Homosexual Columnist Blasts Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Nov 18, 2013.

  1. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,611
    Employment is not a civil right? The civil rights act of 1964 would disagree since it specifically referred to places of employment. It is certainly more a civil right than marriage.

    And as far as homosexuals being unfit for marriage, the biology of the union is what deems them unfit, not some arbitrary government distinction as was the case with race. Neither the government or the courts can offer a remedy for public opinion, which is what, it seems, the LGBT lobby is seeking. Whether you call a gay union a marriage or not will not change how people view it, nor will it change the biology of the couple, which is different than the biology of a true marriage. All the courts can do is give them all the legal rights that apply to them, which nobody has any objection to. These rights, however, are not the same as those which apply to marriage because of the biology involved. Whether said union, which will remain inherently different than a true marriage, is second class or not is, quite simply, a matter of opinion that is not for the judiciary.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    No, employment itself isnt a civil right. Freedom from discrimination along certain grounds is (which can include sexual orientation). Marriage is an explicit civil right, as affirmed by Loving v. VA: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

    How does biology render someone unfit for "marriage?" Seems like gender and marriage arent exactly fixed concepts. If the argument is simply boy and girl parts, then that's tenuous at best. Can a castrated man be denied marriage since he no longer has boy parts? A woman who cannot ovulate? What about a hermafrodite? Must they marry according to how they "identify" or does having ambigious sexual organs allow them the ultimate marriage flexibility? As you can see, any sort of "scientific" basis here is heavy with questions the state has no business in answering.
  3. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,611
    Just why is marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" if the biology is irrelevant? Either the biology is absolutely relevant and therefore it is fundamental to our very existence and survival OR the biology isn't relevant and then it doesn't really have anything to do with our existence and survival. You can't have it both ways.
  4. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +695
    Benefits of marriages (with or without children), include longer life expectancy. Healthier life, in general. Financial benefits. Married people are, in general, also happier and more productive.

    If marriage was not allowed, certainly procreation would continue. But as a society, we would not be better off. And yes, raising children in a stable marriage is a benefit. But that benefit alone should not be the reason why we should discriminate against couples that cannot naturally have children. Again, biologically, there is no different between a gay couple and a straight couple with a post-menopausal woman as a party. And your previous claims that we have no reason to discriminate on age is bunk because we already do in many cases when it comes to age.

    So I ask again. If a woman aged 75 can get legally married and have 0% chance of producing natural offspring, why can't a gay couple get legally married? In other words, if the ability to have offspring is so essential to marriage, why aren't you railing against older women's ability to get married? And if you are claiming it's the act of sex itself that's so different, that's something we shouldn't truly care about when it happens behind closed doors.
  5. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    Well its quite obvious that the benefits of marriage arent merely biological, given that many people find ways to have pleasurable procreative sex and raise children successfully outside of marriage. Is marriage just about the sex, or the raising of children and social stability it provides? It's clear that the state's interest lies with the latter rather than the former.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,611
    But none of those benefits are "fundamental to our existence."

    Marriage would continue whether or not government recognized it officially and gave it benefits or not. Same with homosexual unions. And yes, there is an absolute biological difference between a gay couple and a straight couple with a post-menopausal woman. One is essentially infertile and the other is incidentally infertile. Heck, the homosexual union may even have 2 partners who are fertile, and nowadays the post-menopausal woman could have a biological child if she had frozen some of her eggs.

    In it's normative state marriage is about 2 heterosexual partners entering into a lifetime contract with the expectation that they will have sexual relations and that offspring will result from those sexual relations. The most socially stable environment will be a marriage between a man and a woman with children that biologically belong to both partners, with a male and a female influence.

