Are you seriously suggesting that Manhattan private schools feature significant numbers of parents who are unmarried cohabitants? I have never met a single one. Are there any among the partners at Mayer Brown? I doubt it.

Not too many (openly) gay parents, either, but there's more chance of that than of unmarried heterosexual parents.

You are much too quick to brush off the other options, especially the third.

I wouldn't let my child play at the house of a friend whose parents were drug addicts, even if they took "good" care of their child. I wouldn't let my child play at the house of a friend whose parents swore constantly, even if they took "good" care of their child. I wouldn't let my child play at a house that was filthy, or had bad manners, or constantly served unhealthy snacks. I wouldn't let my child play at a house where the parents smoke in front of their children.

Even absent some apparent danger, I would not want my child around adults who display what I consider poor morals, habits, or choices.

You left an important option off the table - the one, in fact, most conservatives will choose:

3) Explain to your child (without any irony or shame): "I know those people seem good and loving. But you should not mimic their lifestyle choices unless you want to eternally burn in a Lake of Fire. Now go sing 'Jesus Loves the Little Children' with your dad and then go to bed."

Children are not steeped in bigotry. They will see happiness and love and assume everything is fine -- as it is.

And if they don't, well then we can always bombard them with "Heather has two mommies" until their attitudes are engineered to our liking.

Please. You are mindreading children, now?

Please. You are mindreading children, now?

Yes. It's not like it's hard. Children take their cues from emotions. They can tell when a household is a happy one, and they respond well.

So, your child walks into his friends house for the first time, and...asks to see his parents' marriage certificate?

Really, how would a child know whether or not a friend's parents were married or just cohabiting, regardless of sexual orientation?

I see a lot of parents here who are very very afraid that their children are easily lead from the right path. If you have so little faith in your children and in your ability to set the proper example for them, there is probably a good reason.
Do you really plan to outlive them and keep them home and cocooned forever?

Eugene,

I think you miss the point of the conservative critique of gay marriage in several ways.

Children, you know, are capable of thinking more than one thing at once. So the kid in situation number 1 could think both (a) "These people are married. They seem happy. I want to be married some day"--which is something conservatives want to encourage in the abstract, and; (b) "The sexuality of married couples does not matter. These people are as happy as my parents. Happiness is good. Therefore, gay marriage is good."

This is the second time you have casually equated the happiness of a same-sex couple with social good. I gather you think same-sex marriage approaches Pareto efficiency. Perhaps it does, but you are not being responsive to the conservative critique. That critique is that gay marriage comes with a cost that outweighs the good it does. I see no way of considering the conservative view of that cost in this model.

For instance, a well-instructed conservative child in situation number 2 might very easily add on "Other times they don't get married, like my friend's parents," by saying "because marriage is not only about love and happiness, but also about other ideas we want to protect by limiting it to men and women. But I'm glad my friends' parents love each other."

You need to deal with the conservative view of marriage on its own terms. Conservatives do not want to encourage their children to think of marriage in the way your question is designed to make them. Nor do they think altering the institution of marriage is without social cost; they think that cost is simply diffuse. But diffuse does not mean small.

I think their case is hard to make, as most Burkean claims are. But I think this question's pretty lame. I guess your hypothetical child #2 never asks his parents why some people get married and others don't? And why would conservative parents of child #1 be pleased to learn that their kid doesn't know the difference between two types of marriage, the one they think is good and the one they think is bad?

So, your child walks into his friends house for the first time, and...asks to see his parents' marriage certificate?

Really, how would a child know whether or not a friend's parents were married or just cohabiting, regardless of sexual orientation?

I can see this when they are younger, but likely by middle school, and definitely by high school, the kids know.

I am not sure though how relevant this is for the younger kids. The problem I see is that there are a lot of families that look good on the outside and not so good on the inside. Indeed, I have seen more than one case where the mother appears overly nice to the kids just to maintain the fiction of the happy family. So, I don't put a lot of stock in the appearance of a happy family in determining where to allow a kid to visit - though I would have second thoughts about an unhappy family. But then, again, I wouldn't keep a kid from visiting a family with same sexed parents, wether married or not.

Isn't that part of my responsibilities as a parent to find out about my child's friends' parents before letting him visit their house?

I would guess that most of those here would agree with that. Even in high school, that was an issue with me, and, indeed, both my ex and I typically knew the parents beforehand, at least somewhat (partially though that was due to the small classes in a private school).

GeorgeH - helping them avoid amorality, sin, bad habits, etc. IS setting a good example for your children.

Do you plan on exposing your child to violence, sexuality, pornography, alcohol, smoking, crime, etc. intentionally just because you think your good example is stronger than temptation?

That sort of thinking is, in my mind, essentially refusing to be a parent. The "I don't need to control my child" line of parental thought is why I quit teaching. As parents, yes, we do need to control our children, and, contrary to what you appear to be assuming, that control slackens as the child ages and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, matures.

One who follows the Christian Bible must necessarily say no to any association with persons committing acts that are immoral

You must lead a very lonely life. Where do you find anyone who doesn't commit "acts that are immoral"? Didn't Jesus seek out people who committed "acts that are immoral"?

(There was a question mark at the end of the sentence I quoted. It looked like a typo. If it wasn't, I apologize.)

"I find homosexuality amoral. I believe it is my duty as a parent to not expose my child to amorality until he is old enough to understand why it is amoral. I'm not "afraid" of anything happening to my son, any more than I am homo"phobic"."

Wow, I never knew until now that not only is being gay an indication of degenercy but that gays, in fact, have no morals at all. Or is just that you haven't gotten to the amoral/immoral chapter in that home schooling text book you're using?

In the time I wrote my post, 22 people posted (many making the same points). I wasn't stealing your ideas-you just wrote faster than I did!

Sk

I contend that conservatives are irrationally biased towards marriage.

The Same-Sex Kobayashi Maru. How interesting.

More tripe from people who know nothing of the subject from the inside. I say that because I suspect I'm the only one here who actually grew up in a household with lesbian parents and had the satisfaction of seeing the responses of other children and their parents to my home life.

No, it wasn't a happy childhood, but it was clear to me my parents' relationship was unhappy largely because they were fearful of being "outed" or found out by the yokels in the neighborhood and at work, and they descended into alcoholism as a result. And yes, people were unhappy enough with this situation to instruct their children, my would-be friends, not to play with me (not just not visit my house, but preferred that I not be in their houses, either b/c I'm that kid from the lezbo house). But all this did was alienate and shame me, and by extension confirm my parents' suspicions about the narrow mindset of their neighbors. In short, the conservative mindset was the very source of their unhappiness and to a large extent my own due to the consequences.

Now to the so-called conservative critique: I have to date never observed a conservative critique of gay marriage. A critique is by definition a thoughtful, usually analytic argument. All conservatives have against gay marriage is a tantrum: "it will weaken the sanctity of marriage!" How exactly? There's never any answer to that follow-up, just the cyclical argument that marriage is between men and women, so if male-only or female-only marriages take place then marriage isn't marriage anymore. If you counter that giving gay couples the exact same legal and economic consequences of male-female marriage but give it another name--unions, whatever--they aren't happy with that. Not good enough. We just cannot extend the same rights to gays, because that might signal that they're somehow equal in the eyes of the law. That might portend the end of all of Western civilization...

Uh, did you really mean to encourage the same kind of transformational evangelism Jesus practiced with regards to homosexuals?

Transformational evangelism Jesus practiced? Are you referring to the healing of the centurion's lover or his promise of blessings to sexual minorities?

Duncan Frissell: I'll certainly try to control my children's friendships with children who really are dangers to them. I realize that even this often isn't easy, but it's necessary.

But to tell a child that he can't go over to a friend's house because the friend's parents are lesbians (or are unmarried or worship idols)???

A well-reasoned argument.

Now, if the anti-gay folks were only reasonable...

Even absent some apparent danger, I would not want my child around adults who display what I consider poor morals, habits, or choices.

So what are you going to do when one of the families you approve of moves away, and the other one goes on vacation?

Seriously, do you have a Play-Date Application Form? Non-smoker, check. Heterosexual, check. No guns in the house, check. First marriage, check. (Don’t want anyone who fits the Biblical definition of adulterer, right? That’s one of the Big Ten.) Goes to the right church, check. (Can’t have just any old Christians.) How many pages?

I hate to break it to you, but every parent in your neighborhood is a sinner. There’s even one that doesn’t obey the “Love your neighbor” rule.

Children can easily understand that child-loving lesbians may be nice, but are not the norm as parents.

Was a time in this country when evangelical Christians were “not the norm,” and were persecuted for worshiping the wrong way.

One who follows the Christian Bible must necessarily say no to any association with persons committing acts that are immoral?

Jesus didn’t. See: tax collector, Samaritan, adulteress.

Does society REALLY have a compelling interest in forcing everyone to be, think, and act the same? I hope not.

Irony alert.

Hmmm, so far the gay couple in the original post have been analogized to parents who are drug addicts, bad housekeepers, smokers, and "cannibalistic headhunters". OK, we get it, you think gays are evil, or at the very least rude. That kind of misses the point of the original post which is to compare two couples who are each presumably upstanding citizens and poster material for a "parents of the year" award. Assuming the gay couple are equally good parents (and yes, I know a lot of the right-wingers will argue this is never possible, but do try to keep with the hypothetical), does it matter to you that they set the example of being good parents while doing so as a married couple or as an unmarried couple?

P.S. I just can't let this issue go ... Trust me, parents can set a lot of bad examples for their kids, and kids can pick up bad habits like smoking, doing drugs, promiscuity, bad language, etc. from their parents (or other role models). But parents (and other role models) do not teach kids to be gay or straight. So rest easy, if your kid happens to have a teacher or coach who is gay, or happens to attend a birthday party thrown by a gay parent, your child is no more or less likely to end up gay or straight (though your child may end up more tolerant; whether that is a good or bad trait is for each parent to decide).

Phoebus, you really must read more if you've never seen a critique of homosexual "marriage."

Eugene, you missed the correct response. The correct response is to teach your child to not taunt the poor friend whose parents are homosexuals. That is considered rude. Also, you can work with them, be friendly with them at school, but don't allow the children to go over that house.

Eight year olds are too young to be dealing with abberant sexuality.

You keep using this word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

If homosexuality is, indeed, amoral (I would support this proposition) then you should not care about exposing your children to it. Perhaps you think that homosexuality is immoral? In that case, go ahead and keep your children away from these agents of the devil lest their souls be corrupted. I doubt you think homosexuals are amoral (completely lacking in morals)? Somehow that doesn't quite match my personal experience.

I'm glad to see so many pro-family voices speaking out on this thread :)

"The Same-Sex Kobayashi Maru. How interesting."

Heh, indeed! But I'd call it same-sex War Games - the only way to win is not to play, ie, not permit the situation to occur in the first place.

It occurs to me that this hypothetical has a lot in common with non-abstinence sex education arguments, condom distribution in schools, etc, etc; the one side argues from a humanistic standpoint, and is most concerned with mitigating the negative consequences of 'sinful' acts; the other argues from a Godly standpoint, and is most concerned with the spiritual consequences of those sinful acts (mitigating the physical consequences is, in fact, counterproductive, because it leads to a larger absolute number of sinners). And never the twain shall meet; for Prof. Volokh, legitimizing gay marriage would lead to happier, healthier gay relationships and more stable families, and should be condoned; for me, 'happier, healthier gay relationships' are a negative, because they encourage more people to form those relationships.

Grange95 wrote:

Assuming the gay couple are equally good parents (and yes, I know a lot of the right-wingers will argue this is never possible, but do try to keep with the hypothetical),

Okay, assuming sulfuric acid isn't corrosive, do try to keep with the hypothetical that it's just as drinkable as water. Sheesh.

Or, assuming an elephant isn't several tons, do try to keep with the hypothetical that they can be carted in the back seat of your prius.

Isn't that part of my responsibilities as a parent to find out about my child's friends' parents before letting him visit their house?

Absolutely but that sort of thing usually doesn't delve too deeply into their sexual proclivities. I mean, do you ask married couples whether they practice 'sodomy' or, worse? It's quite likely, I'm sure that quite a number of your friend's parents do indeed willfully engage in immoral acts such as sodomy.

Anticipating the argument that the sodomy is "invisible" to the child, that doesn't work because the SSM is likewise invisible unless you consider the simple fact that two women were cohabiting to raise a child damning in-and-of-itself. Perhaps they are just friends that have banded together to raise their children because the husbands died? How is that distinguishable from the case of them being married (either in law, or in their minds)?

Grange - no, by providing other examples of behavior I consider immoral, I am not trying to equate degrees of anything.

I'm not sure this is much of an "option," because it relies on several difficult assumptions, and reads more like a trap than a true "hypothetical." (These are on the fly and may not be as carefully considered as I'd like.)

First, there are numerous cohabiting heterosexual couples. A child may current visit a friend's home with cohabiting heterosexual parents and reach the same conclusion.

Second, there are serious doubts that a child would necessarily know the marital status of the parents. It may come up, to be certain, but it requires yet another step in the analysis. As sub-parts to this, a couple may call themselves "married," even if not sanctioned by the State, in a civil ceremony.

Third, it elevates the form of a friend's parents' relationship to that of one's own parents. I think most children are inclined to adopt their own family structure (e.g., children of divorced parents are more likely to see divorce as a "normal" option, etc.). It seems highly implausible to construct a scenario where another's parents, while potentially "normalizing" the scenario, is likely to be placed on equal footing with the own child's parents' relationship.

The dilemma, instead, would be as follows: "Would you like your children exposed to a greater or lesser number of couples who bear the title of 'marriage'?" I think children are always going to be exposed to a given number of cohabiting, non-married couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, just as they'll likely encounter a number of divorced parents, single parents, grandparents functioning as parents, and the like. This question, though, is far more of a trap than an intellectual exercise.

Can anyone think of any other controversial issue that will almost certainly be completely uncontroversial in 25 years (or maybe even 10)? Young people overwhelmingly favor SSM. My question to the conservative opponents above is, do you really want this to be the electoral hill you die on?
The Republican party should drop its anti-gay stance like its going out of style (because it is).

Ahh... but that isn't what will happen. Instead, they'll keep playing to it while it remains a net positive (a few more years), then, as it gets normed, just use it as a dog whistle for their base (for example, no 'preferences
' for gays, no 'San Francisco' values etc.) while keeping it just safe-enough for those not filled with hate to vote for them.

