolleyes:



And of course, in regard to homosexuality, there is none of that.



I understand that your "argument" requires that you only imagine the negative aspects of the choice.



Homosexuals have the "the freedom to be left alone".


Captain read part of the sentence and reply with basically nothing strikes again!:lol:

[midwinter]

Did we skip over the discussion of how someone could see this:

http://www.jamiesway.com/heather_pinkbikini.jpg

and say "Nah! I want me some of this!":

http://www.deadbodiesinc.com/photos/hairy_back.jpg

;)

[Bergermeister]

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by shetline
You've often got to go with the best data, opinions, and evidence you have at any given time. It's disingenuous to trumpet evidence only when it's in your favor, but play up every bit of doubt and minor dispute you can find when things aren't going your way. I'm not saying it wrong to question professional and scientific authority -- if fact, it's a good dynamic to have lots of healthy debate about most things -- but when there's no willingness to even consider tentatively going along with professional and scientific authority even until every slightest doubt is answered according to practically impossible standards of evidence, and when those high standards are only brought to bear when one doesn't like what one is hearing, that's a very suspect approach to evidence.

Think about Bush admin response to evidence in favor of going into Iraq vs. Bush admin response to evidence in favor of global warming, and you kind of get a picture of the kind of selective response to evidence and its quality that I'm talking about.

Besides looking at available evidence, there's the obvious common sense question, "If being gay is a choice, why on earth would anyone choose to be gay?". How often do you imagine a man thinks to himself, "I don't find men attractive at all, but I've decided I'm going to work really hard at changing that, because being gay is going to be so great!"

Is the end of what, pray tell? That's the end of any debate about whether laws or constitutional amendments against gay marriage are a good idea? It's somehow "obvious" that anything which can be a possibly, remotely be a choice for even just a few people should be subjected to legal regulation if that's how the barest majority wants things to be?

If it becomes possible to choose what race you are (looks like Michael Jackson has already proved that possible), would that suddenly re-justify racist policies? At what threshold of likelihood to change race, or with what percentage of people having access to race-changing technology, would racism suddenly become acceptable?

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are right up there at #1 in the Bill of Rights, and that's all about protecting choices -- what to say, what to express, what to believe -- not about protecting inborn traits.

Is the terrible specter of any increase at all in the number of people who might "choose" to be gay the imagined overriding state interest here, that individual marital choices should be limited to head off the dire prospect that maybe, just maybe, there might be a few more gay people in a country without legal restrictions against gay marriage than there would be if gay marriage were banned?

You're just talking in circles now. You've already made and lost the argument re: "Why would someone choose to be gay."

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So, briefly, you are unwilling to support your assertions with facts.
Briefly, you've proved yourself unworthy of that much effort, but believe as you wish -- I know you will anyway.

The stupidty lies in the fact that people (for no explicible reasons whatsoever) choose to do lots of things...
There's a big difference between choosing to do and choosing to desire. Desires of all sorts are pretty much "just there" -- we don't choose to have them, we just have them. Choice lies mainly within what we do about our desires, not in which ones we have.

Are you going to demand I "prove that" too? I'm simply stating what life experience has taught me about the human condition. Do you truly believe otherwise, or are you only making homosexuality a special case.

If you put me on the spot to demand proof that the sun was powered by fusion, I could probably find references to the sun and fusion all over the place, but the actual proof of it, as opposed to references taking fusion in the sun as an already accepted fact? That would probably take hours of hunting, maybe even a trip to a good library to get beyond what I could find online.

So, if you want to deny the sun is powered by fusion, would you also consider yourself on the same high ground you seem to place yourself on now about homosexuality and choice? The naysayer is always right until the other person researches like a fiend, with the only likely result that the naysayer can and will easily find nits to pick and then demand more proof?

As pointless as you make trying to argue anything with you, I might work harder to back up this point anyway, except for one big thing -- I think it's pretty much just a distracting side issue anyway. I don't give a damn if people choose to be gay or not. It makes not the slightest difference to me, and doesn't impact at all on the legal and political principles I'd apply.

The only reason that the issue of choice matters at all is that the only way to convince some people to be tolerant of their fellow human beings when it comes to certain things is to convince them that someone doesn't have a choice. As far as I'm concerned, eliciting that kind of tolerance is better than not getting any tolerance at all, but it's a stop-gap measure, something to settle for when greater tolerance for freedom is lacking.

