Marriage Laws

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Funny, you didn't have any problem with "4 judges" saying we didn't need a recount in Florida did you? Or do you only think it's ok to go with judges decisions when you agree with their decisions?

It wasn't four judges. They didn't say that. The five of them said that according to the laws on the books in the state of Florida, there was no way to have a recount that would satisfy an equal protection challenge. They argued that it couldn't be done in a timely manner, and while I am not so sure that is correct I am certain that anything the Florida Supreme Court would have done to correct the problem would have simply been legislation from the bench. They just didn't have adequate laws in place. Oh and since the number of judges came up, I thought I'd mention that it was SEVEN justices who felt there was an equal protection issue with what was going on in Florida.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Um, Cam, you do know that there were more people in both the US and British governments than just Scott Ritter who were casting doubts on the White House's Iraq-WMD connection, don't you?

those that had access to intelligence reports? Now there's a list I'd like to see, because honestly I can't think of any right off the top of my head. Even if there were a few, I'd say a former president, former vice president, former national security advisor, sitting senators, etc. would probably trump those few voices. I mean, even you'd have to admit that the overwhelming consensus was that the WMD were there, right?

Okay, quit posting. I'm trying to go to bed, dammit.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I don't disagree that a 2-parent household improves the chances for a stable environment. It certainly doesn't guarantee it; there are loving, commited single parents out there that do a better job of raising their kids than many fucked-up 2 parent households. But the odds improve.

You may not believe this, but I said the exact same thing.

I still don't see how this opinion precludes the wisdom of allowing same-sex couples, unless you believe that there is something inherently more healthy about having a male and a female running the house. If you have some evidence to back this contention, I'd love to see it.

I'll be honest with you, calling parents "same sex couples" or a mom and a dad a "male and a female" is just plain freaking me out.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

The problem with Bush wasn't that he invented WMD. It's that the "intelligence" he based his decision on was overblown, and had been discredited well before he *allegedly* made the decision to go to war. Of course, if you're to believe Paul O'Neill, that decision was actually made well before 9/11. It just provided the needed fear factor to allow him to invent a reason.

I believe Paul O'Neill, then again I remember the President campaigning on taking action against Saddam Hussein. Who else wasn't paying attention?

Speaking of paying attention. Where does anyone say that the intelligence regarding WMD was EVER discredited? Obviously I want the instance prior to us going in there and finding none at least. They were absolutely freaking possitive that they would find the WMD there. The intelligence was never discredited prior to the invasion, it was exposed after the fact.

I think this does it. I am only posting to tangential discussions in this post. It should prove much less boring.

[Joe Canadian]

People are scared of change...

[sabotai]

We fear change.


Quick, name the movie!!

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Was it Michael Moore or Howard Dean who suggested Saddam Hussein didn't really exist and was a bed time story Republicans told their children to terrorize them each and every night....until Hussein was found that is.

We didn't find any WMD did we? Nope, we didn't.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You may not believe this, but I said the exact same thing.



I'll be honest with you, calling parents "same sex couples" or a mom and a dad a "male and a female" is just plain freaking me out.

You'll have to get used to it. That will continue to be true even if the Congress, President, and State Legislatures pushed through a 27th Amendment banning marriage between gays or lesbians.

There are already same sex couples. There are already children in families with same sex parents. There have been for some time. That will not change.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I believe Paul O'Neill, then again I remember the President campaigning on taking action against Saddam Hussein. Who else wasn't paying attention?

Yup. It's convenient that even the media forgot that. Then again, the media, contrary to what the right wing would like to believe, has been Dubya's lapdog pretty much continually since 9/11.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'll be honest with you, calling parents "same sex couples" or a mom and a dad a "male and a female" is just plain freaking me out.

What should they be called? Saying "same-sex couples" is easier than saying "two dads/two moms". I could've used the term "traditional marriages" to denote male-female couples I suppose...

You still haven't addressed my point though - why do you assume that same-sex households will produce more socially maladjusted kids than traditional marriage households? Do you have any evidence to support this assumption?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Chubby

We didn't find any WMD did we? Nope, we didn't.

Yep, we found 2 assholes holed up in a house, shot the shit outta them, and killed one of their son's too for good measure.

Then we found another asshole curled up like a bitch in a foxhole.

These dudes were "mass destruction." Look at how many people they killed. Its at least in the hundred thousands.

If a house on your street has all kinds of different traffic going into it at all hours of the night for a long period of time, wouldnt you assume that there is some form of Illicit activity going on?

Well those same signals were around in Iraq. Just cause they werent smart enough to have the WMD fully developed, doesnt mean that they werent IN development. If you want to live in a world with open-air markets of nuclear secrets available, be my guest. I dont.

If at work, someone continuously defied your code of conduct, how long would they last? Maybe a week?