Y'know, just like race! That way, all the libertarians and conservatives can claim to vote for the party of Lincoln, blah blah blah Byrd was a member of the KKK blah blah blah Reagan's choices of words and speech locations were an accident etc. ad infinitum while ignoring their co-voters who don't like the 'welfare queens' or 'crime' and want to 'close the border'.

The fundamental problem is the utter degradation of the institution of marriage as a result of radical tampering over the last century or so. If the lesbian couple (and the heterosexual couple) in your hypothetical were locked into an almost unbreakable commitment that assured they would raise their children, as couples, until the children's majority, and both children and parents would maintain certain moral obligations to each other throughout life then I'd have no problem with the lesbian's entering into a state-recognized, marital contract and raising children.

But in fact, homosexual and lesbian "marriages" are one additional (perhaps penultimate) attack on marriage as a fundamental institution. By further separating marriage from its primary function -- child rearing -- allowing such marriages reduces understanding that the primary reason marriage and kinship are important in society is to allocate responsibility for the rearing and support of children.

Both statistics and personal experience suggest that the "marriages" and domestic unions of lesbians and homosexuals are even less stable than the current marriages and cohabitations of heterosexuals. This all suggests to me that the latest attempt to once again redefine marriage will have the same effect as all the previous reforms, e.g., no-fault divorce. The end result will be a further weakening of the institution that human beings relied on (with very few exceptions) throughout our specie's existence for reproducing the next generation of society. This is not something that is suited for blithe experimentation.

Hmmm. When you ask a small child, "Which stuffed animal do you want to take to bed?" they sometimes aren't bright enough yet to realize that you have intentionally created a limited set of choices to hide the fact that there might be a third option.

A same-sex marriage is like defining a tail as a leg--so how many legs does a horse have?

We are fast reaching the point where nothing short of overthrow of the current homophilic (or is it homoserviant?) power structure is going to solve these problems.

If you guys love the family and marriage so much, how about demanding your politicians end no-fault divorce? The silence on that issue suggests that many of the conservatives here hate gays more than they love marriage. Britney Spears and Liz Taylor have done more to damage marriage than a thousand gays.

Actually, ending no-fault divorce has been a major focus of social conservatives for a number of years, especially if there are small children involved.

And yes, Britney Spears and the rest of liberalism's poster class (Hollywood) has done enormous damage to marriage.

The great danger to the religious objectors' position is that the kids will see the lesbian couple and their children really are a happy family unit. This information has to be withheld from the kids since their parents tell them such a situation is impossible. It's the credibility of the parents that is at stake, and that's why it's vital the kids be kept in the dark.

Elliot, Hardly. Happiness really isn't relevant in these scenarios. I know plenty of people who are happily cohabitating (or who happily engage in any number of morally objectionable behaviors), but that doesn't mean their actions are fine or should be legitimized. If my kids were exposed to that on a regular basis, however, it might start to become normalized for them, and I find that morally problematic.

The fundamental problem is the utter degradation of the institution of marriage as a result of radical tampering over the last century or so.

In my opinion it is the proponents of SSM that honor the institution of marriage far moreso because they see the value in extending to more people. Since when do people that think X is a bad idea ever advocate more of X?

Elliot, Ithaqua, I think the point is that married lesbians are not "happy" in the sense of shooting heroin happy but rather in the "genuinely contented" sense of living the same sort of stable life that you do. I suppose you can argue that they might be unhappy in a lake of fire but that's hardly relevant to the worldly concerns here.

Okay, assuming sulfuric acid isn't corrosive, do try to keep with the hypothetical that it's just as drinkable as water. Sheesh.

Or, assuming an elephant isn't several tons, do try to keep with the hypothetical that they can be carted in the back seat of your prius.

The fact that you say this explains everything one needs to know about objection to same-sex marriage: it's emotional and irrational.

That you would compare two empirically testable concepts—the corrosiveness of acid and the weight of an elephant—to a social concept which states homosexuality is evil proves that religious objection is based on hate and fear and not on logic and the freedom of your fellow man. That you think it is the state’s job to impose your moral vision on your neighbors confirms that you a deeply hateful, manipulative and morally bankrupt person.

I love me some false dichotomies and I love it that libertarians can make common ground with Gramscians in the drive to destroy all the traditional social institutions society has evolved to constrain bad behavior and foster positive growth.

No, we want only to dismantle the traditional social institutions that have evolved to spread bad behavior and discourage growth. Which is another way of saying that your argument comes down to "what you propose is bad for society".

This proves way too much.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4573

Here's a simpler question:

If my child is gay, would I rather that he/she enters into a relationship and lifestyle that looks as close to mine as possible, or into some other arrangement?

For me, that's an easy question to answer. And my guess is that anyone who can even contemplate having a gay child (of course, there are those who can't even imagine that possibility) gets to the same place.

Love this thread. Finally, the real feelings come out in the wash. As I've always suspected, people aren't upset about SSM, they aren't upset about judicial tyranny, and they aren't upset about gays adopting kids.

The only thing that upset them -- very greatly -- is the notion of homosexuality.

To these people, all gays are on par with drug addicts, abusers, and the lowest levels of society. All other issues pale by comparison, and nothing, I mean NOTHING, will disabuse them of this notion. You simply can't talk to them, because they're hearts and minds are closed. Just try to tell them that there are good people who happen to be gay, and they will say no gays can be good people.

These people are the first, of course, to deny that they harbor any anti-gay bigotry. "It's just the truth!" they exclaim, even though they haven't met are real gay person in their entire lives. Or at least gotten to know them.

Of course, they claim that they just have high morals. Indeed. But morality stops at sexuality. They have no problems with adulterers, divorced people, heterosexual people who commit sodomy, thieves, corrupt people, liars and whatever. These people are okay -- as long as they are hetero.

And so, the very worst sin, the very worst, is homosexuality. Once you identify as gay, there simply is nothing you can do, except try very hard to become hetero. And if you fail, well too bad!

Of course, the Ten Commandments didn't list it, and Jesus said the only real commandment is to love one another, but for these people, their Bible has a big asterick at the end of that sentence, and it reads "...except for homosexuals. Those people you can shun, abuse, deny rights to, and hate, and do so with the confidence that you are morally superior, and are doing My Work."

Yup -- it's clear here that the biggest fear that the anti-gay crowd has is that children might actually grow up to learn that what their parents and ministers taught them about gays is actually wrong. And once the kids start asking questions like that, who knows where it will lead?

And you can keep your kid under wraps for a while, but at some point, they grow up. Try telling your teenaged son he can't go to his best friend's house because he's parents are lesbians. Try telling your college-aged daughter. Eventually, they will see though it. And of course, they already are. People under 20 approve of SSM by a wide margin, and it's only growing.

Your third preference might be "I won't let my child play at his friend's house, because he'll be exposed to an immoral living arrangement," but I sure hope it won't be...

That's exactly the option I'll pick. Your "hopes" notwithstanding.

given how cruel it would be to your child and to his friend.

Cruel? Yeah, and I'm the King of Scotland, Ireland, and all of England!

(And would you then do the same as to your child's friends whose mothers are living with their boyfriends, or engaged in other forms of what you see as sexual misconduct?)

Yes.

Skyler,

What's the biological argument for homosexuality being immoral?

One could ask a similar question. Your 8-year-old child has a friend whose parents regularly smoke crack in front of him when he comes to play at the friend's house. What will you tell your child when he asks about...

You think parents who disapprove of crack-smoking as an alternative lifestyle choice would really put their children in the position of asking such questions if they could avoid it?

We are fast reaching the point where nothing short of overthrow of the current homophilic (or is it homoserviant?) power structure is going to solve these problems.

This sounds eerily like some of the more extreme feminist political babble.

Skyler,

What's the biological argument for homosexuality being immoral?

Easy question. Biologically, homosexuality is wrong. To behave in a manner known to be wrong is immoral. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. QED.

Easy question. Biologically, homosexuality is wrong. To behave in a manner known to be wrong is immoral. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. QED.

Skylar I have heard throwing a baseball described as being one of the worst things you can do to you arm. So therefore pitching is biologically wrong and thus baseball is immoral.

Pretty silly argument isn't it.

1) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents are married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, they get married. (I hope I get married one day.)

Or

2) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents aren't married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, sometimes they get married like my parents. Other times they don't get married, like my friend's parents. (One day I may get married and have kids, but maybe I'll just have kids and live with the person I love.)

This is a false choice. The first option links being married with raising your (plural, as in biologically related to both parents) children. The second implicitly decouples marriage from children. It also limits the choice to two options when other options are more likely. For example:

3) When people grow up and love each other, they get married like my parents. But my girlfriend is pregnant, and I'm not really sure we love each other. Until I'm sure, it's not worth the risk. Besides, marriage doesn't mean marrying the mother of my kids and being a father is more important than being a husband anyway. (I want to have kids, but maybe I'll just have kids and live with the person I love.)

More important is the choice my hypothetical son's future girlfriend will make:

4) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents aren't married. When people grow up and want to have kids and a happy home, sometimes they love each other and get married like my parents. Other times they don't get married to their kid's dad, but wait to marry someone they really love, like my friend's parents. (One day I want to get married, but I want to have kids now, and I can still find the person I truly love later.)

Both of these counterexamples are better supported than the two choices EV proposed. They're also supported by CDC stats on unmarried childbearing. Instead of same-sex marriage increasing the number of married families with kids, it will lead more heterosexual couples to just have kids and live with the person they love. It's just that the person they love won't be related to their kids.

Waldo, I think you are a bit hung up on the "biologically related" thing. Children do better when they have two loving parents (the people that raise them) but there is no evidence that links better outcomes with the coincidental fact of whether those two are the biological parents. Lots of people have been raised by their adoptive parents, aunts/uncles, grandparents, family friends without adverse effect.

If a minister or priest refuses to provide a so-called homosexual marriage, then that Priest can be brought up on hate charges on the theory that by performing a public service he's subject to laws against discrimination. Attacking Churches is definitely next. Furthermore, government service will be denied to people who do not tow the line.

Both blatantly illegal policies under current precedent (and not 5-4 precedent either) that I cannot possibly believe will happen nor has anyone here ever advocated.

No matter how much the government puts a gun to my head, I'll never approve of so-called homosexual marriage.

Haha. No one in their right mind even wants that scenario.

I will, as a supporter of SSM, say unequivocally that you have every right to recognize or not recognize any marriage you want for any reason whatsoever. You may express any opinion you want on homosexuality as publicly as anyone else.

Sheesh. At least I have six thousand plus years of Biblical tradition backing up my opposition to homosexuality. All you have is your D+ in Bio 101.

How could you possibly have 6000 years of tradition when the universe is only 5750 years old!

As a biologist, I have no idea where you got the idea at all.

Clearly you missed the class on reproduction then, Oren. There's this thing called a sperm and an egg, and a gamete, meiosis, etc.

Dangermouse, you've hit on a great point. The homosexual lobby has been considerably successful in perverting the meaning of the word "parent" already.

To those who say that the continued warping of our society into having governmental blessings on homosexual "marriages" is inevitable, well, so was the sinking of the Titanic once it hit the iceberg. It's inevitability didn't mean it was a good occasion.

Easy question. Biologically, homosexuality is wrong. To behave in a manner known to be wrong is immoral. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. QED.

"Biologically, homosexuality is wrong": just another way of saying gays are sub-human.

The juices still flow, my friend.

Is cancer wrong? How about Down's syndrome?

Once you use the word wrong, you've made your moral judgment.

Nature, meanwhile, keeps churning out people predestined to have a homosexual orientation. Millions and millions of people, and some animals, too. If biologically, homosexuality is wrong, then nature isn't biological. Wait, that doesn't work. Let's say that nature is creating unnatural outcomes. Therefore nature is wrong. To operate in a manner known to be wrong is immoral. Therefore, nature is immoral. QED.

The preceding paragraph works if you substitute "God" for "nature."

This is why Dick Cheney "threw his daughter under a bus" and declined to clearly state that homosexuality isn't a choice. The antigay arguments reduce pretty quickly to "My God said so! Too bad for you!" otherwise.

Oh, and I think that Al Malvia and PatrickHenry are 100% right. No matter how much the government puts a gun to my head, I'll never approve of so-called homosexual marriage.

I feel confident that I speak for the vast majority of all gay people when I say that I could not care less about your approval. Go put on your white hood and obsess about my sex life to your heart's content. I already know that the world is full of morons and your confirmation of the fact is really quite irrelevant... UNTIL you act on your ignorance in a way that threatens or harms me or my family.

Both blatantly illegal policies under current precedent (and not 5-4 precedent either) that I cannot possibly believe will happen nor has anyone here ever advocated.

Why is it so far out of the range of possibilities? It's already happening. In Britian, a new law has forced the Catholic Church to sever all ties to its adoption agencies and to basically privatize them in order to avoid violating the law that says providers of adoption services have to tow the line. The same thing basically happened in Massachusetts. If adoption is a public service, why isn't performing marriages a public service? The law says that government will recognize as valid a marriage performed by a minister. Why can't they amend the law to say as performed by a minister who does not discriminate? I can definitely even see a liberal judge reading into such current laws an antidiscrimination policy that requires such ministers to not discriminate.

Do you think that those changes will be imposed by some content-based restriction on speech? No. It'll be imposed by a content-neutral requirement to conform to antidiscrimination law. Churches don't have to be tax exempt, you know. The ones that don't conform to antidiscrimination law will be taxed. And the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Churches don't have to be tax exempt, you know. The ones that don't conform to antidiscrimination law will be taxed. And the power to tax is the power to destroy.

As a former seminarian, I think you are mistaken here. The power NOT to tax is the power to silence...

Clearly you missed the class on reproduction then, Oren. There's this thing called a sperm and an egg, and a gamete, meiosis, etc.

Where did you learn biology? I need to know so I can recommend that it's accreditation be removed. Homosexuality is generally considered to be influenced by genetics and thus homosexuality would be considered natural. Of course the fact that a definite answer to the issue hasn't been found will naturally mean that you discount any possiblity of a biological basis.

I can see no logical reason why a man wouldn't be perfectly reasonable in selecting choice three if he had certain beliefs. "Cruel"... what a joke.

Choice three being the not letting your kid play at the other kid's house option

While I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas that moral laws can be inferred from reason, I don't think that biology = natural = morally correct. Animals eat their young, but it doesn't mean man should do it. Genetic diseases occur among man, but it doesn't mean they are good.