But just out of curiosity, what are your terms here about choice? It's hardly a binary yes/no question. How much choice would there have to be to make a difference in your opinion, if that's even important to you and you aren't sidestepping the issue? Do you really care about choice, or would you hold the same political and legal position even if you came to believe there wasn't the slightest speck of choice in being gay? If you actually do care about choice, how much confidence in the data is needed?

Would 95% confidence that at least 8 out of 10 homosexuals had no choice in their desires matter to you?

Would 99% confidence that at least 2 in 100 had no choice?

Or are you making this a binary, black and white issue? Would nothing other than 100% certainty that not a single homosexual ever had any choice in their same-sex desires, now or throughout history, change your mind that laws and constitutional amendment shouldn't forbid homosexual marriage?

If you're going to keep demanding proof, proof, proof, at least make it clear what exactly would be good enough even if anyone ever did manage to dig it up for you.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
There's a big difference between choosing to do and choosing to desire. Desires of all sorts are pretty much "just there" -- we don't choose to have them, we just have them. Choice lies mainly within what we do about our desires, not in which ones we have.

Ahhh...we've struck oil! Finally! Goodness. I'll have to mark this date on my calendar. So there is a choice of behavior. Thank you.

Originally posted by shetline
Are you going to demand I "prove that" too?

That behavior is a choice? Heck no. It's what I have been saying.

( NOTE: Since no one has bothered to define what "being gay" means in any way, let along anything meaningfully objective way. )

Originally posted by shetline
So, if you want to deny the sun is powered by fusion, would you also consider yourself on the same high ground you seem to place yourself on now about homosexuality and choice?

Very clever (and effective on the weak-minded) technique. Equate something for which there is ample scientific research with something for which there is not.

Originally posted by shetline
The only reason that the issue of choice matters at all is that the only way to convince some people to be tolerant of their fellow human beings when it comes to certain things is to convince them that someone doesn't have a choice.

So now we see the real motivation.

Originally posted by shetline
being gay

Tell you what...why don't you provide an objective definition of "being gay" and then we can discuss the other questions. That seems to be critical to this discussion.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ahhh...we've struck oil! Finally! Goodness. I'll have to mark this date on my calendar. So there is a choice of behavior. Thank you.

I was wondering when we were going to get around to this, hence my posting about being attracted to a big hairy dude over Heather Locklear.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ahhh...we've struck oil! Finally! Goodness. I'll have to mark this date on my calendar. So there is a choice of behavior. Thank you.
Did you mark the date on your calendar when you suddenly realized George Bush was for tax cuts too? I've mentioned that there is choice in behavior all along in this conversation, so either you're faking the attitude I've suddenly revealed a hidden opinion, or you plain and simple haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to the discussion here.
That behavior is a choice? Heck no. It's what I have been saying.
I've said the same thing. More than once.
( NOTE: Since no one has bothered to define what "being gay" means in any way, let along anything meaningfully objective way. )
No one includes you, sir. If having a clear definition was so important to you for a meaningful discussion, why didn't you set one forward to define where you're coming from?

I define homosexuality, when talking about the personality and social orientation of an individual, in terms of desire and attraction to members of the same sex. There are also associated behavioral tendencies (Oh, yes, Chris, yes, you can choose not to follow a tendency!), often quite strong, which aren't even sexual, like young boys who'd rather play with My Little Pony when they're growing up instead of a monster toy dump truck.
From article, Gender Nonconformity (http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social04.htm):
The 1981 Kinsey Institute studies of possible correlates between homosexuality and other factors such as class, siblings, etc., ‘came up with almost nothing. They very nearly found that the only powerful predictor of adult homosexuality is childhood gender nonconformity, a finding that has been replicated often, both retrospectively and prospectively’ (J. D. Weinrich, ‘Sociobiology’, EH). However, to posit gender nonconformity as somehow ‘causing’ homosexuality begs the question: ‘what causes the gender nonconformity? Researchers have suggested that at some level, the child and family know from an early point that the child is sexually "different"‘ (R. C. Savin-Williams, ‘Youth’, EH).
(The article itself isn't much as a research piece, just a first-page Google hit, but it references research you can happily track down and dig into all you like!)
Very clever (and effective on the weak-minded) technique.
These aren't the gay droids you are looking for. :D
Equate something for which there is ample scientific research with something for which there is not.
You have a very reliable talent for (deliberately?) drawing out completely wrong inferences from almost any analogy, and then triumphantly pouncing on your own mistakes as if they were someone else's failing.

