Separation of Church & State

[ecmst12]

Two of my friends were married in MA a few months ago, we are going to their reception this weekend

There are plenty of studies out there that demonstrate that same sex couples are more LIKE hetero couples then UNLIKE them. Equally capable of maintaining a house, committing to a relationship, raising children. Also equally capable of screwing up a relationship, abusing children, lying to the spouse and trying to take more then the marital share of assets....straight couples do all that crap and worse and yet you never see anyone trying to forbid THEM from marrying. My DH's mom has been married more times then he can count (not even kidding, I think she's currently on her 3rd husband since I've been with him, and we might not know about all of them since they don't talk too often) and at no point is anyone ever going to tell her, enough is enough you're not allowed to get married again! There's no sin that any citizen can commit, no law they can break that will cause the legal system to forbid them from getting married. Rapists and murderers get married in prison all the time even. So explain how marriage is this "sacred institution" that needs to be protected because gay people want to participate? Please.

 

[tranquility]

The argument against would be the effects are a long-term rendering of the basic fabric of society. Those effects will take a generation to show up and generations to cause the real harm.

What will be interesting is, after the normalization of society to the new reality will there be a change in the number of those who are gay? If not, that is the percentage in the population remain the same, that would be a strong argument that homosexuality in an inherent characteristic. If so, that would be a strong argument there is a choice component involved.

If the latter, is society served by encouraging homosexuality? Is society better, worse or unchanged if more people have sex with people of the same sex?

None of those questions are rhetorical. But they do point to compelling reasons why human history has defined marriage as between the sexes.

 

[cbg]

In what way is society harmed by not monitoring what consenting adults do behind closed doors?

One of the few protections the Federal government has chosen to offer in the workplace is the right to be free from harassment/discrimination on the basis of a characteristic you cannot change or which defines a basic right; race, color, age, religion, gender, pregnancy. Homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed; why is it offered less protections? Why is it all right for society to vote on whether someone else is entitled to marry, on the basis of a characteristic they were born with and cannot change any more than they can change their race?

 

[ecmst12]

And yes, there is PLENTY of evidence already indicating that homosexuality is NOT a choice or something that can be changed.

When homosexuality is no longer stigmatized, the only difference in the number reported will be due to removal of the fear of coming out of the closet. More people will be HONEST about their sexuality instead of trying to conform to an unrealistic standard. And society is definitely not served by encouraging people to fake heterosexuality; that just leads to failed marriages and Washington sex scandals. But the actual percentage of the population that identifies as gay is not going to change just because society doesn't persecute them as much anymore.

Still a lot of gay teenagers out there committing suicide because of the torment they face. Is that serving society too?

 

[tranquility]

In what way is society harmed by not monitoring what consenting adults do behind closed doors?

Huh? The whole point is making it public and accepted. This is not a privacy issue.

Homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed; why is it offered less protections?

One of the women on my team has lived as a straight female all of her 40 odd years. She's been married, has a kid and has had all of her sexual experiences with the opposite sex. Until last year when she has given up the straight life and is living with a woman. So, definitionally, is she an aberration to your statement, a gay woman who has been living a lie or a bisexual? There is clearly a choice component involved. Now, a man's sexuality seems more fixed. There are far less stories of college experimentation or late life changes in men. And, this is where the problem of all the "studies" comes in. The definitions. Any study purporting to say homosexuality is not a choice will have to define away reality. Are there inherent factors? Yes. There do some to be some brain differences between gay and straight men. But, is that the source of being attracted to the same sex, or the result?

Why is it all right for society to vote on whether someone else is entitled to marry, on the basis of a characteristic they were born with and cannot change any more than they can change their race?

The someone else *IS* entitled to marry. It's just that some states do not allow them their preference of choosing someone of the same sex. (Or closely related, or of a certain age, or more than one, or a non-human.)

So explain how marriage is this "sacred institution" that needs to be protected because gay people want to participate?