I feel confident that I speak for the vast majority of all gay people when I say that I could not care less about your approval. Go put on your white hood and obsess about my sex life to your heart's content. I already know that the world is full of morons and your confirmation of the fact is really quite irrelevant... UNTIL you act on your ignorance in a way that threatens or harms me or my family.


Angelsong: so you are saying that if I disapprove of your "gay marriage" ceremony and refuse to act as photographer, gay people will not file complaints with the Human Rights Commission and fine me? You lie.

Is cancer wrong? How about Down's syndrome?

Absolutely. As soon as you purposefully acquire Down's syndrome then you're in that same ball park. Those diseases, if there were any volition to them, would be immoral. But diseases do not have volition. And are you trying to call homosexuality a disease? Homosexual behavior requires conscious action.

Nature, meanwhile, keeps churning out people predestined to have a homosexual orientation.

This is not proven and is denied by some in the homosexual lobby. Some say it's a choice, some say it is a born trait. In either case, to be homosexual requires action.

If someone is born with the pre-disposition to be homosexual, he still has a choice to behave that way or not.

wm13 - while I'm not gay and I support SSM, I fully support your right to photograph whatever the hell you want without exception. Same thing for the other parade of horribles trotted out -- I will oppose them without exception.

What the hell else do you want?

"If someone is born with the pre-disposition to be homosexual, he still has a choice to behave that way or not."

I hate evo-devo so very much. Biologically, a man is better off if he impregnates as many women as possible (thus increasing the chances of propagating his genes) while a women is better off sleeping only with the best man she can find, no matter how many other women he sleeps with (ditto). Shall we, then, argue that monogamy is 'wrong' and that the proper social structure for human beings is something like the FLDS - a few alpha males 'marry' all the women, while excess young men are thrown out to wander tribeless?

Oren: I disagree that children do equally well regardless of the coincidental fact of whether those two are the biological parents. Yes, people have been raised by their adoptive parents, aunts/uncles, grandparents, family friends without adverse effect. But I believe there is evidence that step-children are more likely to suffer neglect and sexual abuse than children of biological parents. I'll be happy to do some research if you're willing to provide evidence to the contrary. Regardless, these families should not be considered the norm. Once they are then single-parent households are also the norm, and there is evidence that that links single-parent families to worse outcomes.

Shall we, then, argue that monogamy is 'wrong' and that the proper social structure for human beings is something like the FLDS

I don't see anything wrong with that. But the government has no business in the entire subject. And yes, government shouldn't recognize marriage except for the public good of identifying parents and the public policy of encouraging procreation. To that end, so long as parents are identified and can be held responsible for the child, there is no reason for polygamy to be interfered with. It's supposed to be a free country. I would much rather, indeed I would prefer, for the government to not recognize any marriage whatsoever rather than put a public stamp of approval on homosexuality.

So, the choices presented here are no where near adequate. The lame attempt was made by our host to shoe horn people into a choice that supports his view point without acknowleging or recognizing the reason for their fundamental disagreement. Very poor lawyering.

I can see no logical reason why a man wouldn't be perfectly reasonable in selecting choice three if he had certain beliefs. "Cruel"... what a joke.

The kid being raised by a same sex couple is to be shunned for the supposed good of the other children.

Imagine being that kid.

Too bad he's going to end up in a lake of fire. Really, it's a shame.

"The kid being raised by a same sex couple is to be shunned for the supposed good of the other children.

Imagine being that kid.

Too bad he's going to end up in a lake of fire. Really, it's a shame."

Well, it's certainly possible he (the kid) can convert and be saved. It becomes much more difficult for this to happen if society and the other children are telling him that his household is just as right and moral as a genuine family.

Shall we, then, argue that monogamy is 'wrong' and that the proper social structure for human beings is something like the FLDS - a few alpha males 'marry' all the women, while excess young men are thrown out to wander tribeless?

I recall reading in Richard Posner's Sex &Reason that this indeed was what human beings' evolutionary state looked like. And that because only a minority of males hoarded the entire crop of fertile females, homosexuality and other forms of non-procreative sexualities may have an evolutionary basis in some form of "release" for the non-Alpha males who get deprived of female mates.

Skyler, that logic is unsound in the extreme. By that logic, bans on interracial marriage treat the difference races alike.

"According to press reports, Pastor Green condemned homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." His comments were delivered as part of a sermon, drawn from biblical texts, dealing with the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, biblical preaching is now a crime."

You mean the Bible says homosexuality is a cancerous tumor in the body of society? Where?

All this talk about homosexuality being immoral. By what compass? If you suggest the Bible, then I will happily point out that there are a lot of things in the Bible that are considered moral, such as genocide, killing any tribes that seem to threaten to you, incest, lying, sex outside of marriage, and so on, that we would consider rather immoral. Then there are all those things that we are told immoral that we don't have a problem with today, such as graven images (A commandment even!), wearing clothes of mixed fibers, eating shellfish, and so on. So please, let's review that list of morals that the Bible either approves of or condemms, but let's not pick and choose what we like and don't like.

If morality is another issue, the one that philosophers have grappled with for centuries, then let's go at it one by one. There's the morality that if I do no harm to others or society, it's moral. Then there the one that we must do good for each other.

Where exactly does homosexuality fall within any of these? If it's biblical, then I hope you are living a strictly biblical life, or you would pretty much be a hypocrite. If is the philosophers arguements, then you will have a tough time explaining why my love for another man harms you.

But of course, it isn't any of these, is it? Homosexuality is something that you would NEVER do yourself, and so it's so easy to condemn everyone else for it. Divorce? Eh, you might have to avial yourself at some point, and you probably know good moral Christians who are divorced. Adultery? Eh, Jimmy Swaggert committed adultery, but you know, as long as you are hetero and you repent, it's okay. Eating shellfish? Oh, c'mon, God won't mind if you have lobster once in a while!

But homosexuality? Heavens! That's the one issue all of you can get on your high horse and condemn for one reason and one reason only: It's so easy for you do to so.

The principled stand in the photographer case does not in any way change the principled stand in the case of government recognition of gay marriage: the government must treat homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

I fail to see the argument that because Justice Jackson says the government can have no say over the validity of opinions, that government also therefore can have no say over the validity of ACTIONS. He wasn't as dumb as Justice Kennedy.

Well, it's certainly possible he (the kid) can convert and be saved. It becomes much more difficult for this to happen if society and the other children are telling him that his household is just as right and moral as a genuine family.

Shunning isn't cruelty, it's love.

Nice religion you got there.

What's sorta funny about all these comments like this one: " Which, BTW, is why your not getting your grimy paws on my children."

There is this hysteria that if gays come anywhere near their kids, really horrible things will happen.

Gays will destroy America! That's their plan! They won't be happy until every child is gay! Churches must bend to their will! Marriage will collapse! God will rain fire and hell upon us!

And of course, in those places were gays are well accepted, like in certain cities, or places like Canada, Spain, The Netherland, Belgium, and most recently, South Africa, nothing of the sort has happened. (Actually, the Canadian dollar is doing very well against the US). Your kids grow up and see your hyteria for what it is -- just hysteria. Your kids probably already know at least one or two gay kids in their school, and they probably don't think it's a big deal.

A few decades ago, you guys succeeded because you kept the whole issue under wraps. No one could talk about homosexuality. Now, the issue is out in the open. Heck, here on the VC, where any one of your kids may be reading these threads or posting here, we talk about it almost every week.

And that's how we won. We have forced you to talk about the issue on our terms, not yours. You are forced to explain why you hate gays and think we are immoral, and you really don't like that. Years ago, everyone just assumed gays are bad and immoral -- now you have to come up with reasons.

More, young people no longer accept the tyranny of being closeted. The worst thing for any gay person is to feel they are alone in the world. but the more the issue is talked about, they more they realize that they are NOT alone, and they aren't perverted like you say they are. And there are many gays who are out and happy and living normal lives, despite what you say.

And that encourages them to come out. And once out, there is no going back in, despite the wishes of some of you. And the more of us that are out, the more the rational sane people of the world see that we are not like what you say we are. We are just normal everyday people trying to make a living, feeding our cats, renovating our houses, paying our bills, and singing show tunes. (Okay, I'll admit singing show tunes is NOT exactly normal.)

So that's why you are losing. That's why most cities have legal protections so that you can't fire us from a job or evict us for our apartments just because we are gay. It's why you can't get an marriage amendment through congress. It's why there is even money on the CA initiative to over the Supreme court's decision that allow SSM. You guys just can't believe that the rest of the heteros in the world would actually think gays are not a real problem. Young people, by a wide margin, approve of SSM. Indeed, they can't think of a single reason why they should oppose it. You've lost. It's only a matter of time now before we get our rights. Then you'll have to find someone else to feel morally superior to.

And so the hysteria. I'm sure some of you actually believe the stuff that you spout off. But to normal people, which is the majority of Americans, its gets pretty thin after a while. And when your dire predictions don't come true, people will consign anti-gay bigotry to the dustbin of history.

And when your dire predictions don't come true, people will consign anti-gay bigotry to the dustbin of history.

Dire predictions notwithstanding, do you condemn in no uncertain terms the prosecutions I mentioned above?

wm: "Oren: What the hell else do I want?"

Something tells me that even if Oren does everything that you want, you STILL won't be happy. Am I right?

All this hysteria over just a handful of people in the world! Aren't we less than 1% of the population? What power we have -- just one gay couple getting married can destroy an institution thousands of years old! Just being an out gay person will turn all other children into homosexual predators! We can overturn the US Constitution and 200 years of free speech with just one lawsuit!

Fortunately, most other Americans are far more rational. Gay issues, including SSM, are near the bottom of every polling asking for what's important to America today. They are basically immune to your shrillness -- you can only cry wolf so many times before people go back to work.

But as to Eugene's original question, I find it easy to avoid (public) lewd cohabitors (of any sexual or affectional preference) as friends for my children. I just stick to social groups in which such persons are rare.

Remind me to skip the next party at the Frissell residence.

Which choice do you think best fosters a pro-marriage mentality on your child's part, even if you think it's extremely likely that your child will himself grow up straight?

This strikes me as framing the issue too narrowly since there are broader considerations involved with SSM. With those considerations in mind, I'd favor option #2 with an explanation to my child about why certain parents are not married.

As for whether the other family should be shunned entirely, I would find it difficult to punish (in effect) the child of a same-sex couple (who doesn't get to choose his parents) who might very well face an extraordinary degree of hostility and social isolation by other children and their parents (much in the same way that bastard children used to suffer excessively for the behavior of their parents).

I think people are leaping to a conclusion that the government can decide who is "married." The government's decisions can impact how society views particular relationships, but it doesn't have the final say. People without marriage certificates can hold themselves out as married (and some places that is enough for legal recognition). EV's hypothetical gay couple can act as if they are married if they want, regardless of what the state says. Similarly, the fact that the state says that they are married doesnt force other people to recognize their relationship as a true marriage.


I dont think I would necessarily prevent my children from going to play at a house a gay couple lived (not that this comes up much in the Virginia suburbs). They would understand that this couple is not married according to our beliefs. Of course, a lot would depend on the couple in question. If they thought that belonging to our church, for example, was the equivalent of wearing a white hood, then that would be a dealbreaker.

Oh, and I think that Al Malvia and PatrickHenry are 100% right. No matter how much the government puts a gun to my head, I'll never approve of so-called homosexual marriage.

Trust me, you are not alone.

Randy, you really would have a lot more credibility here if you weren't so enamored of creating straw men. To your credit, I think you're smarter than that but you also seem lazy.

His argument was indeed a straw man but no more so than your assertion that European-style speech restrictions are coming to the states.

How brave!

Hey, proclaiming your courage in the face of non-existent dangers sounds fun -- can I play, too? "No matter how much they torture me, I will never tell alien invaders from Neptune where we keep the good scotch."

Your condescension rings hollow. Some here have enough foresight to see what is coming. We already have documented examples of members of the homosexual mafia lashing out at anyone who doesn't bow to their agenda.

His argument was indeed a straw man but no more so than your assertion that European-style speech restrictions are coming to the states.

Assertion? Did we not just go over the New Mexico prosecution? I think it's the beginning. You're already playing defense on this one, Oren.

If you were sincere, you wouldn't be fighting so hard to force others to recognize and approve of your relationship. The word "marriage" wouldn't matter.

It's not "others", it's the official government policy that's really the matter.

Note, that I'm fine with the gov't giving everyone civil unions and letting the marriage question sort itself out via private individuals.

You thought you did? Please, humor us and repeat it. Do you mean you said it's "biologically wrong"? That's not the same thing as immoral. It's also a totally meaningless.

Steve in CA,

There are differing theories of morality so I can't speak for anyone else but I think that homosexuality is immoral because it undermines the traditional family and the importance of motherhood and fatherhood. Every child has a Natural Right for a mother and a father. Homosexual couples that obtain children are especially damaging to children because they deny children this fundamental natural right. Homosexual acts are also immoral because it is a sexual relationship unsupportive of the traditional family. Unlike man-woman relationships (which might include possibly infertile people), homosexual relationships do not create a family and do not reinforce the important dualistic concepts of motherhood and fatherhood (and their various derivations, such as grandparenthood, unclehood, aunthood, etc) in society that are necessary to raise children. Traditional relations between men and women include an openness to reproduction and the raising of family, which are solidifying concepts of society and human civilization. Furthermore, on an individual level, traditional sexual relations between men and women, when open to reproduction (noncontraceptive) helps remove the baser instincts of sexual objectification to grow a higher value of being loved for willingness to be a mother or a father.

That's one part of why homosexual relations are immoral.

"Humans are mammals. Mammals reproduce sexually. To be homosexual is incorrect as a human being. To purposefully do that which is incorrect is immoral."

Humans are omnivores. Omnivores eat both plant and animal matter. To eat a vegan diet is incorrect as a human being. To purposefully do that which is incorrect is immoral.

Therefore, veganism is as immoral as homosexuality. :)

Danger Mouse,

Do you think a child is more deprived by living with stable, loving same-sex parents or self-absorbed, abusive traditional parents? Because the profile of same-sex adopters tends to be pretty good (gender and sexual orientation aside), and the alternatives for many kids who aren't adopted, and even some who are, is pretty hairy. I'm not suggesting every adoption choice is that black and white, but just so we understand the extent or your objection to same sex adoption, would you prefer a kid be consigned to the kind of revolving door, Lord of the Flies environment typical of many foster homes?