Well Iraq wasnt living by the resolutions of the United fricken Nations.

Admittedly this is on a much larger scale, with lives involved. But its still just.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yep, we found 2 assholes holed up in a house, shot the shit outta them, and killed one of their son's too for good measure.

Then we found another asshole curled up like a bitch in a foxhole.

These dudes were "mass destruction." Look at how many people they killed. Its at least in the hundred thousands.

If a house on your street has all kinds of different traffic going into it at all hours of the night for a long period of time, wouldnt you assume that there is some form of Illicit activity going on?

Well those same signals were around in Iraq. Just cause they werent smart enough to have the WMD fully developed, doesnt mean that they werent IN development. If you want to live in a world with open-air markets of nuclear secrets available, be my guest. I dont.

If at work, someone continuously defied your code of conduct, how long would they last? Maybe a week?

Well Iraq wasnt living by the resolutions of the United fricken Nations.

Admittedly this is on a much larger scale, with lives involved. But its still just.

Oh ok, nice try but wrong.

And like I said earlier, if we're going to be going after every dictator from now on we'll have to go after the one's we are allies with. Too bad that won't happen, since that would mean we should have gone after Saddam when he was out "bud", remember that? Remember when he was DOING all those awful things to his own people, we were his ally since he was an enemy of Iran.

[RendeR]

OK, been awhile since I posted a review:

To clarify the judges ruling in MA: They did not in fact say that same sex marriage was legal or illegal, their ruling stated that the current state constitution, and applicable laws within the state governing marriage did NOT preclude same sex marriages. There is no specific stipulation in the books right now making them illigal, not specifics stating they are, which is why there is such a rush by legsilators to try and force feed the populace an amendmant to the state constitution.

Those against same sex marriages have three basic arguements:
1. Religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong and they want it made a law to govern everyone based on that belief.
2. The slippery slope theory that if we allow same sex marriages then it will open the door to further family types and styles which may or may not be detrimental to society as a whole.
3. The last one I saw was a concern for child welfare in the home, basing their opinion on the assumption that same sex couples are going to raise children with more problems than single or heterosexual parents.

Those For same sex marriage:
1. Equal protection under the law, wether the name "marriage" is used or "civil union" is used seems to be irrelevent to the case that same sex couples simply want to have the same benefits that traditional male female couples enjoy in taxation, estate, and health care issues.
2. The belief that a ban on same sex marriages is discriminatory and therefore unnaceptable for a nation based on "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", not "life, liberty(maybe), and the pursuit of (what we think you should feel is) happiness"


Please note: the secondary conversation about the governments knowledge of WMD andn other such things is irrelevent to the main topin and it would be really nice if you'd start yer own thread

If I missed anything truly relevent let me know. I've really enjoyed reading through this, even with wig and a few others assinine coments thrown in

And go me! this is the largest thread I've ever started, I'm proud *BEAMS*

Ren

[Dutch]

You missed one thing. My awareness of this issue has only just been raised. Probably could say the same thing for millions of Americans. I asked the question of why we should do this today and not after public opinion has been swayed in one direction or the other. Perhaps one side or the other could come up with some evidence or conclusions that would better help others understand.

I don't see a problem with that. National Awareness is important. Obviously this issue has 2 serparate concerned groups, shouldn't they both be respected before we rush anything through city courts or national ammendments?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

OK, been awhile since I posted a review:

To clarify the judges ruling in MA: They did not in fact say that same sex marriage was legal or illegal, their ruling stated that the current state constitution, and applicable laws within the state governing marriage did NOT preclude same sex marriages. There is no specific stipulation in the books right now making them illigal, not specifics stating they are, which is why there is such a rush by legsilators to try and force feed the populace an amendmant to the state constitution.

Those against same sex marriages have three basic arguements:
1. Religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong and they want it made a law to govern everyone based on that belief.
2. The slippery slope theory that if we allow same sex marriages then it will open the door to further family types and styles which may or may not be detrimental to society as a whole.
3. The last one I saw was a concern for child welfare in the home, basing their opinion on the assumption that same sex couples are going to raise children with more problems than single or heterosexual parents.

Those For same sex marriage:
1. Equal protection under the law, wether the name "marriage" is used or "civil union" is used seems to be irrelevent to the case that same sex couples simply want to have the same benefits that traditional male female couples enjoy in taxation, estate, and health care issues.
2. The belief that a ban on same sex marriages is discriminatory and therefore unnaceptable for a nation based on "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", not "life, liberty(maybe), and the pursuit of (what we think you should feel is) happiness"


Please note: the secondary conversation about the governments knowledge of WMD andn other such things is irrelevent to the main topin and it would be really nice if you'd start yer own thread

If I missed anything truly relevent let me know. I've really enjoyed reading through this, even with wig and a few others assinine coments thrown in

And go me! this is the largest thread I've ever started, I'm proud *BEAMS*

Ren

Okay, I'm not sure what it is I haven't responded to, but since Butter's accusing me of slinking away from an argument, and this is the only thing pertinent to the discussion that I can find since I last posted, I'm assuming it's this.