Yes, I know evidence of fusion is the sun is stronger than any reasearch about homosexuality, that like in any "hard science" it's far easier to get definitive results than in the often mushy world of human behavior and psychology. No, the point that I was making is that even when the evidence is very strong, someone like you can jump into an internet forum and demand proof after proof, and even for something as well-established as fusion in the sun (Yes, Chris, much better established than any gay research, and by the way, didja know George Bush likes tax cuts!?) it would take a major research project to dig up "proof" of fusion in the sun -- meaning finding not just the conclusions, but the research protocols, experimental set-ups, raw data, peer review, replication and repeatability of results, etc.

What's either amusing or annoying (perhaps both) is it's now pretty clear you would have happily had people fetch references galore about how people are pretty much born gay and have little choice in the matter, argued about piddling details in the research, and only slowly revealed that you really didn't give a hoot about desire, but only ultimate behavior and action.

Is this the big point you want to claim as a victory? Do you want me to admit that a person can be attracted to people of the same gender very strongly, maybe even be born that way, have no desire for the opposite sex, yet still choose to be celibate or go through the motions of being straight? Fine, I'll admit that, and I'm not claiming research exists which says otherwise.

Would you like me to admit someone could decide to try to change their orientation and actually change the very desires they have from homosexual to heterosexual? I'll even admit that's remotely possible, with the caveat that it's rarely successful, and with the qualification that I think it's a completely unnecessary thing to do even if you might make it work. Why beat yourself up like that simply to conform better to intolerant social standards and religious dogma?

Tell me this, since the anti-gay marriage amendment is dead, do you still hope that state by state gay marriage will be outlawed? Would you like to see olde-time sodomy laws revived and enforced? Are you angry at those damned "activist judges" for invalidating perfectly good, democratically-passed laws that would throw people in jail for gay sex, for heterosexual oral and anal sex?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
I've said the same thing. More than once.

Guess I have missed it then. My apologies.

Originally posted by shetline
No one includes you, sir.

No one includes anyone actually.

Originally posted by shetline
If having a clear definition was so important to you for a meaningful discussion, why didn't you set one forward to define where you're coming from?

Well...it really isn't incumbent on me to define "being gay"...since it isn't really a notion that I subscribe to. I would suggest that there are "people who engage in homosexual behavior"...but that is rather verbose. The "being" aspect is someone else's invention.

Originally posted by shetline
I define homosexuality, when talking about the personality and social orientation of an individual, in terms of desire and attraction to members of the same sex.

Fine. Not very objective mind you.

Originally posted by shetline
the point that I was making is that even when the evidence is very strong

Which would be fine if the "evidence is very strong" in support your theories about "being gay". That's the point of your anaology but breaks on that very point.

Originally posted by shetline
What's either amusing or annoying (perhaps both) is it's now pretty clear you would have happily had people fetch references galore about how people are pretty much born gay and have little choice in the matter,

Well, since no one is either able or willing to produce such references, I guess we'll not know will we?

Originally posted by shetline
didn't give a hoot about desire, but only ultimate behavior and action.

Desire isn't really the issue. We are talking about behavior. Some want to distract from this by raising the "but they were born that way" red herring (and the ambiguity of "being" that comes with definitions such as the one you offered) all the while ignoring the behavior (or assuming that the behavior is an uncontrollable aspect of the "being that way").

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...it really isn't incumbent on me to define "being gay"...since it isn't really a notion that I subscribe to. I would suggest that there are "people who engage in homosexual behavior"...but that is rather verbose. The "being" aspect is someone else's invention.
thats interesting. the common notion of "being gay" generally refers to a person's internal feelings [shetline's version is how i generally understand the term]. you deny that some people have an inert desire toward homosexual acts? or is the term too ambiguous (too subjective?) for you to accept?


If its the behavior that bothers you, then this law business doesn't make as much sense to me.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
the common notion of "being gay" generally refers to a person's internal feelings [shetline's version is how i generally understand the term]. you deny that some people have an inert desire toward homosexual acts? or is the term too ambiguous (too subjective?) for you to accept?

Too subjective? It is entirely subjective. There isn't a shred of objectivity in that definition. By that definition, someone can just have too much to drink and "be gay" simply because they have a "desire toward homosexual acts".