Humans are mammals. Mammals reproduce sexually. To be homosexual is incorrect as a human being. To purposefully do that which is incorrect is immoral.

This is sort of a very crude statement of the Thomistic natural law. Such a theory by the way articulated far more eloquently by natural law scholars (i.e., Robert P. George, John Finnis in the modern age tracing back to Thomas Aquinas, and through him back to Aristotle) also holds contracepted heterosexual sex to equally violate nature, because quite frankly it does.

So I guess Skyler and his wife don't use contraception or else they are the moral equivalent of homosexuals?

Do you think a child is more deprived by living with stable, loving same-sex parents or self-absorbed, abusive traditional parents?

LM, let me point out that before responding, your question is inherently an unfair question because it assumes the best about the homosexual couple (for the last time, ONE of them is not a parent!) while the faults of the traditional parents are left open to the horrors your imagination can conceive. This question is asked in varying forms but always includes that fault, that the horrors of the traditional couple are always vaguely unsaid, and therefore, inflated by the imagination. There is no baseline comparison in this type of question.

Whether a child is "more deprived" of something because he lives with X type of people is the wrong focus of the issue. The issue is whether the actions the X type of people are engaged in are moral. Adoption is a nice way to blur the issue, but I'd no more be satisfied placing a child with a couple of thieves, or a couple of serial adulterers, or a homosexual couple. All engage in immoral actions. Besides, as you know, adoption is always a tough subject and hard cases make bad law. The focus of adoption agencies should be trying to provide the best homes for children involving a mother and a father. If the foster care system is screwed up, that's not another reason to turn a child over to another screwed up situation (notwithstanding some media-driven supposedly good profile).

Children have a natural right for a mother and a father. It's just that simple.

Clayton blithely claims... {Actually, ending no-fault divorce has been a major focus of social conservatives for a number of years, especially if there are small children involved. }

Bull. When was the last time a conservative leader proposed a constitutional amendment concerning this? When was the last important article on this subject in the National Review? The last policy speech at AEI?

This is hypocracy. There are lots of divorced conservatives. Gays are an easy target, and SSM is such a tempting way to take a bead on them.

I want you to say that AngelSong is a liar when he (or she) claims to speak for the vast majority of gay people

unless i missed a math class somewhere, "vast majority" does not equal "all". you might have a point if several tens of thousands of gay people were suing that photographer*, but, IIRC, it was only 2 people...a far cry from the several million gay people in the US.

*i sure wouldn't want to be the photographer at that wedding. you'd be there for weeks just photographing the newlyweds alone!

To respond to Skyler:

It is documented that bonobos (mammals like us) engage in homosexual sex. To say that homosexual sex is "wrong" or "incorrect" biologically has two meanings, as far as I can tell. The first is that homosexuality doesn't occur in a natural setting, which is empirically false. The second is that homosexuality exists but that nature made some kind of mistake in allowing it.

The second is at least worth entertaining, but it's not an easy argument for a non-religious person to make. For atheists, nature is amoral. All we can say about the natural world is what we can observe. And we unquestionably observe homosexuality in some contexts in the natural world. Kissing also is a sexual act that doesn't seem to aid the goal of reproduction and there have been some societies (most famously, the Lapps of northern Finland) where it has not been practiced. Is kissing also "biologically incorrect"? Perhaps another mistake of nature that gave us just a little too many nerves and sensory glands on or near our lips?

Even for a religious person, it requires imputing motives to the design of the natural world -- something that runs into uncomfortable questions when it comes time to explain earthquakes, the plague virus or the vicious fratricide of tiger sharks.

Finally, it simply doesn't follow that all incorrect actions are morally wrong.

Deliberately obtuse, Oren stirred up:

You realize you just called every Catholic priest immoral right?

Are you REALLY a law professor?

something that runs into uncomfortable questions when it comes time to explain earthquakes, the plague virus or the vicious fratricide of tiger sharks.

I'd say if you consciously and deliberately cause an earthquake, you're on pretty shaky moral grounds as well.

Oren

> Justice Jackson would think so

Actually, wrong. Justice Jackson, as the quote itself indicates, says that the government can’t force you to pledge allegiance to a specific doctrine. And indeed, the case was about forcing children to take the pledge of allegiance.

But the government has the ability to have an opinion and to express that opinion. If the government can’t even express a preference, then I guess every time any president has used the bully pulpit, it was unconstitutional. Every federal holiday is unconstitutional. Every congressional resolution praising one principal or denouncing another is unconstitutional.

But of course if that was the principle, then Rust v. Sullivan would not have come out the way it did.

Randy R.

> All this talk about homosexuality being immoral. By what compass? If you suggest the Bible...

How happily fascist of you to suggest that people can’t interpret the bible for themselves and advocate that interpretation. And yes, that is what you are doing, when you defend the prosecution of a minister or priest for preaching his interpretation of faith.

> If you suggest the Bible, then I will happily point out that there are a lot of things in the Bible that are considered moral

Now you are going to tell me how to interpret my Bible?

> There's the morality that if I do no harm to others or society, it's moral. Then there the one that we must do good for each other./Where exactly does homosexuality fall within any of these?

Well, let’s put your morality to the test. If those are the only moral principles you follow, then answer the following:

1. Do you condemn incest? Why or why not? Does it change anything if we are talking about two brothers committing it?

2. Do you condemn (adult) polygamy? Why or why not?

3. Do you condemn bestiality? Why or why not? If you condemn it on the theory that you are harming the animal, do you also condemn abortion, which is also killing something that our courts have declared to be something other than a person? Why or why not?

As I said the last time we clashed, you will be hard pressed to avoid a result that doesn’t either 1) justify those behaviors above, or 2) denounces them by citing principles that can just as easily be cited against homosexuality.

And here’s a bonus question:

4. In a society that depends on a high birth rate to maintain government subsidies, doesn’t it “harm society” to enter into a long term relationship where actual reproduction is the exception, not the rule?

> If it's biblical, then I hope you are living a strictly biblical life, or you would pretty much be a hypocrite.

Which the average liberal believes is the worst crime of them all, but it isn’t. Let me illustrate in a concrete example. Thomas Jefferson gets bludgeoned for his hypocrisy, for he meant to denounce slavery in the Declaration of Independence, but kept slaves. But which is worse? Jefferson, who held slaves, but put into our Declaration of Independence words that denounced slavery and may have hastened its demise? Or the unrepentant, unconflicted slaveholder? Jefferson’s expounding of those principles of freedom was his great saving grace, not the reason to damn him.

> Divorce? Eh, you might have to avial yourself at some point, and you probably know good moral Christians who are divorced.

You misunderstand the moral issue there. Divorce is a sin, as is any intentional killing. But the moral blame for the divorce, or an intentional killing, is not always on the person who commits the coup de grace. In the case of intentional killing, if you kill a man to defend your life, or the life of someone else, the sin lies not on you, but on the person who made it necessary to kill. In the case of divorce, if you are Tina Turner and you divorce Ike because he was an abusive bastard, the fault lies on Ike, not Tina. Maybe the law has stopped recognizing fault, but good morals haven’t.

Oh, and if no one is to blame for the divorce, then that means the sin is on both of you. Now, the law has stopped recognizing that principle, but the reason for doing so was the concern that basing the right to divorce on fault led to behaviors that caused marriage to disintegrate. In other words, the shift to no-fault was promised to reduce divorce rates. And we can see how well that has worked out.

> Adultery? Eh, Jimmy Swaggert committed adultery

I am sorry, are you saying that Christians DON’T condemn adultery? Or are you forgetting your own point in a bash Christians and paint them all with a broad brush rant?

Or are you just opposed to forgiveness? Admittedly, I don’t forgive Swaggert, but that has to do with the sincerity of his repentance. If you want to convict his followers for his naivete, I would have to agree, but really, if you were already a regular viewer who regularly donated to him, you were almost by definition naive. If you were naive enough to give him your cash, giving him your forgiveness is nothing more than doubling down.

And the ability to repent (honestly) is not limited or even unique to adultery. So if you happened to be gay (I honestly don’t know if you are or not), and decided to repent, sincerely, I would offer you forgiveness too. Ditto for murderers, rapists, and so on.

And for bonus points, in the bible, homosexuality IS adultery, at least when you act on it.

> Eating shellfish?

If you actually read the bible, especially the new testament, you will understand why Christians can eat shellfish. Which then exposes your claim to biblical scholarship above for the shallow attack it was.

So much for the tolerance of the left. You justify a fascist suppression of religious freedom and just plain free speech, based in part on a profound ignorance of Christians and Christian doctrine.

Later you say this to another poster:

> You realize you just called every Catholic priest immoral right?

I won’t call it immoral to live a life of celibacy—its hard to call a person immoral for not doing something. But I will call it abnormal and unhealthy for the person. And yes, even for Catholic priests. In case you didn’t know this, there are Christians who protest against Catholic doctrine. They are called... Protestants! (More proof of your mastery of Christian doctrine, that you don’t seem to know that protestants exist, or that one of the big points of departure for Protestants is the concept of a celibate ministry—I don’t believe any other denomination of Christianity espouses that doctrine.) Before we married, my Catholic wife told me that she thought that if we ever had any marital problems, that her priest would be our marriage counselor. I said to her, “um, honey, isn’t a priest, you know, fundamentally unqualified for the job?” By contrast, at my Presbyterian church at the time, not only were our ministers married, but they were married to each other, my joke being that if the man said anything stupid, the woman would correct him. I would take their marital advice over my wife’s priest any day of the week.

And on a more serious note, this may be the real reason for the pedophile priest scandal. But first, I have to clear out some misconceptions here. First, there are a lot of idiots who think Catholic priests are more likely to be pedophiles. In fact, in terms of percentages, a protestant minister is just as likely as a Catholic priest to be a pedo (I have not seen comparisons to rabbis or imams, so I can’t speak to that issue). The real problem and the real scandal is that the priests were not promptly removed, but instead shuffled around, based on naively offered forgiveness. Second, I am not saying that if you are celibate, you will go pedo. But it is often argued that part of the reason why these priests were shuffled around rather than kicked out entirely is because their bosses were celibate, too, and therefore didn’t have children of their own, and therefore didn’t take the fear that the children would be harmed as seriously as they would have if they were parents. I don’t know if that is true or not, but it sure as hell sounds plausible.

And another comment to someone else:

> Also, I'm afraid that you entirely miss the point of natural selection.

Mmm, now having told us the one true interpretation of the Bible, you will seek to tell us the meaning of the Origin of Species, too. In natural selection reproduction is king. If a trait does not help you to successfully reproduce—that is produce offspring that in turn produces offspring—then is not promoted by natural selection. Which begs the question: if being gay is an irresistible impulse, etc. then how come there are so many of you around? If you compare that to other unquestionably genetic traits that eliminates or seriously impairs one’s ability to reproduce, you will see that the gay population is very large for an uncontrollable trait.

If on the other hand, it is a choice, well, then, why shouldn’t we say it is the wrong one?

The good news is from an evolutionary point of view, in about 30 years, we can settle this. In 30 years, homosexuality will either be virtually extinct, or thriving. If thriving, then it will settle that whole nature v. nurture debate, in favor of “nurture” and the courts will recognize that we can and should encourage people to be straight.

Look up "non-sequitur", then reread what I posted.

1st, I know what "non-sequitur" means. 2nd, you suggesting that something fits that definition doesn't make it so.

First off your list includes several non-religious institutions

Irrelevant. My point was that members of the homo-mafia are attacking others for refusing to bow to the agenda.

(and in fact none are churches per se)

Are you familiar at all with the circumstances surrounding the The California Lutheran High School Association case? In which a RELIGIOUS, PRIVATE school was sued for expelling 2 lesbian students for violation of the code of conduct, a code of conduct which was expressly religious.

and these are not germane to the question of what obligations churches have to follow non-discrimination laws.

How is that?

Churches qua churches have much wider latitude to discriminate in their core practices due to the First Amendment. They can, for example, exclude members on the basis of race and (duh!) religion. They can exclude people from their clergy on the basis of gender.

So why don't you support first amendment rights in the cases that I mentioned?

Again, where are the lawsuits forcing the RCC to ordain women or marry the divorced? Get back to me when that happens.It's the valid analogy here.

Sorry, you don't get to determine what is a "valid analogy" and dictate the terms of the debate.

Would you say I'm a bigot because I think incest is immoral?

Counter Question: Would you say I'm a bigot if I thought Judaism was immoral?

Many people see homosexuality as immoral, for both religious and non-religious reasons, without spewing hate.

Many people see Judaism as immoral, for both religious and non-religious reasons, without spewing hate.

In a pluralistic society, we have to deal with people who have different views of morality. What about homosexuality makes you think that it's appropriate for government to impose discrimination against it? What about homosexuality makes it different than, say, Judaism or Islam, so that you would discriminate against it socially.

I don't expect you to practice Islam, but I do expect you to let Muslims be Muslims. Likewise, I don't expect you to engage in gay sex or to marry someone of the same sex, but I do expect you to let gay people be gay people.

Let gay people tend to their marriages, houses, lawns, neighborhoods, and children. We can argue about whether anti-discrimination laws unfairly impose on you, but letting the two gay men across the street from me marry doesn't hurt my marriage or me in any way. And it wouldn't hurt you, either.

Are you familiar at all with the circumstances surrounding the The California Lutheran High School Association case? In which a RELIGIOUS, PRIVATE school was sued for expelling 2 lesbian students for violation of the code of conduct, a code of conduct which was expressly religious.

Who won. Nearly anyone can sue nearly anyone else for nearly any reason, good or bad. The question is whether they can win.

I knew I wouldn't find the good comments at the top. Scroll on down and what do I find? "Homo-mafia."

Priceless!

But the government has the ability to have an opinion and to express that opinion. If the government can’t even express a preference, then I guess every time any president has used the bully pulpit, it was unconstitutional. Every federal holiday is unconstitutional. Every congressional resolution praising one principal or denouncing another is unconstitutional.

I have no problem with the government stating that it prefers DSM over SSM but to enforce that provision by law is entirely different than "expressing an opinion".

Of course, nonsense about the President's use of the bully pulpit is just another red herring (among many).