I'm not even sure what there is to respond to in this thread, although I think there are a lot of laws that are going to fly out the window if we start using "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as if that's all the constitution says.

I'd also argue that if you look at the studies of gay marriage in Scandinavia, you'd see that it's just the welfare of children in gay marriages that those opposed to gay marriage are talking about. Scandinavia's had gay marriage for close to a decade now, and in the provinces where it's most popular, the percentage of kids born out of wedlock has increased dramatically, the number of people cohabitating instead of marrying has climbed as well. Since people who cohabitate rather than marry tend to split up more frequently than those who marry, you have the problem of more children in general being raised in families that are more likely to face financial and social problems.

Sorry for the quick reply, don't have the links available, but I believe they've already been posted in this thread or the other one. If I don't reply until this evening, it's because I'm away from my computer, not hiding from butters.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Oh ok, nice try but wrong.

And like I said earlier, if we're going to be going after every dictator from now on we'll have to go after the one's we are allies with. Too bad that won't happen, since that would mean we should have gone after Saddam when he was out "bud", remember that? Remember when he was DOING all those awful things to his own people, we were his ally since he was an enemy of Iran.

Chubby, go cheat in an online league or something. If you werent so freaking funny to read, yes I laugh at your ass, Id put you on my ignore list.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Okay, I'm not sure what it is I haven't responded to, but since Butter's accusing me of slinking away from an argument, and this is the only thing pertinent to the discussion that I can find since I last posted, I'm assuming it's this.

I'm not even sure what there is to respond to in this thread, although I think there are a lot of laws that are going to fly out the window if we start using "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as if that's all the constitution says.

I'd also argue that if you look at the studies of gay marriage in Scandinavia, you'd see that it's just the welfare of children in gay marriages that those opposed to gay marriage are talking about. Scandinavia's had gay marriage for close to a decade now, and in the provinces where it's most popular, the percentage of kids born out of wedlock has increased dramatically, the number of people cohabitating instead of marrying has climbed as well. Since people who cohabitate rather than marry tend to split up more frequently than those who marry, you have the problem of more children in general being raised in families that are more likely to face financial and social problems.

Sorry for the quick reply, don't have the links available, but I believe they've already been posted in this thread or the other one. If I don't reply until this evening, it's because I'm away from my computer, not hiding from butters.

Please explain to me how allowing more people to marry causes fewer people to marry. I propose that these are two separate issues and that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between them.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Telle

Please explain to me how allowing more people to marry causes fewer people to marry. I propose that these are two separate issues and that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between them.

At an entirely anecdotal and probably statistically insignificant level, my girlfriend and I (and another couple I know) are not getting married in large part because gays can't get married. Cam, unlike some others here, won't accuse you of running from an argument, but this claim of yours is very hard to substantiate.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Okay, I'm not sure what it is I haven't responded to, but since Butter's accusing me of slinking away from an argument, and this is the only thing pertinent to the discussion that I can find since I last posted, I'm assuming it's this.

I'm not even sure what there is to respond to in this thread, although I think there are a lot of laws that are going to fly out the window if we start using "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as if that's all the constitution says.

I'd also argue that if you look at the studies of gay marriage in Scandinavia, you'd see that it's just the welfare of children in gay marriages that those opposed to gay marriage are talking about. Scandinavia's had gay marriage for close to a decade now, and in the provinces where it's most popular, the percentage of kids born out of wedlock has increased dramatically, the number of people cohabitating instead of marrying has climbed as well. Since people who cohabitate rather than marry tend to split up more frequently than those who marry, you have the problem of more children in general being raised in families that are more likely to face financial and social problems.

Sorry for the quick reply, don't have the links available, but I believe they've already been posted in this thread or the other one. If I don't reply until this evening, it's because I'm away from my computer, not hiding from butters.

This was the article I read that you posted much earlier on, I said before (too lazy to find it and cut and paste) that the essence of the article is more rebuttle of another survey that was done in regards to the situation, it also brings up no real evidence that the legalization og gay marriage is in fact the cause of the increase. it could very well have been a natural shift in the country. It is also a very bad comparison because the article uses a welfare state as its focus. The United states is not a welfare state. The nation will not support a single white male if he decides to cut his losses and walk away from a family he married into.

While I won't say gay marriage didn't affect those numbers I think it a bit obtuse to assume that the large change in the gap is directly due to that change in their laws. unfortunately the writer doesn't support his arguement that gay marriage was the real cause of it all.

