That's a claim, not a difference.  A claim that is not always true.

This particular separation was due to forced inequality, and that is why it is unequal.

Separations that are not so are thus not necessarily unequal.  Some are in fact necessary in order to accommodate members of society who are in some way prevented from making use of the former option, or would be inconvenienced.

Would you argue that adding wheelchair access to stores and handicap spots to parking lots is moving away from equality?
This message was last edited by the GM at 09:39, Thu 23 Feb 2012.

Your argument is a red herring.  The disabled are not forced to make use of separate entrances, they are given a more convenient option.

However, making one institution for homosexuals (civil unions) and another for heterosexuals (marriage), even if they're theoretically identical, is a clear case of separate being inherently unequal.

There is a simple solution and the Conservative Jewish community made it this way they will as a rule do commitment ceremonies for same sex couples but not Jewish marriage which has specific things required under the Torah. Having and rearing children the biggest one and two men or two women cannot have natural children together even aided by medicine. But since they are expected to be manogamous and live a holy life they can be blessed as a couple in a temple and make it a big bruhaha.

But the secular marriage when allowed is apart from the religious the same couple in New York can go to a judge, justice of the peace or other party allowed to and make the legal secular marriage for the societal benefits. Its seperate and therefore not a religious matter.

I would just do this make the secular marriage a civil contract under the law allowing any two adult parties to commit to each other and leave the religious issues seperate from that as a matter of faith. This could be based on the long standing position of seperation of church and state very soundly in that the state should have no place deciding what marriage is. I would even add multiple adults if they agree to marry and want the benefits why can't you have one woman marry three husbands and three wives taking her last name or something. With DNA testing you can figure out who the father is and leave all tax benefits with the child to the mother and/or legal guardian.

An equally interesting question is:  Why Marriage.

The movement used to be one of "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

And now what is left to be called the movement is more like, "Don't hate us, we're just like you, all love is love..."

I still think that a gay kiss is a revolutionary act.  However, I must say "You've Gone A Long Way Baby" could be the tagline for the "Pride Parades" which are now filled with Pigs and Politicians marching in "solidarity".

While I do care about marriage equality for a host of reasons, the least of which is tax consequences, and perhaps the greater of which is the conference of citizenship. I do think there's a real conservative bent to wanting "Hate Crimes" laws and marriage / adoption rights under equal protection.

I think both of those are generalizations. But definitely, the movement has lost a lot of its fire (probably because it's so rare for homosexuals to be violently attacked or suppressed like it was before).



I'm not sure what you mean here. There are plenty of people who can or can't get married. It has nothing to do with citizenship (in fact, if anything, to the contrary. If I were visiting from another country with my multiple wives, I suspect I would not be thrown in jail. Visiting foreigners have more marriage privileges than citizens, because the laws don't apply.)

It is certainly a generalization.  In fact, it was a false bifercation for effect. Even back in the days of the Daughters of Biltus, there were the "upstanding gays" who played more to "joinerism".

My real challenge is with your second claim.  I'm not sure I agree the problem is lessened other than to the general degree we're in the "most peaceful", "least violent" age--historically speaking (and quite to the contrary of the doom and gloomers).



I'm not sure what you mean here. </quote>

What I mean, and this may be particular to the US, hence my "interest in it".  In the US citizenship can be granted though marriage because the spouce can be a sponsor of the non-citizen visitor.  However, because gay people are denied marriage equality (in the US) I am not able to sponsor my Mexican husband.

One of the questions I've always had is, from a religious perspective, why would a religious person or institution support the banning of gay marriage?  As far as I can tell, there is no law that would make it a crime to refuse marry a gay couple.  Maybe I'm wrong; if someone can show me this law, perhaps?  All allowing gay marriage would do is allow churches/officiants that actually are willing to marry homosexuals, and they are out there, the right to do so.  It would provide state sanction, sure, but that has nothing to do with your churches' choice to officiate marriages.  Banning gay marriage is the same as the state restricting the religious freedom of churches who are willing to officiate gay weddings, right?

I disagree as to connotation.  The message now is, "If you don't support gay marriage, you are a bigot and a hater of gays."

The message is much more accusatory and lacks in a two way discussion.  Instead, gays are saying that sexual gay acts must not only be accepted by society but embraced by giving it the specialized treatment reserved for marriage.  This is not about someone's sexual orientation, but about behaviors, which is lost in the message.  Instead, those promoting homosexual marriage are refusing to engage in a discussion about behaviors and instead attacking on the basis that it must be about "who" the person is, not what he "does."

In reply to Heath (msg #891):

Wait, I thought it was only about children, now its about 'sexual gay acts'? ;)

You may in fact disagree, but you didn't express disagreement here, you only unpacked what I said.

