is it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So what if the costs go up   care to explain how you imagine they won't go up?

cool  you write the check

and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero

[JimMarch]

It is unconstitutional to commit election fraud.

It's unconstitutional to pass laws purely for the purpose of driving "the wrong type of voter" out of your state so as to cement your party's domination.  It's unconstitutional to pass laws designed purely to harass and annoy the opposition.

It's wrong when "conservatives" do it to Democratic gays via "defense of marriage" laws, and it's wrong when Democrats in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Mass. and the like pass gun control laws that they KNOW are purely for the purpose of harassing Republicans/Libertarians/etc.

It's always wrong, and the perpetrators of such scams on BOTH sides are human filth.

[Perd Hapley]

So opposition to homosexual marriage is merely harassment of the political opposition?  That's a funny thing to say, for at least two reasons:

1.  The Republicans did not start this dance.  It was the left that started demanding these concessions to supposed "gay rights."  For you to now claim that Republican voters are using these issues for some cynical purpose is just bizarre. 

2.  If we wished to harass the other side, we'd do so with issues that affect more than a tiny minority of voters, i.e., homosexuals that want to get "married." 

3.  Yes, I came up with a third one.  What about the millennia of opposition to homosexuality of which your side likes to remind us?  If there is such opposition (no matter how wrong-headed you may think it is), it would be silly to suppose that it will go away overnight.  Makes a lot more sense in explaining a gay marriage ban than your harassment theory. 
 

[cosine]

Politeness, people. Argue the issue, not another's habits with recreational substances...

[gunsmith]

Argue the issue, not another's habits with recreational substances...

Indeed, that is, like, the 3rd rail or something.

[41magsnub]

So what if the costs go up   care to explain how you imagine they won't go up?

cool  you write the check

and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero

You first..  how will they go up in any real sense?  You first brought up the cost issue and if I'm supposed to refute something I need to know what it is.

[JimMarch]

Ever heard of the Stonewall Riot, and what caused it?

Go read some period newspaper reports on it:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/case1.html

This was the real start of gay rights in America: a literal street brawl over their right to *exist* at all.

Do you think regular police raids of gay bars was in any way justified?  I would hope not.  Once you understand what began the gay rights fight, you cannot possibly claim that they "just began demanding concessions".  They also realized early on (correctly) that any cultural/legal bias against them would in some cases trigger violence against them.  They correctly realized that violence is cultural, and set about trying to change the culture in order to survive.

Unless you believe the simple right to exist should be denied them, unless you believe that regular police harassment of "homos" as was common in the '60s was EVER justified, you can't possibly see the gays as the instigators of these changes.

They reacted to hate, discrimination, false criminal charges and violence.  And by and large, esp. in the years since Stonewall, the reaction has been both non-violent and appropriate, and sometimes funny as hell.  When lines of drag queens doing the can-can faced off against the NYPD in full riot gear, they successfully pointed out the absurdity of what was going on.

They also revealed for all time who were the aggressors in the confrontation then - and now.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, Jim, I thought we were talking about homosexual marriages, rather than Stonewall, or the right to exist.  Although the temptation to use Stonewall's emotional appeal is understandable, you are conflating issues. 

[JimMarch]

you are conflating issues

No I'm not.

As long as the US does *any* discrimination against gays, an extra percentage of those prone to anti-gay violence will take that official discrimination as sanction to discriminate on the job (private and public sector) or commit violence up to and including murder.

The gay rights movement started as a reaction to violence and abuse against them.  Their fight for full and equal civil rights is a continuation of that same struggle, for the same reasons: to establish their right to live.

Every attempt to deny them equal protection in any fashion raises their odds of being assaulted or murdered.  This is doubly true when the discrimination comes at the hands of the state.

It is absolutely immoral for any of us to argue against somebody else's civil rights while advocating our own.

[MicroBalrog]

What Jim March said.

[Perd Hapley]

Can't argue with that, Jim.  Because it is utterly absurd, when it is not simply question-begging. 

[LAK]

Sindawe,

I know, 1500 animal species practice homosexuality. I of course recall seeing our family pets - a considerable number of dogs, cats, rodents, birds, snakes, lizards, turtles, tortoise etc of the same sex, male and female "mating". Countless zoo animals, wild game animals - everything from rabbits, birds, waterfowl to moose pawing each other and "mating" with the same sex (male and female) for the sheer aberrant pleasure of it "just because of the way they are."

Absolute BS.

