Your Political Affiliation

[BogartSlap]

guess again

Everyone loves the law - until it steps on their toes.

Not me. I don't like it even when it's NOT stepping on my toes. I'm an anarchist at heart. But, the law is what it is, and therefore since I've chosen to live in this country, I've tacitly agreed to live by it. As I've said before, you're perfectly free to work to change it.
P.S. Yeah, your age guess wasn't even close. And, just for the record, I concentrated on constitutional law in law school.
P.P.S. If you think the "founding dads" would ever in their wildest dreams have thought of endorsing homosexual marriage, you are transmitting from a planet far, far away...where there's obviously severe oxygen deprivation.

 

[BeachGurl2]

P.S. Yeah, your age guess wasn't even close. And, just for the record, I concentrated on constitutional law in law school.

It's all becoming clearer now. I completely understand the position from which you hale. And unfortunately, have little respect for it - sorry Marquis, I know not all law-inclined people are self-important idiots.
(and if the age guess wasn't even close, it can't have been far off since you "weren't around in the 60s and 70s", which I was.)

P.P.S. If you think the "founding dads" would ever in their wildest dreams have thought of endorsing homosexual marriage, you are transmitting from a planet far, far away...where there's obviously severe oxygen deprivation.

What I said was, if they were here today, not at that point in time. If you deigned to read an entire thought before forming an opinion, you would have understood the point - or maybe not - but I'm not going to explain it to you. Your explanation of studying constitutional law in law school explains why you were unable to do that.

I actually didn't come here to stir up more trouble. Your high brow position of having to be right about everything is what made me post - had I realized that you went to law school, I wouldn't have wasted my breath, because of course if you went to law school you certainly are 100% right and we're all idiots. If I truly wanted to stir the pot, like you, I'd start pulling out statistics and then pointing out the error of each argument point by point. I'm not in the mood to do that, so I guess I'll leave the argument to those who have the tolerance for that right now. I just have little patience for those who are so closed-minded that they can't listen to opposing viewpoints at all. While there has obviously been truth on both sides of the coin within this debate, your need to not only be right, but to pounce on every scintilla of what you consider to be a mistaken viewpoint and then keep saying things like - you can work to make change - leans too far toward bullying, in my opinion. It's a lot like someone who professes to be pro-life bombing a Planned Parenthood clinic to make his point. The ends justifies the means, sort of thinking. Good luck with that.

 

[BogartSlap]

take some notes

"

and if the age guess wasn't even close, it can't have been far off since you "weren't around in the 60s and 70s", which I was.)"

Actually, I said I WAS around in the 60s - it was Netz who said she wasn't.

"Your high brow position of having to be right about everything..."

Pardon me - I just fell off my chair laughing. When did I ever say anything about feeling any need to be right EVER, much less "about everything"? Excuse me - I'm going to enjoy falling off my chair laughing again.

"...because of course if you went to law school you certainly are 100% right and we're all idiots."

(A) That wouldn't make me "certainly" right...and (B) Hey, you might still be an idiot even if I were a high school dropout. Who knows?

"If I truly wanted to stir the pot, like you, I'd start pulling out statistics..."

Right. So I guess we can assume that you're not able to statistically demonstrate the point I suggested, despite your earlier assertion that you can use stats to support any position. Nice side-step, kiddo.

"I just have little patience for those who are so closed-minded that they can't listen to opposing viewpoints at all."

Actually, it sounds more like you're the one who "can't listen to opposing viewpoints at all". I've spent the last couple of days listening to everyone in here, trying to respond to each, complimenting some, admittedly lambasting others. However I have yet to see ANY kind words at all from you directed toward anyone who dares to disagree with your position.

"...and then keep saying things like - you can work to make change - leans too far toward bullying, in my opinion. It's a lot like someone who professes to be pro-life bombing a Planned Parenthood clinic to make his point."

Oh yeah, that's a LOT like bombing a Planned Parenthood clinic. Pardon me - gotta roll on the floor laughing again.