And also, I don't think its a requirement of a good family to have children IN wedlock. That, to me, screams christian dogma. There is nothing wrong with my family and *I* was born out of wedlock. There are millions of cases for and against this, I've yet to see any real study done of specifically same sex couples that shows their children are any better or worse off than male/female couples children are. I'd be glad to read up on some if anyone has links to them. Until then I'd have to believe that they'll fall into the same percentages the "traditional" marriages do in turms of good family/bad family and how those kids turn out.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

In fact, civil rights still seems to be a contentious issue for a lot of people. Aren't we still debating affirmative action, preferential hiring, racial profiling, etc.?

We are, but this isn't a valid comparison to granting marriage/civil-union rights to same-sex couples. From what I've read about this situation, no one is advocating that same-sex couples be given greater or more rights from marriage/civil union than straights, just the same rights.

Affirmative Action/preferential hiring, whatever you may think about it's validity, is in practice a granting of "special" rights to a group of people.

The most valid comparison here, if you're going to compare sexual preference with race, is the overturning of laws in some states that prohibited blacks from marrying whites. That also shows that the idea that allowing same-sex couples to marry is a dangerous precedent to set because it changes the definition of marriage is a weak one - this change in definition has already happened in the past to remove the restrictions of race in the definition of marriage.

I'm not sure how racial profiling works as a comparison in this debate...

[Telle]

Originally Posted by John Galt

At an entirely anecdotal and probably statistically insignificant level, my girlfriend and I (and another couple I know) are not getting married in large part because gays can't get married. Cam, unlike some others here, won't accuse you of running from an argument, but this claim of yours is very hard to substantiate.

I am not running from an argument. Cam has certainly shown correlation, but is improperly presenting it as cause-and-effect. The burden is on the presenter of the argument to prove that the relationship is cause-and-effect rather than correlation.

Also, your situation is actually the opposite of what was presented here. You are not getting married because gays can't marry, rather than because they can.

This reminds me of something I heard once. It's statistically proven that more drownings happen at the beach on days when there is more ice cream sold. At first blush, one might assume that this means that the ice cream is the cause of the drownings. However, there is no cause and effect. There is simply a correlation due to the fact that on days when there are more people at the beach there is more ice cream sold and more chances of someone drowning. Similarly, I believe that in those provinces where there are more gay marriages and more non-marrital arrangements between heterosexuals that there is simply more liberals who place less of an importance upon traditional marrital arrangements.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That also shows that the idea that allowing same-sex couples to marry is a dangerous precedent to set because it changes the definition of marriage is a weak one - this change in definition has already happened in the past to remove the restrictions of race in the definition of marriage.

But was the idea that the couple had to be of the same race considered a fundamental aspect of the meaning of marriage?

No doubt there were some people who felt that way, of course, but had it been a core part of the definition for centuries up until the laws were changed? If not, the comparison doesn't really hold.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Telle

I am not running from an argument. Cam has certainly shown correlation, but is improperly presenting it as cause-and-effect. The burden is on the presenter of the argument to prove that the relationship is cause-and-effect rather than correlation.

Also, your situation is actually the opposite of what was presented here. You are not getting married because gays can't marry, rather than because they can.

This reminds me of something I heard once. It's statistically proven that more drownings happen at the beach on days when there is more ice cream sold. At first blush, one might assume that this means that the ice cream is the cause of the drownings. However, there is no cause and effect. There is simply a correlation due to the fact that on days when there are more people at the beach there is more ice cream sold and more chances of someone drowning. Similarly, I believe that in those provinces where there are more gay marriages and more non-marrital arrangements between heterosexuals that there is simply more liberals who place less of an importance upon traditional marrital arrangements.

Although I quoted your argument, I was replying to Cam (I referred to him by name in the second "running away" sentence). If you look at all my posts in this thread and others you should realize I'm agreeing with you.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Although I quoted your argument, I was replying to Cam (I referred to him by name in the second "running away" sentence). If you look at all my posts in this thread and others you should realize I'm agreeing with you.

Ahh, sorry I knew that you agree with my side of the argument but I thought you were pointing out a flaw in my logic in this one instance.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

But was the idea that the couple had to be of the same race considered a fundamental aspect of the meaning of marriage?

No doubt there were some people who felt that way, of course, but had it been a core part of the definition for centuries up until the laws were changed? If not, the comparison doesn't really hold.

I'd say the fact that almost every state codified it to mean intra-racial marriage only is pretty significant.

I think a race example disproves most of the nonsense about adoptions and the welfare of kids in these cases - both interracial families and interracial adoptions show that society's pressures should be reasons to oppose adoptions by gay parents.