"Don't hate us" is isomorphic with "if you deny us things based only on our expression of love, on the basis of our class" then ispo facto, you're a bigot and a hater.  If you want to suggest there's a "middle place"...let's call it indifferent, I would say that's actually CLOSER to "don't hate us" so I stand by my original framing.

I assert that "Don't hate us" means, "don't deny us" in any way that "don't" has demonstrable meaning.

Now let's take on your curious parsing.



Again, you have a curious take here.

First "society" as an abstract doesn't really do anything like you've described.

That is, neither the "lack of acceptance" which you imply, has prevented gay sex.  Nor would it's "legal recognition" lead necessarily to "embracing"

For example, did the codification of the protection of interracial marriage say "society must embrace interracial couples or even interracial sexual acts?"

And if so, what would it mean in a practical way.  Would it mean "race relations" in America were fixed when it happened?  If that is your claim, this is self-evidently untrue.

Does it even mean that the relative rate of occurrence has increased?

If so, do you wish to equate same gender attraction with the normative qualify of interracial couples?  Do you think people will "turn gay" because of gay marriage?



First off, is there any reason it cannot be about both?  In fact, I would agree it is about gay sex.  It's about the fact the bigots are personally troubled by gay sex.  They can't get it out of their mind.  And as such, they cannot see past it to see that they to do the exact same things (just with people of an opposite gender) and that it's just as "disgusting"(or more to the point, just as regular and ordinary) as what they do.

Are you really wishing to say that the marriage contract is an "endorsement" of str8 sex?  And if so, does that include str8 anal sex?  Does it include man-girl, woman-boy pedophilia?  If people knew that "marriage" "endorsed" that do you think they'd be too keen?



First off, is there any reason you can think for which a better outcome wouldn't be found by looking at both rationally?  I for one am more than happy to "discuss" it.  (Just keep it PG13) LOL

But to think that "gay sex" happens in a vacuum of behavior that str8 sex is somehow immune to is a proposition which would require some rather unusual proof.

I think it is inherent in modern marriage the idea of "emotions", "love", "commitment", "sacrifice", etc.  So to ignore that the topic of marriage by it's very nature exceeds mere behavior seems disingenuous.

In reply to habsin4 (msg #890):

As best I can tell, the idea is a remnant of various purity obligations.  There is this infrequently held idea that "god" will punish a wayward nation and that the "judgement" is upon them for not "warning the unrighteous".

To an extent, you could ask the same questions of some of the books of "Prophecy" in the bible.  ...or even Moses in the Torah, why did god send him to chat with Pharaoh if god not only knew but ensured that Pharaoh would do nothing?

Of course, this isn't a puzzle for an atheist :)

It's about behaviors.  Certain behaviors will never lead to children, will they?  Including anything a gay couple ever, ever does...

EDIT:  To tackle your question another way, if homosexual couples never engaged in homosexual sex, should we still protect the definition of marriage?  Yes.  Why?  Because then our public policy will have diluted the importance of marriage, and heterosexual couples would be dissuaded from getting married (as borne out in Scandinavian statistics).  If marriage is not special, people will not enter into it, and it is an important societal glue to help ensure intact families for children.
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:00, Tue 08 May 2012.

In reply to Revolutionary (msg #894):

Well, I guess it's the inconstancy I don't get.  I'm fine with people wanting their religious beliefs to be respected, as long as it doesn't injure anyone else.  And I think the govt not getting involved in people's personal religious/non-religious beliefs is awesome.  I think if a kid wants to pray privately over his lunch, it's not the school's job to punish him.  I don't even care if a post office puts Christmas decorations up, or for that matter, Diwali decorations.  But banning gay marriage is a case of govt intrusion into personal beliefs.  It's much less intrusive to say "you're not allowed to pray on public property" than it is to say "you can only support a committed relationship of x kind."  So, again, what's with the inconstancy?  If you support a govt-enforced ban on gay marriage, why is that different from me saying "you're not allowed to pray in public?"  I'm not stopping you from believing.

The government has very real and concrete interests in managing marriage relationships.  Societally recognized marriage is a specially recognized status that grants societal benefits.  If there is no government oversight, the benefits will accrue to those to whom they were not meant to be applied, including those to whom the rationale for having the benefits does not apply.  That is why there is a difference between allowing civil unions and gay relationships (which I agree should not be banned), and granting the special status of marriage to gay relationships, which by their nature cannot meet the societal purpose for granting special status and benefits to those who are "married."

One counterargument to what I said is to say society should not grant marital status to any relationship.  While that seems to level the playing field, it suffers from the problem that the real societal benefits accruing from the marital relationship would not be promoted, resulting in more broken homes and other problems.

