Gay Marriage and Coming Out of the Closet


A Republican San Diego Mayor reversed his decision to veto gay marriage legislation due primarily to knowing people who are gay, like his daughter and some staff members.

There is power in knowing someone who believes differently. Real power! The gays initiated a campaign where they called on people to come of the closet. Dawkins has done the same. It's time for non-believers to come out of the closet. We are their neighbors, their friends, and their loved ones. We can make a difference if we simply tell people. Think about it: 1/4th of us may be non-believers!

I understand there is a difference between people who don't believe and those who actively argue against Christianity like we do here at DC. Those who argue against that delusion may not want to tell others they're doing this. But I urge all non-believers to simply tell people the truth, that you don't believe, especially to your friends and family. That's the minimum obligation you have, and it worked with this Mayor. Just think about all of our non-believing forebearers who suffered so much that we might have more and more freedoms to speak out. Your difficulties will be minor inconveniences compared to theirs.

Kerry Walker, for instance, claims he's being prosecuted because he's a non-believer who is writing a book against the Christian faith. There is probably some truth to this. If we came out of the closet this type of stuff will not take place as much. Let's try to end it here and now...in this generation.

[Thanks to the Secular Outpost for calling my attention to this].

71 comments:

GordonBlood said...

The funny thing about this, I find, is somehow the postulation that secularism=tolerance of gays. Historically thats rubbish. Ayn Rand hated homosexuality, O'Hair cursed them all the time. My freinds who are non-theists are (and im not making this up) far more bigotted against homosexuals than my religious freinds. Yes we consider it a sin and yes it was even punished by death in the time of Moses but for a Christian homosexuality is no more of a sin than fornication or lying.

John W. Loftus said...

GordonBlood, I never postulated what you said. Please take a critical thinking class, and I mean it.

Regardless, do you support gay marriages?

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Gordon:
This is a good time to mention yet again, Prup's First Law: "Whatever position you take ... you'll find some idiots agreeing with you." Other people may disagree, but to me, Rand and O'Hair were our version of Rushdoony and Robertson.

And, of course, I do support gay marriage, and may talk about that later.

Stephen O. said...

This is why people call Christians hypocrites. There is absolutely no consistency with what they say they believe and do and what is in the Bible. Quite frankly it is impossible to obey the laws in the Bible, and Christians don't seem to know this..

WoundedEgo said...

I am strongly against the US government in any way acting to establish gay marriage. Why? Because of the Bible? NO! But because of biology. Sex is reproduction by male+female. Period. Men can have intimacy with men, but cannot impregnate one another. Women can live together for a lifetime but cannot impregnate one another. The government of the US has NO BUSINESS establishing a special protection/affirmation of a special interest group that can be effectively satisfied by existing contract law. If a couple of men want to share their property and treat it as common property because they feel so sssspecccial being so connected, then go for it. But do it as a contract.
The ONLY reason that the government has ANY business regulating marriage beyond contract law is in the special, unique BIOLOGICAL situation where a man and a woman produce a fertile offspring who carries a MIXTURE of their mutual sexual contribution. Ie: it is a profoundly undeniable fact that a child is the offspring of two people. This is the "scrambled egg" situation that occaissions government intervention.
Gay "marriage" is not biologically possible - at least at present. If and when it becomes possible, then gay marriages will have to be recognized.
I'm not holding my breath, though.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com

Joseph said...

I think the gay marriage issue is one that could make or break evangelical Christianity. By that, I mean that more and more scientific studies are showing that homosexuality is basically genetic in origin, not a mere lifestyle choice. This directly contradicts numerous strong statements of condemnation against homosexuals in the Bible (Christians like to separate the sin from the sinner, but you'll be hard pressed to find such a distinction in the Bible--especially towards gays). Who to believe? As more and more people realize that science is right and the Bible is wrong you will see fundamentalist migrating towards liberal Christianity or (more likely) becoming unbelievers. You mark my words--evangelical Christianity as we know it will become a fringe movement within our lifetime.

Joseph said...

WoundedEgo, that's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Are you married? How many children do you have? Is someone not legitimately married if they don't have children? My wife and I don't. Many couples don't every plan on having children, many can't. So what do you plan to do with them, since they don't fit into your definition of marriage? Force them to divorce? Make men and women take a fertility test before getting married. Grow up. Marriage is about people committing their lives together in a mutually beneficial living situation.

WoundedEgo said...

Joseph...what is the governmental imperative in a gay marriage? What is the constitutional mandate? What is the PRACTICAL matter that a gay marriage addresses? NONE.

The only reason that one needs a marriage license is that it is presumed that a child might ensue. Where that is impossible, governemental intervention is not necessary, beyond matters that can be handled by power of attorney and what not.

What is the biological, constitutional or moral imperative for government intervention in a gay relationship??

Bill Ross
http;//bibleshockers.com

WoundedEgo said...

Apart from being PC...

Bill Ross
http;//bibleshockers.com

Joseph said...

"What is the governmental imperative in a gay marriage? What is the constitutional mandate? What is the PRACTICAL matter that a gay marriage addresses? NONE."

You've got to be kidding me. Anyways, in the context of this blog I don't think John wants to get into a debate over gay marriage as a political matter. What we should be discussing is the implications of such a debate on evangelical Christianity. See my first comment.

WoundedEgo said...

Like Juliani, I think the debate over gayness and gay marriage are two distinct things. Juliani has always been supportive of gayness (isn't he a cross dresser?) but he does not see that translating over to gay marriage. Kudos.
Joseph, you want to translate a biological rationale for gayness into a political rationale for gay marriage - but that is a huge, irrational step.
Gay marriage is, in a word, sttoooopid, because it presumes that the United States government has an imperative to boost the self esteem of same sex frolicking, which it does not.
It has to protect children, and it has to intervene when the interests of a father and a mother contradict. But it does NOT have to coddle a man who really, really, really wants to feel married. Joseph - get over it.

Joseph said...

"Joseph, you want to translate a biological rationale for gayness into a political rationale for gay marriage - but that is a huge, irrational step."

What's irrational is how you made that connection. Read my comments again--what I said had more to do with gayness and evangelical Christianity. You obviously have an axe to grind (and the underlying homophobia is very obvious). This isn't the forum for it.

Lee Randolph said...

That was powerful video, it almost had me choked up. That was resolution of cognitive dissonance in action. It was intellectual integrity at its best. And it was brave. He could ruin his career over his position in this question of Civil Rights.

Hi Bill,
I think I'll use your argument to start a blog to influence rescinding the rights of heterosexuals to marry if they are infertile, and imposing deadlines on having children that would annul the marriage if they don't have children within the time-frame of, say, five years or so. Would you like to contribute?

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Gordon,
What possible rationale could your 'non-theist' friends have for such a viewpoint. I can't think of any rational support for that except religious. And by rational I am talking about the process, not the evaluation of the conclusion.

WoundedEgo said...

>>Lee: ...I think I'll use your argument to start a blog to influence rescinding the rights of heterosexuals to marry if they are infertile...

Lee, you are creating a straw man argument. Why? Because you have no real argument.

Very few people realize that there is a ditch on both sides of the road. You are in one right now.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com

Joseph said...

"Lee, you are creating a straw man argument."

Quite to the contrary. He is simply following the logic of your arguments and bringing it to its logical conclusion.

Michael Ejercito said...

Homosexual relationships can not form the nucleus of a family.

That is why societies with disparate religious beliefs never instituted same-sex marriage.

GordonBlood said...

Contrary to what you seem to think John I am not always talking about your opinions. If you look carefully at what I said (and frequently you havent been) you will notice I never said that you said this. However, many others have. No, I dont support gay marriage for myself and I wouldnt attend a church which preformed them. What the government chooses to do however I really dont care, persons will be homosexuals regardless of whether or not they can get married. As for your assertion Joseph that it is genetic in origin that is far too simplistic. Genetics is a major pre-disposer, it does not control our behaviour for the most part. The research so far has proven there to be (again) a slight statistical increase of homosexuality along certain genetic lines, not some almighty deterministic genetic inherency. Besides, your comitting the naturalistic fallacy (just because it happens in nature does not make it morally right).
PS- Prup, I really like your first law.

B H said...

Michael Ejercito wrote That is why societies with disparate religious beliefs never instituted same-sex marriage.

This depends on how you define "same-sex marriage". There have definitely been societies with institutionalized same-sex but different-gender marriages. In Pre-Columbian North America alone, the situation reached amazing levels of cultural complexity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

Joseph said...

"Besides, your comitting the naturalistic fallacy (just because it happens in nature does not make it morally right)."

But Gordon, aren't you committing a greater fallacy of letting an antiquated religious book bias you against the findings of science? Obviously, our genetic predispositions are not themselves deterministic. Nevertheless, they factor strongly into our behavior tendencies and our overall identity. Were it not for the Bible, you could not demonstrate through natural evidence that homosexual relationships are necessarily unhealthy or otherwise wrong.

I know enough gays in committed relationships to personally be persuaded towards gay-marriage. Trust me, it took a lot for me to be persuaded on the issue. Suffice it to say, I no longer view gays as rebels against God with unnatural perverse affections. I don't think this is a balanced opinion on the issue at all.

Again, I will confidently assert that the gay issue (which happens to be centered around marriage at the moment) will be the 300 lb guerrilla which will strike a massive blow at the heart of the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>I know enough gays in committed relationships to personally be persuaded towards gay-marriage.

And the government of the United States has to grant them a license because??....

Bill Ross
http;//bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Kerry said...

I just found this from a link John sent to me a few days ago. It seemed a bit odd for something about my case to come up here, but I'm open-minded. It's also a bit bizarre that the comments are all about guy relationships and nothing about rejecting this nonsense called Christianity and not being indifferent with others about disbelief. I'm not gay and I'm neither for nor against gay marriage, but I think it is a personal thing. I do believe that it is genetic in some cases, and in others I think it is a conditioned response and/or social response. I don't feel that gay marriage should be outlawed. There are a number of strange laws on the books that come from the Christian religion and the bible. I don't call myself an atheist, but simply a man with no belief system. My story and my case can be viewed in greater detail by putting "kerry walker story" in a search engine.

