Homosexual Marriage

[texasdave]

Maryjane,
Your conclusion that because I was not tempted into homosexuality in my 20's and therefore gays adopting would not turn children gay is flawed for two reasons.
1. Just because I was not tempted does not mean that others might not be. This is perhaps how bisexual people become bisexual. They are probably weaker in their ability to resist certain things. Like some people might not steal unless encouraged by someone else.
2. Children are much more influencable than adults. They are learning right from wrong and that sense can be warped or damaged by influences during their formative years. It is a statistical fact ( and every parent knows this by experience) that if you as a parent do not want a child to do a certain behavior, like smoking for example, then the parents should not do that behavior. Parents must set the example by their own behavior because children have a natural tendency to emulate the behavior of their parents. Since homosexuality is a behavior then that behavior becomes more likely to occur among children with openly gay guardians.

[Jack]

Smoking is a behavior, as is the gay lifestyle. No one argues you can't change behaviors, but stopping smoking does not mean you've conquered your addictive personality. The root cause of your smoking is still there but suppressed. Gays can quit acting gay, but they can't quit being gay. I know many married (to women) gay men. They're still gay, and in some cases miserable.

Children do emulate adults. Many kids start smoking to feel more adult. Many Christians I know are religious simply because that's the way they were raised. I don't know anyone, have never heard of anyone, who "became" gay to be like a gay adult.

[fencer]

Marriage is between one man and one wife. Homosexuality goes against the grain of the Universe as a whole. I'll be honest I have a sister who disagrees with me, but the recreation of a species cannot be with two people of the same gender.

[Matt W]

Quote by: fencer Marriage is between one man and one wife. Homosexuality goes against the grain of the Universe as a whole. I'll be honest I have a sister who disagrees with me, but the recreation of a species cannot be with two people of the same gender.

Granted. But you view this as an opportunity to deny people rights?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Matt W Granted. But you view this as an opportunity to deny people rights?

You can't deny people rights that neither they nor anyone else even had.

[ZNFYRH]

That's sorta right, Fangrim.

The problem is that the law chooses to recognize marriage and give those who are married certain special legal considerations and benefits.

When homosexuals wanted to be married and claim those same benefits, laws were passed that denied them those benefits.

They are being denied the right to be married. They are being denied the recognition of their union based on nothing more than their sexual orientation.

The problem with this is that you can't deny someone employment if they are homosexual. There are many aspects of life where homosexuals, right along with women, Muslims, blacks, and the handicapped, are protected from exclusion. The idea is that those are things they can't help.

As long as people perceive homosexuality as a conscious choice, they won't truly see it as something that should be protected from exclusion.

[italiangm]

Quote by: texasdave 1. Just because I was not tempted does not mean that others might not be. This is perhaps how bisexual people become bisexual. They are probably weaker in their ability to resist certain things. Like some people might not steal unless encouraged by someone else. 2. Children are much more influencable than adults. They are learning right from wrong and that sense can be warped or damaged by influences during their formative years. It is a statistical fact ( and every parent knows this by experience) that if you as a parent do not want a child to do a certain behavior, like smoking for example, then the parents should not do that behavior. Parents must set the example by their own behavior because children have a natural tendency to emulate the behavior of their parents. Since homosexuality is a behavior then that behavior becomes more likely to occur among children with openly gay guardians.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for any of your assertions? Or are you going to continue to ignore that question and just continue spouting off an unsupported opinion?

I grew up in an entirely heterosexual, conservative household. According to your 'logic', I should be heterosexual.

So the next burning question in my mind is, just what kind of 'examples' do you suppose a same sex couple would have to engage in to influence a child to emulate homosexual behavior?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Fangrim You can't deny people rights that neither they nor anyone else even had.

There is no 'right' to marriage anywhere in the Constitution.

[italiangm]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The problem with this is that you can't deny someone employment if they are homosexual. There are many aspects of life where homosexuals, right along with women, Muslims, blacks, and the handicapped, are protected from exclusion. The idea is that those are things they can't help.

I assume you're posing a hypothetical situation, at least for most of the United States.

Homosexuals can indeed be denied employment, lodging,and services in the US unless a law or ordinance states otherwise.

[texasdave]

Fangrim,
Homosexuals are not being denied any rights. They have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. They may marry anyone of the opposite sex not closely related to them that they choose. Marrying someone of the same sex is a want not a right.

[italiangm]

Quote by: texasdave Fangrim, Homosexuals are not being denied any rights. They have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. They may marry anyone of the opposite sex not closely related to them that they choose. Marrying someone of the same sex is a want not a right.

According to the Constitution, marrying someone of the opposite same sex is a want not a right, as well.