In memory, about 45 years, I have seen it, uh, once - maybe twice. Well, let's say a mouse or two (snake food) a well. That makes four. A dog that thinks he's sniffing a bitch might do this when in fact his "gay partner" is another dog that has perhaps been in contact with a bitch in heat. A dog that literally has no interest in the opposite sex though, like human beings, is not going to reproduce. Period.

All this baloney about animals "practicing homesexuality" is another classic example of the kind of junk science propagated by the same communists who have introduced and forcefully pushed and promoted a number of destructive agendas in this country since WW2. And we can see the results readily in the decline of this country.

Are you trying to say that there is some sound "scientific proof" of the "normality" and "benefits" of male on male "sexual intercourse" and that it is somehow "healthy"?

We have a reproductive system that functions in a particular manner, with an element of pleasure, which with the participation of a man and a woman produces offspring. So we do not die off and cease to exist. Within society than we have families, the individuals of which in turn interact with individuals of the opposite sex in other families, when men and women pair off and produce more offspring - families.

No more to say on this. Anyone that can not see this for what it is even without debasing the discussion with some explicit terms and references is not worth arguing with.

[Hugh Damright]

I tend to see this as a North/South thing ... there was a vote on this, on a Marriage Protection Act, and it overwhelmingly passed in the South while it overwhelmingly failed in the North. It's as if the South is Methodists/Baptists while the North is egalitarians/libertarians.

If we do nothing, the SCOTUS may well rule that no State can deny the right of men to marry other men. They have set the precedents by ruling that the 14th gives them jurisdiction over marriage, and by ruling that State laws against homosexual acts are unconstitutional. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is heading.

It might seem like a marriage amendment would be a religious amendment, but if we have no marriage amendment, and the feds force homosexual marriage on every State, then how is that keeping the feds out of religion? Either we do nothing and the feds trample our Christian values, or we amend the US Constitution to stop them.

[MicroBalrog]

Are you trying to say that there is some sound "scientific proof" of the "normality" and "benefits" of male on male "sexual intercourse" and that it is somehow "healthy"?

It's irrelevant whether it is healthy or not.

I own my body. It's mine.

I have the inalienable right to pursue whatever sex acts I choose with whomever consents to have sex with me (children are generally seen as incapable of consent by law, so leave that argument at the door).

Even if it is discovered, and proven by the medical authorities, that gay sex causes immediate cancer in everybody who engages in it, it's none of your business. Just as it's none of your business how much sugar I put in my tea, even though sugar is known to be unhealthy.

We have a reproductive system that functions in a particular manner, with an element of pleasure, which with the participation of a man and a woman produces offspring. S

You are forgetting that I am an individual, and as a sapient individual, I have the right to choose. I may choose not to have sex, or to perform various kinds of sex that do not lead to reproduction, or to undergo permanent surgery to become unable to reproduce.

It is NOT my duty to bring children to the world (though it happens to be my hope that I will eventually do so), and it is not within your power to compel me to have only standard relationships (though I happen to be engaged to a woman, and faithful to her).

How can states 'ban' gay marriage is really beyond me. At worst/best, they can pass law to refuse to recognize these marriages from the standpoint of taxes and various benefits.

But if two (or more) people live together and love each other as a family, then they are a family. I don't see how you can legislate that away with a thousand laws.

[Sindawe]

Are you trying to say that there is some sound "scientific proof" of the "normality" and "benefits" of male on male "sexual intercourse" and that it is somehow "healthy"?

No, you made the assertion that "Their misuse of their reproductive organs is not natural at all - and extremely unhealthy. "

And I've supplied citations that show your statement is in error.   Homesexual activity DOES occur in the natural world, therefor it cannot be unnatural by definition.  The fact that YOU have only rarely observed it does NOT mean that is rarely happens.  Such behavior is well documented by a multitude of skilled and trained observers.  When presented with citations that are contrary to your opinion, you dismiss them as "junk science" put forth by "communists" then metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears so as to not hear anything else that you disagree with.

[grampster]

"..and as a sapient individual, I have the right to choose."

    Ok, you've left yourself wide open here..   I gotta pull yer chain.

This is meant to be funny, not critical.  Ahem...the word is sentient not sapient which does, in the context of this discussion, make me laugh out loud because of the descriptive adjectival image that misuse of the word conjures as follows.     Petulant tone: I'm a sap, so I can use my body any way I want.  End petulant tone. 

[Nitrogen]

Can someone explain to me how being Homosexual is different from being, say Jewish?