Joseph said...

WoundedEgo, read my comments in their context and in the context of the entire discussion (including the original article). This is why you come across as so asinine--because you don't read before you write.

Joseph said...

Hi Kerry. Yes, your comments are more in the spirit of the main topic of discussion. Common sense does not necessarily lead us in the same direction as the Bible's rules and laws. The issue of whether or not homosexuality is normal and acceptable (I'm setting aside the issue of gay marriage for a moment) is just one example among issue.

p.s. I'll check out your story.

zilch said...

WoundedEgo, that's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.
I'll second that, joseph. Believe it or not, I've heard it before. And just like before, when asked about infertile couples, the arguer is reduced to spluttering. When lee said I think I'll use your argument to start a blog to influence rescinding the rights of heterosexuals to marry if they are infertile [...], woundedego said that this was a "strawman" argument. Oh? I quote woundedego:
The only reason that one needs a marriage license is that it is presumed that a child might ensue.

That would mean all kinds of people should not be allowed to marry: gays, women beyond menopause or with hysterectomies, men with low sperm count or cancer-necessitated testectomies, and and and... Are you calling your congressperson about this, woundedego?

WoundedEgo said...

Well let's extend out your jurisprudence a little and see how it holds up...

If the government of the US is free to make up laws creating marriage rights without either a biological or constitutional, and no precent from the fathers, then why stop with gay marrige? Why not recognize the marriage of 3 men? Or a whole hot tub full of 'em?

Roe vs. Wade also fails the biological, constitutional and fathers test and should thus be struck down.

Bigamy laws also fail the biological and constitutional test and should be struck down.

The jurisprudence you propose will have bitter fruit.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Shygetz said...

michael said:

Homosexual relationships can not form the nucleus of a family.

Factually incorrect. I know several families that have homosexual parents as the nucleus.

woundedego said:
Sex is reproduction by male+female.

Factually incorrect. Sex need not involve reproduction, and in many species (including our own), reproduction is a relatively RARE consequence of sex.

The government of the US has NO BUSINESS establishing a special protection/affirmation of a special interest group that can be effectively satisfied by existing contract law.

I fully agree; no marriage for anyone!

I'm serious; I am actually in favor of government getting out the marriage business altogether and only recognizing civil unions. Marriage carries too many religious connotations, and should therefore be left to religious institutions. But I seriously doubt that's what ego meant.

The only reason that one needs a marriage license is that it is presumed that a child might ensue. Where that is impossible, governemental intervention is not necessary, beyond matters that can be handled by power of attorney and what not.

So no marriage liscences for infertile couples, regardless of gender makeup. That is the position you are fighting for, ego.

And the government of the United States has to grant them a license because??....

The law of the land is that marriage licences are issued by the state, not the Federal government. I would argue that they should be forced to issue licences to homosexual couples due to:

1) Common law granting the state the right to issue marraige licences to the states, complete with the state-granted responsibilities and priveleges of marriage which are a matter of law, not of contract (spousal privelege being just one easy example)

2) The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guaruntees equal protection, priveleges and immunities, and due process to all citizens of the US. I would argue that this includes homosexuals rights to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and enjoy the immunities and priveleges of such a governmentally-recognized union.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

I guess it is time for me to get involved in this discussion, because I have, I believe, a unique perspective on it. Not because of my own bisexuality -- which may or may not be unique here. But I'm reasonably sure I'm the only commenter here who was raised in a lesbian household.
Yes, "Jim Had Two Mommies" -- actually, I called Billie, my 'birth-mother,' "Mommy" and Claire, her partner, "Mom." And I think, no, I know I was luckier in the 'parent lottery' than any of the people in my life who I've been close enough to to know their own family stories. Not because Billie and Claire were lesbians -- though that had some specific positive benefits -- but because they had a rare talent for parenting that I benefitted from.

I'm tempted to spend pages telling stories to demonstrate that, but I'll refrain -- though I'll gladly answer any questions any of you have. To start with, I'll answer the obvious ones:

"How was I conceived -- or was I adopted?" Not adopted, sixty years ago gay adoption would have been out of the question. Nor were there the improvements in conception science that have allowed in vitro fertilization, etc. No, I was conceived the 'old-fashioned way.' I don't know the details -- the 'family story' was almost certainly mythological -- but I have always assumed, once I thought about it seriously, that I was the result of a celebration of soldiers coming home from WWII that got out of hand.

Did I know about my parents' sexuality, and did they influence my own bisexuality? No and no. This was the 50s, after all, and most children always have trouble thinking of their parents in sexual situations. (And I'm not certain, but they might not have been sexually active by the time I would have been old enough to notice things.) And I was somewhat naive in some ways. So that I was already aware of -- and had enjoyed both parts of -- my bisexuality before the nature of their relationship hit me.

In fact, while Billie knew of my own interests and accepted it, she wouldn't have necessarily encouraged it, and I think Claire would have been bothered by it.

And, in contrast to the myth that homosexual relationships are unstable, brief, and sex-centered, their relationship lasted over thirty years, until Claire's death in 1967 -- Billie died four years later. It was stormy at times, Billie had some severe problems and Claire was not always easy to live with either, but it was also loving and close. (Billie, during Claire's very ill last few years did something almost impossible out of simple love for her. Again, I'll tell the story if asked.)

Did I suffer prejudice because of their relationship? In retrospect, yes, but again, I was too naive to realize the cause. Besides, my own personality wasn't the easiest to like. I was arrogant, argumentative, over-intelligent, fat, prudish, clumsy, egotistical, constantly buried in a book, and noisy, not qualities that make you the most popular in the fifth grade. (I'm no longer fat or prudish, btw.)

But, because Claire died a few months before Stonewall, they never had the opportunity to walk down Fifth Avenue holding hands during the annual march.

And they never had the opportunity to get their relationship solemnized by being married. And it is far more in their memory that I am so strong a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage than it is for my own benefit.

I've always been open about my own bisexuality -- and it is true that you get much less prejudice if you are open than if it is a 'suddenly discovered secret' because people resent having been lied to. And while I enjoy sex with both genders, I seem only to be interested in relationships with women -- a fact that I mention with very slight feelings of regret and shame. I don't know why I have this lack. I've been married for over sixteen years now, and were my marriage to dissolve tomorrow, I doubt if I would take advantage of the possibility of marrying a man.

But I know how wonderful it would have been for them to have been able to have their marriage -- their relationship was truly that -- officially
sanctioned and celebrated. Not for the 'practical benefits' of survivorship -- there was simply never enough money around for that to have been a factor for them, though it is for many gay couples. Not to avoid the hassles that unmarried couples can go through, for example, visiting each other in the hospital. Again, this is relevant to many gay couples, but Billy could talk her way through any such barrier, and Claire was 'wool-wrapped steel' and could plow through them.

But they were both 'old-fashioned' in many ways -- Claire was literally 'Victorian' since she was Anglophilic and had been born during the final years of the Queen's reign. I know how meaningful it would have been for them to officially celebrate their relationship, to have a ceremony, and to be recognized by the world as being what they were, a married couple.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

I should mention that I began writing my previous comment before Ego's and Shygetz' comments were posted. I want to associate myself with most of Shy's comments. (I'm not sure whether I agree with the 'marriage is religious' the states should only create civil unions -- which is my wife's position as well. I think the tradition and ceremony that marriages frequently involve can be very meaningful to couples, and I see no reason for gay couples to be deprived of them, or of the use of the word 'married.' But I'll admit that the opposite position is also a strong one.)

I do find it fascinating that Mr. Ego's arguments are coming from someone who is an ex-Christian, but it shows that we don't have a 'party line.' (Whether it and other of his comments also demonstrate Prup's Law I'm not going to discuss. I'm trying to be good.)

WoundedEgo said...

Thank you, Prup, for sharing your story. You wrote:

>>>But I know how wonderful it would have been for them to have been able to have their marriage -- their relationship was truly that -- officially
sanctioned and celebrated.

I would say... the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians but is (or should be) in the business of protecting children by a *minimal* set of laws that take into account the bioligal reality that a child is the offspring of two individuals. Marriage laws have biological, constitutional, moral and fathers-precedence basis when they are built on that firm foundation. When they are created to make lesbians feel good, they are stooopid. We have tons of laws forbidding discrimination, and maybe we could add a tweak here and there for hospital visitation (ie: leave it up to the patient if it doesn't negatively impact their healthcare or else the government will cut your funding, you bigot).

As to survivorship... that can be handled by contract. But if you intend laws that commit someone to devotion to another adult person then you open yourself up to slavery laws.

The responsibility of a parent to a child is biologically dictated. If someone else, not biologically interested wants to help raise the child then they are free to do so in the US. But, barring their contractual agreement to do so, they are not subject to the sanctions of law.

Law is a funny thing but it isn't something to play with, making feel-good laws to suit special interests. It works best when it is minimal, addressing a biological or otherwise fundamental reality, constitutional and has a long national and even international precedent.

This is not the case in the matter of gay marriage. By your own testimony, you were not harmed by not having the government celebration, though "it would have been nice."

The person who advocated NO marriage laws falls into the other ditch. Children need protection, and the parents are responsible to provide for children then produce. This is not a religious dogma. It is a biological situation that we, the people, have to deal with.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

Shygetz, great point about the 14th Amendment.

Here's a question for W.Ego and other opponents of Gay Marriage. If there is no constitutional basis for same-sex marriage, why are its opponents trying to get a constitutional amendment passed banning the practice? Isn't that just a lot of needless time, energy, and money wasted, IF the constitution is already prohibitive of it?

Prup, thank you for sharing your story. I think it brings a very crucial human side to this question. Yes, we should look at these types of issues emotionally as well as intellectually, because there are human relationships and families involved. I work for a man who is in a civil union with a same sex partner. For all intents and purposes, there relationship is every bit as normal and stable as my wife and I (perhaps more so!)

Joseph said...

WoundedEgo said, "...the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians but is (or should be) in the business of protecting children by a *minimal* set of laws that take into account the bioligal reality that a child is the offspring of two individuals."

Where is the evidence that children are harmed by same-sex parents? I'm interested to see what research you have on your side, if any.

