Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Clue to you, adoptive parenting does not use more of the state's resources. Homosexual marriage is not (within any forseeable or provable certainty) going to up child-abandonment rates.

I've never claimed that "adoptive parenting" was more expensive. But the adoption PROCESS is more expensive for everyone involved including the state and is NOT the more economical solution. Not all adoptions happen in a picture perfect setting. So I'm not comparing biological parenthood with adoptive parenthood. I'm comparing the burden on the state between biological parenthood against any other alternative.

[Dirty Name]

The law said, the effect matters, not what your claimed intent was, and because the effect of segragation was discrimatory

But why was the effect of segregation discriminatory? Because it didn't allow blacks the same access to quality education as whites.

How does this relate to same-sex couplehood? Couples, I will remind you, aren't individuals. The law allows all indviduals (regardless of sexual orientation) equal access to have a legally recognized marriage to a person of the opposite sex. Segregation did NOT allow specific individuals equal access to the same facilities. A ban on same-sex marriage cannot be equated with segregation because gays ARE allowed to be married. They simply must meet certain rules if they wish to have those marriages recognized in a legal forum.

I point you again to the analogy of your choice:

Is it illegal for the Cincinnati Reds to require a red t-shirt prior to giving away free tickets? Are fans wearing blue shirts being illegally discriminated against?

Or, are candy bar producers illegally discriminated against when the state offers a subsidy to orange producers to encourage the production and consumption of healthy snacks?

The answer is obviously "no" on both counts - because our government is free to encourage and stimulate certain areas of society that are in the state's best interest. If you don't LIKE the requirements, that's nobody's problem but your own. You are not prevented from "marrying" someone in a gay wedding ceremony. You are not prevented from living with a same sex partner. You are not prevented from entering into a legal contract with your gay lover. You are free to enter into whatever relationships and contractual arrangements you wish. But if you don't follow the RULES, you don't get the benefits. There is no illegal discrimination just because you don't want to meet the standards set forth by the state.

[ihaQ]

Dirty Name - What is it you don't understand? Yes, the costs for orphaned and the adoption are large, but child abandonment rates are unrelated to the status of the institution of marriage. This is why adoption is a good thing and should be encouraged. It relieves the government of the cost and responsibilty of taking care of another child, who, while in a foster home, is more likely to be a product of an environment that is not positive for the state or the child. Furthermore, homosexuals should be eligible to marry on the grounds that this will make them more likely to adopt and will produce a better environment for that adopted child to live in. Does gay marriage or increased adoption inhibit heterosexual couple's desire to spread their genetic material and keep/raise their own biological spawn? It should follow logically that it doesn't, but you apparently believe that to think otherwise is proven fallacy, which isn't actually all that 'proven' per se, as you haven't elaborated as to why this is. Does gay marriage or increased adoption encourage heterosexual couples to have children outside of marriage or in unhealthy situations? Again, I am confused as to why this is potentially the case.

If you offer $100 in incentives to your employees who are willing to wear business suits to work, then decide to also offer $100 in incentives for employees to wear anything they want, how many will be incited to wear business suits?

False analogy, in this case the state is offering two people $100 to wear anything they want, they are merely encouraged by the idea of $100 to buy and wear business suits because it's something they want, incidental of the $100, but are in a better situation to do so because of the $100.

Because...they have the potential to create MORE children - not just the one the state already looked into and agreed they could handle.

And homosexual have the ability to adopt MORE of the growing surplus of orphans in the world, or even create MORE of their own children using a surrogate.

Of course they aren't a good idea. But how would you go about preventing them if you allow gay marriage under the notion of philosophical equality?

Yes, gays are able in some form or another, to serve the same necessary purposes to society that heterosexuals can, and therefore are deserving of equal liberties and priveleges.

The 3 points I responded to merited indivdual attention, so if I missed anything, I'm sure you'll let me know.

[quik]

Everyone should have equal rights. Being gay is not a choice. It is proven that it is something you are BORN with. Anyone who thinks gays shouldn't marry are discriminating

[Dirty Name]

homosexuals should be eligible to marry on the grounds that this will make them more likely to adopt and will produce a better environment for that adopted child to live in.

Nope. Again, the state's interest is in promoting marriage for the purpose of maximizing the the number of biological parents. When that happens, there is less need for other, sub-optimal parenting arrangements No matter how you slice it, the state loses when it de-emphasizes biological parenthood in favor of both biological and adoptive-parenthood, because such a transfer from the biological parents to the safety-net parents ALWAYS results in a greater cost to the state. Therefore the state is correct to promote biological parenthood as the primary option.