[Perd Hapley]

Can someone explain to me how being Homosexual is different from being, say Jewish?

I love how the other side asks these sorts of stupid questions.  As if to prove that their position requires willful ignorance. 

[roo_ster]

So what if the costs go up   care to explain how you imagine they won't go up?

cool  you write the check

and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero

You first..  how will they go up in any real sense?  You first brought up the cost issue and if I'm supposed to refute something I need to know what it is.

Hokay, time to add some light to the heat.  Or at least some data.

For those who think that it would cost nothing, dollar-wise, for insurance to cover the "partner" of a homosexual employees at a company, you fail basic arithmetic.  Those folks, even if they had similar illness & mortality rates, would end up costing somebody more money, because they use dollars to cover their health care.  TANSTAAFL...or TANSTAAFHC to be more specific.

Thing is, there are studies showing that homosexual males have an incredibly high mortality rate and use of health care during their peak earning years.  This is relative to heterosexual males.

To give an idea, the following study shows just how significant the difference is:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf

Summary:
Vancouver, BC, Canada had X number of male HIV deaths over a period of time.  Due to various factors, the homosexual population could not be accurately estimated as one percentage, so three estimates were used, high (95), med (6%) and low (3%).  These three models were used to determine homosexual male mortality rates and loss in life expectancy due to HIV (see note 1).

Take a good, long, look at Tables ! & 2 and Tables 1 & 2.  They are sobering tally a huge loss of life...and increased health care costs sooner, rather than later.

Code:

                     Life Expect                      Loss due to HIV      
Gay and bisexual men                        
3% of population      34      (0.70)      21.3      (0.90)
6% of population      42.6      (0.50)      12.7      (0.70)
9% of population      46.3      (0.40)      9      (0.60)
All men                     54.3      (0.10)      1      (0.20)
(Std err for each value in parenthesis)

If you think it would cost fellow employees on the same insurance plan a big, fat, nuthin', I think the data says otherwise.  The data shows that while men are in their prime earning years, homosexual males are in a big hurry to fall ill and die.  Not only is the enterprise denied their skill and labor, it has to pay out big bucks for life-saving & extending treatments.  I would bet that in addition to health care costs, that we can toss in disability for them.



Note 1:  HIV is not the only thing that drives down homosexual life expectancy.  There are large correlations between homosexuality and other risky behaviors.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

now you dun it!  thanks for doing what i've been to busy to do

[The Annoyed Man]

HEY FISTFUL-

How about a little 'live and let live' and some 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and especially 'remove the log from your own eye first'?

IOW, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

hmmmmmmmm..........?

[Perd Hapley]

Help, I've been snared in my own self-righteousness.     None of those sentiments apply here, Paddy. 

You'll have to excuse him, folks.  For whatever reason, I serve for Paddy as a living caricature of the legalistic Pharisee.  I hope it makes his life easier, somehow. 

[roo_ster]

now you dun it!  thanks for doing what i've been to busy to do

No problem.  I am a data hound from way back.

I recall reading some studies in the past detailing homosexual mortality rates/life spans, but I was pretty darned shocked at the results in this study.  Especially so, since I think the 3% homosexual estimate is too high for the general population.  IME, the actual number is closer to 1% of the general population with 3% being what one might find in urban areas with higher concentrations.

Of course, the homosexual political groups claim 10%, but that can be dismissed as baloney, same as Muslim political groups' claims that America is 7% Muslim (reality closer to 1%).

An average life expectancy of 34 years due to HIV.  That is caveman-equivalent mortality.  That is a lot of folks dying young.  What a tragedy and waste.

Those that survive end up on anti-HIV drugs for the rest of their lives. 

Yeah, that sure is something to "celebrate."

[The Annoyed Man]

Help, I've been snared in my own self-righteousness.     None of those sentiments apply here, Paddy. 

You'll have to excuse him, folks.  For whatever reason, I serve for Paddy as a living caricature of the legalistic Pharisee.  I hope it makes his life easier, somehow. 

You got nothin' on me. I was once accused of being too legalistic by a Methodist minister who told me to go down the street to the Baptist church. 

[taurusowner]

I don't really care about the marriage or union aspect of it.  But I do think that any and all families that lack both a father and a mother are starting out deficient.  Granted some single parent homes can rise above the challenge and still raise children, but it's not starting on the same footing as a complete home.  The "authorities", religious, legal, whatever, can't do much to stop divorce, or stop children out of wedlock.  But that doesn't mean they should activly condone "families" that start from the get go lacking a father and a mother.