    Again, age isn't even a relevant qualifier nowadays. The fundamental biological and physiological differences between the two partners are what makes the marriage what it is. That includes sex, childrearing, etc, but the fact is that homosexual relationships inherently are missing something that heterosexual relationships have: the influence and contribution of the missing sex, which includes their biological contributions to the marriage. To dismiss that as unimportant is intellectually dishonest.
  7. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    It is unimportant, legally speaking, especially given the cases and legal arguments that have preceeded this one. Homosexuals can have sex, rear children, have the contribution of the "missing" sex (because they have friends, relatives, extended family etc), and everything else straight people can within the confines of marriage. I know you find this "intellectually dishonest" (depsite it being true) but the convuluted defense of discrimination on grounds of "biology" isnt exactly the height of intellectually honesty either, especially when they either intentionally or unintentionally echo past (losing) arguments to defend discrimination.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2013
  8. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +695
    So a post-menopausal woman can have a child if she froze some eggs. What if she didn't? What about other people who are infertile for one reason or another? Should fertility tests be given and those that are infertile not be allowed to marry?

    And I disagree that the normative state that offspring will result from the sexual relations is part of the normative state of marriage. Even back in in Old Testament only times, there was a clause that men could divorce a woman if she produced no child within the first 10 years of marriage, but it was rarely, if ever invoked. And the Rabbis of the day encouraged even childless couples to remain married.

    We have also allowed known-infertile couples to marry throughout American history. Freezing eggs wasn't an option a couple of generations ago, yet we have never stopped post-menopausal women from marrying. So why is the ability to have children, or sexually mimic sex that could lead to children so important to marriage now?

    The answer is, it shouldn't be. I was married 8 years before our first born, and there was a time we discussed never having children. I was no less married than anyone with a child. I also have several married friends that too, are childless either by choice, or by biological reasons. They are no less married than me.

    WPG has it correct. There is nothing a homosexual couple cannot do that an infertile heterosexual couple can. And what you propose, helix, is discrimination based on the genders of the couple. And for what reason(s)?
  9. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,734
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,592
    Well, for a second, it appeared you'd answered your own question: when is separate ever equal? Well...according to the law, there are several examples.

    There you go--question answered: the law allows for different classifications of people and/or groups all the time.

    Since this isn't an earth-shattering legal development to anyone in law, it might behoove you to stop using that catch phrase as your centerpiece argument. Stick to your "I fear this would be discrimination" since that's probably far more accurate.

    Because, again, opinion and evidence are two different things.
  10. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,611
    It's absolutely intelectually dishonest because homosexual sex, childrearing, and contribution of the missing sex is NOT the same as it is in a marriage. The sex is different, the couple cannot have a mutually biological child, and having friends and family provide the role of the missing sex is absolutely not the same as having the missing sex married to and living with the present sex. It's a lot harder for a biological parent to simply walk out of a child's life than someone with no genetic or legal ties.

    The past "arguments" (i.e. separate but equal or miscegenation) don't really apply because the point of discrimination in those cases had nothing to do with the functional aspects of the institution. Black people and white people drank from a fountain, went to school and learned, etc. in a completely identical matter. interracial couples and intraracial couples enjoyed the exact same marriage with all the exact same sexual benefits and results when it came to childrearing, etc.

    This is not the case with homosexual marriages.

    Nope, because it's inefficient and discriminating on the basis of the union being heterosexual is very effective. And again, while having children isn't everything, it's an important distinction that homosexual couples cannot have by definition.

    Are you sure you want to bring religion into the argument?

    What you have posted is evidence of just how central childrearing is to marriage. Whether or not it is invoked is irrelevant. It is the normative state biologically and sociologically. When a man and a woman get married, kids were and are the expected result.

    It's always been important. it's not everything, but it is important. The point is that homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are not identical and that one is unable to produce any offspring ever under any circumstances. Even among the infertile, there remains a slim outside chance of conception as long as all the parts are still there. Homosexual couples are unable to ever produce children even with 2 fertile parents. They are different, and not equal.

    Heck, men and women aren't equal either. Men cannot bear children, among other things. That does not mean that we should redefine all men who can adopt a kid as a mom. Sorry, but they're still a dad because you have to be female to be a mom, despite the fact that Obamacare says they must have maternity coverage.

    None of them are in a union that is inherently unable to produce children, though, just like you weren't. Thus, marriage applies.