 

[BeachGurl2]

"I just have little patience for those who are so closed-minded that they can't listen to opposing viewpoints at all."

Actually, it sounds more like you're the one who "can't listen to opposing viewpoints at all". I've spent the last couple of days listening to everyone in here, trying to respond to each, complimenting some, admittedly lambasting others. However I have yet to see ANY kind words at all from you directed toward anyone who dares to disagree with your position.

Since the rest of your quote didn't actually say anything, I will respond to this section. I have a long history on this board of being open to others views, having civilized, educated discussions, and not personally attacking others - I broke my own rule and personally attacked you, for that I apologize. It's very rare that I let my emotions overtake my logical mind in a debate. But it's very difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who is so clearly using emotion to push a position that truly shouldn't need to be debated. It isn't about anything other than a group of powerful people wanting to keep the status quo trying to use emotion to frighten people into behaving their way. It is the American political system in full tilt action. We should be so proud. (Of course, after our illustrious history, why should any of us be surprised? Can we all say Patriot Act?)

I've been reading through this thread for days now, and actually been forcing myself not to jump in, because frankly, I'm tired of arguing against the same lame position - the arguments used to not allow gay marriage have nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. They do, however, have to do with scaring the American people by using emotionally-based arguments. When you can tell me why gay marriage is harmful and therefore should not be allowed, then I'll listen to your argument and have a true DISCUSSION with you. Until the time you're able to give me something relevant to the issue at hand, then you're just spouting propaganda used by the religious right to scare the American people into behaving irrationally. Saying it's not economically important is stupid. Neither was giving women the right to vote. That didn't make the position right.

~Allowing gay marriage will not statistically affect HIV/AIDS rates and the 2 aren't related. Safe sexual practices among those who are sexually active - no matter the gender or orientation - will affect HIV/AIDS rates. The people who will take advantage of gay marriage at this point are largely already in committed relationships. They aren't more or less likely to cheat than their heterosexual counterparts. (This is the same type of argument the anti-gun lobby uses - bottom line: people are responsible for the choices they make, if they choose risk behavior, then they are taking risks. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.)

~Allowing gay marriage will not statistically affect families nor will it necessarily alter to any statistical degree the number of gay couples raising children. Gay couples can and do have children in a variety of ways. In many places they can already adopt children, just as single adults can adopt. We already have gay families. We already have non-traditional families. Instead of focusing on how screwed up the kids from these families are, what we should be doing is saying, okay, we have more non-traditional families than traditional families and many children from these families are becoming non-productive adults. What can we do about that? It's not because the families are non-traditional, it's because of other things that make the family dysfunctional. Non-traditional does not mean dysfunctional. There are many non-traditional families that are better functioning than a lot of traditional families. People who study these types of things know what most Americans aren't willing to admit - it is the dysfunction that is causing the problems, not the fact that the families are non-traditional. Those who argue back and forth about it aren't fixing the problems. Substance abuse, poverty, domestic abuse, lack of education, etc., are the things causing dysfunction. Oh yeah, and prejudice. What gay marriage can do is legitimize some of those families, thereby allowing some of the dysfunction to stop, or at least be alleviated.

~What gay marriage will do is give legal standing to those already in long term, committed relationships. Exactly the things that SpetreT pointed out in his earlier post. It will give partners a legal standing. Laws of inheritance and guardianship, the ability to make decisions for those in their families who can't make them for themselves. It will allow them some financial advantages that really they should have such as filing as a married couple, having shared insurance coverage, the ability to rent a car together without having to pay an extra premium because they aren't married. Simple little things that many married couples take as their due that other committed couples can't because the law says they don't qualify to marry.