Ultimately, though, I think everyone defending gay marriages should stop using race examples for most things in this thread. They allow opponenents to argue being gay is choice (which of course ignores a boatload of scientific evidence). Instead, I think religion examples are much more telling. Most of the people in this thread would never support laws that restrict marrying by certain religions or certain combinations of religions, yet have no trouble supporting the restriction of a different, fundamental life "choice" (sex orientation).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Telle

Ahh, sorry I knew that you agree with my side of the argument but I thought you were pointing out a flaw in my logic in this one instance.

No problem. I just wanted to clarify the confusion.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Most of the people in this thread would never support laws that restrict marrying by certain religions or certain combinations of religions, yet have no trouble supporting the restriction of a different, fundamental life "choice" (sex orientation).

Fair enough, but again, you'd have a hard time showing that the universal, traditional definition of marriage was ever "one man and one woman, but they have to be of the same religion". Some cultures thought so, sure, but it wasn't part of the fundamental defintion. So the example doesn't really demonstrate the full force of what we're dealing with here.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think a race example disproves most of the nonsense about adoptions and the welfare of kids in these cases - both interracial families and interracial adoptions show that society's pressures should be reasons to oppose adoptions by gay parents.

I've never felt like the "think of the children" argument against gay marriage held up very well to scrutiny. I see where they're coming from, but it just doesn't work especially well.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Fair enough, but again, you'd have a hard time showing that the universal, traditional definition of marriage was ever "one man and one woman, but they have to be of the same religion". Some cultures thought so, sure, but it wasn't part of the fundamental defintion. So the example doesn't really demonstrate the full force of what we're dealing with here.

I've never felt like the "think of the children" argument against gay marriage held up very well to scrutiny. I see where they're coming from, but it just doesn't work especially well.

I'm not sure the religion example has to be historically founded to be used as a powerful hypothetical analogy. Either way, there are plenty of historical examples of restrictions by religion on who could get married - they just aren't as recent and American as the interracial marriage example. And I think as long as religious conservatives invoke the "it's a choice" argument, they must explain why the protection of their faith is different than sexual orientation in terms of the right to marry.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And I think as long as religious conservatives invoke the "it's a choice" argument, they must explain why the protection of their faith is different than sexual orientation in terms of the right to marry.

OK, fair enough. But that's a different argument.

My point is that if someone relies on the argument that marriage has traditionally and historically always been between one man and one woman, then it's difficult to defeat that argument by citing examples of isolated cultures (even American) where there were other, additional restrictions.

There are counter-arguments that could be effective, but the race/religion comparison doesn't work.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

OK, fair enough. But that's a different argument.

My point is that if someone relies on the argument that marriage has traditionally and historically always been between one man and one woman, then it's difficult to defeat that argument by citing examples of isolated cultures (even American) where there were other, additional restrictions.

There are counter-arguments that could be effective, but the race/religion comparison doesn't work.

Hmmm . . . maybe I'm not being clear because I don't intend it to be a different argument.

Anyway, I think the religion example is pretty good for a few reasons.

1) Restrictions on religions that could marry were fundamental to the definition of marriage (just like gender). Look at people like Bubba who continue to believe that marriage is a Christian derived institution and thus gays can't participate in it. Similar arguments were made to argue that various religious minorities could not marry. The religious minority would often be persecuted as such and their lifestyle "choice" made them ineligible for marriage. I can dig up some good historical examples to prove it was very fundamental to the example of religion.

2) It exposes the hypocrisy of the "it's a choice" argument.

3) It exposes how privilege shapes this discussion. It is only because heteros are the overwhelming majority of our society that they can marry (while others can't). A society with a greater number of gays would not be deprived of the right to marry. Similarly, Christians in this debate don't seem to take seriously the idea that marriage could be denied to them precisely because they are the American majority. When the privileged can't understand how so much of their argument depends on their numbers then tapping into other aspects of their privilege can serve as a powerful argument.

4) It makes it clear that gays are more than just people who like to have sex with their own gender. Being "gay" has created a subculture in America that is much, much more than just being sexual with certain people. Similarly, religion is much more than people who like to pray. It is something that goes to the core of a person's identity. Being "gay" has the same core effect on a person's identity and fundamentally changes most major decisions in their lives.

[Dutch]

2) It exposes the hypocrisy of the "it's a choice" argument.

I would be curious to see some examples of evidence that prove it's a decision coded at birth. This could be ground breaking in finding out who's who at birth.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I would be curious to see some examples of evidence that prove it's a decision coded at birth. This could be ground breaking in finding out who's who at birth.

The primary evidence comes from two sources. It's been a while since I've reviewed the studies so I may get some of the details wrong.

