Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

aircooled wrote: Regarding the general health interest of outlawing sodomy: Some points: - You seem to be ignoring the health risks of tradition woopie. - Are you assuming all gay men perform sodimy? Because I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that is not true. I am sure can relate to why some might not be too into that no mater where there gender attractions lie. - What about lesbians? I am guessing sodomy is pretty uncommon there. Does this make them a bit more reasonable to marry? They do seem to get lumped into the subject by some for some reason.

Don't forget that, although a higher percentage of gay men are engaging in sodomy, a greater gross number of heterosexuals engage in the same practice.

Also, if the point of sodomy laws and such is preventing the spread of infection of things like HIV, promoting an institution of stable monogomy seems like it would go a long way to limiting the number of partners you can get diseases from and spread them to.

aircooled wrote: Well, this thread was going along pretty good.... Not sure it will survive this though.

It can if we ignore certain posts and just direct responses at people interested in productive discussion. I posted something and then deleted it realizing there was no point.

"Sodomy", as used currently in the United States (particularly in law), does not refer to anal copulation only.

It is defined as:

Wiki said: ...any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.

Wiki also said: In the various criminal codes of the U.S. the term "sodomy" has generally been replaced by "Deviant sexual intercourse", which is described as any form of penetrative intercourse or cunnilingus between unmarried persons.

It therefore includes both lesbians and gay men who do not participate in anal copulation.

In some other countries, the same term is limited to rape cases with anal penetration. France and Spain use it to describe anal sex. Germany uses it to describe bestiality, with no connotation of either anal or oral.

It's not in the Bible. Go figure.

Aircooled. I ain't trying to bait with the polygamy question.

Seriously. Why should states limit the number of people who can enter a marriage? Don't these people have that 'right'u

You reject my question because you have some kind of moral hangup with the issue, correct? It is offensive to you because in your mind you rate plural marriage as deviant and 'wrong' yet you fail to explain how your neighbor's plural marriage would infringe on your rights.
You are also unable to describe why you think it is so wrong because then your own moral standard is subject to inquisition by the same standard by which you are judging those who desire to marry more than one.

I honestly don't understand. We must stand for freedom for all correct? Otherwise don't you know history is going to record you as an evil an awful person

So. ..seriously. why .not?

Svrex: Thanks for that response. I was unaware of that definition and it does explain the uses I have heard.

Ron: I am not sure you read my response correctly. I stated I could not find any moral issues with plural marriages (it's at the end of my response above). I previously stated that I find them strange but don't have any specific objections to them. So yes I did answer your question.

Beer Baron wrote:

aircooled wrote: Regarding the general health interest of outlawing sodomy: Some points: - You seem to be ignoring the health risks of tradition woopie. - Are you assuming all gay men perform sodimy? Because I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that is not true. I am sure can relate to why some might not be too into that no mater where there gender attractions lie. - What about lesbians? I am guessing sodomy is pretty uncommon there. Does this make them a bit more reasonable to marry? They do seem to get lumped into the subject by some for some reason.

Don't forget that, although a higher percentage of gay men are engaging in sodomy, a greater gross number of heterosexuals engage in the same practice. Also, if the point of sodomy laws and such is preventing the spread of infection of things like HIV, promoting an institution of stable monogomy seems like it would go a long way to limiting the number of partners you can get diseases from and spread them to.

No disagreements here from me on any this...

and NO I don't think sodomy is a key issue in objecting to gay marriage... As I stated an argument could be made both way that the sodomy laws are 'obsolete' or not... Personally for me even if the act caused mass public health issues issues the idea that the government can prosecute people for something like this is more objectionable to me..

So again... My objection to this arose when "Christians" were indited as simply passing 'evil" and "bigoted" for the purposes of discriminating against human beings... because in regards to sodomy laws this simply isn't the case... or at least the entire story...

Now... A picture of me hanging out with Kevin Richberg, from the Huff Post "30 Postcards project"

I post this because I need you guys to know I am surely more an easy and laid back guy not only about the issue but generally in life... The fault is mine that I come across so abrasive through words on a screen, for I talk quite a bit about these issues in person... To people they effect much more directly than most ya'll (I assume) and never has this been an issue with any of these friendships....