And what about children raised by extended families or single-parent households? According to your reasoning, they should be removed from their homes and given to some deserving married couple (perhaps one of the infertile couples that you allow to marry, even though they don't fit your definition of marriage).

And what about child abuse in traditional family settings? How is the traditional convention of marriage a safeguard against that? It isn't doing a very good job of it. I think you'll find no solid research backing your view that children are less well-off being raised by same-sex parents than heterosexual parents. It's very much a case-by-case basis.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Thanks to those who understood my point that the question is not an abstract one, but one which involves real live human beings and their feelings.

As for Mr. Ego's maunderings, I should perhaps simply ignore his ignorance of both the law and the facts -- he's not so good at 'pounding the table' either -- but there are several points I can't let go by.

One is his repeated mention of 'father's precedence.' Admittedly, because of his writing limitations, it's not entirely clear, but he seems -- despite having abandoned Christianity -- to retain the Biblical idea of husbandly supremacy and wifely subservience. (If you don't mean that, Mr. Ego, try and explain what you do mean, please.)

Your paragraph beginning "I would say... the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians ..." is so filled with errors and wrong assumptions it may set a record. The government does not 'celebrate' lesbians, gay men, OR heterosexuals. It ratifies relationships, and provides a ceremony for them for those who do not choose a religious ceremony.

(Ironically, if a religious group provides wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because of homophobia, the government does NOT ratify them, but it does accept as valid any heterosexual, non-bigamous marriage ceremony.)

As for your comment "We have tons of laws forbidding discrimination" no, in fact, we have relatively few laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and no federal one. (Though the Federal law is working its way through Congress and has a good chance -- now that it no longer covers transgendered people -- of being passed. And vetoed.)

As for the states, the laws are very limited and in fact, I believe even New York State does not yet have one because of the opposition of the Republicans in the State Legislature. There is much more protection for bigoted and degrading hate speech -- which should, I suppose, be protected -- than there is against discrimination in housing, employment, hospitals, etc.

Your comment "If someone else, not biologically interested wants to help raise the child then they are free to do so in the US. But, barring their contractual agreement to do so, they are not subject to the sanctions of law." ignores, among other things, step-parents, adoption and grandparent's rights. But this is typical of the ignorance you show of the law as it actually is.

Your comment about certain laws being "stooopid' calls out for an obvious response, but, as I said, I'm trying to be good.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>>Joseph: ...If there is no constitutional basis for same-sex marriage,

Well is there? What is it?

>>>>why are its opponents trying to get a constitutional amendment passed banning the practice?

There currently is no ban against it.

>>>>Isn't that just a lot of needless time, energy, and money wasted, IF the constitution is already prohibitive of it?

Who said the constitution prevents anything? That is a straw man. The issue is whether the inherent responsibilities and attendent privileges of the biological parents of a child have imperative while the wishes of a special interest group for celebration and group hugs is bioligcally, constitutionally and morally required of a nation that is, or should be, committed to minimal government? Why do you want more laws? Feel-good laws. PC laws. Vague, doomed to endless beauracracy laws?

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

WoundedEgo said...

>>>>Joseph: Where is the evidence that children are harmed by same-sex parents? I'm interested to see what research you have on your side, if any.

I did not say a single word to the effect that "children are harmed by same-sex parent." Did I? If I did, show me where. This is yet another straw man.

>>>>>And what about children raised by extended families or single-parent households? According to your reasoning, they should be removed from their homes and given to some deserving married couple (perhaps one of the infertile couples that you allow to marry, even though they don't fit your definition of marriage).

Joseph... please desist with straw man arguing. It is a tacit admission of the weakness of your argument against the actual argument (as are the "Yeah, I think Wounded Ego is a jerk too" kind of kibbutz comments from the sidelines).

>>>>And what about child abuse in traditional family settings? How is the traditional convention of marriage a safeguard against that?

Straw man, straw man, straw man...

>>>It isn't doing a very good job of it. I think you'll find no solid research backing your view that children are less well-off being raised by same-sex parents than heterosexual parents. It's very much a case-by-case basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

WoundedEgo said...

>>>As for Mr. Ego's maunderings,

Thanks, Prup, for introducing me to a new word. Since I feel certain that others will not be familiar with this $5 word, I post the def here:

maunder
One entry found for maunder.


Main Entry: maun·der
Pronunciation: 'mon-d&r, 'män-
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): maun·dered; maun·der·ing /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: probably imitative
1 chiefly British : GRUMBLE
2 : to wander slowly and idly
3 : to speak indistinctly or disconnectedly
- maun·der·er /-d&r-&r/ noun

>>>>One is his repeated mention of 'father's precedence.' Admittedly, because of his writing limitations, it's not entirely clear, but he seems -- despite having abandoned Christianity -- to retain the Biblical idea of husbandly supremacy and wifely subservience. (If you don't mean that, Mr. Ego, try and explain what you do mean, please.)

Hey, Prup, I really, really dug the little "writing limitations" thingie. But in the future there is no need to be so back handed... just say "Bill Ross is illiterate." Of course, that is introducing unfounded personal insult to a discussion of an objective matter, but never mind - you'll get lots of amens from the faithful here.

>>>Your paragraph beginning "I would say... the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians ..." is so filled with errors and wrong assumptions it may set a record.

Just identify one, thanks.

>>>The government does not 'celebrate' lesbians, gay men, OR heterosexuals. It ratifies relationships, and provides a ceremony for them for those who do not choose a religious ceremony.

Oh. Is that your view of government? That is the role of the constitution? That is the jurisprudence that informs your view of the law? Well I wonder what the framers would say about that?

I thought you were some kind of bookworm?

>>>(Ironically, if a religious group provides wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, because of homophobia, the government does NOT ratify them, but it does accept as valid any heterosexual, non-bigamous marriage ceremony.)

You attribute the lack of government recogniition of same sex marriages exclusively to homophobia. I've never seen any legal wording that indicated that. That is merely your OWN self-centered imaginings. That is not the point. Unless you can show that this is so, don't invoke some unprovable, hidden motive.

>>>As for your comment "We have tons of laws forbidding discrimination" no, in fact, we have relatively few laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and no federal one. (Though the Federal law is working its way through Congress and has a good chance -- now that it no longer covers transgendered people -- of being passed. And vetoed.)

I suppose "tons" is a stupid word.
It is more meaningful to call your attention to the Bill of Rights.

>>>As for the states, the laws are very limited and in fact, I believe even New York State does not yet have one because of the opposition of the Republicans in the State Legislature.

No need. See the Bill of Rights.

>>>There is much more protection for bigoted and degrading hate speech -- which should, I suppose, be protected -- than there is against discrimination in housing, employment, hospitals, etc.

Have you been a victim of any of these and found yourself without legal recourse? I doubt it.

>>>Your comment "If someone else, not biologically interested wants to help raise the child then they are free to do so in the US. But, barring their contractual agreement to do so, they are not subject to the sanctions of law." ignores, among other things, step-parents, adoption and grandparent's rights. But this is typical of the ignorance you show of the law as it actually is.

"typical of the ignorance" - have I become a stereotype already? I have a single point - why the stereotyping?

But what legal sanctions are grandparents answerable to in your enlightened view of the biological, constitutional, moral and historic-precedent view of the law?

>>>Your comment about certain laws being "stooopid' calls out for an obvious response, but, as I said, I'm trying to be good.

Don't be good. Set forth a cogent argument.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

WoundedEgo, you asked earlier, "What is the biological, constitutional or moral imperative for government intervention in a gay relationship?"

I think Shygetz made an argument for it based on the 14th Amendment. You really should read and respond to stated arguments rather than ignoring them and asking the same question that has been previously addressed ("Well is there? What is it?" you asked).

When I asked why the country needed a constitutional amendment, you responded, "There currently is no ban against it."

Well, that just begs the question, doesn't it? Why would we need a constitutional amendment to ban what (according to you) the constitution doesn't "mandate" to begin with? It seems like you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth: "There's no basis for gay marriage in the constitution! We need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage just to make sure!" Doesn't sound like you have a very confident constitutional argument if you are fighting for something as extreme as an amendment to the constitution!

Let's say you DON'T get the amendment (which you clearly won't, as there is little political or popular support)...what would be the loss? That states would get to decide the matter themselves? Sounds very constitutionally sound to me!

Ego: "I did not say a single word to the effect that 'children are harmed by same-sex parent.' Did I? If I did, show me where. This is yet another straw man."

Hmmm, maybe it was when you said:

"...the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians but is (or should be) in the business of PROTECTING children by a *minimal* set of laws that take into account the bioligal reality that a child is the offspring of two individuals." [my caps]

Tell me, WoundedEgo, why do children need PROTECTION from same-sex couples? Explain yourself or you risk being mis-understood.

"That is a straw man....straw man, straw man, straw man."

Why are you obsessing over straw men? Maybe you need to come to terms with your feelings toward them them ;) Come out of the closet and embrace your inner straw man, Ego!

If you look at your own arguments, the straw man syndrome is readily apparent. For example, you keep referring to "the wishes of a special interest group for celebration and group hugs"--as though the opposition were basing their demands purely on the need for "feeling good". Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the opposing side of the argument? Could it be because you've never listened to them? I'll hand it to you--it certainly is easier to argue against what you misrepresent! Nice try, but hardly a new or effective use of a straw man in this blog.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>I think Shygetz made an argument for it based on the 14th Amendment. You really should read and respond to stated arguments rather than ignoring them and asking the same question that has been previously addressed ("Well is there? What is it?" you asked).

Where, PRECISELY, in the 14th amendment do we find homosexual marriage mentioned?

>>>When I asked why the country needed a constitutional amendment, you responded, "There currently is no ban against it." Well, that just begs the question, doesn't it? Why would we need a constitutional amendment to ban what (according to you) the constitution doesn't "mandate" to begin with?

A mandate and a ban are not the same thing, nor are they opposites. Hello?

>>>It seems like you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth: "There's no basis for gay marriage in the constitution! We need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage just to make sure!"

I said no such thing. You asked about the agenda of some third party. I merely supplied you with the missing info.

>>>Doesn't sound like you have a very confident constitutional argument if you are fighting for something as extreme as an amendment to the constitution!