Skyler says:

Humans are mammals. Mammals reproduce sexually. To be homosexual is incorrect as a human being. To purposefully do that which is incorrect is immoral.

Humans are mammals. Mammals reproduce sexually. Homosexuals cannot reproduce sexually. Homosexuals are therefore not mammals. Homosexuals are therefore not humans.

For those who think that the above analogy applies to priests and vegetarians:

It might very well apply. I wouldn't push it that far because there's a big difference between taking a positive action and refraining from taking an action.

But even if you accept that stretch of the rule, it's still sufficient for the argument because people have a right to be homosexual or vegetarian. They just don't have the right to use government force to require others to accept their behavior.

Humans are mammals. Mammals are polygamous. Monogamy is defective.

There are some very valid religious freedom arguments that anti-discrimination laws should not apply to religious institutions, but declaring that a "homo-mafia" exists because some unspecified teacher allegedly sued some unspecified school in California at some unspecified time on some unspecified grounds is just silly.

I listed several examples. E-Harmony, Elane Photography, The Boy Scouts, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, The California Lutheran High School, The University of the Cumberlands. This is not an isolated occurrence.

I might add in North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court.

These are not made up cases, perhaps you should research them before making your comments.

I already can tell that you know nothing about any of the cases, you comments betray you. For instance, the California School case did not involve a teacher. It involved two lesbian students who were expelled for violation of the student code of conduct.

"If you told me that it's wrong of me to lie, I wouldn't assume that you hate me, only that you believe lying to be immoral."

But if you passed laws against liars, made it illegal for liars to get married or to adopt, vilified them publicly and frequently, and generally made liars social outcasts, then you might assume the hate -- as well you should!

"traditional sexual relations between men and women, when open to reproduction (noncontraceptive) helps remove the baser instincts of sexual objectification to grow a higher value of being loved for willingness to be a mother or a father."

You are assuming two things here:

1. That straight couples -- but only those who want to have children -- are never married because they are attracted, physically, to one another, but rather are only loved for the others' ability to conceive children; and
2. That homosexual couples are only ever concerned with how physically attractive their partner is.

Both assumption are incorrect. They say more about you than any hypothetical gay couple ...

Thanks Bob Van Burkleo, you just proved my point about the homo-mafia wanting to force their agenda on those with contrary religious and moral standards.

PatrickHenry: "Thanks Bob Van Burkleo, you just proved my point about the homo-mafia wanting to force their agenda on those with contrary religious and moral standards."

Dude, he just showed you very plainly why every one of your examples is BS! None of them show what you think they show! What do you need? Your infuriating inability to participate in a rational discussion feels very typical of a 12-year-old. How old are you? Is this seriously the best you can do? Because it's not impressive in the least, and it's certainly not going to convince anyone of anything. You realize that, right? So why the bloviating?

If you want to talk about mafia-like behavior, look at some anti-gay Episcopalians, who are intentionally affiliating with a Nigerian bishop who wants to put gay people in prison just for being gay. Worse, they are affiliating with him specifically because of his anti-gay views.

Skylar: "You're asking that they get special treatment. You're asking the government to allow people to "marry" the same sex. That is special treatment. They are already allowed to marry the opposite sex. That is neutral treatment. "

Actually, just the opposite. In California now, heterosexuals such as yourself now have the ability to marry either a person of the opposite sex, or a person of the same sex. So you are treated exactly the same as any homosexual person because I too have the exact same ability -- I can marry a person of the opposite sex, or of the same sex.

Where is the disparate treatment?

That is neutral treatment.
So the government showing favoritism towards a certain group is "neutral"? I hate to use the cliche, but I don't think that word means what you think it means.

E-Harmony, Elane Photography, The Boy Scouts, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, The California Lutheran High School, The University of the Cumberlands. This is not an isolated occurrence.

I might add in North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court.

These are not made up cases, perhaps you should research them before making your comments.

I already can tell that you know nothing about any of the cases, you comments betray you. For instance, the California School case did not involve a teacher. It involved two lesbian students who were expelled for violation of the student code of conduct.

But these cases don't go very far in supporting your argument that gays will be able to legally force churches into marrying them.
* The Boy Scouts won on first amendment freedom of association grounds.
* The California Lutheran High School won on first amendment freedom of religion grounds.
* The Elane Photography case is dumb and pernicious. However, Elane Photography is not a church or religious organization I still think it was an awful case--if I were the lesbian couple I'd have chosen a different photographer, made sure all my guests knew, maybe emailed all my friends and acquintances to tell them to avoid Elane Photography, and maybe even sent a letter to the local newspaper or taken out an ad describing Elane Photography's bigoted refusal to photograph my wedding, but I never would have sued, and I wish they'd lost and think they should have.
* The eHarmony case is also dumb and pernicious, and also like Elane Photography, eHarmony is not a not a church or religious organization. But again, the Chemistry.com approach to dealing with this issue was far better: placing web ads inviting people who had been turned down by eHarmony--including gays and lesbians--to use their service instead. And fact is, there are gay profile sites out there that limit their memberships similarly. EHarmony should win for the same reasons the Boy Scouts won, and I hope they do.
* The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association case is still in process, but it seems to be boiling down to the issue of whether the church can claim the boardwalk as a public accommodation for tax purposes but a private religious structure for the purpose of permitting or forbidding public ceremonies. It would seem to me that they would have to choose one or the other.
* The University of the Cumberlands case is pretty much the same. You can't take public funds that come with a proviso specifying that you won't discriminate and then turn around and claim the right to discriminate. Again, either you're a public university that takes public funds and follows state and federal non-discrimination laws, or you may remain a private organization and follow whatever rules you prefer (though it is still highly suspect to apply new rules involving same-sex-orientation status without grandfathering in already-enrolled students).

Thanks for the more knowledgeable updates. I didn't recall that the Boy Scout case rested on a religious claim. I thought it was just freedom of association as a private organization.

Yes, not in the court presentation but in documents they provided to the court they claimed they were a religious organization... In retrospect they would have been able to prevail with just claiming they were a private organization but they now get to lie in the bed they made.

Several BSA pundits (yes they exist) agree that they should just stop whining and do just that - fund themselves, quit expecting to be on the public dole and make peace with the situation they chose. You don't see DeMoley, Baptist Youth Fellowships, or other such youth groups thinking they should be getting public property at $1 a year do you? They know there would be strings going with such handouts and the BSA should too.

Heterosexuals have the "extra" benefit of being allowed to form a special type of contract called "marriage".

SSM has never been outlawed in any jurisdiction covered by the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. These days, you can get married in an Episcopal cathedral with a priest or priestess dressed in gold vestments. Sacred Music, The 1662 Book of Common Prayer, full sacramental ceremony. Sounds like a marriage to me.

All that's missing is government recognition and you can get that in MA or CA these days. In the old days you could get it by using the California private marriage system or by the use of gender disguise. No prob.

Really I did?

Yes you did.

I see groups trying to force their religions on other law-abiding citizens and they have no right to do so. People have a right to practice their religion, not treat others as if they shared its tenets.

What? Are you insane? E-Harmony is forcing it's religious views on others by not offering a same-sex dating option?

Elane Huguenin was forcing her views on the lesbian deviants by refusing to photograph them?

No, the reverse is true.

You must have missed all the theo-mafia acts that caused the responses...

What acts? Holding to the tenents of a deeply held religious belief which states not to associate with those in darkness?

Take me for instance - I can't sin, I can't perform an immoral act. Neither concept even has a place in my personal religious paradigm. While you may think you sin it would be totally inappropriate for you to think that I do or that I am behaving immorally - that would be projecting your religious standards upon myself, a religion I do not share. If you did so and assaulted me upon these inappropriate projections (which are exactly what happened in a number of the above cases) wouldn't you expect me to react in my self-defense?

You pretending you can't sin doesn't change reality. As for your last contention, I'll throw it right back at you. Wouldn't you expect me to react in my self-defense when you attempt to force me to act contrary to my religious belief?

In reality, that's where this is all heading.

The Liberty Tree Thirsts.

Who's forcing what on whom? You have this exactly backwards! If you think that, because your religion has a positive duty to kill nonbelievers, and those nonbelievers do not want you to kill them (and take you to court to keep you from killing them), that they are therefore infringing on your religious freedom? You can't be that obtuse ...

Forget to take your pills? It's the homo-mafia who is trying to use force to force believers to act against their deeply held religious belief. Not the other way around.

Query:

Would most conservatives prefer that their son be married to a man or be cohabitating with a woman? And similarly for a daughter.

Others have already answered your other complaints

What acts? Holding to the tenents of a deeply held religious belief which states not to associate with those in darkness?

Absolutely - as long as they are law-abiding citizens and these people are offering public accommodations they have no such right of 'non-association' in the public sector by qualities covered by civil rights statutes.

Wouldn't you expect me to react in my self-defense when you attempt to force me to act contrary to my religious belief?

Actually I wouldn't expect an American to hold a religious belief that required them to act contrary to American ideals - I mean religion is a choice. If your religion requires you to act in unAmerican ways maybe its time you moved or got with the program?

Public_defender

> Let gay people tend to their marriages, houses, lawns, neighborhoods, and children. We can argue about whether anti-discrimination laws unfairly impose on you, but letting the two gay men across the street from me marry doesn't hurt my marriage or me in any way. And it wouldn't hurt you, either.

So if I understand you correctly, you are going to the libertarian theory that if it doesn’t harm you, then you don’t believe the government should intervene.

Fair enough, but do you really want to take that theory to its end result? You say Bob and Bill marrying doesn’t hurt you. But what if they are actually brothers? In other words, what if we are talking about homosexual incest? I don’t see how I am personally harmed by that, except in that it harms the reputation of marriage, which you don’t seem to care about. So you would let two brothers marry?

And yeah, that puts you on the horns of a dilemma. You can either be pro-gay-incest, or you have to admit that your harm analysis is not really workable as a dividing line between behavior you want to permit, and that which you wish to ban.

Similar problems arise in polygamy.

And in a less straightforward way, bestiality is more problematic on close examination, for most libertarians are also pro-choice on abortion (although I admit if you were pro-life, bestiality would suddenly be an easy issue for you). But assuming you are pro-choice how can you concern yourself with harm to animals, but not to something that is human genetically, and quickly approaching humanity in all features, especially intelligence? (And the dominion over your body theory doesn’t work, because we don’t allow a person to kill a conjoined twin just to be free of the burden of attachment.)

The dirty little secret of all of this is that the real reason why most libertarians support gay rights is because they just feel differently about homosexuality than polygamy, gay incest and bestiality. Fair enough, but that means it is equally valid to reach a different conclusion and for their beliefs to be reflected in the law, as 51% of the Californian people did.

Oren

> I have no problem with the government stating that it prefers DSM over SSM but to enforce that provision [preference? --A.W.] by law is entirely different than "expressing an opinion".

You act as though the law does something more than send an anti-gay-marriage message. But that forgets that the California Supreme Court found that Domestic Partnership status was exactly identical to marriage in every way but name. And thus the only possible harm suffered by the gay community was the stigma—in other words, the message that the law sends. Thus on these facts, all this is, is a matter of what message the state sends. So in fact, it is NO DIFFERENT than “expressing an opinion.”

How can you possibly pretend that on one hand the plaintiffs are harmed purely by the message the law sends, and then say that the law doesn’t merely send a message. If it did more than send a message, then it would be a harm greater than sending a message.

Randy R.

> I myself interpret the Bible as having little or nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality.

You mean, besides Leviticus? Good to know. Besides it is exceedingly clear you are only pretending to have read the thing, or else you would know the answer the shellfish issue. Of course, you are free to say any stupid thing you want about the bible, and I have a right to call you out for that B.S., as I did.

> we can all interpret the Bible anyway we wish... So for you to conclude that I'm immoral means that you are condemning MY interpretation of the Bible, which is precisely what you believe should not be done.

No, what I spoke out against was your support for the fascist suppression of religious expression. But it is not a violation of your right to religious expression, to denounce another person's interpretation. That’s called the marketplace of ideas.

> And we can find our own moral compass any way that we wish.

But you couldn’t put that morality to my simple test. Here, I will repeat it:

> Well, let’s put your morality to the test. [you said you believed we should “do good to each other” and avoid harming each other.] If those are the only moral principles you follow, then answer the following:

> 1. Do you condemn incest? Why or why not? Does it change anything if we are talking about two brothers committing it?

> 2. Do you condemn (adult) polygamy? Why or why not?

> 3. Do you condemn bestiality? Why or why not? If you condemn it on the theory that you are harming the animal, do you also condemn abortion, which is also killing something that our courts have declared to be something other than a person? Why or why not?

> As I said the last time we clashed, you will be hard pressed to avoid a result that doesn’t either 1) justify those behaviors above, or 2) denounces them by citing principles that can just as easily be cited against homosexuality.

> And here’s a bonus question:

> 4. In a society that depends on a high birth rate to maintain government subsidies, doesn’t it “harm society” to enter into a long term relationship where actual reproduction is the exception, not the rule?

Have you got an answer to these questions now?

> but don't pretend that you have any rational thoughts on what constitutes morality.

Fair enough. But as I said in the last thread, don’t pretend your opinions are rational, either. In three threads now, I have deconstructed all of you and your tag-team partner’s phony logic and stripped them away until all you have left is “being gay is okay, because I am gay and I am okay.” That works for you, but its not strictly rational.

And let me add that there is nothing wrong with admitting that your morality is, at its core, irrational. I truly believe there is no such thing as wholly rational morality—that there is always unsupported assumptions or faith serving as the axioms from which all our morality flows. And that means your morality is not objectively better than mine, or the morality of 51% of the Californian people. So... why shouldn’t the opinion of that 51% control?

And if you think that 51% is wrong, protest, engage in civil disobedience, etc. Whatever peaceful means, go to it. But don’t pretend they have no right to pass the law they did.

Bob wrote:

If your religion demands you pretend that everyone shares your religion then you sincerely are the one with the problem.

Isn't that just a paraphrase of what I've been saying? It's odd that both sides of the argument make the same argument. The disagreement is on definitions.

The homosexual supporters want to pretend that getting special treatment is the same as getting the same treatment. They want everyone else to believe that there is nothing to distinguish between homosexuality and normal behavior.

We all seem to agree on equal treatment here. The crux of the matter is what constitutes equal. Oren insists that this isn't worth commenting on when in fact it is the entire and only issue.