First, the best evidence is from separated identical twin studies. Twins who are separated at birth (or very soon after) due to whatever reasons are raised by separate adoptive families. There aren't all that many people in these groups, so you always have a problem of statistical sample size. Nonetheless, at least one major study of separated identical twins showed a statistically significant correlation between the sexual preference of separated twins (eg when one twin was gay, the other was more likely to be). I can't remember the cite on the study, but it was peer reviewed in the 90's and created a bit of stir then so there is a fair amount written about it.

Second, there have been some studies as to genetic similarities between gays. While there has not been a "gay gene" discovered (and that is not surprising given how little we understand about the human genome), there have been a few studies that found controlled similarities between gays in genetic codes. This research is all very preliminary and not as definitive, but it is a work in progress.

A piece of non-scientific evidence that some people find persuasive is to ask the listener to try and be "gay." Just as gays can't be hetero, it is hard to really try to become attracted to your gender if you aren't naturally so. While I'm not as excited by this anecdotal evidence, a lot of people find it very persuasive.

And I'm not sure any of this is to say you can find "who is who" at birth. And from my vantage point, I don't want to know.

[John Galt]

dola,

here is a link that describes some of the important studies:

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/studies.html

[John Galt]

And here is a link to a cite that discusses the evangelical response to these genetic studies:

hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm

Here is a cite with a few other random tidbits:

hxxp://www.gaysouthafrica.org.za/homosexuality/studies.asp

If I have time later, I may find some more.

[John Galt]

Oh yeah, one more thing. This is one of my favorite quotes on the issue:

"In the forward to the book "We Were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays", Anglican Archbishop Benjamin Tutu of South Africa writes "Someone has said that if this sexual orientation were indeed a matter of personal choice, the homosexual persons must be the craziest coots around to choose a way of life that exposes them to so much hostility, discrimination, loss and suffering.""

[Maple Leafs]

I find that the easiest way to stop someone from arguing that being gay is a choice is to just ask them "OK, at what point did you decide you were straight? Did you experiment with being gay before you made that decision? At the very least you must have given a lot of thought to your options, right?"

Inevitably the response is along the lines of "No, I've always been straight". And it's true. It all seems pretty obvious when you flip it around.

Now, whether people are born gay or they "turn" gay in childhood is another question. But I can't understand the idea that some people just wake up one morning in their early teens and say "You know, I think I'll give this whole gay thing a shot, that seems like the best idea."

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I find that the easiest way to stop someone from arguing that being gay is a choice is to just ask them "OK, at what point did you decide you were straight? Did you experiment with being gay before you made that decision? At the very least you must have given a lot of thought to your options, right?"

Inevitably the response is along the lines of "No, I've always been straight". And it's true. It all seems pretty obvious when you flip it around.

Now, whether people are born gay or they "turn" gay in childhood is another question. But I can't understand the idea that some people just wake up one morning in their early teens and say "You know, I think I'll give this whole gay thing a shot, that seems like the best idea."

I just don't find that argument as persuasive because I think many people just believe everyone is made "straight." Therefore they never have to chose. It is only the "deviants" that chose to defy their "natural" state and become gay. Then again, I can't deny it is useful thought exercise - I just think science is the better apporach on the issue.

[Dutch]

Like I've said, I'm not approaching this from a Holier than Thou viewpoint and believe homosexual people are evil, so we should stop saying that over and over again. I like to call that "steamrolling" for steamrolling's sake.

JG, you get a free pass since I know this isn't a partisan issue for you. Just thought I would point that out.

Another thing, a lot of the sources you cite aren't exactly www.cnn.com analysts or www.usatoday.com or www.bbc.com. I will have to read them and see what they say none the less, but in debates like these we like the www.cnn.com's of the world to guide our arguments when citing information. We can only hope the partisanship/slants in one way or the other isn't influencing what I will read on those sites.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Like I've said, I'm not approaching this from a Holier than Thou viewpoint and believe homosexual people are evil, so we should stop saying that over and over again. I like to call that "steamrolling" for steamrolling's sake.

JG, you get a free pass since I know this isn't a partisan issue for you. Just thought I would point that out.

Another thing, a lot of the sources you cite aren't exactly www.cnn.com analysts or www.usatoday.com or www.bbc.com. I will have to read them and see what they say none the less, but in debates like these we like the www.cnn.com's of the world to guide our arguments when citing information. We can only hope the partisanship/slants in one way or the other isn't influencing what I will read on those sites.

You can find all sorts of mainstream cites that discuss these studies, but they usually inject the author's bias into it so much that you can't even understand how the studies were done. In the early 90's, for example, there was a big Newsweek story on all this that both sides cite because it really doesn't say anything. For the actual studies, you have to look offline, but that is where the issues are really fleshed out. Relying on the major media outlets to interpret this stuff is often a fool's errand.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I find that the easiest way to stop someone from arguing that being gay is a choice is to just ask them "OK, at what point did you decide you were straight? Did you experiment with being gay before you made that decision? At the very least you must have given a lot of thought to your options, right?"