So please.. be patient with me... and slow to judge and I will try my human best to extend you the same... Just understand I am only human and not that great at communication in this medium...

aircooled wrote: Svrex: Thaks for that response. I was unaware of that definition and it does explain the uses I have heard. Ron: I am not sure you read my response correctly. I stated I could not find any moral issues with plural marriages (it's at the end of my response above). I previously stated that I find them strange but don't have any specific objections to them. So yes I did answer your question.

As I read it again... I see I missed you did say there may be a moral issue but you didn't see it...

You must excuse me on this because my reading comprehension abilities were hampered by being declared a troll for even asking the question.

It feels to me like you are trying to wiggle through without a substantive answer? (I could be wrong again as I also suspect this isn't something you spend a lot of time thinking about)

.

why does everyone keep trying to equate legal marriage with sex?

I have had a lot of sex, and it didn't married if I was married or not. (and when I was married, I had less sex then now, when I am not.)

this isn't about gay sex. Gays, and heteros are going to have sex, live together, raise children.. EVERYTHING, no matter if the government decides to honor their unions or not... heck even without a union it is still going happen.

Do you think that gays are to stop being gay and turn hetero just so they can get some tax breaks?

I very much agree with you here. I see that as a big problem with this issue also.

It is one thing I like to bring up when someone mentions the danger of marriage moving to relatives, animals, plants, furniture etc. Even if you did allow marriage to such things (even though there would be essentially no legal reason / benifit for it) that doesn't mean you would suspend the already pretty well defined laws against physical relations with various non-human things. (I might want to get that ficus out of uncle Chester's house though )

ronholm wrote: ..It feels to me like you are trying to wiggle through without a substantive answer? (I could be wrong again as I also suspect this isn't something you spend a lot of time thinking about)

No, not really. I was being a bit careful because, as you read, I was a bit suspicious you were trying to bate some sort of trap or something. I honestly don't have any strong feelings about it, I just honestly don't understand the objection to it. There's really not much more than that that I can say about it, there really isn't.

The only, rather silly, reason I can come up with is that a small group of super attractive (or rich?) guys will end up with all the "hot ones". Of course I really don't see this as realistic and I am not sure any collection of "hot" women living together competing for one mans affection would end well... I think that Bachelor show on TV pretty much covers that.

If you have heard of any reasonable arguments against it (they of course don't have to be yours) I would love to hear them. I found your arguments against sodomy quite enlightening, I have never heard them before. I don't personally put much validity in them (obviously), but I thank you for bringing them up.

I do completely understand BTW how difficult it can be to get across your intent with simple typing. Things can be taken the wrong way very easily. For example, it is very hard to make sarcasm work correctly and best to avoid (that could have been said in a sarcastic way, and you would never know it ). Anyway, I apologize if I came off too defensive, I will try to be a bit less sensitive in the future.

SCARRMRCC wrote: why does everyone keep trying to equate legal marriage with sex?

Failure to consummate a marriage is often grounds for annulment????

I dunno... Maybe they aren't just thinking sex.... OK.. maybe they are but in the broader sense of what sex means to them.

Men and women are different and provide different things to a marriage. This is notably absent in a gay relationship and can lead to some bizarre things...

But then again.. I often joke with my friends sometimes about how I wish I was gay... Ya know being able to hang out and watch sports... Do guy things without the nagging wife... Ect...

Whatever....

Do you think that gays are to stop being gay and turn hetero just so they can get some tax breaks?

No...

but the percentage of people who CHOOSE the lifestyle will be lower... (oh no.. there goes the bigot again claiming it is a choice... yeah.. get over yourself... For many it is a choice and all to often those weirdo's give authentic gay folks a very bad name...)

ronholm wrote: It feels to me like you are trying to wiggle through without a substantive answer? (I could be wrong again as I also suspect this isn't something you spend a lot of time thinking about) .

to paraphrase:

"The most elementary and valuable statement..., the beginning of wisdom, is, 'I do not know'. "

aircooled wrote:

ronholm wrote: ..It feels to me like you are trying to wiggle through without a substantive answer? (I could be wrong again as I also suspect this isn't something you spend a lot of time thinking about)