Re: You can either be pro-gay-incest, or you have to admit that your harm analysis is not really workable

Incest damages society if practiced on a large scale by weakening the cross-familial social bonds we need to keep society free and open. See: the Middle East where people often practice cousin marriage and as a result you have a weak civil sociey defined by closed clan structures and no little hostility toward strangers and those not of one's one clan. Exogamy is necessary for healthy societies. Non-incestuous gay marriage is exogamous and serves this purpose of marriage quite well. And sure, we could allow a little bit of incest without any trouble, just as we could allow some people to speed on the highways as long as everyone didn't. But that would be unjust, so we ban it for everyone.

Re: Similar problems arise in polygamy.

Polygamy results in too many low-status men not being able to find mates, a very dangerous result for any society. Again, see the Middle East.

Re: You mean, besides Leviticus?

Leviticus was the Jewish Law. It may not even apply to them today (that's an argument for rabbis, not me) and it never applied to Gentiles. Those who insisted otherwise in the first generatiosn of Christianity were criticized and condemned as "Judaizers".

If the .gov wants to tell us all what Marriage is then they need to get OUT of the business. Because they have got in the business because of buying votes per tax legislation is NO reason to give the Federal Government the OPPRESSIVE power and DIEITY status to declare from under their black robes what marriage is. Marriage was here before the USA was even a dream in anyones mind(espically those in the so called legal racket). I refuse to show respect by calling it a profession. Yuck. Some of the most vain people I have ever met. I would be ashamed to be part of this.

I would be ashamed to be part of this.

Given the importance in the legal field placed upon the ability to communicate effectively via both the spoken and written word and the evidence you have presented so far in the form of your comment, I doubt that you have much to worry about.

Well, my observation actually was directed more toward the manner of presentation (as in basic grammar, spelling, for instance) than the substance...

Bob Van Burkleo

Let me start by saying that you are more original in your answers than most. You have gained my sincere respect. But I still disagree:

> parents and siblings can be grooming the less experienced so that they have no reasonable chance of a self-informed decision on the subject

There are several things wrong with that.

First, the same argument can be made about the amish or burka-wearing Muslims.

Second, we are no longer talking about harm to others, then, but harm to the people involved. So why can’t we say that gay relationships are harmful?

> Further as there are no people claiming any natural or biological mechanism that mandates they pair-bond with only a close relative each of these individuals still has a massive pool of potential partners outside of their immediate family members.

None? As in zero? So if there was someone who made that claim you’d be cool with it? Oh, no, wait, then you would say they were groomed for it. Which is a little contradictory.

> Polygamy as practiced in the US is really polygyny where men have the option of marrying multiple women and the women have the option of only marrying one man. On this gender bias alone polygyny as practiced by middle eastern religions and some cults is incompatible with the American concept of equality under the law.

So now we have to marry only for approved reasons? If a man says he wants to marry a person of a specific race, the government can say “you have to date and marry on a colorblind basis?” What if you only want to date a person of a specific faith? Or a particular political party.

> Still most beastialty currently is animal abuse

And what of the second part of the question? Do fetuses have less rights than animals?

> All of your situations above are aspects of regulation of the natural right of sexual expression or pair-bonding.

A natural right that doesn’t include bestiality, polygamy and gay incest, apparently.

> In contrast with homosexuality where we know

We don’t know it is immutable.

> Ah you are saying we have a responsibility to breed?

Actually, morally I would say yes. Read Mark Steyn “America Alone” for a fuller explanation.

> so then the old canard of letting sterile opposite gender couples enter such relationships raises its head.

There is an easy distinction between the two. To determine if a heterosexual pair can reproduce, there must be an invasion of privacy, by obtaining testing, etc. That is not necessary in the case of gay couples.

> California 33% of lesbian 2 parent households are raising children under 18, 20% of gay 2 parent households.

Yeah, I am sure they are their offspring, too.

And you said to someone else:

> Hmmmm what is 'homosexual behavior'?

A dude having sex with a dude, to name one example. Talk about missing the forest for all the sausages.

Aleks

> Incest damages society if practiced on a large scale by weakening the cross-familial social bonds

Interesting theory. So you are saying that psychological and social effects of their behavior justifies a ban. Except that can apply equally to gay marriage. I would argue that a man is only whole with a woman, and being an inherent genetic dead end tends to lead to shallow lives too obsessed in the now. If you have the hope of leaving the world to your children, then you are more likely to take care of it (and I don’t mean in a narrow environmental sense, but also to keep society whole).

> Polygamy results in too many low-status men not being able to find mates, a very dangerous result for any society.

Presenting a similar theory of social and psychological effects as with the last issue, but it is even clearer that a similar theory can be applied to gay people. I mean if you believe that being poor, unmarried and childless leads to negative consequences, then its hard to argue that being childless period leads to no negative consequences.

And to you and Angelsong on Leviticus.

I don’t agree with either of your interpretations, at least in terms of the bottom line. But in truth biblical arguments bore me, because you never really convince anyone of anything on that point.

Randy R.

> frankly, I haven't really thought what my morals are on these issues.

Of course you haven’t thought through the consequences.

> The issue at hand is homosexuality, and I always find it surprising that it is conservatives that always bring them up.

Well, look at my question to you. What good is your morality if it says bestiality, gay incest and polygamy is okay?

We are talking theory of government, and yes, how far it goes is relevant to that issue.

> Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation?

Wait, I thought you never thought about that issue...

And I have seen plenty of disgust all over the place. If you think we approve of that behavior, you are delusional.

I would rather have my child play at the home of stable, committed (for life) parents - gay or straight - than to play at the home of divorced parents - gay or straight - that move into and out of relationships casually.

IMO, that is a greater danger.

We have grown too casual with our commitments. This lack of stability is hard on our children and our culture.

AW: "We don’t know it is immutable. "

If sexual orientation isn't immutable, please tell us the conditions under which you would willingly suck a man's dick, and enjoy it.

Or, if that's too personal, please give us an hypo in which you could imagine any hetero man would do so. Or just give us real life examples you have observed first hand.

First, the same argument can be made about the amish or burka-wearing Muslims.

You aren't saying the Amish and Muslims are having sex with their children are you? This isn't bait and switch. Regardless it is established precedence that parents can raise their children in the religious faith of their choice. You've get no complaint from me if this was disallowed.

Second, we are no longer talking about harm to others, then, but harm to the people involved. So why can’t we say that gay relationships are harmful?

Oh you can say anything you want - its just hard for you to do so and sound reasonable. As there will be gay people regardless of your opinion the only question left is are they better off single or in relationships? Considering what we known about the biology, physiological and psychological benefits of pair-bonding I think you would be hard pressed in an argument championing perpetual bachelorhood.

So now we have to marry only for approved reasons

Of course not, that's why I mentioned the 3rd wife of the muslim man. You are acting like the state marries you, it doesn't. Marriage is a natural as all our rights are. The state is just a instrumental construct for administering to these rights. The state can regulate our right to marry by limiting licensing just as it can regulate our right to speech, e.g. no saying 'Fire' in a theater not as such, or religion, e.g. no cannibalism unless its symbolic. What the state can't do is effectively proscribe all reasonable ability to marry to just a segment of the population, e.g. Only Republicans can state their opinions on political subjects. My islamic friend's husband HAS licensed a marriage with the state, my friend could do so by taking a husband who has not already done so. Their rights have merely been regulated by the licensing restrictions, not proscribed like they would be if they were told they could only license a marriage with a gender they are not able to pair-bond with.

And what of the second part of the question? Do fetuses have less rights than animals?

Red Herring but my view is it isn't about their possible rights, its about their mother's. Just as you can't be compelled to give a unit of blood to save someone else's life, a woman is not obligated to donate the use of their uterus at great risk to their health to a parasitic growth. As long as only the mother can support the growth she gets to decide if she does. I've long said develop the safe technology to remove the fetus and place it in an alternative uterus or equivalent means society could require this 'fetus sparing' method and you would have the legal grounds to stop abortion.

A natural right that doesn’t include bestiality, polygamy and gay incest, apparently.

Precisely though I don't think you mean it. We do know there is a mammalian pair-bonding mechanism, largely mediated by oxytocin and vaspressin releases as a result of sexual congress, and that this mechanism is what's active in both opposite and same gender pair-bonding. Common sense actually since each man has all the genetic code of a woman and each woman most of that of a man - that both genders would have the potential to pair-bond with either gender just isn't much of an intellectuals stretch - they both have the basic equipment for either situation.

On the other hand we know of no such mechanisms supporting any of the other 3, i.e. there don't seem to be any people that can only pairbond with their close relatives, only with more than one spouse, or other species and it would hard press to even figure out why such mechanisms would develop let alone implement. It is the salient difference between them.

We don’t know it is immutable.

Only in some absolutist meaning of the word 'know' reserved for the pedantic and the evasive. When you 'know' how to alter it with 100% certainty let me know, otherwise what we don't know is if it is universally changable or even possible in any but a small minority of cases (Dr. Robert Spitzer estimates that possible 3-4% of sexual orientation is 'mutable' its just not in the vast majority of cases.)

Actually, morally I would say yes. Read Mark Steyn “America Alone” for a fuller explanation.

Actually I would say no - when the population of the world is below about 3 billion then we can worry about increasing birthrates again - I'm not so nationalistic that I think it has to be my nation that covers the planet. Regardless those who don't breed because they don't have sex with the opposite gender are a stable percentage of society - this isn't about their not breeding, this is about their and society's quality of life under a system of government that is about equally serving the needs of the individual citizens especially in the area of natural rights.

There is an easy distinction between the two. To determine if a heterosexual pair can reproduce, there must be an invasion of privacy, by obtaining testing, etc. That is not necessary in the case of gay couples.

Actually the easiest would be asking if anyone in the marriage knows themselves to be sterile (60% of US women will eventually have hysterectomies) If we can require syphilis testing we can require a couple questions. And of course dissolve any marriage that turns out to be infertile.

Yeah, I am sure they are their offspring, too.

Actually most are - raising kids from previous marriages is the most common origins. And considering that almost 50% of children in the US are being raised by other than their 2 genetic contributors we again see there really isn't any significant different - it would be hard to take you seriously that because of marriage equality now a true 50% are not being raised by their genetic parents and somehow that's what's unacceptable. :)

A dude having sex with a dude, to name one example. Talk about missing the forest for all the sausages.

Hmmm I think you are confusing object configurations with behavior. A kiss is just a kiss regardless of the respective gender of the two participants, there aren't straight kisses and gay kisses - ditto with sex. I'm taking you don't know of any genuinely homosexual behavior then?

Re: There is no scientific proof that "sexual orientation" is genetic or is otherwise "immutable."

Irrelevant. Religion is certainly not immutable, but we do not discrminate on the basis of religion. By the way, while there is not 100% proof of that sexual orientation is genetic, the evidence does point in that direction, at least toward a strong genetic component in the matter.

Bob Van

First let me correct myself. Somehow I missed the entire middle of your argument. I think I hit page down too many times. My bad. So to address it:

> Of course not, that's why I mentioned the 3rd wife of the muslim man.

Yeah, but you cite the tendency toward third wives and not third husbands as a reason for banning polygamy. It’s discriminatory based on sex, you said. But if racial discrimination in marriage is kosher, why wouldn’t sex discrimination be?

> What the state can't do is effectively proscribe all reasonable ability to marry to just a segment of the population, e.g. Only Republicans

Or only humans and humans. Or only people not related to each other.

> Their rights have merely been regulated by the licensing restrictions, not proscribed like they would be if they were told they could only license a marriage with a gender they are not able to pair-bond with.

First, to say one kind of marriage is regulated, and the other is proscribed is just disingenuous.

Second, if a man says he can only pair-bond with a horse, then, his choice is “proscribed” inappropriately?

> Just as you can't be compelled to give a unit of blood to save someone else's life, a woman is not obligated to donate the use of their uterus at great risk to their health to a parasitic growth.

Ah, but what of conjoined twins? Very frequently one twin is actually dependant on the other, but the one cannot unilaterally decide to have the other chopped off of his body.

Or do you feel they should be able to?

> Common sense actually since each man has all the genetic code of a woman and each woman most of that of a man - that both genders would have the potential to pair-bond with either gender just isn't much of an intellectuals stretch.... On the other hand we know of no such mechanisms supporting any of the other 3

Actually, it is an intellectual stretch to say that evolution would promote anything but successful reproduction. So actually a need of a man to bond with many women is far more plausible than the need to bond with one person of the same gender as compelled by genetics.

> When you 'know' how to alter it with 100% certainty let me know

Well, now you are just flipping the burden of proof.

Randy

Let me add something else in response to your crudity.

Is it your position that anything I can’t imagine myself doing must be for those who do it genetically compelled? I can’t imagine myself committing rape, so rapists are compelled? I can’t imagine myself touching children, so pedos are compelled? I can’t imagine myself committing murder, therefore... well, you get the idea.

There’s a lot more that is stupid about your crude comment, but I am not going to lower myself into that disgust to point it out.

Yeah, but you cite the tendency toward third wives and not third husbands as a reason for banning polygamy. It’s discriminatory based on sex, you said. But if racial discrimination in marriage is kosher, why wouldn’t sex discrimination be?

Banning? No a reason for the state not to license it. Now IF there were large numbers of hippy communes where both genders did have the same right to have multiple spouses this would be an entirely different issue and would have to be relooked at. But the only people wanting polygamy right now are sects that sexually discriminate. The law is merely a conceptual tool designed to help us organize the real world, it is nothing in and of itself.

Or only humans and humans. Or only people not related to each other.

Currently only humans can enter contracts - when the Vulcans land we will have to rexamine our restrictions on beastiality of course. And IF you can find people that seem to ONLY be able to pair-bond with their close relatives that issue also would have to be revisited. Again, the law is merely a conceptual tool designed to help us organize the real world, it is nothing in and of itself.

First, to say one kind of marriage is regulated, and the other is proscribed is just disingenuous.

Only if you are making the contention that there are people who can ONLY reasonably be expected to pair-bond with these other catagories. You see that's what's changed regarding sexual orientation. It used to be looked on as a vice, as a bad habit, while we now know that is not true - the human animal tends to fixate on being able to pair-bond with only ONE other gender and that can be either the opposite or the same. If people have a right to pair-bond as our history long acknowledges then those that can only be reasonably expected to do so with the same gender have that same right.