Inevitably the response is along the lines of "No, I've always been straight". And it's true. It all seems pretty obvious when you flip it around.

Now, whether people are born gay or they "turn" gay in childhood is another question. But I can't understand the idea that some people just wake up one morning in their early teens and say "You know, I think I'll give this whole gay thing a shot, that seems like the best idea."

The thing that throws a bit of a monkey wrench into this argument is the fact that some people don't seem to neatly fit into either "straight" or "gay".

Consider a bi (or pansexual, or whatever term you want to use) child; chances are they'll grow up in an environment where being straight is the norm and the expectation, and being gay is something that ranges from marginally tolerated to strongly disapproved of. Said child will likely identify as "straight" until they start developing sexually and start realizing that they are also capable of strong sexual urges towards people of the same sex.

At some point they may begin acting on those urges, and for some, exposed to a culture that is not particularly favorable to gays, they may politicize this urge and only engage in homosexual relationships. Not all will do this of course; some will remain closeted and only have straight relationships; some will realize they're bi and will date whomever catches their fancy at that time, regardless of gender.

The point here though, is that from outside appearences it might seem as though these people are "choosing" to be gay.

It's inevitable that people, when forming an opinion on things, will rely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. I know for people of my generation (early 30's) it was rather common to observe or have friends in college that "experimented" with being gay. I don't know how many of these people were actually gay, bi, or just sexually adventurous straights, but based off these experiences it's not impossible to see how someone that thinks being gay is a choice could use those observations as a kind of "proof" for their opinion.

I'd be curious to hear any background JG would be willing to share on his experiences as far as sexual identity.

Just so nobody confuses my position here, I strongly believe that sexual-identity is not a choice but is something hard-wired in your biological makeup.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'd be curious to hear any background JG would be willing to share on his experiences as far as sexual identity.

Just so nobody confuses my position here, I strongly believe that sexual-identity is not a choice but is something hard-wired in your biological makeup.

First off, I actually disagree a bit with the idea that sexual identity is completely hardwired. I don't think any of us have an "objective" sexual identity and we either go with it or repress it. Instead, I think genes are important, but most of us don't even have a static sexual identity. If we allow ourselves, I think we may very well change over the course of our lives. An important caveat to this point is that I also believe in more than 3 categories (gay, straight, bi) and instead believe in an array of different identities (transgendered, transsexual, chromosonal discrepancy with outward sex, hermaphrodites, etc.). So, I'm not saying you "choose" - rather I'm saying the issue is extremely complicated and the identity you start with may not be where you end up.

As for my experience. I grew up entirely straight. I always thought in terms of girlfriends and marriage. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I began to find myself attracted to guys. Still, I didn't admit it to anyone and dated girls. I became active in gays rights and other causes and that triggered a lot of backlash against me, but I still couldn't admit that I was "bi." I was beat up a couple times because I was associated with being "gay," but it wasn't until years later that I'd admit to anyone that I was "bi." To this day, most people who know me do not know I'm "bi." I have a girlfriend and I don't talk about my sexuality. In all, only a few friends know.

I don't think I chose to be "bi" at any time and I did a lot to repress it. I still haven't had too much experience with other guys because it is VERY hard to do. I feel fear like you wouldn't believe. Still, I can't deny I'm "bi." Luckily I've found a girlfriend who I love dearly and we plan to spend our lives together. Now, I don't have to address lots of the messy issues of being "bi." Most people with alternate gender orientations don't have that luxury.

[dawgfan]

First off, thanks for being willing to share your experiences.

Second, I do agree that sexual identity can't be neatly broken into 3 categories; I think a more accurate view is one of a continuum, or rather series of overlapping continuums or axes. I would also agree that one's sexual identity may be subject to change over time. That said, I also believe that the extent to which a person feels any sexual urges is hard-wired in some way; one way of putting it might be that you are what you fantasize about. I'm not sure I believe that this kind of thing can be changed by force of will; I don't think I can force myself to feel an urge for sex with men, and I don't think Dan Savage can force himself to feel an urge for sex with women.

In some ways, the mechanics really don't matter to me - what someone chooses to do sexually in the privacy of their own space, so long as it's consensual, is none of my business.

In other ways, it does matter to me, because it seems to me that if it can be shown that sexual identity isn't something that is a conscious choice but is something inherent in your biological makeup (and the studies I've seen tend to agree with this sentiment), it removes a major argument from those that feel justified in discriminating against those that aren't "straight".