No, not really. I was being a bit careful because, as you read, I was a bit suspicious you were trying to bate some sort of trap or something. I honestly don't have any strong feelings about it, I just honestly don't understand the objection to it. There's really not much more than that that I can say about it, there really isn't. The only, rather silly, reason I can come up with is that a small group of super attractive (or rich?) guys will end up with all the "hot ones". Of course I really don't see this as realistic and I am not sure any collection of "hot" women living together competing for one mans affection would end well... I think that Bachelor show on TV pretty much covers that. If you have heard of any reasonable arguments against it (they of course don't have to be yours) I would love to hear them. I found your arguments against sodomy quite enlightening, I have never heard them before. I don't personally put much validity in them (obviously), but I thank you for bringing them up. I do completely understand BTW how difficult it can be to get across your intent with simple typing. Things can be taken the wrong way very easily. For example, it is very hard to make sarcasm work correctly and best to avoid (that could have been said in a sarcastic way, and you would never know it ). Anyway, I apologize if I came off too defensive, I will try to be a bit less sensitive in the future.

Please understand my argument against sodomy was more so folks could think more thoroughly about the issue rather than simple "those laws were bigoted".... I would guess if you were to historically study the argument being made in congressional houses.... Think about it.... 150-200 years ago... Not only do they see deviant behavior... but devastating and horrible disease associated with the behavior... and no scientific means by which to understand or control such disease.. Which was and remains a very real problem...... well... just because the laws may be used by bigots doesn't mean that was the sole or primary intent...

My objections to polygamy would be the nearly the same as my general objections to gay marriage...

I feel one man and one woman together for life is the strongest family unit and as such it is in our best interest both personally and individually to promote this family structure.

Deviations from this result in unhealthy (both physically and psychologically) lifestyles..

Not all polygamist men are child raping, 14 year old marrying, abusive, oppressive, scumbags... and the women in the relationships don't fit the typical descriptions either of being passive submissive, uneducated..... Many of the women are bright, intelligent, modern women... and many of the men are generous loving husbands... Yet at the end of the day the rate of dysfunction in these types of arrangements is significantly higher than the 'norm'.

This is why people object.. They can see the problems... It is OK... trust me.. Let them go ahead and judge you for drawing a line...

Then the same for Gay couples... There are plenty of couples who are great examples of not only people in general, but often frign role models for what a couple should be, and how a person should treat a spouse... Yet the fact remains that the gay lifestyle as a whole suffers internal problems which cause disorder and self destruction on a massive scale... We are not talking just about HIV or whatever, but psychological and identity problems which devastate people...

My point it bringing up polygamy is this... Those are consenting adults... Yet you see it... People get nasty in their objections to it... They are not generally going to allowing you to hold that type of an arrangement in any manner close to what they deem as a proper marriage... especially when their definitions of marriage differ from traditional standard. Heck... I would bet before the political ban I could find people on here bashing the the Romney family over this issue, and when it happened there wasn't anyone around jumping the case of those people calling them bigots or hateful, on the wrong side of history or anything else... Naw... insulting polygamists is cool and fun... but in the grand scheme... I don't understand how you can restrict any marriage between consenting adults within the confines of the arguments made supportive of gay marriage..

Yet people object polygamy, and support gay marriage...

The trouble for me is this... I personally don't know if I think it should be the role of government to define these issues for us. I tend to be very libertarian.... Then ya see here is the problem... The government is in a position now where they can't allow gay marriage without being supportive of it....

This is my paradox.

OK, I can see the "non standard" arrangement as in relation to children of a polygamist marriage as an argument. Hey, at least I'm consistent right? I am not really concerned with either. I do agree though that you will find many peoples beliefs are not consistent and can conflict with others they have. Makes it hard to take them seriously.

I am not going to say whether non-standard marriages are harmful to children or not. I suspect there are studies and observations on this and I also suspect they are less the wildly conclusive either way (there are a lot of confounding variables).

One thing I will say though, there are clearly some very big issues with the standard marriage / children situation these days (and to be honest, I am sure this is true historically also). Whatever issues a gay or multiple situations may create, I suspect they pale to some of the traditional issues.

The current gay couples that have children obviously have to put up with issues and obsticles far beyond what standard ones do, and by that fact alone are likely on average much better parents. Maybe this is a reason to deny gay marriage. It will make it that much easier, making them value it less. There are clearly many straight couples who seem to but very little value into their family.