My great aunt and her partner own a home together. They are in their 80s. They have been together as a couple since their late 20s, so almost 60 years. All of their property is owned with both of their names on things. The local hospital breaks its own rules to allow them the same advantages given to married couples because they know that these women love each other. And when one of them passes on, our families will allow the other one to make all the decisions, even though the law says they don't have that right. They've spent their entire adult life asking for 2 beds when they travel because 2 women traveling together, especially back when they began their relationship, was not acceptable with one bed. And every morning, one of them would mess up the second bed in their room before the maids came in. Do you know how absolutely stupid the idea of that is? It hurts to see how much love they have for each other and to know how persecuted they could have been if they had been more public about their relationship. No one should have to love in private that way just to avoid persecution from others. (not consenting adults, anyway)

Feel free to advocate for such a legal change - that's what's great about America, you're free to try to advance whatever cause you take an interest in. But in the meantime, try to dial back the moaning and hysteria about being denied equal rights, not having a seat at the table, etc. You have the same legal rights as myself or anyone else - we are all equally free to form a union, and ask that that union be recognized as a marriage, IF it meets the current legal definition of marriage; we are all, also, equally free to campaign for a change in the legal definition.

It's interesting to me when people talk about things like this in quite this way. At one time in our history, women were considered marital property. They were transferred from father to husband in quite the same manner as a piece of livestock. This is equally true of blacks. Even after women were recognized to be independent of men and not owned by them, they still had to fight for the right to vote and actually own property for themselves. We have a long, ugly history in this country of discrimination. Discrimination is practiced legally in many forms across this country - it is in other countries as well, but this is the one we're talking about right now. Just because marriage is defined in our laws as a union between a male and a female does not make it any less discriminatory than legally owning another human being - I'm not talking BDSM-style owning here, people. You're right that the law recognizes a marriage as being a legal union between 2 people of the opposite sex. We all actually know that. The point is that the law is discriminatory and should be changed. When you can give me a VALID reason that it shouldn't, I'd be more than willing to listen. The reasons you've given thus far have nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage and so aren't valid.

 

[BeachGurl2]

"

and if the age guess wasn't even close, it can't have been far off since you "weren't around in the 60s and 70s", which I was.)"

Actually, I said I WAS around in the 60s - it was Netz who said she wasn't.

Oops, forgot this one. I stand corrected.

 

[Zinfandel]

They've spent their entire adult life asking for 2 beds when they travel because 2 women traveling together, especially back when they began their relationship, was not acceptable with one bed. And every morning, one of them would mess up the second bed in their room before the maids came in. Do you know how absolutely stupid the idea of that is? It hurts to see how much love they have for each other and to know how persecuted they could have been if they had been more public about their relationship. No one should have to love in private that way just to avoid persecution from others. (not consenting adults, anyway)

This honestly made me want to cry. I cannot imagine having to hide that way. The things we heterosexual couples have always taken for granted...

 

[BogartSlap]

enlarge your vision

"

...It isn't about anything other than a group of powerful people wanting to keep the status quo trying to use emotion to frighten people into behaving their way. It is the American political system in full tilt action. We should be so proud."

If that's all you think it's about, respectfully suggest you think again.
Yeah, we should be proud, because even on its worst day, our political system is still the best ever put into operation.

"When you can tell me why gay marriage is harmful and therefore should not be allowed, then I'll listen to your argument and have a true DISCUSSION with you."

"...you're just spouting propaganda used by the religious right to scare the American people into behaving irrationally."

I would hope that the homosexual advocacy contingent would have the good sense to shy away from throwing around accusations about spouting propaganda, now that they've freely admitted to unabashedly using utterly false propaganda for years (like the infamous "10 per cent of the population is homosexual" bullshit) in an attempt to further their agenda.

"Saying it's not economically important is stupid."

First of all, I didn't say that. Second of all, I will say that I'm a bit surprised to hear a liberal suggesting that we base social policy on what ought to prove most profitable.

"Allowing gay marriage will not statistically affect HIV/AIDS rates and the 2 aren't related."

That might turn out to be true, but for you to state it like it's an already established fact is less than completely honest.

"Safe sexual practices among those who are sexually active - no matter the gender or orientation - will affect HIV/AIDS rates."