Explain why humanity has chosen and chooses differently.

 

[tranquility]

When homosexuality is no longer stigmatized, the only difference in the number reported will be due to removal of the fear of coming out of the closet.

Certainly that will account for some of it, but not all. I've often seen studies where sexuality is described on a 7 point scale where one side is completely homosexual and the other completely heterosexual and the middle bisexual. The other points have to do with the amount of sexual experiences with the same or opposite sex. (I think it's called the Kinsey Scale.) I believe it is based on the fact that sexuality is not a 1 or a 0, but is far more complex. To say there is no choice component is untrue, unless we are talking about those at either end of the scale. (There is a more complex scale called the Klien grid where acts are not the only determinant.)

Still a lot of gay teenagers out there committing suicide because of the torment they face. Is that serving society too?

A boy I coached 30 years ago falls in this category. Most probably because of the fear of his parents' acceptance. So, my understanding of your argument is that being married to a person of the same sex is a constitutional right because it would make being gay less stigmatized and hence less people will hang themselves?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I just wanted to toss in the fact that this is, by far, the most reasonable debate I've ever witnessed on this subject.

I applaud you all.

 

[BOR]

And yes, there is PLENTY of evidence already indicating that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

Still a lot of gay teenagers out there committing suicide because of the torment they face. Is that serving society too?

If Homosexuality is not a choice as you say, suicide is.

Any idea of the suicide rate of police officers?

 

[mistoffolees]

So, my understanding of your argument is that being married to a person of the same sex is a constitutional right because it would make being gay less stigmatized and hence less people will hang themselves?

I don't think that's the argument at all. That would be akin to saying that homosexuality should be REQUIRED because homosexual households have greater income, on average, than heterosexual households. No one is making the argument that homosexual marriages should be allowed because of the outcomes.

There are 2 main arguments:

1. Equal protection clauses. The argument is that every person in the country has equal rights and should not be discriminated against because of race, color, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences.

2. Limited government. The Constitution is very clear in that the Federal government has ONLY those powers that are enumerated by the Constitution. There is nothing in there that gives the government the right to limit what people do between consenting adults. (Similarly, many state constitutions are modeled on the Federal one and also do not give that right to the State). Essentially, this is the "it's none of the government's business who I choose to share my bedroom with" argument.

The arguments are based on fundamental human rights, not the outcome - or whether society is better served.

(Heck, when you look at the number of teen pregnancies and unwanted children, one might be able to argue that it WOULD be better if homosexuality were more widely practiced, particularly among younger people, but, again, that is not the argument).

 

[HawaiianBurger]

Huh? The whole point is making it public and accepted. This is not a privacy issue.

One of the women on my team has lived as a straight female all of her 40 odd years. She's been married, has a kid and has had all of her sexual experiences with the opposite sex. Until last year when she has given up the straight life and is living with a woman. So, definitionally, is she an aberration to your statement, a gay woman who has been living a lie or a bisexual? There is clearly a choice component involved. Now, a man's sexuality seems more fixed. There are far less stories of college experimentation or late life changes in men. And, this is where the problem of all the "studies" comes in. The definitions. Any study purporting to say homosexuality is not a choice will have to define away reality. Are there inherent factors? Yes. There do some to be some brain differences between gay and straight men. But, is that the source of being attracted to the same sex, or the result?

I find it interesting so many people find this to be an individual choice. It is not. I can only give two arguments why. One, why would homosexuals put themselves in a position to be humiliated or criticized (the reality of the society we live in)? Hence the awkwardness of "coming out" - people are embarrassed and somewhat ashamed because of society belittling everything about something they, end the end, cannot control. It's as much of a choice now as it it was to be black during the civil rights movement. Second, examine your own sexuality. How much choice do you have with it? Once you determine the level of control you have on who you are sexually attracted to, you will realize why it is we can no longer allow such inaccurate thought to prevail in society.