Ummm.... Can you spell "straw man?"

>>>Let's say you DON'T get the amendment (which you clearly won't, as there is little political or popular support)...what would be the loss? That states would get to decide the matter themselves? Sounds very constitutionally sound to me!

Ummm... you killed the straw man. GOOD FOR F*)(*)* YOU! Yeah!

Now what about the real argument?

>>>Ego: "I did not say a single word to the effect that 'children are harmed by same-sex parent.' Did I? If I did, show me where. This is yet another straw man." Hmmm, maybe it was when you said: "...the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians but is (or should be) in the business of PROTECTING children by a *minimal* set of laws that take into account the bioligal reality that a child is the offspring of two individuals." [my caps]

So the fact that I said that the government is in the business of protecting children is, in your PC mind identical to if I had said that homos should not share parenting? Take the new drugs - they seem to work better than what you are currently taking.

>>>Tell me, WoundedEgo, why do children need PROTECTION from same-sex couples? Explain yourself or you risk being mis-understood.

I never, ever, ever, ever said ANYTHING remotely close to the straw you are busily poking holes in.

>>Why are you obsessing over straw men? Maybe you need to come to terms with your feelings toward them them ;) Come out of the closet and embrace your inner straw man, Ego!

You are the first person to express the notion that I am secretly sexually oriented toward straw men, and hopefully the last!

>>>If you look at your own arguments, the straw man syndrome is readily apparent. For example, you keep referring to "the wishes of a special interest group for celebration and group hugs"--as though the opposition were basing their demands purely on the need for "feeling good".

I have REPEATEDLY asked for a biological, constitutional, moral or historical reason for your position but have not been given one. Prup said "it would have been nice to have an official...celebration." That's what I have to work with.

>>>Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the opposing side of the argument? Could it be because you've never listened to them? I'll hand it to you--it certainly is easier to argue against what you misrepresent!

You sound very confused.

>>>Nice try, but hardly a new or effective use of a straw man in this blog.

I loathe people like you. Words can't even say. Why do you exist? You have a frickin' brain so why don't you use it?

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogpost.com

Joseph said...

"Where, PRECISELY, in the 14th amendment do we find homosexual marriage mentioned?"

The Constitution does not PRECISELY address gay marriage nor does it PRECISELY address most of the social issue we grapple with. That's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and apply it to a post-modern world. It's a living document, not a dead one. The constitution does, however, PRECISELY address the issue of LIBERTY--and that's what's in debate here. The same liberty afforded to a heterosexual couple to marry should be afforded to a homosexual couple. The family is evolving--has been for some time. It ain't the 50's and Leave it to Beaver anymore, Bill.

Now, to quote Shygetz (whose comments you deliberately ignored): "The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process to all citizens of the US. I would argue that this includes homosexuals rights to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and enjoy the immunities and privileges of such a governmentally-recognized union."

In response to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Ego said: "I said no such thing. You asked about the agenda of some third party. I merely supplied you with the missing info."

You either have a short memory or you're in denial. You clearly did cast your lot in favor of a legal and constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Ego: "I have REPEATEDLY asked for a biological, constitutional, moral or historical reason for your position but have not been given one"

You've been given many, many reasons from the combined comments of Sygetz and Prup, as well as my own, but YOU DON'T READ opposing viewpoints, do you? Start here for a good summary of BOTH sides of the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Marriage
Once you've read it, we'll talk.

Ego: "I never, ever, ever, ever said ANYTHING remotely close to the straw you are busily poking holes in."

Then why did you say, "...the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians BUT is (or should be) in the business of PROTECTING children by a *minimal* set of laws that take into account the bioligal reality that a child is the offspring of two individuals."

You still haven't clarified this--I've asked you twice, no three times now. Ain't it a bitch to be caught in the tangly mess of your own words?

Ego: "I loathe people like you. Words can't even say. Why do you exist?" LOL! Now we see Bill's true colors. Can't stick to the argument, but can make personal attacks. I think you loathe people like me because I won't let you get away with your egotistical BS. Why do I exist? Well, I suppose I'm here right now to puncture a hole in your fundamentally flawed arguments (and your fragile little ego, as well).

Why all the hostility, anyways? Aren't we just having a friendly, spirited debate? Smile, Bill. You'll live longer and maybe even sell some more books.

WoundedEgo said...

m>>>The Constitution does not PRECISELY address gay marriage nor does it PRECISELY address most of the social issue we grapple with. That's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and apply it to a post-modern world. It's a living document, not a dead one.

Joseph... Just saying "Why, look at the 14th Amendment!" is not an argument. You have to show which words address what issues. So, either show which words assert what you wish to affirm or quit throwing the Constitution of the United States around like a slogan.

>>>The constitution does, however, PRECISELY address the issue of LIBERTY--and that's what's in debate here. The same liberty afforded to a heterosexual couple to marry should be afforded to a homosexual couple.

Joseph, if LIBERTY mean to you that you have ANY AND EVERY RIGHT then you misuderstand the term. It means that no inherent right is restricted, not that the government of the US must give you every privilege. See?

>>>The family is evolving--has been for some time. It ain't the 50's and Leave it to Beaver anymore, Bill.

The fundamental biological foundation upon which marriage laws are based has not changed. It is still physically impossible to swish two puddles of sperm together inside of the stretched out sphincter of an asshole and produce a baby that bears the DNA of the two men in the hot tub. Ditto for two women.

>>Now, to quote Shygetz (whose comments you deliberately ignored): "The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process to all citizens of the US. I would argue that this includes homosexuals rights to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and enjoy the immunities and privileges of such a governmentally-recognized union."

Shygetz thinks that "equal protection" translates into "equal marital privileges and responsibilities." But this is neither biologically, constitutionally, morally or patristically vindicated. He is misinterpreting (or more properly, twisting) the constitution to suit his own ends.

>>>In response to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Ego said: "I said no such thing. You asked about the agenda of some third party. I merely supplied you with the missing info." You either have a short memory or you're in denial. You clearly did cast your lot in favor of a legal and constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Really? Fuck you, liar.

>>Ego: "I have REPEATEDLY asked for a biological, constitutional, moral or historical reason for your position but have not been given one" You've been given many, many reasons from the combined comments of Sygetz and Prup, as well as my own, but YOU DON'T READ opposing viewpoints, do you? Start here for a good summary of BOTH sides of the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Marriage
Once you've read it, we'll talk.

I think you are referring to the reference to the 14th amendment? That confers zero rights to anyone. It expressly refers to the abridgements of rights - rights that are presumed to exist from a biological, constitutional, moral or patristic basis.

>>>Ego: "I never, ever, ever, ever said ANYTHING remotely close to the straw you are busily poking holes in." Then why did you say, "...the government is not in the business of celebrating lesbians BUT is (or should be) in the business of PROTECTING children by a *minimal* set of laws that take into account the bioligal reality that a child is the offspring of two individuals."

What is your point?

>>>You still haven't clarified this--I've asked you twice, no three times now. Ain't it a bitch to be caught in the tangly mess of your own words? Ego: "I loathe people like you. Words can't even say. Why do you exist?" LOL! Now we see Bill's true colors. Can't stick to the argument, but can make personal attacks. I think you loathe people like me because I won't let you get away with your egotistical BS. Why do I exist? Well, I suppose I'm here right now to puncture a hole in your fundamentally flawed arguments (and your fragile little ego, as well). Why all the hostility, anyways? Aren't we just having a friendly, spirited debate? Smile, Bill. You'll live longer and maybe even sell some more books.

I'm hostile because you are no better than the jerks I've left behind. I was hoping for something better. Alas, not in this world, I guess.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

So this is how you respond when someone disagrees with you? Lot's of luck getting other people on this blog to take your opinions seriously.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>In response to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Ego said: "I said no such thing. You asked about the agenda of some third party. I merely supplied you with the missing info." You either have a short memory or you're in denial. You clearly did cast your lot in favor of a legal and constitutional ban on gay marriage.

So show me where I said it, asshole. I don't care if you buy my book. I just want you to not tell me what I said when I did not not say it - you are MISREPRESENTING ME and that ANGERS ME.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

I got a feeling that you get angered very easily and when you do, watch out. So, set the record straight for us all: how would you propose to stop gay marriage from becoming legal in the United States?

WoundedEgo said...

>>I got a feeling that you get angered very easily and when you do, watch out.

Yeah, I'm not keen on people who set up straw men and then say that I said what their straw men say. So don't do it. Desist.

>>>So, set the record straight for us all: how would you propose to stop gay marriage from becoming legal in the United States?

If we do nothing, then the Constitution will handle what needs to be handled. There is zero need to create any new legislation.

It is incumbent on those who want to bind the good people of the US of A to new legislation to prove that the legislation has a biological, constitutional, moral and patristic rationale. In the absence of that, the law of the land/sea does not need new frivolous laws and increased beauracracy.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

Ego, there's a big difference between following the logical inference of an argument and setting up a straw man. According to the Wikipedia article you shared the link to, "To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent....However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy."

So get off your straw man soap box, already. It's boring us.

There's a old saying: "He who smelt it, dealt it." Your very first incendiary post was a straw man argument, "If a couple of men want to share their property and treat it as common property because they feel so sssspecccial being so connected, then go for it. But do it as a contract." You started off the discussion by blatantly misrepresenting the opponents argument. Classic scarecrow stuff!

Joseph said...

Arguments for gay marriage (from the Wikipedia article I tried to get you to read):

"In a 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court noted 'moral disapproval does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause.' Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted as such in his dissenting opinion to Lawrence."

Out of curiosity, is your hang-up just with the word "marriage"? Because, like Shygetz, I don't really care what it's called ("civil unions" are fine by me), so long as gay couples have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.

Joseph said...

According to the same article, same-sex couples face "financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:

*Potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one.

*Costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the US for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen.

*Higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits.

*Higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation.

*Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage.

*Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples.

*Current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner.

*Same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower taxes via the marriage bonus."


As you can see, it's about a whole lot more than just feeling good and wanting to be accepted (your original straw man argument, thus soundly refuted).

WoundedEgo said...