The problem is that some want to create an objective structure ("being gay is an uncontrollable inborn trait") on a subjective foundation ("being gay" == "a person's internal feelings") and use that as the basis for all reasoning on this particular subject. They take it further by comapring it something objective such as gender, eye color, skin color, etc. These are objectively measurable (inborn) traits that seem quite reasonably exempt from discrimination. The behavioral actions based on "a person's internal feelings" get much more gray. That I might be "born with" certain "internal feelings" or urges does not, in and of itself, provide tacit justification for any behavior based on those "internal feelings". Yet this is the position many try to argue from.

Originally posted by thuh Freak
If its the behavior that bothers you, then this law business doesn't make as much sense to me.

Well, the law is about regulating behavior and relationships (not thoughts, feelings, etc.), so that seems to make it relevant.

[midwinter]

I'm not sure I understand where CC is taking this discussion...the definition of "gay" is having sex with the same sex but not really wanting to?

I'm confused.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not sure I understand where CC is taking this discussion...the definition of "gay" is having sex with the same sex but not really wanting to?

I'm confused.

Now I am confused too.

I simply asked for an objective definition of "being gay". We all know what homosexual behavior is. But there seems to be a thread of thought that the "being gay" is something defineable in a way that also makes it legally protectable. So far I don't see that.

[Northgate]

That's the point. To confuse the issue beyond any rational thought.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Northgate
That's the point. To confuse the issue beyond any rational thought.

Thanks for admitting what your motives and tactics are.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Now I am confused too.

I simply asked for an objective definition of "being gay". We all know what homosexual behavior is. But there seems to be a thread of thought that the "being gay" is something defineable in a way that also makes it legally protectable. So far I don't see that.

Who is saying that "being gay" (i.e. having homosexual desires) is in need of protection? We can't legally protect "desire" in any way I can imagine. But we can legally protect those who engage in the desired behavior with other consenting individuals.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Who is saying that "being gay" (i.e. having homosexual desires) is in need of protection?

Hmmm...I don't really have the time to go back through the multiple threads and snip the postings. Sorry.

Originally posted by midwinter
We can't legally protect "desire" in any way I can imagine.

I agree.

( NOTE: Or punish either. )

Originally posted by midwinter
But we can legally protect those who engage in the desired behavior with other consenting individuals.

True. However, some are arguing that that basis for said protection is in the "being" (and thus trying to divert any debate on the subject). It's a "slam dunk"...they just "are" and so anything preventing the "doing" is simply wrong (because of the "being").

If we keep the discussion on the behavior, then we can rationally discuss whether the behavior should be protected, not protected, or even prevented. And what the reasons for and against are.

[Chucker]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
By that definition, someone can just have too much to drink and "be gay" simply because they have a "desire toward homosexual acts".

Precisely. They're homosexual. Otherwise, they wouldn't have such desire, regardless of the amount of booze or other drugs inhaled. Homosexuality is modal. You don't randomly decide "today, I'm gonna be gay, because I've had so much beer and now it won't matter any more"; that would be bisexuality.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Chucker
Precisely. They're homosexual. Otherwise, they wouldn't have such desire, regardless of the amount of booze or other drugs inhaled.

:lol:

Ahhh...the fun we can have with squishy, ambiguous, subjective definitions.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Hmmm...I don't really have the time to go back through the multiple threads and snip the postings. Sorry.



I agree.

( NOTE: Or punish either. )



True. However, some are arguing that that basis for said protection is in the "being" (and thus trying to divert any debate on the subject). It's a "slam dunk"...they just "are" and so anything preventing the "doing" is simply wrong (because of the "being").

If we keep the discussion on the behavior, then we can rationally discuss whether the behavior should be protected, not protected, or even prevented. And what the reasons for and against are.

Ah. Gotcha. We seem to be on the same page.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Ah. Gotcha. We seem to be on the same page.

Cool.

Now, for the record...my own person positions:

1. I believe (based on my own faith and what I believe that God says) that homosexual behavior is wrong. Ultimately that will be between the individuals and God to sort out.

2. On a personal level, I would not want someone I know and love (in a Christian sense) to engage in activity that is wrong before God and could be harmful to them.

3. I believe that "marriage" is a relational union created by God and thus, in God's eyes, two people of the same gender cannot ever be married no matter what the law might say.

These are my personal beliefs. Now...the law:

1. Private sexual activity laws (e.g., sodomy laws, etc.) are unlikely to be enforceable and probably not even worth the time and, from a governmental perspective, probably out of line. What people do in their homes between consenting adults should not be (and probably can't be anyway) regulated.