[John Galt]

I pretty much agree with everything you said. The one issue that I think is hard for people to understand in the choice/biological debate is that you may never "know" your identity even if it really exists. Repression is such a powerful force and people work so hard at being someone they aren't, it is almost impossible to know what the "real" you is (if such a thing actually existed). Some religious counselors see this as a reason they can "convert" gays, but I think most of the time they are just encouraging repression and self loathing.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I pretty much agree with everything you said. The one issue that I think is hard for people to understand in the choice/biological debate is that you may never "know" your identity even if it really exists. Repression is such a powerful force and people work so hard at being someone they aren't, it is almost impossible to know what the "real" you is (if such a thing actually existed). Some religious counselors see this as a reason they can "convert" gays, but I think most of the time they are just encouraging repression and self loathing.

Exactly. There is such tremendous incentive for people in this society to repress any feelings that don't follow the traditional "straight" paradigm that it's easy to see how someone could bury their true sexual identity if it strayed from the "norm". I always shake my head when I hear some people say that people choose to be gay because it's "cool", as if that would somehow make up for the tremendous bias and bigotry against being something other than straight that exists in this country.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Exactly. There is such tremendous incentive for people in this society to repress any feelings that don't follow the traditional "straight" paradigm that it's easy to see how someone could bury their true sexual identity if it strayed from the "norm". I always shake my head when I hear some people say that people choose to be gay because it's "cool", as if that would somehow make up for the tremendous bias and bigotry against being something other than straight that exists in this country.

An interesting side note: one of the local high schools had a story in the school paper about a lesbian student. A sidebar had an unscientific poll conducted at school which showed 64% of the students responding believed homosexuality is a choice.

I think that among the younger generation, there IS a fairly large and mainstream section of society that believes it's cool or trendy to experiment with their sexuality. I don't think they see the bigotry because they tend to drop it as they get older, and in other cases they thrive on the bigotry because it proves their rebellious nature.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

An interesting side note: one of the local high schools had a story in the school paper about a lesbian student. A sidebar had an unscientific poll conducted at school which showed 64% of the students responding believed homosexuality is a choice.

This could indicate any number of things. First off, what is the general feeling about homosexuality in this community? How religious is the community, and in how many households is the idea put forth by parents that homosexuality is a choice?

Secondly, as I noted earlier there are some people who don't easily fit into a straight or gay category, and for those that can feel sexual urges for either gender, engaging in a homosexual relationship is a "choice".

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think that among the younger generation, there IS a fairly large and mainstream section of society that believes it's cool or trendy to experiment with their sexuality. I don't think they see the bigotry because they tend to drop it as they get older, and in other cases they thrive on the bigotry because it proves their rebellious nature.

I think better terminology here rather than 'cool' or 'trendy' would be an openness and willingness to challenge the norm, to start seriously investigating who you really are.

Is it possible that there are a few people out there identifying themselves as "gay" that are only doing so to be rebellious? Perhaps, but I suspect any such cases are quite rare (and I'm not talking about someone doing so for a short period of time to be shocking...)

[CamEdwards]

dawgfan,

one of the other questions was "do you support the idea of a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman?"

It received 34% approval, which to me says the kids see a lot of their friends experimenting with their sexuality, and don't see anything wrong with it.

The gay and lesbian community has been successful in teaching "tolerance" for different lifestyles to our youth, but isn't willing to wait for that generation to start voting for what they'd define as equality. Instead they're wanting to work through judicial activists, which I think will ultimately set their cause back twenty or thirty years.

[tucker342]

Cam, I think that that's a fair and valid point that you're making... obviously I don't agree, but still it's valid.

But what's your reasoning for feeling that it would set the gay and lesbian community back that far? Because right now, I don't see how it could set them back that far...

[CamEdwards]

for one, once a constitutional amendment is in place, I don't think voters would immediately vote to dissolve it. Prohibition lasted 13 years, but I think the constitutional amendment would be on the books for at least twenty because of the fact that the majority of Americans won't be affected by it. Ten percent of the population is gay. I'd be willing to bet that more than 10% of Americans really wanted a beer by 1927 or so.

Because most Americans won't feel any negative impact (perceived or real, that's not my argument right now), I don't think there will be real sense of urgency to repeal any amendment... unless you start getting some gay Al Capones running around, operating bootleg marriage parlors and the like.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

for one, once a constitutional amendment is in place, I don't think voters would immediately vote to dissolve it. Prohibition lasted 13 years, but I think the constitutional amendment would be on the books for at least twenty because of the fact that the majority of Americans won't be affected by it. Ten percent of the population is gay. I'd be willing to bet that more than 10% of Americans really wanted a beer by 1927 or so.

Because most Americans won't feel any negative impact (perceived or real, that's not my argument right now), I don't think there will be real sense of urgency to repeal any amendment... unless you start getting some gay Al Capones running around, operating bootleg marriage parlors and the like.

What exactly makes you automatically assume that a constitutional amendment is going to be passed?