Yeahhh...but the fact remains that male/male sex is the most UNsafe sexual practice in regard to the transmission of HIV.

"The people who will take advantage of gay marriage at this point are largely already in committed relationships. They aren't more or less likely to cheat than their heterosexual counterparts."

Hate to break it to you, but actually it appears that they may be. A self-reporting study done a few years back ('99 I think) showed a significantly larger number of unmarried homosexuals than heterosexuals involved "a committed relationship" engaged in sex outside that relationship. Now, it was a "self-reporting" study, so there's the possibility that more or the heterosexuals lied about cheating, but there's no reason to automatically assume that to be true, and it's unlikely that that would completely account for the vastly different numbers.

"Allowing gay marriage will not statistically affect families nor will it necessarily alter to any statistical degree the number of gay couples raising children."

Since it hasn't been done, who knows? What little data there is contradicts your assertion. In Denmark, for example, where gay marriage has been legalized, overall marriage rates have fallen significantly since then.

"There are many non-traditional families that are better functioning than a lot of traditional families."

Probably more accurate to say that SOME non-traditional families are more functional than SOME traditional ones (agreed, of course). But the way you put it, it starts to lean toward sounding like non-traditional families are, overall, more functional than traditional families.

"What gay marriage will do is give legal standing to those already in long term, committed relationships."

It'll also give that legal standing to any gay couple that's known each ten minutes and feels like running into a wedding chapel in Vegas and getting hitched.

"My great aunt and her partner own a home together. They are in their 80s. They have been together as a couple since their late 20s, so almost 60 years."

"They've spent their entire adult life asking for 2 beds when they travel because 2 women traveling together, especially back when they began their relationship, was not acceptable with one bed. And every morning, one of them would mess up the second bed in their room before the maids came in. Do you know how absolutely stupid the idea of that is?"

Yeah, it is incredibly stupid, as I know plenty of heterosexual women who often travel with other women, get one room with one king-size bed that they share, and never think a thing about it - and I doubt that the maids do either.

"It hurts to see how much love they have for each other and to know how persecuted they could have been if they had been more public about their relationship. No one should have to love in private that way just to avoid persecution from others."

WOAH...wait just a minute. Wasn't there some point in the not-too-distant past when you were complaining about people making arguments from emotion rather than logic? That is absolutely nothing but an attempted heart-string tug. But just for the record, one could make the same violins-playing-sadly-in-the-background plea for Luther who wants to marry his goat, Cindy who wants three husbands instead of just one, or Sam that wants to marry his 18-year-old daughter. Now, do you still feel that "no one should have to love in private"? Should we feel the same heart-wrenching sadness for Sam and his daughter that we do for your great aunt? And Luther and that goat have been in a stable, committed, loving relationship for years, but according to our legal system, if the goat dies first, poor Luther won't inherit a thing. It's just a tragedy.

 

[BogartSlap]

addendum

That last bit was intended to be humorous, but there's a point to it nonetheless. You keep saying show you the dangers of allowing homosexual marriages. Well, that's one of them - that once you open that door, another ten open behind it. Sam and his daughter can make all the same arguments that you do - they're in love, they're adults, they're discriminated against, etc. So can polygamists. (And even poor Luther can step up and say that we're discriminating against him just because his chosen partner happens to be "non-traditional".) Once you water-down the definition of "marriage", it begins to become a less meaningful term at all - as demonstrated by the fact that marriage rates overall have dropped in Denmark where homosexual marriage has been legalized for awhile.

 

[BogartSlap]

it worked then

This honestly made me want to cry. I cannot imagine having to hide that way. The things we heterosexual couples have always taken for granted...

Well, that's what it was precisely designed to do - it was purely an emotional appeal to get you to dispense bothering with considering the issue thoughtfully, and instead make an emotional decision about it in a flood of tears.