2. Same-gender "marriage" seems to mostly be an issue of access to certain rights, privileges and benefits as conferred by law. First this is definitely not a constitutional matter (at either the state or federal level). Second, it should be a state (not federal) matter. Third, while I don't believe that the government should do things that enable or encourage people to engage in behaviors or relationships that I think are harmful to them, if we wanted to redefine a set of legal structures that enabled same-sex couples to enjoy the same rights, privileges and benefits as currently enjoyed by male-female marriages, then fine. The real question here (for the government to act to make such a change) is to be shown the benefit of it (from the government's perspective). The government (through law) encourages (or discourages) certain kinds of behaviors and relationships based on their perceived value to the society as a whole. For example, government might confer certain benefits to people with children, as a way of encouraging (moderate) population growth. Simple example, but you get my point.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

2. Same-gender "marriage" seems to mostly be an issue of access to certain rights, privileges and benefits as conferred by law. First this is definitely not a constitutional matter (at either the state or federal level). Second, it should be a state (not federal) matter. Third, while I don't believe that the government should do things that enable or encourage people to engage in behaviors or relationships that I think are harmful to them, if we wanted to redefine a set of legal structures that enabled same-sex couples to enjoy the same rights, privileges and benefits as currently enjoyed by male-female marriages, then fine. The real question here (for the government to act to make such a change) is to be shown the benefit of it (from the government's perspective). The government (through law) encourages (or discourages) certain kinds of behaviors and relationships based on their perceived value to the society as a whole. For example, government might confer certain benefits to people with children, as a way of encouraging (moderate) population growth. Simple example, but you get my point.

Fair enough, although I don't really see the states' rights argument as being any different than the civil rights arguments when it was used. When states' rights argument is trotted out, it seems almost always to be in the process of denying something to someone or some group.

But I think you're right; if it is an issue of benefits and whatnot, there are ways to fix that.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Fair enough, although I don't really see the states' rights argument as being any different than the civil rights arguments when it was used. When states' rights argument is trotted out, it seems almost always to be in the process of denying something to someone or some group.

I'm not intending it that way. I am coming at it more from a "federalist" bent. I actually think there are a number of issues (education, welfare, etc.) that live at the federal level (currently and have for many years) that ought to be pushed back to the state level. To me for both philosophical and practical reasons.

But that is really a debate for another thread.

I'm not really interested in denying people their rights (within reason of course).

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...it really isn't incumbent on me to define "being gay"...since it isn't really a notion that I subscribe to. I would suggest that there are "people who engage in homosexual behavior"...but that is rather verbose. The "being" aspect is someone else's invention.
While were at it, no one has defined the words "person", "constitution", "law", "backlash", or "screwing" in this thread, but most of us seem to know what the others using these words were talking about, despite an appalling lack of dictionary citations.

We're not a secret club using a secret hidden-agenda meaning of the word "gay". Most of us think the word is pretty clear in meaning, commonly understood to relate to sexual desires, and use it as if others will automatically understand more or less what we mean. As with any other word one imagines has a commonly understood meaning, we aren't likely to go around tossing out definitions unless someone who can't follow the drift of the conversation needs to ask.
Fine. Not very objective mind you.
First of all, what does objectivity have to do with the meanings and common usages of words? Words like "big" and "small" are commonly understood, but so contextual and subjective in use that you can't nail down objective definitions. Regardless, "big" and "small" are still useful, proper, and commonly understood words.

Do you demand that the meaning of the words "gay" and "homosexual" automatically include objective procedural measures of gayness built into their definitions?

Secondly, desire and attraction are not completely cut off from objective measure, although such measurements are generally better applicable to groups, not individuals, and have varying degrees of statistical certainty.
Which would be fine if the "evidence is very strong" in support your theories about "being gay". That's the point of your anaology but breaks on that very point.
Guess I have to spell things out, step by step:

1. Theory A is long established, well-documented, and broadly accepted.
2. Theory B doesn't have as much research or as long a history behind it as Theory A, but it is still widely accepted by those doing research in the same and related fields.
3. "Proving" A to a very hostile detractor would, regardless of the broad acceptance of A, require enormous amounts of effort and research, and would still likely be a futile task.
4. "Proving" B to a very hostile detractor would be even more difficult and more futile than proving A.
5. If I wouldn't let myself get wrapped up in trying to prove A to a very hostile detractor, I sure as hell am not going to even bother trying with B.
6. If someone wants to play the game of very hostile detractor, claiming that my lack of desire to comply to his demands for "proof", at the expense enormous effort on my part in a damn near futile quest, shows my argument is somehow "weak", and then wishes to pat himself on the back for having achieved some sort of victory... fine, let him have at it. Like competing in the Special Olympics, it's a game the very hostile detractor can always win.
Desire isn't really the issue. We are talking about behavior.
Actually, constitutional restrictions on gay marriage are the issue, and in a broader sense any sort legal or political restrictions on personal associations, private consensual sexual conduct among adults, and access to any publicly administered and recognized legal status such as marriage.