[Dirty Name]

Everyone should have equal rights. Being gay is not a choice. It is proven that it is something you are BORN with. Anyone who thinks gays shouldn't marry are discriminating

Thanks for your very uninformed opinion. Now please present scientific evidence that peope are "born" gay. I'll check back in a few weeks, because it will take you that long to realize there isn't any.

And please explain how it is that gays don't currently have equal rights. What SPECIFIC right are gays denied that other people have? When you can't answer that one either, I hope you'll be a big enough person to return here and admit you were just popping off without having THOUGHT about your opinion. That's the trouble with people in general. They FEEL like something is wrong, but they don't THINK about it.

[Dirty Name]

False analogy, in this case the state is offering two people $100 to wear anything they want, they are merely encouraged by the idea of $100 to buy and wear business suits because it's something they want, incidental of the $100, but are in a better situation to do so because of the $100.

What? If you are hung up on the cost of the clothing, then substitute a shirt color or something. The analogy holds. If the company wants to encourage a specific behavior, such as the wearing of white t-shirts, and they offer $100 monthly bonuses to those who do so, then it is very likely that a greater number of employees will wear white t-shirts to work on a regular basis. If some people don't like white t-shirts, but prefer blue instead, and they demand "equal treatment" - and the company agrees to offer $100 bonuses for blue t-shirts too, then there can be no doubt that some of the white t-shirt wearers will occassionally wear blue, and the effect of the incentive will have been diluted. Worse, people who like red t-shirts and purple t-shirts will also demand the same treatment. Soon, the company must make a decision to either offer the $100 to anyone as long as they are wearing a t-shirt of any color, or to simply discontinue the incentive entirely.

As you can see, the demand to change the rules and treat all t-shirt colors equally defeats the original purpose of the incentive.

[Dirty Name]

And homosexual have the ability to adopt MORE of the growing surplus of orphans in the world

But only after being cleared by the state to do so. Therefore, the state's interest is always protected in this manner.

, or even create MORE of their own children using a surrogate.

Which is NOT something the state wants to encourage because of the legal entanglements involved, though it will tolerate in the interest of personal freedom.

[Dirty Name]

Yes, gays are able in some form or another, to serve the same necessary purposes to society that heterosexuals can, and therefore are deserving of equal liberties and priveleges.

Patently false. And you didn't answer the question anyway. You merely asserted that gays were somehow equal to heterosexuals without addressing how or why you would prevent incest and multi-partner marriages.

[ihaQ]

Nope. Again, the state's interest is in promoting marriage for the purpose of maximizing the the number of biological parents. When that happens, there is less need for other, sub-optimal parenting arrangements No matter how you slice it, the state loses when it de-emphasizes biological parenthood in favor of both biological and adoptive-parenthood, because such a transfer from the biological parents to the safety-net parents ALWAYS results in a greater cost to the state. Therefore the state is correct to promote biological parenthood as the primary option.

There would be no 'transfer' as you put. It is safe to assume that upon gay marriage legislation, biological parenting rates would remain along relatively similar patterns while adoptive parenting rates would increase, lessening the burden on the state. I don't see why this statement is causing confusion, it makes perfect sense. If gay marriage causes the state-sponsored emphasis to come off biological parenthood, the new emphasis will be simply upon parenthood. Non-specific parenthood is merely encouraging all manners of couples to raise children.

What? If you are hung up on the cost of the clothing, then substitute a shirt color or something. The analogy holds. If the company wants to encourage a specific behavior, such as the wearing of white t-shirts, and they offer $100 monthly bonuses to those who do so, then it is very likely that a greater number of employees will wear white t-shirts to work on a regular basis. If some people don't like white t-shirts, but prefer blue instead, and they demand "equal treatment" - and the company agrees to offer $100 bonuses for blue t-shirts too, then there can be no doubt that some of the white t-shirt wearers will occassionally wear blue, and the effect of the incentive will have been diluted. Worse, people who like red t-shirts and purple t-shirts will also demand the same treatment. Soon, the company must make a decision to either offer the $100 to anyone as long as they are wearing a t-shirt of any color, or to simply discontinue the incentive entirely.

If your analogy were consistent with reality, the money the company offers does not require white shirts, but merely encourages white shirt wearing by providing a convenient means to attain and maintain white shirts (this analogy assumes the only things you can use this money for are white or blue shirts). One do not necessarily have to wear white shirts (as is true with marriage, it is not a marital obligation to produce children), but this extra incentive aids you in the process of attaining and maintaining your white shirts. Now if the company also offers $100 to those who wear blue shirts, but you only want white shirts is (as is true with the natural instincts of most heterosexual couples, biological children are desired), you will continue to use the aid the money provides to clean and patch your white shirts or purchase a few more.