One thing I will say though, there are clearly some very big issues with the standard marriage / children situation these days (and to be honest, I am sure this is true historically also). Whatever issues a gay or multiple situations may create, I suspect they pale to some of the traditional issues. The current gay couples that have children obviously have to put up with issues and obsticles far beyond what standard ones do, and by that fact alone are likely on average much better parents. Maybe this is a reason to deny gay marriage. It will make it that much easier, making them value it less. There are clearly many straight couples who seem to but very little value into their family.

'they' decided that gay couples who adopt are better parents (by what standard I dunno) than hetro parents... This comparing gay adoptive parents to all straight parents.. I haven't seen a study comparing adoptive parents straight across....

I can totally buy that.. Adoptive parents in general are 'better' (highly dependent on the definition of 'better" )parents than birth parents because they have more effort and thought in the decision... Then on top of that Gay adoptive parents now have 'something to prove' to society increasing the pressure in a positive way on them.. I would also guess that gay couple with kids do much better than gay couples without.. but I think this speak to many more factors than could be simply discussed..

But I can't accept that just because many are people are bad at it is reason enough to just culturally agree we can and should equally all suck at it together... I dunno.. Somewhere the bar needs to be set higher.. Not lower..

aircooled wrote: I am not going to say whether non-standard marriages are harmful to children or not. I suspect there are studies and observations on this and I also suspect they are less the wildly conclusive either way (there are a lot of confounding variables).

there are. most are able to find corellations, but there are flaws in most of the studies that prevent them from being useful outside of an academic environment.

but afaik there are ongoing studies working thru the issue still.

madmallard wrote:

aircooled wrote: I am not going to say whether non-standard marriages are harmful to children or not. I suspect there are studies and observations on this and I also suspect they are less the wildly conclusive either way (there are a lot of confounding variables).

there are. most are able to find corellations, but there are flaws in most of the studies that prevent them from being useful outside of an academic environment. but afaik there are ongoing studies working thru the issue still.

Because it isn't quantifiable science.. Nor should it be...

And those who would invest themselves in studying the issues are just opinionated shiny happy people looking to forward their own agenda just like each and everyone of us...

When this becomes quantifiable science and we are required to act upon it by standards put forth by academia... At that point.. We all should be very, very frightened...

In reply to ronholm:
Your first several posts really really looked like trolling. I have not accused you or anyone opposed to same sex marriage as being a bigot, but you did take an opportunity to insult me specifically. So, for that you are being an shiny happy person more than you are for your stance on gay marriage. Since you now seem to be backing off slightly and bringing up fairly legitimate questions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you're just very passionate and had a couple drinks too many the other night:

I have no moral issues with plural marriage.

I can see a lot of legal complications though. Allowing same-sex marriage is just opening up the exact legal model we have to being two consenting adults.

Plural marriage would be more complicated, especially in situations where the marriage dissolves for some reason: who has the power to make end-of-life decisions for a partner? Must all parties agree? A Majority? How is property divided in the event of a divorce? How is child custody determined in the event of a divorce? What about in the event of the death of one partner? If one man and three women are married, and each woman has a child, then one woman dies, and the marriage dissolves, who gets custody of the child of the woman who died? If a partner dies or divorces, does the whole partnership dissolve? If that partner is the only one of a particular gender (say, a woman and two men) does that dissolve the marriage? What about status for filing taxes?

It is a lot more complicated. If people want to have plural marriages, I think it is up to them to draft the framework of how it would work and present it to their legislators. If a particular state legalizes plural marriage in a way that makes the federal government happy from the perspective of tax status and legal property and custody rights, I would expect other states to recognize the marriage license even if they do not grant one of their own.

ronholm wrote: Because it isn't quantifiable science.. Nor should it be...

i'm glad you think so in your sense of wisdom.

However despite your wishes, there are several studies of science to such fields of studies; primarily its called 'behavioral science' as well as 'social science.' but also includes statistical science, socio-cultural anthropology... etc...

rest assured, work will continue on the subject despite your condescension and dismissal...

ronholm:

I have a question for you don't mind:

One of the reasons I find your arguments interesting (and a reason why I was suspicious) is that generally when you run into similar arguments they seem to be a bit of smoke screen / justification for what are actually religious based beliefs (which in my opinion generally have little relevance in an argument about government / rights). So now the question:

Would you say your opinion on these subjects is primarily the result of the arguments you state, or would you say they are heavily (or entirely?) based in religious tenants? Or just personally developed beliefs? I am not trying to "get" you with this in anyway, I am just genuinely curious.