 

[BOR]

There are 2 main arguments:

1. Equal protection clauses. The argument is that every person in the country has equal rights and should not be discriminated against because of race, color, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences.

How is abortion not an Equal protection argument for a man then?

If there are complaints millions of voters should not be able to abrogate a human right, why can 9 men do it to a Father that wants his baby?

If the ERA had passed would that mean Equal reproductive rights for the man?

If it does, then Roe should be overturned on that basis.

 

[mistoffolees]

How is abortion not an Equal protection argument for a man then?

It is. Men are free to get abortions any time they want one - just like women.

If there are complaints millions of voters should not be able to abrogate a human right, why can 9 men do it to a Father that wants his baby?

If the ERA had passed would that mean Equal reproductive rights for the man?

If it does, then Roe should be overturned on that basis.

That's just silly. There is no right for ANYONE to force someone else to have a child. The fundamental right in Roe v Wade is the right of a woman to control her body. A man can control his body, too. Just as a man can't force a woman to stay pregnant, a woman can't force a man to do something to his body that he doesn't want.

Under Roe v Wade, if a man WERE able to be able to become pregnant, the woman would not be able to force him to carry the fetus to term. There is no equal rights issue at all.

 

[BOR]

It is. Men are free to get abortions any time they want one - just like women.

I am talking about a baby being cut up and you make a joke!!

 

[ecmst12]

So, my understanding of your argument is that being married to a person of the same sex is a constitutional right because it would make being gay less stigmatized and hence less people will hang themselves?

That's a bit of an oversimplification. ONE of the reasons I support marriage equality is because (historically) legal equality is the first step towards TRUE equality. Kids are going to tease each other, that's never going to change, but if there was something they could look to, to tell them that even if their families didn't understand and their peers were merciless, that there is nothing WRONG with them and they are ok the way they are, well that would be something. Marriage equality and Title VII being expanded to include sexual orientation is something that would give tormented gay kids hope for the future.

Social change in history STARTS with the courts or the legislation saying hey, there's no good reason for the state to support discrimination against this group. It doesn't start with the voters and the courts follow. Changing the law isn't the LAST step to tolerance and acceptance of all orientations, but it's a step and an important one. Change the law and the people will come around eventually.

I completely agree that sexuality is rarely an all-or-nothing proposition. Given the current climate today though, a person has to feel pretty darn strongly to step up and say, hey I want to be with someone the same sex as me. Maybe your coworker was living a lie all those years, maybe she was trying to live a "normal" life because society expected it (it's a lot easier for a woman to fake interest then for a man, and research supports women having a more fluid sexuality then men), or maybe she THOUGHT she was happy until she met the love of her life, who happened to be a woman. Why is it any different then meeting the love of her life who happened to be a man other then her husband (at that time)? Bisexuals certainly exist, though not usually true 50-50, usually there is a leaning one way or the other. Honestly I don't think it's possible to really study the topic because of the OVERWHELMING social pressure in our society to be straight. That effects people's sexual behavior and choices so much that there's no way to know how our sexuality would develop in the absence of it.

 

[tranquility]

1. Equal protection clauses. The argument is that every person in the country has equal rights and should not be discriminated against because of race, color, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences.

This is what is being attempted. To add "sexual preference" as a right. Two problems, if "preference" it assumes choice and "sexual", my goodness, have you SEEN what's on the internet? That's why I challenged someone to name the "right" being adjudicated. Putting it into words is very problematical. Most "rights" are easy to state, this one is harder.

2. Limited government. The Constitution is very clear in that the Federal government has ONLY those powers that are enumerated by the Constitution. There is nothing in there that gives the government the right to limit what people do between consenting adults. (Similarly, many state constitutions are modeled on the Federal one and also do not give that right to the State). Essentially, this is the "it's none of the government's business who I choose to share my bedroom with" argument.

No. THIS IS NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE!!!!! It is exactly the opposite. It is a seeking of societal approval. Even this thread has pointed that out.