>>>*Potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one.

The potential loss of one's home from illness OR FROM FIRE is a serious one. The question is, does the US government (ie: the taxpayer) have a biological, constitutional, moral or patristic imperative to vouchsafe the interests of a homosexual's lover if and when they succumb to AIDS? Where in the fourteenth amendment do you read this?

Ditto for the rest of you drivel.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

"The potential loss of one's home from illness OR FROM FIRE is a serious one. The question is, does the US government (ie: the taxpayer) have a biological, constitutional, moral or patristic imperative to vouchsafe the interests of a homosexual's lover if and when they succumb to AIDS?"

Uh, gee, I suppose it's found in the same place where we vouchsafe a heterosexual couple when they face similar issues.

BTW, since your outlandish homophobia indicates you're still mentally ensconced in the early 1980's when AIDS was considered a gay disease, check out what Wikipedia says about the AIDS issue: "Those most likely to hold misconceptions about HIV transmission and to harbor HIV/AIDS stigma are LESS EDUCATED PEOPLE and people with high levels of religiosity or conservative political ideology" [emphasis mine]. In other words, it is a myth that AIDS is the inevitable fate of a gay man or woman.

"In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed an estimated 2.4–3.3 million lives, of which more than 570,000 were children." What do you propose we do with all those infected children, Bill? Should we ask them if they engaged in homosexual behavior before we decide to extend the hand of human compassion?

Here, educate yourself a little, please:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
http://www.aids.gov/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/


Ego said, "Where in the fourteenth amendment do you read this?"

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say anything about marriage, at all, Bill? (More education awaits at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_
Constitution) What the 14th amendment DOES safeguard is life, liberty, and property rights for ALL AMERICANS.

And, BTW, there's a reason why we have volumes of additional laws in this country. If you speed in a school zone tomorrow and get pulled over by a cop, good luck in getting off the hook by arguing from the constitution! We are a democratic republic that vote representatives to create new laws, precisely so that the laws of a given city, county, state will reflect the will of the people. If the will of the people is gay marriage/civil unions--so be it! That's the constitutional way.

WoundedEgo said...

Joseph, the problem with AIDS is that it is a MILLION DOLLAR DEATH. When AIDS hit, hundreds of insurance companies went out of business because EACH CASE was a million dollars (compare that to a car accident). So once again you are L-E-A-P-I-N-G to conclusions, putting words in my mouth and erecting straw man arguments.

>>>What the 14th amendment DOES safeguard is life, liberty, and property rights for ALL AMERICANS.

Exactly. That is YOUR and MY constitutional protection. But you want my million dollars to go to the live-in lover of someone I never agreed to care for. I am being made to vouchsafe someone who is NOT a child and personally I resent it. On what grounds am I biologically, constitutionally, morally or patristically responsible to care for your lover? The 14th Amendment? No frickin' way.

>>>We are a democratic republic that vote representatives to create new laws, precisely so that the laws of a given city, county, state will reflect the will of the people. If the will of the people is gay marriage/civil unions--so be it! That's the constitutional way

Well, sort of. It turns out that it is really not that kind of a free for all. We do have a Consitutional government. Indeed, if the will of the people is to change the constitution, then by golly that has to happen, if you get it by the courts. But with no biological, constitutional, moral or patristic basis, I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become. After all, jurisprudence is not about awarding favors to people, but is intended to prevent the will of special interest groups from controlling the populace. Gay marriage laws are not biologically, constitutionally, morally or patristically imperative and so are not the minimal amount of government that we need and therefore ought not to be cast as the law of the land/sea.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

Ego: "So once again you are L-E-A-P-I-N-G to conclusions, putting words in my mouth and erecting straw man arguments."

You mean these words, don't you? "...a homosexual's lover IF and WHEN they succumb to AIDS?" [my emphasis] That is what you said, isn't it? You were quite clear in saying that dying of AIDS is all but inevitable for "a homosexual's lover," and if they get married watch out insurance companies!

Ego: "Joseph, the problem with AIDS is that it is a MILLION DOLLAR DEATH." So, show me where you get your figures from. How does it compare with the expense of other deaths like cancer and heart disease? Why is one acceptable for insurance to cover and not the other? What should we do with you if you got AIDS? Would you want us to shoot you?

"But with no biological, constitutional, moral or patristic basis, I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become."

Bullshit. That's your criteria and you're sputtering it like a mindless parakeet. I've already shown that constitutionally, gay civil unions/marriages are sound. Morally, it's a no-brainer (unless you're appealing to the Bible). Biologically, scientific research is bringing us closer to answers about homosexuality that you wouldn't like. And pratristicly, who gives a flying leap?

By the way, look up patristic in the dictionary: "Of or relating to the fathers of the early Christian church or their writings" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Ego, "I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become."

Straw man, Bill, straw man. LOL

Ego, "After all, jurisprudence is not about awarding favors to people, but is intended to prevent the will of special interest groups from controlling the populace."

Yeah, right. I think you're just afraid of dropping the soap.

You are incapable of carrying out an intelligent argument. Go back to the radio and memorize some more lines from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Joseph:
Why do we continue to waste time on this bigoted fool. I was going to say something like "It ain't the things you don't know that hurt you, but the things you know that ain't so." But why bother?

If we shut up, Mr. Ego will be convinced he vanquished us with his brilliant arguments. So what. Everyone who reads this will see him for the bigoted fool he is, and we'll stop wasting bandwith trying to show him how little he knows.

And maybe he'll actually shut up and go away.

Or at least we can take him on on some topic more relevant to DC.

Joseph said...

Thanks, Prup. As of my last comment, I'm done with Ego (hopefully for good). There's still that naive side of me that wants to believe in the best of human nature. Maybe that's why I humor people like Ego and Dan more than I should.

Now, on to bigger and brighter things.

Peace.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>>...You were quite clear in saying that dying of AIDS is all but inevitable for "a homosexual's lover," and if they get married watch out insurance companies!

Ummm... if I said so, please show me where. Why (the fucK) do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I never said that.

>>>Ego: "Joseph, the problem with AIDS is that it is a MILLION DOLLAR DEATH." So, show me where you get your figures from.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DEEDA103BF936A3575BC0A961948260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FL%2FLife%20Insurance

>>>How does it compare with the expense of other deaths like cancer and heart disease? Why is one acceptable for insurance to cover and not the other? What should we do with you if you got AIDS? Would you want us to shoot you?

Prolly.


>>>Bullshit. That's your criteria and you're sputtering it like a mindless parakeet.

What is your criteria for jurisprudence?

>>>I've already shown that constitutionally, gay civil unions/marriages are sound.

Oh yeah, the 14th Amendment. But SPECIFICALLY...

>>>Morally, it's a no-brainer (unless you're appealing to the Bible).

I'm not appealing to the Bible. Show me the moral imperative. And in particular, show me how it is equivalent to the moral imperative involved with the biological production of children.

>>>Biologically, scientific research is bringing us closer to answers about homosexuality that you wouldn't like.

Are you suggesting that new research reveals that swishing around sperm in a ruptured sphincter produces an emnbryo? Because if you aren't, then your scientific research is irrelevant to the current discussion.

>>>And pratristicly, who gives a flying leap?

Um.... the Supreme Court?

>>By the way, look up patristic in the dictionary: "Of or relating to the fathers of the early Christian church or their writings" (American Heritage Dictionary).

! Ok, so you have no appreciation of context... I am referring to the fathers of the Constitituion - routinely considered in the interpretation of Constitutional jurisprudence.

>>>Ego, "I certainly hope it does not happen, no matter how restless people's crotches become." Straw man, Bill, straw man. LOL

Hey - you are developing a bit of a sense of humor!

>>>Egoa, "After all, jurisprudence is not about awarding favors to people, but is intended to prevent the will of special interest groups from controlling the populace." Yeah, right. I think you're just afraid of dropping the soap.

I want to live free of the fear of dropping the soap..

>>>You are incapable of carrying out an intelligent argument. Go back to the radio and memorize some more lines from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

There is nothing like a good insult to really give an argument a solid edge...

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Shygetz said...

Bill Ross is ignoring my post because he hopes everyone will forget that I brought up LEGAL rights enjoyed by married couples that have nothing to do with children and cannot be conferred by contract. The one I named was spousal privelege, but there are others. How do you offer equal protection and equal privileges under the law without offering homosexual couples these rights?

He also likes to set up the strawman that I said the 14th Amendment allows gay marriage. I said the 14th Amendment requires equal privileges to homosexuals under the common law, and that the common law gives people the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

He also likes to pretend that marriage arose to protect children, ignoring the fact that marriage under the law has been available for infertile couples since before the founding of the nation. This unfortunate fact destroys his argument that marriage exists solely for the protection of children likely to arise from such a union. He also ignores the tradition in both English common law and American history of marriages arranged to seal political or financial contracts, having nothing to do with children.

He also likes to ignore the fact that homosexual unions do bear children through adoption, in vitro fertilization, and old-fashioned sex with men, and that these children deserve the same protection as other children, again under the 14th Amendment. Since marriage does nothing magical to the sperm or the egg, I assume that he means that marriage offers social protection to children of the union; such protection would be just as important in homosexual unions.

Bill Ross then deliberately misstates my argument and sets up this straw man:
The person who advocated NO marriage laws falls into the other ditch. Children need protection, and the parents are responsible to provide for children then produce. This is not a religious dogma. It is a biological situation that we, the people, have to deal with.

I never advocated no laws surrounding unions of couples; I stated that they should not be called marriages due to the religious connotations of the word. They should be called civil unions, and should be free to all consenting adults.

Similarly, you are factually incorrect that "the parents are responsible to provide for children then produce." Under US jurisprudence, parents (both married and otherwise) can and do put children up for adoption, abandoning all responsibilities for them, without penalty from the government. And if I am wrong, then why should children of homosexual couples not be similarly protected? Remember, American jurisprudence holds that the legal guardians hold the legal responsibility for the child, and the legal guardians can easily be a homosexual couple.

Bill Ross also shows his rampant homoantipathy in his comments. In doing so, he presents such interesting tidbits as his apparent support of governmental protection for heterosexual couples suffering from AIDS, but not homosexual couples (another clear violation of the 14th Amendment due to LEGAL priveleges, not contractual ones).