[Fangrim]

I've already posted in this thread that the right to marry exists, albeit not in the manner that gays prefer. Court cases are explicit in this matter.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: ZNFYRH That's sorta right, Fangrim. The problem is that the law chooses to recognize marriage and give those who are married certain special legal considerations and benefits. When homosexuals wanted to be married and claim those same benefits, laws were passed that denied them those benefits. They are being denied the right to be married. They are being denied the recognition of their union based on nothing more than their sexual orientation. The problem with this is that you can't deny someone employment if they are homosexual. There are many aspects of life where homosexuals, right along with women, Muslims, blacks, and the handicapped, are protected from exclusion. The idea is that those are things they can't help. As long as people perceive homosexuality as a conscious choice, they won't truly see it as something that should be protected from exclusion.

There is no right to be married.
There is a right to marry a person of the opposite sex.
That gays don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex isn't surprising, considering that neither do straights.

The right to marriage is most certainly not being denied on the basis of sexual preference; the employment analogy is misleading.

[fencer]

Quote by: Matt W Granted. But you view this as an opportunity to deny people rights?

There have been many rights taken away from specific people at any given time. In fact even today we still lack many rights the Constitution has tried to give us. However, like many other reports have said, you can't give a right no one originally had. :)
Slavery didn't end very long ago, and even today there is still racism against Caucasians, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and the list goes on and on. Are we denying them rights?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim There is no right to be married. There is a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That gays don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex isn't surprising, considering that neither do straights. The right to marriage is most certainly not being denied on the basis of sexual preference; the employment analogy is misleading.

I think this is a specious argument. I doubt that any of us is so blind as to believe that marriage between a homosexual and a person of the opposite gender is equivalent to the marriage between two heterosexuals. The right to marry is not the question here, as homosexuals can be married by some churches -- heck, I'm a minister, and so is Isherwood; either of us can perform marriages from sunup to sundown. The government does not grant the right to marry. The issue is whether or not a particular couple may have the marriage they choose recognized by the government, and whether they may collect the benefits of that legal recognition of marriage. The government recognizes and subsidizes the chosen marriages of heterosexual, non-related couples; it does not recognize nor subsidize the chosen marriages of homosexual, non-related couples. Now, unless there is a logical reason for this differentiation, then it should be changed: either all marriages should be recognized, or no marriages should be recognized. No matter what the government does, people will still get married, but the government's treatment of marriage should be logical, consistent, and equitable for all citizens. Currently, it is not.

Do you have a logical basis for recognizing and subsidizing heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint;394351[quote ]No longer true, which means that the following statement is also a bit off.

So you're saying the majority of kids are sexually active with multiple partners. This is really kinda sad.

Dating is a large part of the social scene, whether you are adept at it or not. When teenagers get together, the first thing they talk about is dating, as well as the last thing and half the things in between. It just makes it harder when your peers won't accept your romantic situation -- or worse, focus on it to the exclusion of all else, as if you are a fish in a bowl, one who can do a really neat trick.

Dating may be an area thing. I don't know, but I never heard of a lot of dating when I was growing up in HS. There were some kids who went together, but dating just wasn't that common.

But the point is that as hard as it is for everyone, gays have an added level of difficulty. We all have scars, but gays have a few more.

A lot of gays are quite personable, so I think they may have less problems socially than you are speaking of. I think heteros have more problems. There's more pressure to be good-looking, or tough, whatever the "in" thing is.

Teens are not any more receptive of gays than they have ever been. The few openly homosexual or bisexual students in my high school are constantly mocked, constantly ostracized, constantly teased. I can almost guarantee that watching them has kept some others from coming out, from dealing with their emotions, which leads to the problems italiangm was talking about.

I kinda figured kids wouldn't be. Kids are really mean. From my own experience when you get mocked a lot it teaches you to be witty, or funny. Something good can come from it. Course there will be tears, but adolescents do a lot of crying anyway because it's such a hard time.:(

[megadeth425]

Quote by: italiangm According to the Constitution, marrying someone of the opposite same sex is a want not a right, as well.

The Consitution was also written over 200 years ago by slave-owning mysoginists who saw everyone with a different skin color as inferior. It's out-dated in all ways.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Fangrim I've already posted in this thread that the right to marry exists, albeit not in the manner that gays prefer. Court cases are explicit in this matter.

That 'right' is only granted by the state. By the same token, there's no justifiable state interest to deny that same right to homosexuals.

Going back to my original quote and your original reply before you changed it::

---Quote (Originally by italiangm)---
There is no 'right' to marriage anywhere in the Constitution.

.---Response by Fangrim----
Neither is the right to life.

You're right. But when you get a chance, meander over to The Declaration of Independence. I'm sure "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is an "unalienable right" to "all men" since we "are created equal".

[italiangm]

Quote by: megadeth425 The Consitution was also written over 200 years ago by slave-owning mysoginists who saw everyone with a different skin color as inferior. It's out-dated in all ways.

Agreed. Wake me up when US citizens are ready to change it.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Do you have a logical basis for recognizing and subsidizing heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage?

Once the argument goes out of the realm of rights, my opinion is null and void. My primary issue lies with constitutional law and its ramifications; not with societal justice and prosperity.