If your agenda is that you want to change, restrict, outlaw, and/or discourage "gay behavior", then tell us exactly how, to what degree, and why. What legitimate state interests will be served by whatever changes you'd enact?
Some want to distract from this by raising the "but they were born that way" red herring (and the ambiguity of "being" that comes with definitions such as the one you offered) all the while ignoring the behavior (or assuming that the behavior is an uncontrollable aspect of the "being that way").
I don't think there's any general assumption that gay desires result in "uncontrollable" gay behavior. Just that there's little or no choice about the desires, and that resisting the associated behavior is likely to lead to a great deal of personal unhappiness for gay people. (I'm going to continue to mean "people with homosexual desires" when I use phrases like "gay people" -- a whole lot of this conversation and most of the debate regarding homosexuality out in the world at large will make a whole lot more sense to you understand that common usage.)

You might have the fantasy that all Steve has to do to stop lusting after Jim and start longing for Jane is to invite Jesus into his heart, and then God will grant him salvation and a properly-oriented hard-on for Jane to boot. (But don't you even think about f*cking Jane until you've had a proper Christian marriage, Steve! Even though we've gotten you "straightened" out, we want to keep you frustrated a bit longer -- it's the Godly way!) Besides the fact that this seldom appears to be very effective, what on earth should the possibility of such a change via religious conversion have to do with how our laws and our constitution are constructed?

I've already said that I consider the question of desire, in-born or not, a distraction too, and for reasons you can go back and read elsewhere, I support gay marriage and gay rights on a basis of personal liberty vs. insufficient proper state interest. But I'll still argue the case for inborn sexual orientation for a few reasons:

1. Regardless of how much legal significance the notion of inborn sexual orientation has (defined by desire and attraction), I think the idea is true and pretty well indicated by current research.

2. Understanding the lack of choice in sexual orientation seems to be necessary to garner sympathy for gay rights from some people. I'd rather that people have a better appreciation for personal liberty, but I'll take what I can get if it makes the world a better place for gay people.

3. For a lot of gay people, it seems very important to them that others understand them in this way, that they never felt like they had a choice or had made a choice, and that nearly all of them grew up knowing they were different in some way from their peers even before they understood the idea of sex and before they ever acted on sexual desires in any way.

4. Knowing that homosexual desires are largely in-born and not a matter of choice puts laws denying gay rights into a deserved harsher perspective -- it becomes clear that by enforcing such laws those who would do so care more about enforcing conformity to social (and often, even if they don't say so, religious) norms than they do about the happiness of those who are affected by such laws.

Being gay isn't easy. Fortunately more and more can find social acceptance and live without too much discriminatory grief. For many gays however, they have only bad choices:

1. Deny their own desires and pretend to be straight.
2. Put up a straight front and live a secret gay life.
3. Be openly gay and endure discrimination and rejection, even from one's own family and from those who at one time had been friends.

What effect can laws against gay marriage and gay sex have other than making choice 3 more unpleasant, pushing more people into choices 1 and 2 instead? Is your unstated agenda an unlisted choice 4 -- that you think by making choices 1, 2, and 3 painful enough you can get gays to flock to Jesus to find happiness? If that's your agenda, what rightful place does pushing that agenda have in the legal system of a supposedly free society?

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
By that definition, someone can just have too much to drink and "be gay" simply because they have a "desire toward homosexual acts".
Is anyone else beginning to wonder what Chris has found himself wanting to do, or perhaps has already done, under the influence of alcohol, and isn't fessing up to? :D

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
First of all, what does objectivity have to do with the meanings and common usages of words?

In legal issues it matters a lot...

Originally posted by shetline
Words like "big" and "small" are commonly understood, but so contextual and subjective in use that you can't nail down objective definitions. Regardless, "big" and "small" are still useful, proper, and commonly understood words.

All quite true. Now...lets pass a law banning all "big" cars or forcing people to drive "small" ones.

This is where we get (pardon the pun) wrapped around the axle. From a legal perspecti