Bill, lots of people read Ayn Rand in high school and college, but most people get over her particular brand of delusion by the time they turn 25. I will hold out hope for you.

Joseph said...

Great post Shygetz. Do you see a patter here in Ego's posts? "Ignore...Ignore...Ignore...Ignorance."

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

All I can say is to echo Joseph. Thanks, Shygetz.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Bill Ross is ignoring my post because he hopes everyone will forget that I brought up LEGAL rights enjoyed by

married couples that have nothing to do with children and cannot be conferred by contract.

**privileges** are **special provisions** which not all people are entitled to equally, regardless of the 14th

Amendment. These are tied to biological, constitutional, moral and patristic concerns. For example, men are denied

the use of public women's restrooms. This is not persecuting men or violating their constitutional rights. So with

tax breaks for families with children. While it is compatible with equal protection, it is not uniform privilege.

>>>The one I named was spousal privelege, but there are others.

I did a search for "legal rights" and "spousal privilege" but did not find where you said anything about that. Can

you repost? I did not see anything resembles an actual argument until your last post.

>>>How do you offer equal protection and equal privileges under the law without offering homosexual couples these

rights?

As I pointed out, equal protection is not about sameness when there are biological differences that create

differing imperatives.

>>>He also likes to set up the strawman that I said the 14th Amendment allows gay marriage. I said the 14th

Amendment requires equal privileges to homosexuals under the common law, and that the common law gives people the

right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

The "right to" is about liberty. "Marry" is an establishment of something. Ie: the Bill or Rights confers freedom

of religion but does not permit the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. Homosexual marriages are unfettered by the US

constitution TO THE DEGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ASKED TO ESTABLISH IT because it has no biological,

constitutional, moral or patristic reason to do so. When you move from liberty to entitlement you abuse the

constitution. For example, you are granted the liberty to travel, but when you want the governemnt to give you a

car or drive you around, you are abusing the Amendment.

>>>He also likes to pretend that marriage arose to protect children, ignoring the fact that marriage under the law

has been available for infertile couples since before the founding of the nation. This unfortunate fact destroys

his argument that marriage exists solely for the protection of children likely to arise from such a union.

The law is not contemplated as perfectly dispensing privileges in exact proportion at all times in perfect synergy

with biological and moral imperatives. For example, tax breaks for parents with children are often not needed by

the parents to adequately provide for those children. Everyone knows that and it is not begruged as giving to the

rich (though I think that it is a flaw). You are creating a straw man of "the perfect system." I never said that

the system works perfectly as it is.

>>>He also ignores the tradition in both English common law and American history of marriages arranged to seal

political or financial contracts, having nothing to do with children.

Boy, they really wanted no escape! Were these gay marriages? If not then I suppose that the tradition, then, does

not set precedent. Were the marriages forced on the children? Did they kill an animal? Anyway, we have contract law

for this stuff.

>>>He also likes to ignore the fact that homosexual unions do bear children through adoption, in vitro

fertilization, and old-fashioned sex with men, and that these children deserve the same protection as other

children, again under the 14th Amendment.

Marriage laws (responsibilities and attendant privileges) are in recognition of an *inherent* responsibility to a

child. It is, in a sense, a kind of slave law, mandated by nature. Parents are the slaves of their children. To

*create* that master-slave relationship is unconstitutional. That is why contracts involving services have a term

limit and cannot be in perpetuity (whereas nature's dictum for parents is that it until they are capable of caring

for themselves, however long that may be). What you propose is that we allow people to LEGALLY BIND themself to

another adult person until death outside of biological processes. One so bound, if they wanted to renig would then

be punished. I think this is inappropriate.


>>>Since marriage does nothing magical to the sperm or the egg, I assume that he means that marriage offers social

protection to children of the union; such protection would be just as important in homosexual unions.

But the responsibility is not intrinsic. Those laws come under the provisions of adoption and contract law.

>>>Bill Ross then deliberately misstates my argument and sets up this straw man:

I have never deliberately misstated your or any other person's position, though it has annoyingly been done to me

repeatedly - as you are doing here yet again.

***
>>>The person who advocated NO marriage laws falls into the other ditch. Children need protection, and the parents

are responsible to provide for children then produce. This is not a religious dogma. It is a biological situation

that we, the people, have to deal with.
***

>>>>I never advocated no laws surrounding unions of couples; I stated that they should not be called marriages due

to the religious connotations of the word. They should be called civil unions, and should be free to all consenting

adults.


Here is what you said, which I honestly mistakenly took as wanting no laws:

***
I fully agree; no marriage for anyone!
I'm serious; I am actually in favor of government getting out the marriage business altogether and only recognizing

civil unions. Marriage carries too many religious connotations, and should therefore be left to religious

institutions. But I seriously doubt that's what ego meant.
***

The reason they are called "marriages" and not "civil unions" is because they are addressing a biological

phenomenon where two people are intermingled by a profound biological process. "Civil Unions" (like living

together, cuddling, doing the Hokey Pokey, etc) are personal matters which provide no imperative to the government

that cannot be addressed with contract law.

>>>Similarly, you are factually incorrect that "the parents are responsible to provide for children they produce."

Under US jurisprudence, parents (both married and otherwise) can and do put children up for adoption, abandoning

all responsibilities for them, without penalty from the government.

There is existing provision in the law for adoption that relieves the parents of their legal responsibility to

directly care for their own child, but it is not that the responsibility was never there, nor can they legally,

morally, constitutionally simply fail to provide for their child, or knowingly entrust the child to someone who

will not provide for their care. In other words, one cannot simply shirk one's responsibility.

>>>And if I am wrong, then why should children of homosexual couples not be similarly protected? Remember, American

jurisprudence holds that the legal guardians hold the legal responsibility for the child, and the legal guardians

can easily be a homosexual couple.

That is an adoption matter, not a marriage matter.

>>>Bill Ross also shows his rampant homoantipathy in his comments.

I just like using colorful language whenever I get the chance!

>>>In doing so, he presents such interesting tidbits as his apparent support of governmental protection for heterosexual couples suffering from AIDS, but not homosexual couples (another clear violation of the 14th Amendment due to LEGAL priveleges, not contractual ones).

* we are not talking about specifics here, so this discussion is doomed
* insurance policies allow you to name your beneficiaries, or can be reformed to do so
* unncessary added financial burden on the government

>>>Bill, lots of people read Ayn Rand in high school and college, but most people get over her particular brand of

delusion by the time they turn 25. I will hold out hope for you.

Thanks for the book report. I have never read Ayn Rand.

The bottom line is that marriage is a legitimate interest of the government marriage laws, while civil unions are not.

Oh, and I may have overreacted a tad in some of my other posts might have been considered slightly rude. Sorry. Thanks for doing some actual argument.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Shygetz said...

**privileges** are **special provisions** which not all people are entitled to equally, regardless of the 14th Amendment.

So you claim that the 14th Amendment, which states in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", specifically does not include homosexuals? Where do you get off superceding the Constitution?

For example, men are denied the use of public women's restrooms.

And yet workplaces are required to make similar accomidations for men and women's restrooms. If you were correct, they would not be required to do so.

So with

tax breaks for families with children. While it is compatible with equal protection, it is not uniform privilege.


It would be if you stated homosexuals (or blacks, or Jews) with children were not allowed the same tax break.

I did a search for "legal rights" and "spousal privilege" but did not find where you said anything about that. Can you repost? I did not see anything resembles an actual argument until your last post.

10:31 AM, Oct 1, next to last paragraph. If you don't see an argument there, it is because you choose to do so.

As I pointed out, equal protection is not about sameness when there are biological differences that create differing imperatives.

And yet you have not presented evidence that there is any biological imperative that is served by restricting marriage to heteros. As I pointed out, gay couples are guardians to children.

When you move from liberty to entitlement you abuse the constitution.

Untrue. The right to property is a positive right that is protected by the government via laws against theft, not a freedom. Similarly, the right to vote is a positive right (or entitlement, if you prefer) guaranteed by the Constitution. Those are just the ones in the Bill of Rights; there are others.

But this is beside the point. The Constitution does not give ANYONE the right to marry; common law does. The Constitution merely states that common law must apply equally to all citizens (both immunities AND priveleges), which is applicable in this case.

Show me where the Constitution says heteros can marry?

For example, you are granted the liberty to travel, but when you want the governemnt to give you a car or drive you around, you are abusing the Amendment.

Not if, say, everyone but blacks are given a car to drive under the law. Apartheid of any kind doesn't fly in America under the 14th Amendment.

Homosexual marriages are unfettered by the US

constitution TO THE DEGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ASKED TO ESTABLISH IT because it has no biological, constitutional, moral or patristic reason to do so.


There is a biological reason (stable homo family structure for adopted children), constitutional (equal protection under common law), and moral (equal rights; better family life for children). Patristic means pertaining to early Christian fathers, which has nothing to do with the US, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

The law is not contemplated as perfectly dispensing privileges in exact proportion at all times in perfect synergy with biological and moral imperatives.

Especially since you made these "imperatives" out of whole cloth, ignoring the tradition of marriage in English common law.

For example, tax breaks for parents with children are often not needed by the parents to adequately provide for those children. Everyone knows that and it is not begruged as giving to the rich (though I think that it is a flaw).

And yet, if they disallowed this tax break to blacks, or Jews, or gays, it would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Boy, they really wanted no escape! Were these gay marriages (aforementioned marriages of convenience)? If not then I suppose that the tradition, then, does not set precedent.

These marriages were expressly NOT for the purpose of producing children, and were a common occurance, which directly refutres your assertion that marriage is for a biological imperative. It is a kind of social contract that is privileged by the government.

Were the marriages forced on the children? Did they kill an animal? Anyway, we have contract law for this stuff.

What children? What animal? Have you lost your senses? And as I pointed out earlier, contract law does not provide all of the privileges conferred by the law, including spousal privilege, that have nothing to do with children.

Parents are the slaves of their children.

If that is the stance of the US legal system, then why do we allow parents to abandon their children to the state without censure?