Second, if a man says he can only pair-bond with a horse, then, his choice is “proscribed” inappropriately?

IF he merely says it? Of course not - he would have to demonstrate that is indeed true, emphasis on the world 'only'. Oh I fully understand that he might HAVE pairbonded with a particular horse, he would have to proof that no other option was reasonable. And even more difficult would be demonstrating that a horse would mutually pair-bond with him. Again, the law is merely a conceptual tool designed to help us organize the real world, it is nothing in and of itself.

Ah, but what of conjoined twins? Very frequently one twin is actually dependant on the other, but the one cannot unilaterally decide to have the other chopped off of his body.

Cannot or just hasn't? If the twins have divided up their body as 'mine' and 'yours' of course one could separate themselves from the other twin even if the other twin died as a result. More likely though they consider any organs that are necessary for both to live as 'ours'.

Actually, it is an intellectual stretch to say that evolution would promote anything but successful reproduction. So actually a need of a man to bond with many women is far more plausible than the need to bond with one person of the same gender as compelled by genetics.

Yes and it is thinking of 'evolution' as if it were directed that gave us all that silliness in the early to middle 20th century. Sorry, evolution 'rewards' all sorts of non-reproductive related mechanisms especially in higher social animals where qualities other than mere numbers determine survivability. And that yes, male mammals do tend to sleep around, but since the pair-bonding mechanism is reinforced by sexual congress guess what - our species doesn't go into heat, we are sexually receptive all the time giving the spouse of the moment ample opportunity to continually reinforce the pair-bond and become the spouse of a lifetime. One of the big clues as to pair-bonding AND the opportunity for the sex that goes with it hand in hand, as a natural right. Oh and if the sexual attraction pathways exist I think it would be a bit odd to think they aren't activated in some of of the opposite gender - just think of the physical ones - never seen a woman with a moustache or a man with big pouty nipples? We all got them all - pretending we don't is just self-serving for the point of argument.

Well, now you are just flipping the burden of proof.

Guess you weren't paying attention, the burden of proof has flipped - the majority of people think that sexual orientation is not a choice and there's lots of evidence to support that contention. Again, that's what's changed between now 40+ years ago and now, we know more about sexual orientation: its nature, its origins, and its mutability or lack there of. If sexual orientation was just a habit you might make a case for ignoring some of them - but its not.

Bob Van

> Banning? No a reason for the state not to license it.

My bad, I was imprecise. I am talking about this in a marriage context—i.e. to let them marry or not to.

> Currently only humans can enter contracts

I don’t see an answer to my point, which is if you draw the line anywhere, you can always have people say you are unfairly restricting them.

> Only if you are making the contention that there are people who can ONLY reasonably be expected to pair-bond

Ah, now I get it. it’s the word “reasonably” that does the work for you. But in truth what is reasonable to one person but not to another is ultimately subjective and irrational. So reasonably is just the irrational axiom from where the rest of your feelings on the subject flow and your argument boils down to how you feel about gay relationships v. the parade of horrible I trotted out. But I don’t have to accept that axiom; I can feel that gay relationships are just as messed up.

> IF he merely says it? Of course not - he would have to demonstrate that is indeed true

How many gay people have demonstrated that they can only pair-bond with the same sex—especially given how many gay people not only married the opposite sex but had families with them.

> Cannot or just hasn't?

Cannot. Its called murder. But feel free to argue that the law is wrong on this point.

> More likely though they consider any organs that are necessary for both to live as 'ours'.

Then why can’t the fetus say the same thing?

> Yes and it is thinking of 'evolution' as if it were directed that gave us all that silliness in the early to middle 20th century.

Ah, so if I say that evolution tends toward certain results, I am no different than a social Darwinist, or even a eugenicist! Gotcha.

Except… evolution IS directed, toward successful reproduction. The mistake the Social Darwinists et all made were two fold: one, believing they should help evolution out, which is not what I am saying; and two, mistaking survival of the fittest for survival of the strongest. But to deny that reproduction is the goal of successful evolution is to confess a profound ignorance of how Darwin’s theory actually works.

So for instance, imagine there was a gene that made it impossible, for any reason, for a man to mate with a woman. Let’s say, for instance, there was actually a dead sperm gene, and it was dominant. So we have ten men, half with this Dead Sperm gene, with ten normal women. We will mark the women as W, the good sperm men as G, and the Dead sperm men as D.

At first generation they are DW DW DW DW DW GW GW GW GW GW

Now suppose every person who can have children has two. So then what does the next generation look like? Like this:

GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW

Duh. In one generation, any gene that prevents all reproduction is wiped out.

That’s an extreme and obvious example, to prove a point. If you have a genetic condition that prevents successful reproduction, it will be wiped out in one generation. And one that reduces successful reproduction will be increasingly reduced as a percentage of the population.

For instance, in Lorenzo’s Oil (a good movie, despite Nick Nolte’s terrible accent), the genetic disease in question literally killed only little boys, and did so before they reached the age of 8 (and quite horribly, I might add). You might ask, then why it existed at all? It had to do with the genetics of it. The bad gene was carried on the X chromosome. The gene in question was actually recessive. But if paired with a Y gene, because of the inherent incompleteness of the Y gene, it would express itself, every single time. it was impossible for a Y gene to be dominant over that flaw. Thus women were the carriers, and men were the ones who came down with the disease.

Then you might ask, okay, then why did it only hit girls? Couldn’t a girl be born with two bad X’s? Well, it wouldn’t happen. Being a recessive gene, it wouldn’t be expressed unless you had two of them and the only way to get two is from both a mother and a father. But there were no fathers with the bad gene around, because every male who carried the gene died by the age of 8.

In the movie, they went a global conference of families affected by the disease. There were about 200 of them.

By comparison, there are millions of people who claim to have this genetic and overwhelming desire to mate in pairings that could never produce actual offspring. The sheer number of these people demonstrate that logically, the gay impulse either is not genetic, or if it is, it is not half as much of an irresistible impulse as its advocates claim.

> Sorry, evolution 'rewards' all sorts of non-reproductive related mechanisms especially in higher social animals where qualities other than mere numbers determine survivability.

Actually, you have it backwards. Survivability itself is not the most important thing. Successful reproduction is. Of course that means that often a creature will do something that reduces its reproduction in the short term, based on a higher rate of successful reproduction in the long term. Some creatures spread their offspring around like dandelion seeds in the wind (that’s called R strategy). Some produce only a few offspring but really take care of it (K strategy). But the goal of both behaviors are the same: successful reproduction. And to the extent that a trait prevents that, it is discouraged, if not eliminated by momma nature herself.

But maybe you don’t know what successful reproduction is, as a matter of science and that is what is confusing you. It is not only having children, but producing children that in turn have children. A man who has 50 children, who all die at the age of 5 has not successfully reproduced any more than a man who has no children at all. So maybe successful reproduction in humans is best accomplished by one man pairing with one woman, rather than one man with 5 women, because while that one-woman-man will have less children, presumably, he will shower those children with more care and increase the chances they will survive and give him grandchildren, as opposed to the less-supervised children of the polygamous man. We can debate that point. But just how many (blood) grandchildren do you expect to come from a pairing of two men?

And that is why I said it was more plausible to say polygamy was hard wired, rather than homosexuality. Not because I considered polygamy very likely to be hard-wired, but because I knew it was damn near impossible for homosexuality to be.

> Guess you weren't paying attention, the burden of proof has flipped - the majority of people think that sexual orientation is not a choice

The majority of the people of California don’t want gay people to be able to marry. You seem to only care about the majority when they are on your side.

And as a point of fact, on a scientific question, the issue is decided by proof, not votes.

My bad, I was imprecise. I am talking about this in a marriage context—i.e. to let them marry or not to.

Guess I don't understand your context - a marriage is naturally formed between the individuals or not - it has little to do with 'letting' by any exterior agent. The government only acknowledges marriages by giving them license to a contract, it doesn't 'allow them' or create them. The issue is about all citizens having a an acknowledged right to a marriage and an equal right to have government license some reasonable expression of it.

I don’t see an answer to my point, which is if you draw the line anywhere, you can always have people say you are unfairly restricting them.

Good feign, the government can restrict rights and I'm sure there will always be people who think that restriction is unfair. What it can't do is restrict them in such a manner as to block all reasonable avenues to exercise that right. Wanna be polygamists already can license a marriage with the state - that they want to license more than one is a different issue. There is no one claiming and no one presenting any evidence to support, that there are people who can only be reasonably expected to marry a being of another species, so they too have a reasonable avenue to license the contract as they have a pool of billions of potential spouses of their own species - if they are heterosexuals. Similarly with incest, there is no one claiming or evidence to support that there are those who are incapable of pair-bonding with anyone other than a close relative once again they still have billions of alternatives. Only those who claim to be attracted only to their own gender, of which there are mountains of evidence to show they are being accurate in this contention are given a potential pool of zero suitable spouses. I find it very unlikely that you honestly can't see the difference between these situations.

Ah, now I get it. it’s the word “reasonably” that does the work for you. But in truth what is reasonable to one person but not to another is ultimately subjective and irrational.

Only if they have no common ground of reference - are you saying you think that people can pair-bond with whatever gender they want? That it is a true 'choice' that each individual can make and even change their mind? If so than yes my 'reasonable' is not yours, but if it is no and you think for most sexual orientation is fixed what confuses you about the context of my usage of the word?

How many gay people have demonstrated that they can only pair-bond with the same sex—especially given how many gay people not only married the opposite sex but had families with them.

Exactly! That's why it has taken decades of data gathering, hypothesis, theory and examination to come to the realization that this is indeed true. And that some might even experience a change in their sexual orientation in no way implies that at any point in time they can choose it. Again, the law is not an exact science, it is merely a conceptual tool that is supposed to reflect reality and change as our understanding of it broadens or clarifies or is found erroneous. Again, if we found there were a kind of people that could only pair-bond with its multiple benefits with those of another species we would have to re-examine the issue. The law exists to serve people the way they really are, not the way someone wants them to be.

Then why can’t the fetus say the same thing?

By the time a fetus can express an opinion of that kind or the two of them can even reach such an agreement the question is rather moot. The mother states her opinion, the fetus is free to state its, but in if it doesn't the mother's opinion wins. I would assume the mother that chooses abortion has decided that her body isn't an 'ours' situation.

Except… evolution IS directed, toward successful reproduction.

Hmmm no. evolution is geared towards survival to pass on traits that lead to survival, reproduction can be a tiny part of that. What good is 'successful reproduction' of the progeny don't survive to reproduce themselves? An obvious attempt to try and put 'reproduction' to the forefront but a pretty transparent dodge. If a trait that decreased absolute reproduction of the social group existed but increased the survivability of the group it would be selected for with competition between groups. Mere bunches of babies is not necessarily something natural selection would select for over any other trait, even one that might slightly decrease their numbers.

The sheer number of these people demonstrate that logically, the gay impulse either is not genetic, or if it is, it is not half as much of an irresistible impulse as its advocates claim.

Or, more likely, it just shows you once again have a limited understanding of biology. Lets look at the alternatives to your suppositions:
- It could be a companion effect to some other reproduction beneficial trait. e.g. in one of the genetic studies trying to find some correlation they found a gene which seemed to encode for sexual orientation rigidity in males - they were either Kinsey 1s or 6s, nothing in between. So what if a few of the carriers turn out not to breed if their randy heterosexual brethren are spreading their seed far and wide?
- It could be due to a fragility in the male overlay system itself that is inherent, e.g. all males are female base models with a male overlay - a number of studies have shown that the overlaying process might fail due to epigenetic reasons; maternal anti Y chromosome antigens, other hormonal or exogenous factors inhibiting the conversion of the base female to male responses that happen late in the pregnancy.
- some 'I like guys' genes are inherited on the X chromosome preturned on; they found that women with multiple gay sons had one of their X chromosomes turned off at a far higher rate than the normal random 50/50 in other women - there was no obvious defect in the chromosome and it would be included in 50% of the ovum post meiosis - one speculation is the tags that turn on various genes were not being properly stripped so that even when passed on to a son they still will be expressed to make them sexually attracted to guys.
There 3 genetic reasons for male homosexual expression that would NOT be removed from a population by natural selection. There are more, more being discovered all the time. Again, the law has to change when what we know changes.

because I knew it was damn near impossible for homosexuality to be.

Well I think its more you don't know what you think you know ;)

The majority of the people of California don’t want gay people to be able to marry.

Actually the recent Field Poll shows that they do. And regardless if citizens of the right to marry then they all do and the state can't just ignore some of those citizens on a whim or even a majority vote - not and remain true to its founding ideals.

Wow, looks like I touched a nerve with AW and Michael B!

Was my comment crude? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder, but I certainly don't think so. AFter all, that's the issue that everyone is dancing around but simply won't admit. Most opponents of SSM are in fact anti-gay. Just read some of the comments, and that of course includes Michael B and AW. And why are you guys so anti-gay? It's not because we sing show tunes. It's not because we renovate old homes in the bad neighborhoods. It's not because we cook better than your wives. It's because we do the things that only women do -- suck dicks and have anal sex. And to you that's disgusting, and any gay rights initiatives you oppose because you think it will encourage this behavior.

Well, most gay men I know not only give (and receive) blow jobs, but they enjoy it. They aren't conflicted, they aren't oppressed into doing it, and they don't want to do it to animals. In short, it's the exact same acts you presumbly engage in, only with a different gender giving.

Your obvious discomfort with the issue shows that you don't care for it. Fair enough! Which proves my point -- your sexual orientation is hetero, and so it's quite obvious that you would be uncomforable discussing it. But gay men have no such compunctions, because we delight in it.

Now why would you think that is so? Could it possibly be because that is OUR sexual orientation?

Here's the bottomline: You might be attracted to blonde women, and your best buddy only gets hot over redheads. What determines this? And try as you might, you can NOT get your buddy to like blondes. why not? Because attractions are innate and rarely if ever change.

EVery gay man I've known, read about, seen, or whatever, has insisted that his sexual orientation is something that is innate. And you yourselves admit that to be attracted to a man is something you can hardly imagine. So unless you think every gay man is lying, then you have to give it some credence that sexual orientation is innate and can't be changed. hence, it's immutable.

Well, now you are just arguing with me about terms. You’re boring me.

No about concepts - we make no progress if we are using the same word for two different things.