"Men and women are different and provide different things to a marriage. This is notably absent in a gay relationship and can lead to some bizarre things... "

Blanket statement. In my past relationship of 13 years, I was the one fixing the roof and changing snow tires, while my ex did the groceries. I know many relationships that function quite well outside of the stereotypical "norm", and that includes gay as well as hetero. It isn't up to a vote what two people bring to a relationship, if it works for them, that's all that matters.

ronholm wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

aircooled wrote: Now... A picture of me hanging out with Kevin Richberg, from the Huff Post "30 Postcards project"

Not sure who this is, or which one you are, but are congratulations in order?

In reply to Lesley:

the key to a relationship is two people that compliment each other.It doesn't matter what you have between your legs.. what matters is how the other person fills in the missing bits in your life.

Just to be clear, that is not my post / picture, that is ronholm's (not that there is anything wrong with it )

I thought of something else to add along the lines of what Lesley is talking about.

There may be issues with kids in gay marriages, (I don't think so, but I will allow it as a possibility). There are certainly issues in any marriage that are related to children. If gays are allowed to marry, I suspect the popularity of some of those will migrate over (as it become a bit easier). One problem though, that is a pretty damn big one, is almost certainly to be far less common in gay marriages: child abandonment / runaway dads.

Certainly it is possible with a gay marriage, but the virtual elimination of what you might call "oops" children would almost certainly cut this down a lot. (BTW - I am not implying all "oops" children come into a bad situation)

In reply to aircooled:

Gays can already adopt kids. giving them tax breaks/power of attorney, etc.. doesn't change that.

Lets see if I can do this quickly...

Beer Baron... I included you as a 'bigot' mostly in jest... For you upon acknowledging some of the facts you did, you have acknowledged racist homophobic bigoted information.

Any further spreading of any such information will most certainly land you in some sort of reeducation camp.

These numbers are not the image of the gay man that the establishment wants presented... Therefore any characterization of gay men, or any discussion of this epidemic... (wait epidemic is the wrong word for a perpetual problem isn't it)... This will most certainly cause you to be categorized as a religious homophobic zealot..

I would suggest you keep quite about these things that you know.

rest assured, work will continue on the subject despite your condescension and dismissal...

Oh good grief... I enjoy social sciences as should be apparent... Lighten up already...

My issues was that when social sciences are pronounced quantifiable we as a society are in VERY deep trouble..

I don't aim to be dismissive... but inquisitive... relax...

"Men and women are different and provide different things to a marriage. This is notably absent in a gay relationship and can lead to some bizarre things... " Blanket statement. In my past relationship of 13 years, I was the one fixing the roof and changing snow tires, while my ex did the groceries. I know many relationships that function quite well outside of the stereotypical "norm", and that includes gay as well as hetero. It isn't up to a vote what two people bring to a relationship, if it works for them, that's all that matters.

I do the grocery shopping... and the cooking.. most of the cleaning.. My wife works outside the home and thanks to a seasonal business and a gift for construction management I am able to work from home while simultaneously playing the role of "stay at home Dad"

Spare me the preaching already...

I mean good grief... Ya'll run around accusing religious zealots of this... and look how quick you jump in and start preaching morals...

Just saying...

Oh and in that picture.. It is just one of those entirely not so irrelevant things like a picture of a piece of pie I see dropped in threads around here.. If you want to know who he is... use google.. I gave a his name and place of employment.. Past that it, it really isn't important in the bigger sense of this thread.. Just non sequitur.

Would you say your opinion on these subjects is primarily the result of the arguments you state, or would you say they are heavily (or entirely?) based in religious tenants? Or just personally developed beliefs? I am not trying to "get" you with this in anyway, I am just genuinely curious.

Ok... I really truly enjoy these types of questions...

Lets give you some fodder and say my feelings on gay marriage stem from religious tenants... But I would caution you on calling me out to quickly for that because my personal religious tenants are the product of beliefs developed through personal experience.