What you propose is that we allow people to LEGALLY BIND themself to another adult person until death outside of biological processes. One so bound, if they wanted to renig would then be punished. I think this is inappropriate.

So couples without children should not be legally bound to their spouse until such time as they have children, and once those children are able to take care of themselves, their marriage should be rendered null. And yet, this is not what you advocate.

And you are also wrong another way; pair bonding IS a biological process (including homosexual pair bonding). Homosexual lifetime pair bonding is observed in nature among other animals: there's your precious "biological imperative".

But the responsibility is not intrinsic. Those laws come under the provisions of adoption and contract law.

The responsibility is legal (and remember, we are discussing marriage as a legal proposition), and has a biological basis in child psychology and sociology (where it has been found that stable two-parent homosexual homes is preferable to single-parent homes). Adoption law gives strong preference to married couples, which again brings up discrimination of homosexual couples in defiance of the 14th Amendment.

The reason they are called "marriages" and not "civil unions" is because they are addressing a biological phenomenon where two people are intermingled by a profound biological process.

Then explain political marriages. Explain marriages used to seal contracts and consolidate fortures. Marriage has been a contract since ancient times, and a religious sacrement since Paul (which well predates the English common law upon which US law is based).

"Civil Unions" (like living together, cuddling, doing the Hokey Pokey, etc) are personal matters which provide no imperative to the government that cannot be addressed with contract law.

Civil unions refers to a union recognized by the government as being similar (or identical in some cases) to marriage. As such, it CANNOT be addressed with contract law, as contracts do not have the right to compel the government to grant spousal priveleges to the partner.

There is existing provision in the law for adoption that relieves the parents of their legal responsibility to directly care for their own child...

No, adoption is not required. The parent(s) may abandon their child to the state at any time, for any reason, without sanction or censure.

...but it is not that the responsibility was never there, nor can they legally, morally, constitutionally simply fail to provide for their child, or knowingly entrust the child to someone who will not provide for their care.

Let me state it more slowly so you can understand. They. Can. Abondon. Their. Child. At any time. For any reason.

In other words, one cannot simply shirk one's responsibility.

Umm, sounds EXACTLY like one can simply shirk one's responsibility. Can I simply abandon my debts to the government with no sanction? No? So we have more responsibility to our debtors than to our children. Sorry, once again the facts have betrayed your bigotry.

That is an adoption matter, not a marriage matter.

Not always adoption; remember in vitro.

And yet, you state that the ONLY reason for marriage is to raise children, which is a guardian matter, not a marriage matter. Make up your mind; is marriage useful for raising children (in which case, why isn't it useful for homo couples raising children) or it isn't (in which case, why can heteros marry and not homos). You can't have it both ways, where it's essential for heteros but irrelevant for homos, without presenting evidence (or at least an argument) as to why this is so.

* we are not talking about specifics here, so this discussion is doomed

Fine, tell me exactly why only heteros are entitled to invoke spousal privilege.

* insurance policies allow you to name your beneficiaries, or can be reformed to do so

And yet unmarried beneficiaries do not have equal standing in probate court as married beneficiaries, perpetuating inequality.

* unncessary added financial burden on the government

So the dirty homos don't deserve your tax money, just the nice, clean heteros? Sorry, doesn't fly; freedom without equality isn't freedom.

Thanks for the book report. I have never read Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is an author, not a book. And for not having read her, you parrot her Objectivist crap, complete with irrational homoantipathy, very well. Perhaps it is a natural talent.

The bottom line is that marriage is a legitimate interest of the government marriage laws, while civil unions are not.

Marriage of homos is an equally legitimate interest and an imperative under application of the 14th Amendment to marriage laws. It exists to recognize and privilege pair bonds (which includes but is not limited to children), which are known to exist among homos. If this were not so, then marriage would be limited to fertile people who are engaged in child-bearing and raising, and would not be strictly limited to pairs (families based on polygamy are equally natural among primates, and historically occurred in human society). Civil unions can confer the same privileges as marriage without the religious history of the "sacrement". As such, I think for both practical and symbolic reasons that all marriages in America should be termed "civil unions" and open to all consenting adult couples, leaving the sacrement of marriage to non-governmental civic clubs, including (but not limited to) religions.

Joseph said...

Excellent comments, Shygetz. Right on the money.

WoundedEgo said...

>>So you claim that the 14th Amendment, which states in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", specifically does not include homosexuals? Where do you get off superceding the Constitution?

Shygetz, even though you are putting words into my mouth, I'm not going to tell you what I think of you for doing so. I will calmly report: YOU ARE STILL PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. Desist. I did not say that (and my words were clear, examples provided, etc,)that -- well, do I have to really repeat the whole thing? Show me where I said that the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals.

Show me. STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.

>>>For example, men are denied the use of public women's restrooms.
And yet workplaces are required to make similar accomidations for men and women's restrooms. If you were correct, they would not be required to do so.

No, the illustration stands. There are appropriate protections and provisions, not the same. Another example supplied was that of tax breaks for people with children that are not given to people without children. This illustration is clearly a privilege sancitoned by law.

>>>It would be if you stated homosexuals (or blacks, or Jews) with children were not allowed the same tax break.

WHICH I DID NOT SAY.

>>>>>>And yet you have not presented evidence that there is any biological imperative that is served by restricting marriage to heteros. As I pointed out, gay couples are guardians to children.

That comes under adoption laws and contract law.

>>>Untrue. The right to property is a positive right that is protected by the government via laws against theft, not a freedom.

Where is the "right to property" in the constitution?

>>>Similarly, the right to vote is a positive right (or entitlement, if you prefer) guaranteed by the Constitution. Those are just the ones in the Bill of Rights; there are others.

Yes, the right to vote is a positive right made in the constitution and is therefore a constitutional right. Conversely, when the constitution says that the government will not deprive people of their property without due process of law, it does not mean that it must give it to homosexuals, and to give it, they must take it from someone.

>>>But this is beside the point. The Constitution does not give ANYONE the right to marry; common law does. The Constitution merely states that common law must apply equally to all citizens (both immunities AND priveleges), which is applicable in this case.

It is difficult to discuss this point as despite my careful wording and giving examples of what I mean, you still misread it as "the amendment doesn't apply to homosexuals. You cannot seem to grasp the concept of the imperatives that drive due process. What to do? Where can this conversation go in such a situation? I guess I can point out that affirmative action laws are upheld as constitutional - do you think that they are not?

>>>Show me where the Constitution says heteros can marry?

By not expressly forbidding it, there is no ban against it.

>>>Not if, say, everyone but blacks are given a car to drive under the law. Apartheid of any kind doesn't fly in America under the 14th Amendment.

Are you against affirmative action on the basis of the 14th amendment? Tax breaks for parents of dependent children?

>>>There is a biological reason (stable homo family structure for adopted children)...

So are you saying that stable homo marriage is a biological justification for homo marriage? That unless the government says amen at a wedding service, adopted children will have unstable homes? That the government creates a stable home by saying "these to people are married?" And that this provides a "biological" imperative? What about a wedding ring? Should the government supply wedding rings? Will that keep the children safe?

>>>constitutional (equal protection under common law), and moral (equal rights;

Can you be more vague? This is a biological imperative?

>>>better family life for children).

"Better?"

>>>Patristic means pertaining to early Christian fathers, which has nothing to do with the US, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

Sorry, I was using the wrong word. I was using that as a shortcut to refer to the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution. "Original intent."

>>>Especially since you made these "imperatives" out of whole cloth, ignoring the tradition of marriage in English common law.

Are you now saying that marriage laws were made capriciously rather than from biological imperative? You were just arguing that marriage was a biological imperative?

>>>And yet, if they disallowed this tax break to blacks, or Jews, or gays, it would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.

If they gave this tax break to one who is not the biological or adoptive parent, regardless of race, etc, it would be an entitlement to a special interest group, depriving citizens of their property to do so, and would be unconstitutional.

>>These marriages were expressly NOT for the purpose of producing children, and were a common occurance, which directly refutres your assertion that marriage is for a biological imperative. It is a kind of social contract that is privileged by the government.

That marriage laws were exploited in other ways does not remove their raison d'etre, and in fact should suggest EXTREME CAUTION in wandering from a minimalist jurisprudence that could see new, unforseen societal abuses.

>>>...including spousal privilege, that have nothing to do with children.

Please be specific. What spousal privilege are you referring to and what is the compelling interest in the government of providing it? Thanks.

>>If that is the stance of the US legal system, then why do we allow parents to abandon their children to the state without censure?

Obviously the analogy breaks down because it was a metaphor, not real slavery. K?

>>>So couples without children should not be legally bound to their spouse until such time as they have children, and once those children are able to take care of themselves, their marriage should be rendered null. And yet, this is not what you advocate.

As I said, such laws are not perfect, but they are minimal in order to address biological realities. I think that we will see some interesting cases in the future with regard to the enslavement of women by muslims in this country in the coming days, as soon as someone gets a prosecutable case worked out.

>>And you are also wrong another way; pair bonding IS a biological process (including homosexual pair bonding). Homosexual lifetime pair bonding is observed in nature among other animals: there's your precious "biological imperative".

If it is a natural process, then why does it need a government entitlement to make it happen? Who is stopping the natural process? Why does society have an interest in recognizing it legally? Simply put, it doesn't. We are, hopefully, talking about consenting adults. They go to work, head to their shared bedroom, hang out in the Jacuzzi, cuddle, exchange fluids, they pick out a sofa together, pitch in... So? How is this comparable to the inherent responsibility and attending privilege of the biological parents or adoptive parents? They need to celebrated? Get friends. Government celebration laws, for the sake of celebration are unconstitutional.

>>>The responsibility is legal (and remember, we are discussing marriage as a legal proposition), and has a biological basis in child psychology and sociology (where it has been found that stable two-parent homosexual homes is preferable to single-parent homes).

Who is stopping anyone from doing this?

>>>Adoption law gives strong preference to married couples, which again brings up discrimination of homosexual couples in defiance of the 14th Amendment.

You are digressing.

>>>Then explain political marriages. Explain marriages used to seal contracts and consolidate fortures. Marriage has been a contract since ancient times, and a religious sacrement since Paul (which well predates the English common law upon which US law is based).