In reply to Heath (msg #897):

Well, the govt has real interests in tracking our every movement, in spying on us secretly.  East Germany had one of the lowest crime rates in the world because the govt knew who everyone was and what they were doing.  If we didn't guarantee everyone a fair trial, our justice system would be a lot cheaper.  Bill Gates' money would go a nice first step towards paying off the national debt, so why can't we just take it?  The point is, if you believe the national interest is served by denying some individual rights, why is the line drawn at gay marriage?  There are a lot of other rights we could deny people that would serve our collective interest.  And, alternatively, if we believe individual freedoms trump the collective social interest, why don't we extend that to homosexuals?

No individual rights are being denied.  That is a fallacy.  Your analogies do not apply to this case.

The interest is in promoting the production of future taxpayers and the promotion of having them raised in intact homes, and in deterring the poverty and societal dependence that comes from broken homes.

Preserving the sanctity of marriage does this.  Homosexuals cannot reproduce (blame nature for that) and their marriages deter heterosexuals from becoming married because the value of marriage is diluted; further, homosexual marriages have an even higher rate of divorce/breakup and a higher incidence of multiple partner arrangements, none of which is good for children.

I've gone through these arguments ad nauseum before.  The individual rights are not inured to "relationships" because a relationship by definition is not "individual."  I do not promote taking away the "individual" right to act in the way they please; marriage, though, is a special relationship of "promotion."  It "promotes" people getting married, and there is no societal value in promoting homosexual marriages.

Not to go too much into repetition of my past posts, but there are three types of laws:  those of prohibition, tolerance, and promotion.  Prohibition (murder, theft, incest, etc.) is a law that disallows certain behaviors.  (Yes, Tycho, it's all about behaviors.)  Tolerance (civil unions, adultery, etc.) tolerates but does not condemn certain behaviors or promote them.  Laws of promotion (law license, marriage, dependent status for taxes) promote certain behaviors for the benefit of society.  Marriage is a law of promotion, not prohibition or tolerance, so the whole "intolerant" argument or "violation of individual rights" argument doesn't fly.

And before Tycho tries to go after this, no, this is not the end of the argument, but I do not want to type for hours to put them all down.  I have done so in the past, and have linked to articles on the subject.

In reply to habsin4 (msg #896):

Habsin, I don't think you ment to address that message to me?

I'm gay and an activist.

I think the only thing I addressed to you is why some people religions feel it essential to fight against progress.

And my answer was, they think of it as (a) their duty to protect children (not sure from what or why g-d can't do it themslves and (b) they see it as important to prevent g-d from being hurt by "sin"...and needing to punish the world.

I don't BELIEVE any of that, but it is the understanding I've seen presented.

What does it mean to "protect a definition" ... It seems to me definitions change all the time.  Even serious ones.  Why is there no sense of a need to protect the definition of "Sick" or "Dope".  For that matter, definitions get expanded all the time, I didn't see type setters getting upset as the use of the word "text" to describe both the noun (a message) and the verb (to send a text message).

It seems transparent this is a false presentation.

Beyond that, "where" do you decide the "definition" needs protection?  And why?

Do you defend same sex marriage for love?  If so, that's a rather modern idea.  Do you start the defense at the economic contract?  That is, do you also oppose wives having their own checking accounts?  ...or do you feel that they're being their own economic entity has "destroyed" society?

Now if we bring in this "procreation" canard, I have to question your consistency again.  Do you also oppose "str8 sex" acts with a condom?  Or oppose marriages of someone with a hysterectomy?  Or how about someone who is intersexed and/or sterile?

It seems you've taken one aspect of the couple and turned it into a false focus. I mean, it's not terrible different than someone saying, only two Caucasians can make a Caucasian child.  The "dirty?" sex act between a Caucasian and an Asian will make some kind of Cauc-Asianasian.  ...  Now sure you might say "but it's still a child" ...however, to do that is to point out the weakness of an analogy not to answer the charge.

What is it about "making babies" that deserves any outside "respect" or "protection" ...do you really think people would stop doing it if there was marriage equality?

And if so, why are things going just fine in many places where it's perfectly legal?  And for that matter, do  you really want to align yourself with some of the groups giving us the biggest population growth (Muslims?)

Finally, your observation about the Scandenavian stats has more to do with broad based policy than the existence of same sex marriage.  I've not seen any evidence (and I'd certainly look at any to which you link) showing people giving the reason for not getting married being ... well, the gays are doing it so we figured it just wasn't all that important.

Oddly enough, even if you were to show that, it would be evidence why you're a danger to marriage not me.

How so?