 

[BogartSlap]

stats and cats

You keep referring to your great aunt, and to granting the right to marry to homosexual couples who are already in "long-term" relationships, but seem to ignore the fact that that's hardly the norm in the homosexual community.
- The gay mag, Genre, did a survey that found 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime...and noted that respondents suggested including a category for those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.
- A classic long-term study of male and female homosexuality(Bell and Weinberg) found that almost half (43 percent) of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners (and 28 percent had one thousand or more partners).
- A study published in the Journal of Sex Research found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.". 20% had more than 500 partners.
Now, even though my best friend in college called me a "whore", still, I never made it over the 500 mark.

 

[BogartSlap]

more dangers

You want danger?
- Rates of anal cancer are a whopping 4000% higher for those who engage in male/male sex than for the general population. Gee, I didn't know that...till I bothered to do about 10 seconds of research.
- According to the Medical Institute of Sexual Health, lesbians have significantly higher rates of breast cancer and ovarian cancer than heterosexual women.
- I found this one surprising. Lesbians average having had twice as many MALE sexual partners as do heterosexual women. Gee, that seems kind of weird.
- Wow - didn't know this one either. According to Bureau of Justice stats, homosexuals are nearly twice as likely as heterosexuals to be victims of "domestic violence" from their partners.

 

[Netzach]

You want danger?
- Rates of anal cancer are a whopping 4000% higher for those who engage in male/male sex than for the general population. Gee, I didn't know that...till I bothered to do about 10 seconds of research.
- According to the Medical Institute of Sexual Health, lesbians have significantly higher rates of breast cancer and ovarian cancer than heterosexual women.
- I found this one surprising. Lesbians average having had twice as many MALE sexual partners as do heterosexual women. Gee, that seems kind of weird.
- Wow - didn't know this one either. According to Bureau of Justice stats, homosexuals are nearly twice as likely as heterosexuals to be victims of "domestic violence" from their partners.

White middle class men keel over from heart attacks and spread cervical cancer causing warts like no ones business. Round 'em up.

Do you happen to have stats on female heterosexual buttfuckees and anal cancers? I'm just curious. It seems very scientific to think that man juice does some kind of chemical reaction in male ass that my girl germs would protect me from.

 

[Netzach]

That last bit was intended to be humorous, but there's a point to it nonetheless. You keep saying show you the dangers of allowing homosexual marriages. Well, that's one of them - that once you open that door, another ten open behind it. Sam and his daughter can make all the same arguments that you do - they're in love, they're adults, they're discriminated against, etc. So can polygamists. (And even poor Luther can step up and say that we're discriminating against him just because his chosen partner happens to be "non-traditional".) Once you water-down the definition of "marriage", it begins to become a less meaningful term at all - as demonstrated by the fact that marriage rates overall have dropped in Denmark where homosexual marriage has been legalized for awhile.

Yes. Because it has nothing to do with "The Bachelor" no-fault divorce for 99 bucks, Britney, and the fact that you are about 40 percent likely to be a child of divorce if born since 1980. It's the fags that devalue the institution. 'cause I think a guy loving a guy is so gross I'm happy to compare it to antelope fucking.

This passes the "logic" segment of consitutional law class, folks.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Now, even though my best friend in college called me a "whore", still, I never made it over the 500 mark.

Dayum.... 500? I haven't even cracked 100... or even 50! *pouts* I'm straight, 45 yoa, and I don't even have to take off both shoes and socks to count the number of sexual partners I've had. And by sexual partner I am refering to "someone with an orifice I've stuck my penis in or gone down on" so I'm including anyone I EVER had vaginal, oral OR anal intercourse with. I might get to the second foot if I add hand jobs in there. If I add fantasy/cyber/phone partners I might hit 50....

I'm so deprived!

Or is that depraved?

 

[Evil_Geoff]

I was going to jump back into the morass, but I caught myself at the last moment and decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

Discretion, discretion, discretion.

There! I feel better now.

 

[CutieMouse]

Now, even though my best friend in college called me a "whore", still, I never made it over the 500 mark.