    WPG is completely incorrect. They are, in fact, different as it relates to the institution and some of the rights in question. What you're seeking is forced acceptance through re-definition of a term that doesn't need redefining. The courts cannot provide that remedy and are not the place for it.
  11. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,676
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,128

    Well said.

    All things are not equal.
  12. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +695
    Separate is never equal, and the separation engaged by the government happens for two reasons. One, distinction to level the playing field that is historically unequal (Affirmative Action). African Americans may receive special, unequal and favorable treatment, but as the theory goes, that's because they need the assistance so they can de facto be on equal grounds. I think today, Affirmative Action has outlived its purpose, but again, the separation happens to actually create equality.

    The other reason there is inequality in government is when it is in the best interest to separate. Again, take cable corporations, for example. If there was open competition among cable companies, each company would have to dig their own trenches, run their own lines, and it would most likely, companies wouldn't be able to re-coup their costs. I.e., if the cable market was split among several companies, none of them would profit, since it's expensive to run, maintain, and upgrade cable.

    So, how is keeping gay marriage separate from straight marriage leveling the playing field? It's not, of course. So, how does keeping gays from marrying in the best interest of the government? I would argue that it's not. All those same marriage benefits straight couples enjoy, such as longer, healthier lives, more economic security, etc., are benefits gay married couples would enjoy as well.

    Last, when it comes to childbearing. Helix, why aren't you also against post-menopausal women getting married? Unless they froze their eggs, which the overwhelming majority of elderly women do not, the union of a post-menopausal woman and any man has the exact same chance of producing natural offspring as any gay couple. You have said we shouldn't discriminate based on age, but we already do when it is in our best interest. Take drivers licenses, for example. We discriminate against the young, who cannot operate vehicles. And many states discriminate against the elderly with stricter renewal laws, mainly because many elderly have difficulties operating vehicles as well.

    So if we are denying marriage rights based on the infertility of the couple, why limit that denial based on gender? Why not force every couple to go through fertility tests? If the inability to produce offspring is the sole reason to deny gays the ability to marriage, I still don't understand why the same reasoning cannot be applied to everyone? Or, to put it another way, what reason does the government have to deny gays marriage rights?

    Last, pushing for gay marriage is not a push for acceptance. How are gays getting the right to marry now in certain stays forcing you, Helix, or anyone to accept their unions? How did the end of miscegenation laws cause the end of racism and supremacy groups? Answer, it didn't. No, this fight is about equal rights and protection under the law. And you want to personally go on not accepting a gay couple as married, that's your right. And government cannot force you personally to accept it.
  13. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,676
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,128
    As indicated by others, the real fight is about homosexuals bent on engaging in homosexual behavior, trying to change the moral climate about their homosexual acts, from one of historical moral approbation into forced moral acceptance.

    The alleged "struggle for rights" about the whole homosexual "predicament," is really a sham sideshow, when compared to the overall homosexual aim to make what was historically considered repugnant and deviate behavior, into something everyone must be forced to accept as "a modern norm" equal to heterosexual behavior.

    The effect on, and loss to society as perceived by those who adhere to the historical moral view, is that one more trustworthy view about virtuous, normative moral behavior with regard to sexual behavior, has been assailed to the point that it is demanded - by homosexuals - that it must be replaced.

    The historical view folks perceive that homosexual demand as clear evidence of societal moral decline, and not a progression to a more trustworthy moral state.
  14. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,465
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,873
    Yes, gays have largely succeeded in convincing their fellow citizens, families and friends than there is nothing wrong with being gay. Moreover, the people who do think this is a postive development see this as evidence of the improvement of society rather than a measure of its decline.
  15. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,734
    Likes Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,592
    Az, if your goal is to argue in circles to the point of where what you're saying now barely resembles what you started off saying and it's a calculated move designed to wear down opposing viewpoints just by the sheer mental frustration of keeping up with your full-circle arguments, then you're succeeding beyond your wildest dreams.

    If you're trying to actually support your viewpoint with facts and evidence, you're failing miserably.