Well, you're the one with animus.  You're the one who described gay people and their lives in these dehumanizing ways.

It's the infection of your ideology that would ever make someone thing, "gosh" we don't want anything the state is willing to grant THEM!

Finally, you confuse outcome with purpose.  That something "leads to something" does not at all mean that it's it "purpose".  For example, I trip on a brick and cut my knee does not mean that the purpose of the brick is to hurt my knee.  Likewise, that a start explodes and turns into a singularity doesn't mean that it is the purpose of stars to make black holes. (or for that matter to warm a planet 3 bodies away to make humans...

That families are ONE MODEL for buildling society (and frankly a fairly basic and thus advantaged) does not at all mean that's the purpose of a family.  Nor even the purpose of marriage.  Marriage and Family don't say ...stop people from sleeping with others.  It doesn't "end" genetic disease!

You're attributing a fundamental value to an artificial construct and then saying "don't can't the construct" that we made (and that has changed many times over)

You have to know that doesn't hold water.

Yes, and that interest is furthered with marriage equality just as it was with ending miscegenation laws.

Bear in mind too, these were LAWS, meaning they were instituted by the state presumably in it's interest.  Do you think they had it right?  Or do you think they got it right when the moved in the direction of marriage equality?



This makes no sense.  If the benefits are societal, then they can only "accrue" via society.  What you're suggesting here is that Govt is in the way of letting society do it's thing?

Furthermore it is proper govt restraint (privacy, equal protection) that already allows the benefits to "accrue" to people for whom the rational (at least as I understand your proposal of it) does not apply.  That is, already people too old to have children, people in prison without conjugal visits (even on death row), and people who are intersexed and/or sterile.

Finally, if that were the only features, it could be accomplished in other ways (and in some ways it is) ie, per child deductions, educational tax credits, etc.

Do you really mean to suggest that any family ties which maintain solely because of the benefits given to legally married couples are better off being so tied by those benefits?

If so, which are you saying...

...that the benefits are outstandingly dramatic.  Such that, government has a distinct responsibility to ensure that there is equal access under the law...  OR

That family's don't contain enough internal benefits to be worth keeping without bribes and incentives

Or something else?

In reply to habsin4 (msg #896):

In no other way does the govt restrict your choice of spouse, except in restricting the number.  Your spouse is not chosen for you based on compatibility.  Considering the cost society bears to care for a severely disabled child, why don't we test every couple to see if they are carriers of taysachs or schizophrenia?  The govt doesn't deny separated couples the right to a divorce.  There is no mandated waiting period a couple must go through to ensure that they are making the right choice.  In no way other than the gender of the participants does the govt encourage a 'successful' marriage.  The reason is that those things would stomp on our individual rights.  You can't tell me if you had to undergo the things I mentioned, you wouldn't feel as if your "individual" rights were being violated.

And, as for gay couples having children; well, lesbians can have children in the same way I can read street signs 50 feet away or I know my unborn son is a son and not a daughter; the miracle of modern science.  And there's always adoption, which, considering lesbians raise happier, better adjusted children isn't such a bad idea.

But, getting back to the topic of religion, my sister was legally gay married back during California's pre prop 8 window.  She was married in a religious ceremony.  Granted, it was a neo-pagan ceremony, but religious freedom is either absolute or meaningless.  Why can't that woman and her church marry whoever she wants?  My wedding was officiated by a gay man ordained in a church that exists pretty much to give people a chance to ordain ministers to marry.  Nevertheless, it is a church.  One of the realities of supposedly "Marxist" DC is that the preachers have a lot of control.  He had to prove he was a member of a church with worshippers and priests to get licensed to marry in DC.  Why can't his church marry who they want?

Lastly, my marriage survives on love and commitment my wife and I share.  My sister's gay marriage has absolutely no bearing on the survival of my marriage.  In fact, my wife only agreed to get married when DC legalized gay marriage because now it was fair.  So, check one additional straight marriage as a direct result of legalized gay marriage.

Well, I wasn't arguing with you, just responding to a point you made in msg 894 about how people may believe letting gays marry will invite God's wrath.

Ah! I had not considered this before. This is something worth considering.

Moderator post: Please review the forum Constitution, rule #3. Calling names is a violation of our mutually-agreed upon rules, and does not create a friendly debate/discussion environment. Please remove all negative attacks from your previous posts.

Additionally, please recognize that no one here is an enemy, or setting laws in your particular locale. You are unlikely to convince anyone you're talking with to accept your view. However, this forum provides an opportunity to engage and understand people of differing viewpoints, and perhaps convince some of those people who are not yet decided and watching quietly in the background.

In either case, taking a hostile, confrontational tone is likely to be counter-productive.