Dayum.... 500? I haven't even cracked 100... or even 50! *pouts* I'm straight, 45 yoa, and I don't even have to take off both shoes and socks to count the number of sexual partners I've had. And by sexual partner I am refering to "someone with an orifice I've stuck my penis in or gone down on" so I'm including anyone I EVER had vaginal, oral OR anal intercourse with. I might get to the second foot if I add hand jobs in there. If I add fantasy/cyber/phone partners I might hit 50....

I'm so deprived!

Or is that depraved?

Poor EG... will it make you feel better to know my "list" doesn't even fill one hand, and will most likely never come close to filling two? LOL

 

[BogartSlap]

smarter than me

I was going to jump back into the morass, but I caught myself at the last moment and decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

A wise decision. Damn - wish I was that smart.

 

[BogartSlap]

I don't know

....'cause I think a guy loving a guy is so gross I'm happy to compare it to antelope fucking.

I don't know...a guy fucking another guy IS gross, but still...I think fucking an antelope is probably worse. Personally, if forced to choose one or the other, I'd be desperately pleading for an "option C" (something like swallowing a bug maybe). Then again, you don't have to worry about the antelope turning into a stalker.

 

[BogartSlap]

glad to oblige

Do you happen to have stats on female heterosexual buttfuckees and anal cancers? I'm just curious. It seems very scientific to think that man juice does some kind of chemical reaction in male ass that my girl germs would protect me from.

The rates are indeed higher for female heterosexuals who engage in anal sex than for people who don't...however, they're nowhere near 4000% higher - only about a 200% increase for the female heterosexuals. This is probably due simply to the fact that most female heterosexuals who engage in anal sex do so only occasionally.
In any event, happy to oblige your request.

 

[BogartSlap]

girl germs

So, one question is, "Does our society consider there to be benefits of allowing homosexuals to marry that sufficiently outweigh the inherent dangers in legitimizing behaviors that pose a variety of serious public health risks?".

 

[CutieMouse]

So, one question is, "Does our society consider there to be benefits of allowing homosexuals to marry that sufficiently outweigh the inherent dangers in legitimizing behaviors that pose a variety of serious public health risks?".

The number of stable, two adult households available to adopt children would increase.

Unless couples did the invitro thing, they'd balance those of us who *ahem* managed to thwart the zero population growth crowd.

 

[BogartSlap]

Hope this helps

Dayum.... 500? I haven't even cracked 100... or even 50! *pouts* I'm straight, 45 yoa, and I don't even have to take off both shoes and socks to count the number of sexual partners I've had. And by sexual partner I am refering to "someone with an orifice I've stuck my penis in or gone down on" so I'm including anyone I EVER had vaginal, oral OR anal intercourse with. I might get to the second foot if I add hand jobs in there. If I add fantasy/cyber/phone partners I might hit 50....

Geoff - Maybe you engaged in SO much debauchery that you finally "blacked-out" as a result (you know, all the blood rushing south, lack of oxygen to your brain, whatever), and so you just don't remember those 50 girls you slept with that week at the convention in Reno.
Fell better now?
(Coulda happened that way.)

 

[BogartSlap]

thwart them

The number of stable, two adult households available to adopt children would increase.
Unless couples did the invitro thing, they'd balance those of us who *ahem* managed to thwart the zero population growth crowd.

Ever notice how the zero population growth crowd is completely composed of people who have already been born?

 

[BogartSlap]

good point

The number of stable, two adult households available to adopt children would increase.

Without quibbling with the word "stable", I'll just say - Good point, definitely a factor to consider.
Hmm...maybe we could work it this way: Change the laws so that any homosexual couple can get married IF they agree to adopt three children.

 

[CutieMouse]

Without quibbling with the word "stable", I'll just say - Good point, definitely a factor to consider.
Hmm...maybe we could work it this way: Change the laws so that any homosexual couple can get married IF they agree to adopt three children.

You'd have to toss in a few cases of duct tape; otherwise people would let the being outnumbered thing get in the way.