    To recap: you started with an absolute--separate is never equal; in an obvious attempt to link the Brown decision to the current debate.

    Which I promptly responded that you probably need to read Brown before trying to apply it to a different situation and set of facts. And, to that end, also pointed out numerous examples of when the law creates different classifications for various reasons.

    Now, it appears you've conceded that the law DOES allow for separate classifications of groups and individuals, sometimes even when it's discriminatory...but are still attempting to argue your original point!

    Look man, figure out what you want to argue. As of now, you'd be laughed out of an appellate court with how you're doing.

    And really, this is NOT about civil rights, as this thread has conclusively shown everyone in agreement to the idea of civil rights for gay couples. What you're objecting to is the mechanism: either civil unions for all or gay couples only, with the same rights as straight couples.

    And, after failing at trying to make a legal argument, you let the cat out of the bag as to why you REALLY don't accept it: your *feeling* or gut instinct that it just wouldn't be equal and your gut that it would be used for discrimination.

    Sorry, if you're trying to use the courts to force the issue into law, you'll need some semblance of a legal argument. Brown is distinguishable in facts and in evidence, as we've already covered.

    And, I realize "history" and "tradition" probably don't mean much to you in this debate ...but it's something the courts have allowed to let stand before in other areas. Look at displays of the 10 Commandments in courthouses before the ACLU decided to become radically atheist: courts have allowed them to stand. Or the oath of office being still sworn on a Bible. Courts have upheld that too.
  16. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,676
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,128

    Homosexuals have convinced many apathetic citizens - through agenda propaganda and bombardment of senses - to basically ignore them and let them do what the heck they want to. That is a big difference in attitude, from the one you suggest. But hey, we know it's opinion vs. opinion, and aggressive agenda vs. apathy.

    Sure, the people who actually approve of the agenda - a distinct minority, IMO - would characterize the moral decline as an improvement.
  17. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +695
    There once was a time when the mixing of races in a formal setting, say marriage, was considered clear evidence of societal moral decline, and not a progression to a more trustworthy moral state. I also fail to see how granting more people equal civil rights can lead to a decline in society where we are all supposed to be created equal.
  18. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,676
    Likes Received:
    589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,128

    Racists might have been making an immoral argument back then - and some of them might have even been thumping a bible while doing it (which is certainly an implied point you like to make, whenever you bring up the race-mixing issue) - but it would have been a perversion of orthodox Judeo-Christian teaching.

    We are all equal opportunity children in God's eyes, as a starting point. But it is the finishing point that matters.
  19. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +695
    Separate is still never equal.

    Inequality is legal in two cases. 1) When correcting pass inequalities to make things currently equal. 2) When inequality is a better situation. For example, granting anti-trust exemptions because competition would lead to more problems. I ask again, failing to grant gay couples legal marriage falls under which one of these?

    I talked about du jure and de facto before. While granting civil unions to all would legally give gays the same rights, would doing so actually accomplish that in society? The fact marriage and civil union would still be separate leads me to believe there would still be de facto discrimination. Which is what you want anyway, correct? After all, what other reason would you have for granting gays their rights but keeping them separated somehow?

    Brown is still applicable. Would it be possible to grant only white couples a marriage license and give all black couples a civil union granting all the same rights? No. And what Supreme Court ruling would make this unconstitutional. Brown, because the ruling ended all government discrimination. (du jure) Brown has also been expanded to cover other things other than race, such as religion and creed, and yes, in some cases, sexual orientation. The question then becomes, what reason(s) do we have to keep gay unions separate from straight unions. History? Tradition? I'm actually all for both when they don't stand in the way of other people's rights.
  20. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +695
    There were racists making the immoral argument back then while thumping Bibles. My questions to you are 1) Why was it a perversion of thinking, especially when there are Bible verses that can be used for anti-miscegenation? 2) Why can't the anti-gay agenda also be a perversion of Judeo-Christian teaching, especially when there are churches that are openly accepting of gays and gay unions? 3). What does it matter what the Bible says when it comes to American civil rights anyway?

Share This Page