I would like you to explain to me what function you think the government has in a political marriage?

>>>Civil unions refers to a union recognized by the government as being similar (or identical in some cases) to marriage. As such, it CANNOT be addressed with contract law, as contracts do not have the right to compel the government to grant spousal priveleges to the partner.

Please be very specific.

>>>No, adoption is not required. The parent(s) may abandon their child to the state at any time, for any reason, without sanction or censure.

You seem to be being argumentative as I don't think you really believe that biological parents have inherent responsibility toward their children. The state clearly feels more compelled to protect the children than to sanction a parent.

>>>Let me state it more slowly so you can understand. They. Can. Abondon. Their. Child. At any time. For any reason.

Oh good grier, you are going there.

>>>Umm, sounds EXACTLY like one can simply shirk one's responsibility. Can I simply abandon my debts to the government with no sanction? No? So we have more responsibility to our debtors than to our children. Sorry, once again the facts have betrayed your bigotry.

I am quite amazed that you are arguing this way. I notice you got high fives for this drivel so I can't appeal to others to censure you...hmmm, what to do? Well, suffice it to say that if you simply stop feeding your children and head off to Vegas, you will find that the law does not hold you guiltless.

>>>Not always adoption; remember in vitro.

In that case, who do the courts consider the father?

>>>And yet, you state that the ONLY reason for marriage is to raise children,

NO. I DID NOT SAY THAT. What I said was that the imperative for marriage *laws* was the likelihood of the unique biological entanglement in the production of children.

>>>which is a guardian matter, not a marriage matter. Make up your mind; is marriage useful for raising children (in which case, why isn't it useful for homo couples raising children) or it isn't (in which case, why can heteros marry and not homos). You can't have it both ways, where it's essential for heteros but irrelevant for homos, without presenting evidence (or at least an argument) as to why this is so.

This is a very long post. Too long. And we are starting go rehash covered stuff and your arguments get weaker and weaker as we go along so I'm cutting off here and going to sleep. Goodnight.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com

WoundedEgo said...

Actually, you did in fact introduce a new argument. I looked up In Vitro law about paterntity and don't see how it could have any bearing on this issue, but invite you to set forth a reason:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013424

I also don't think you have political marriage represented correctly. You say they were to fuse fortunes in a way that contract law cannot. If I'm not mistaken, the idea was that by intermingling their blood via common children their common interest would be secured for the coming generations.

But let's say you are right, that marriages were used for temporary political unity and that this right must be conferred equally on homosexuals. Well, what if three men, all blessed with the "double penetration gene" decide that they want to fuse their fortunes and they want to do so by marriage rather than contract. Then what interest is that of the government/society? But, if it is an entitlement for power purposes only, then who can forbid them the right? What responsibilities will the law recognize? If we move away from a minimalist and imperativist position, marriage laws become a free for all.

Bill

Shygetz said...

You have no idea what you are talking about. You ask for specific legal prinicples, and cannot recognize it when I name one. You are beyond hopeless; you are silly. But, for the edification of the readers, I will explain.

"Spousal privilege" is a specific legal term, not a generic term. It clearly states that communications between married partners cannot be used as evidence against one of those partners in court, and a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse. This privilege is suspended in cases of hostile spouses (divorce, child custody, domestic violence, etc.)

This privilege has NOTHING to do with children, cannot be conferred by contract, and according to the 14th Amendment is illegaly denied to homo couples by refusing to allow them to marry.

You other writings are crap. You demand a biological imperative, yet when the imperative of pair bonding is demonstrated, you state that it is not a "uinique" biological imperative, ignoring the fact that it is actually more unique that child birth (100% of animals engage in reproduction; relatively few engage in pair bonding). You also ignore the argument that pair bonding, not child rearing, is the driving biological principle behind US marriage laws as shown in the refusal to recognize polygamist unions.

You state that marriage exists because of the biological imperative to raise children, yet you refuse to defend the fact that couples who are physically incapable of bearing children allowed to marry without sanction or discrimination, a position which is at odds with your assertion. You further refuse to admit of the fact that homo couples engaged in child birth by in vitro are denied the same rights and privileges as hetero couples using in vitro solely based on sexual orientation.

You have ignorant arguments regarding the Constitution, even going so far as denying that it protects property (despite the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment, among many other amendments and articles).

You have the unfortunate mixture of ignorance and arrogance. There is no unique biological imperative recognized in the marriage law--homos have children together and engage in pair bonds quite well, heteros marry without children quite commonly without sanction. As your bigotry requires that the law recognize a non-existent "unique" biological imperative that does not exist. the privileges it grants go FAR beyond mere child-rearing, such as:

*Privileged income tax status with the IRS
*Exemptions from estate and gift taxes
*Privileged estate trust options
*Automatic priority as conservator for end-of-life decisions and estate planning
*Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits
*Veterans' and military benefits
*Public assistance benefits
*Survivor's benefits under Worker's Comp law
*Less restricted visiting for hospitalized spouses
*Priority for consent for after-death examinations, procedures, funeral arrangements
*Priority for adoption or stepparent guardianship
*Housing benefits for local zoning oridances
*Contractual law benefits for renewing leases, etc.
*Improved rates for various private and semi-private commodities, including joint insurance, tuition, etc.
*Wrongful death standing for lawsuits
*Spousal standing for interference in the marriage
*Spousal privilege protections for confidential communications
*Crime victim's recovery benefits
*Immigration and residency benefits for spouse
*Visitation rights in penitetiaries, asylums, etc.

While you may (with some justification, I think) state that some of these legal and social privileges should not exist for anyone, stating that they should not exist for homos without appealing to something other than children is sheer bigotry. Most of these cannot be enacted by contract, and even if they could the presumption of benefit to hetero married couples sets up an unequal standing under the law, in violation of the 14th Amendment's guaruntees.

You lose.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Shygetz,
I sure am glad you are on my side because sometimes your enthusiasm is fearsome.
;-)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Shygetz:
Again thank you for your demolition of Mr. Ego. (Somewhere back a few dozen comments we had the potentialities for a good debate, but it got lost under his arrogant ignorance.)
Some minor points. Did you notice when -- in response to my comment about discrimination in housing and employment -- he denied that they existed, or that if they did that there were no legal remedies for it? (it's at his post at 2:54 October 1).

Did you notice how he began by using the idea of 'father's precedence' changed it to 'patristic' and, when he was called on it, changed the meaning he was using to refer to the "Fathers of the Constitution."

Did you catch his "I want to live free of the fear of dropping the soap.." comment in his post of 1:23 AM Oct 2?

And to you, I understand your usage of 'homo' as a contrast to 'hetero,' and ratinally I applaud it. But there is still an emotional twinge when I see it. It's not a 'death-word' like 'fag' (which I equate to 'nigger' and 'kike') but it is so frequewntly used as demeaning that I wish -- emotionally -- you'd come up with a better way of making the distinction.

Shygetz said...

prup: I hope you'll believe that I meant homo and hetero solely as shorthand for homosexual and heterosexual, and not in a perjorative sense.

The term "gay" is fine with me, but I have been told by some homosexual women that they do not think "gay" applies to women, and that they are properly termed "lesbians". In that case, "gay and lesbian" remains cumbersome, but I will try to either use that, and/or to refrain from using heterosexual and homosexual as nouns.

Shygetz said...

And yes, I definitely did notice Bill's apparent bigotry. I tried to make sure to bring up his obvious homoantipathy several times in my comments. It probably did more to shorten my patience with him than his arguments.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>"Spousal privilege"...clearly states that communications between married partners cannot be used as evidence against one of those partners in court, and a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse....

Not quite. The first part is false, the second part is true in some situations. For example, it is not true in a polygamy case. There are other forms of protected communications that do not necessitate marriage:

"-- The privilege assumes a legal marriage. Some states recognize common law marriage (we'll talk about that in another column), and some extend the privilege to long-established relationships, sometimes called "meritricious relationships," that had many characteristics of marriage (e.g., property ownership, shared assets, children) without the legal sanction."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p084.htm

So, I think you are trying to say that the only way to protect this dubious interest is by marriage. Not so.

>>>This privilege has NOTHING to do with children, cannot be conferred by contract, and according to the 14th Amendment is illegaly denied to homo couples by refusing to allow them to marry.

Myth.

And as to not relating to children, I don't see the interest that the state in this obstruction to justice otherwise.

The short story on the following is that these privileges are not gratuitous entitlements but ultimately tied to the care of children and the supporting family structure thereof:

*Privileged income tax status with the IRS
*Exemptions from estate and gift taxes
*Privileged estate trust options
*Automatic priority as conservator for end-of-life decisions and estate planning
*Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits
*Veterans' and military benefits
*Public assistance benefits
*Survivor's benefits under Worker's Comp law
*Less restricted visiting for hospitalized spouses
*Priority for consent for after-death examinations, procedures, funeral arrangements
*Priority for adoption or stepparent guardianship
*Housing benefits for local zoning oridances
*Contractual law benefits for renewing leases, etc.
*Improved rates for various private and semi-private commodities, including joint insurance, tuition, etc.
*Wrongful death standing for lawsuits
*Spousal standing for interference in the marriage
*Spousal privilege protections for confidential communications
*Crime victim's recovery benefits
*Immigration and residency benefits for spouse
*Visitation rights in penitetiaries, asylums, etc.

For example, what is the state's imperative interest in giving a tax deuction to childless couples? In fact, I believe the "marriage tax" is the name given to the HIGHER taxes childless couples pay on a combined income.

The rest we've already beat to death.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com

WoundedEgo said...

I think I'm going to take a needed break.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.com

Shygetz said...

Ditto...I think the meat of our arguments are here for any interested person to peruse.

Jamie said...

All I can say is, Shygetz and others, thanks for your lucid points. "WoundedEgo" is well and accurately named in this debate. I wonder if he realizes how transparent his homophobia is, with his use of words such as "same sex frolicking", reducing relationships to simple hedonism...(and WoundedEgo, "reducing relationships to simple hedonism" are MY words, not me putting words into your mouth...there is a difference in drawing a conclusion from your words and putting words in your mouth, though I've noticed you can't see such differences.)