Again based on what you subjectively believe is reasonable. And why can’t I, and 51% of the Californian people go the other way

If you are saying you can wish sexual orientation into being a choice I have to disagree. But the right to magical thinking is in our first amendment. If that is the case then we do have no common ground - there is no point to discuss.

No, actually, I think no man is complete without a woman and no woman is complete with out a man.

Why? What biological mechanism work only with this combination? How do you support that the exact same mechanism can't happen between two people of the same gender? And sorry pair-bonding is the technically correct biological term and since we are talking about natural rights a useful one.

That’s disingenuous, just as it would be disingenuous for me to say that gay people can get married, but whether they can marry the same sex is a different issue.

Not at all since gay people can't pairbond with someone of the opposite gender while the wannabe polygamous can. One can license a marriage with the state with someone they can pair-bond with, the other can't. The difference in the situations is stark and the crux of the issue.

Except again, conjoined twins can’t make that same decision. Why is that?

Red Herring out of control! Who says they can't? You keep presupposing that one can't decide to separate themselves from the other - why?

Now that is an extreme example to demonstrate a simple point. In terms of evolution, it is more important to reproduce than to survive.

But I've already seen your understanding of evolution is erroneous. Doesn't matter how many babies are produced if they don't get to reproduce themselves and for social animals that depends on group characteristics as well as individual ones. Again, easy to understand that a trait beneficial to the group but doesn't maximize reproduction could still be the selected trait.

I didn’t say removed, I said severely reduced from current numbers.

From 2-3%? You really think there aren't, oh maybe, dozens of human traits that might increase reproductive survival of the group to a greater extent than bringing a mere 2% more breeders into the fold would? I think you under estimate factors other than replication.

I prefer to consult elections—at the last election, a majority of Californians said that they didn’t want the title marriage conferred on gay relationships. And that should have been respected until a new election said otherwise.

Hmmmm 4.6 million out of 38 million Californians voted for the measure, 20 million potential voters (11%,23%). I can see why you would want to use that yard stick - the tyranny of the mob. Fortunately that's why CA isn't a pure democracy as isn't the US. Of course a rabid minority can push their will onto a less caring majority - that's why there are constitutional limits on what the mob can do.

Guess we'll see what we will see. What is obvious is you want a certain result and don't care if sexual orientation isn't a choice, if the exact same biological mechanism draws people of opposite and same gender together in pair-bonds, or even care that your grasp of genetics is flawed and the reality doesn't support your case. You have an answer you want to reach and its pretty certain you'll do what you need to get there. But again, all that means is there's no point in us talking - we have no ethical common ground.

No, its about arguing what the meaning of a term is. Sheesh.

No its about using the same meaning for a word central to the discussion. Geez.

You are currently wishing all you can into it not being one, despite the overwhelming evidence that gay people can have straight relationships if they want.

Really, please present that all gay people can have straight relationships.

Its supposed to be an irresistible impulse that according to your own stats, millions of gay people have resisted.

irresistable? Strawman I suppose?

Because.

Your lack of any basis for your supposition is noted.

No, it’s a disingenuous dodge.

no its the central issue. Just as straight people don't pair-bond with the same gender, gay people don't with the opposite. The law that allows the licensing of pair-bonds has to recognize this in a country where equal rights for citizens is paramount.

The law does.

No it doesn't in your red herring the twin has autonomy over this body, he can do as he pleases with it. Now the law might recognize joint ownership but that isn't part of your red herring scenerio.

Doesn't matter how many babies are produced if they don't get to reproduce themselves

No surviving until reproduce matters more as I said - creative quoting to try and ignore what I says doesn't speak well of you.

Really? How exactly does a “group characteristic” get passed down when it prevents individual reproduction? In the end the unit of evolution in humans is not the community, but the individual.

::sigh:: by it not being a primary genetic trait as in the 3 examples I gave you. A gene that caused aggressive heterosexual breeding by its carriers that also caused a small percentage of homosexual members would be passed easily. A gene that caused a possibility of the base female characteristics to not be overwritten by males would still pass in the breeding members but also produce gay ones. Again, we have seen your understanding of how such genetic qualities might pass is either very limited or you are being deliberately obtuse.

Really? How exactly does a “group characteristic” get passed down when it prevents individual reproduction? In the end the unit of evolution in humans is not the community, but the individual.

OR it is a gene that has multiple possible expressions due to epigenetic reasons as I have said before. You do understand epigenetics, right? That the maternal cytoplasm and ovum genes build a gene control system that IS susceptible to external factors, and even random chance? That you could have a gene that tends to produce a spectrum of sexual orientations and other qualities as well and still be 'genetic'? Again, it is hard to believe you would talk so much and seem to understand so little on the subject.

Give me a break. Your entire analysis has been result oriented.

No, my conclusions are derived from the facts, not the other way around.
There is no indication that sexual orientation is a choice by any rational use of the term. You can't pick what gender makes your heart go pitter pat, your palms sweat, your voice stammer. There is ample evidence that the mechanism that makes us react this way to another is the same regardless of what gender it is that sparks the reaction. There is also ample evidence that being engaged in this mechanism good for the participants, good for the society and good for their family. This is a nation dedicated to the government serving the citizens equally and respecting their rights equally. What other conclusion can I reach other than the state should give each citizen reasonable opportunity to have a licensable pair-bond if they are going to be in the business of licensing them ( a relatively new innovation) The only group currently limited to a pool of zero potential legal spouses are those who pair-bond with the same gender. That needs to be fixed.

Mmm, I think the rule is the first person to resort to an ad hominem loses.

What ad hominem -we have different ethics - you argue for results, I argue where the facts take me. Arguing for results is part and parcel of the lawyer trade - I don't begrudge you it, they are just two incompatible value systems that can't reach accomodation through discussion.

Of course you have not done what you seem to think you have. You have demonstrated you have a limited understanding of evolution and genetics but rather than learn you try and make your simplistic view sound right and ignore the responses that show you are wrong. You restate statements to your advantage adding absolutist connotations they didn't have, and think you can wish sexual orientation into being a choice inspite of decades of testimony and evidence and think every male peg can be complete by pairing it with a female hole with no justification offered at all! This may seem satisfying to you but really its what's called 'losing'.

Ok, I'm breaking my promise to myself to back away from the keyboard.

A.W. wrote:

> Again, easy to understand that a trait beneficial to the group but doesn't maximize reproduction could still be the selected trait.

No, actually, if it doesn’t maximize reproduction, it is not selected in evolution or in sexual selection. Duh.

> From 2-3%?

Yeah, more like what you saw in Lorenzo’s Oil above.

> You really think there aren't, oh maybe, dozens of human traits that might increase reproductive survival of the group to a greater extent than bringing a mere 2% more breeders into the fold would?

But then how does the group pass on that trait, if that 2-3% doesn’t reproduce? Unless it is a learned trait, rather than a genetic one?

Yet Dean Hamer of the NIH did a genetic study on gay men.

In 1993, a group of researchers under the direction of Hamer, who was also a researcher on the recent study, examined DNA from gay men and their family members and found that gay men within a family share a segment of DNA on the X chromosome, which men inherit only from their mothers.

“This told us that genes play a role,” said Brian Mustanski, one of the researchers on the genomescan. “But it doesn’t tell us where the genes are or what they do.”

That bears repeating:

genes play a role

I remember another piece in which Hamer, speculating on the evolutionary biology, looked at the number of children that mothers of gay men found. He speculated that there may be an "attraction to men" gene (to put it simply). Women with the gene are going to produce more children, but there is more of a likelihood that some of their sons will be gay.

I dropped out of the discussions here because I said to myself, "I'm attempting an argument on gay rights with people who characterize gay people as degenerates and perverts who seek the ruin of American society. You can't have a rational discussion with these people." I have non-futile ways to spend my time.

No, I don't need to spend my time arguing against bad-faith claims that gay people are like animals, or people who abuse animals, or those who practice incest. Those are all bad-faith arguments. And these posters typically see homosexuality as a willful disobedience from "the right way."

Knowing that they're wrong isn't sufficient to win an argument against them.

And yet, there it is, like Galileo's "and yet it moves."

genes play a role

"And yet, there it is, like Galileo's 'and yet it moves.'" John D

Good grief, never shy about arrogating a Galileo (or whoever or whatever it takes). In short, D. Hamer is no Galileo. For one point of reference, following is Sahotra Sarkar commenting on the subject, emphasis added:

"Perhaps the most controversial application of [the allele-sharing method] has been to a type of male homosexual orientation. The original study [Hamer's] reported that brothers who both exhibited such an orientation showed excess allele-sharing (thirty-three out of forty pairs) at the locus Xq28 (on the X chromosome). A follow-up study reported the same result, but with only twenty-two of thirty-two pairs now showing allele sharing. It also reported no such linkage for female homosexuality. However, in both cases there was an important caveat: while each pair of brothers was shown to share the same DNA sequence at the Xq38 location, different pairs did not necessarily have the same sequence. Attempts to reproduce this result have so far not been uniformly successful. As noted, the follow-up study provided confirmation, but with a lower degree of statistical significance. Another group failed to reproduce the result altogether. Moreover, methodological problems, possibly, the biased reporting of the data - have been alleged in the work of the original group."

Those allegations were originally advanced by E. Marshall ("NIH's 'Gay Gene' Study Questioned," Science) and C. Holden ("More on Genes and Homosexuality," Science), each in 1995 and each fellow researchers and scientists, not advocates. Also, see J.M. Bailey in Nature Genetics, "Sexual Orientation Revolution" where he indicates the data do not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Again, Hamer is no Galileo.

"Knowing that they're wrong isn't sufficient to win an argument against them." John D

If only you were capable of taking your own words to heart. But somehow, given facile arrogations of Galileo and terms such as "denialism" being thrown around with equal facility, I doubt that's going to be the case. Try the following on for size:

We don't know.

If you believe or think otherwise, perhaps it's you who are indulging in a certain denialism.

Bob Van

> Really, please present that all gay people can have straight relationships.

Easy, go back up to where you told me how many gay people had offspring of their own. :-) Its fun to see self-deception in action.

> irresistable?

If they can only have a healthy relationship with their own sex, as you allege, then it is irresistible.

> Your lack of any basis for your supposition is noted.

As is yours. The difference is you are the most irrational of all—thinking your theories could ever be completely rational.

> no its the central issue.

Now, you’re just changing the subject.

> No it doesn't

Yes, it does. If you don’t know this, too bad on you.

> No surviving until reproduce matters more

That’s not what you said before. Now you are just reversing yourself without admitting I was right about successful reproduction.

> You do understand epigenetics, right?

The man who doesn’t understand successful reproduction—even after it is explained to him—is now going to try to claim he knows more about evolution? This is like a guy who can’t add understand the Pythagorean theorem claiming he is math genius. Good luck with that.

> No, my conclusions are derived from the facts,

Keep telling yourself that, but I have exposed the irrational axioms from which you have started.

> There is no indication that sexual orientation is a choice by any rational use of the term.

Besides the large percentage of gay people who have children.

> This is a nation dedicated to the government serving the citizens equally and respecting their rights equally.

Equality actually generally extends only to opinions and traits unrelated to conduct and merit. For instance, if you want to smoke peyote as part of your faith but the government has passed a law against it, the Supreme Court has said you are shit out of luck. Even though belief is protected, your conduct is not. Likewise, even if a behavior is irresistibly programmed in our genes, that doesn’t mean that we have to accommodate it. Suppose, for instance, there was a serial killer gene. So we say “sure, go ahead, kill people and leave a few in your freezer”? no, we say, “sucks for you” and lock the guy up.

> What other conclusion can I reach

Certainly from those irrational axioms, you are correct. But where did THEY come from?

> The only group currently limited to a pool of zero potential legal spouses are those who pair-bond with the same gender.

And not those who can only pair-bond with a horse, because that is unreasonable. Why? Because you said so. But don’t let anyone think you are being result-oriented. Nah, that couldn’t be.

> What ad hominem

Yeah, whatever. you called me unethical.

John D.

> that there may be an "attraction to men" gene (to put it simply).

BPPPPPPPPT! Man you should warn me before you say stuff like that, so I don’t drink anything. now I have milk coming out my nose from laughing.

So... every woman who is attracted to men is going to have little gay children?

And of course Michael B has excoriated St. Hamer. To pretend that the issue is proven one way or the other is to abuse science.

> However, the religious beliefs or antipathy to gay people of some Volokh Conspiracy posters are certainly no justification for limiting the rights of gay people.

But on the other hand, we should allow gay marriage based on your affinity to gay people. Good to know.

Aleks

> So you admit that evolution allows for the existence of non-reproducing individuals and that natural selection does not necessarily filter this out.

Ah, so you are saying that gay people are like the cells in my body or a worker bee, doing something to help us reproducing members successfully reproduce. And, what pray tell, do they do? Wait, is the queer eye for the straight guy phenomenon? Is that it?

> Oh good grief, are we back to that old notion of gays "recruiting"?

Well, if you are not passing on your genes genetically (if homosexuality is genetic), or your lifestyle by raising children (if it is merely a lifestyle choice), then your only hope is by winning converts. You asked, and that is the cold hard truth. The rest of your comment is jumping at shadows.

> What this boils down is a selfish argument made by your own preferences

Look who’s talking. Care to share your sexual orientation?

> Up a ways I gave a short list of famous persons who had no biological offspring and asked if they were therefore to be regarded as failures.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, they are failures. But I never once supposed that evolution should be followed as morality.

> Again, this argument could be made against religious celibates, but no one proposes banning monasticism.

We’re not talking about banning gay sex, either. But just as we don’t license a Catholic priest’s “marriage to God” we shouldn’t license two dudes shacking up together.

But you are right. I think it is abnormal for a person never to mate with the opposite sex. Scroll up to see where I discuss the priesthood very specifically. That’s one of many reasons I am not Catholic.

"I should note that I wasn't suggesting that Hamer has been persecuted for his views." John D

Indeed, it's closer to the very opposite. It's closer to a situation wherein the media, during the time of Galileo Galilei, were touting a study that seemed to confirm the Ptolemy conception of the solar system. (And later saying "fair enough, the science has been questioned ...") As such, your comment is fatuous in the extreme and is so on different levels, most of which I won't address presently.

This issue does not concern science, it concerns political power. Hence all the opportunism and triumphalism, together with the facade of seeming to care about science and the democratic process when in fact executive fiat, the courts and the media - together with confused and/or complacent polities - are the instruments used in exercising that power.