But only after being cleared by the state to do so. Therefore, the state's interest is always protected in this manner.

The state's interests are protected no matter what manner of non-abusive, non-negligent parents adopt these children.

Which is NOT something the state wants to encourage because of the legal entanglements involved, though it will tolerate in the interest of personal freedom.

Most situations in where surrogate parents are used, the public legal system does not become involved and the paperwork is done through private, paid channels.

[DTB123]

Quote by: Boetie The real agenda of the anti same sex crusaders is to lead you to believe their issue is only to define marriage, when their real motive is to reduce same sex couples to level the Nazis reduced the jews. [Good conspiracy "theory" Boetie - but this "theory" is kind of like the one about Relativity] The following is written in the Nebraska Constitution Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The second sentence has proved controversial. It reduces every loving, committed same-sex couple to a pair of roommates. i.e. under law, their relationship does not exist. It blocks gays and lesbians from obtaining any protection for their families through legislative means, in violation of the federal constitution. When you are blocked from obtaining any protection through legislative means, you are shut out of the political process.

[You have the same protection and rights as every other citizen. You just need to get away from the marriage idea for same sex couples. You should just call it what it is]

[Dirty Name]

If your analogy were consistent with reality, the money the company offers does not require white shirts, but merely encourages white shirt wearing by providing a convenient means to attain and maintain white shirts (this analogy assumes the only things you can use this money for are white or blue shirts). One do not necessarily have to wear white shirts (as is true with marriage, it is not a marital obligation to produce children), but this extra incentive aids you in the process of attaining and maintaining your white shirts. Now if the company also offers $100 to those who wear blue shirts, but you only want white shirts is (as is true with the natural instincts of most heterosexual couples, biological children are desired), you will continue to use the aid the money provides to clean and patch your white shirts or purchase a few more.

I can't tell if you are responding to my analogy or attempting to write your own here. I'll have a response to your latest post this afternoon, but I can't make heads nor tails of the response quoted above.

In the original analogy, I am merely trying to demonstrate that introduction of additional qualifiers for an incentive necessarily dilutes the effect of the initial incentive program, and the desired outcome is not realized to it's full potential.

[ihaQ]

I can't tell if you are responding to my analogy or attempting to write your own here. I'll have a response to your latest post this afternoon, but I can't make heads nor tails of the response quoted above. In the original analogy, I am merely trying to demonstrate that introduction of additional qualifiers for an incentive necessarily dilutes the effect of the initial incentive program, and the desired outcome is not realized to it's full potential.

But you ignore the fact that creating children is not a requirement of marriage and that the incentive marriage provides relates only to raising children, incidental of this is actually concieving children. There are no benefits of marriage that relate exclusively to the conception of a child, therefore it can be assumed that the marital emphasis is placed on raising children, incidentally, what this means for the majority of American couples is biological concieving a child.

[Boetie]

DirtyName posts The law, as you quoted here, doesn't ban: 1) Living wills 2) Estate contracts 3) Any other legal arrangements available to family members or otherwise linked persons who share common interests and property

Those documents are only good if someone is willing to recognize it. For example what if your spouse is in the hospital and you show the hospital your documents, power of attorney etc and the hospital chooses not to recognize it, you may file a complaint later but what good will that do if your spouse dies in the meantime.

DirtyName posts Show me where it states that homosexuals are legally prohibitied from lobbying their elected officials in an effort to repeal the law. Show me that language, and how it specifically applies only to homosexuals, and THEN you will have made your poin

A same sex couple lobbied Senator Nancy Thomas regarding an isse of burial decisions. Senator Thomas asked State Attorney General Burning for a legal opinion. Bruning's opinion was that such a law would be unconstitutional. The reasoning can be found in Bruning's opinion which is

It would create new rights which spring from the recognition of a same sex domestic partnership which runs counter to Article 1 Section 29 of the State Constitution

What the above means is that any law that would come into contact with same sex couples may now become constutionally supsect and judicially unsound because that would be recognizing same sex realtionships.

Gays and Lesbians are a class of people and the law is saying to legislatures thou shall not do anything to recognize same sex relationships. In light of that, how can same sex couples lobby their legislature? the answer is they can't. In order for the legislative branch to stay within the law the legislative branch will have to turn a deaf ear to any same sex couple that approaches the legislative branch.

All of the above should be clear enough to you that same sex couple have become excluded from the political process.

[Dirty Name]

But you ignore the fact that creating children is not a requirement of marriage and that the incentive marriage provides relates only to raising children, incidental of this is actually concieving children. There are no benefits of marriage that relate exclusively to the conception of a child, therefore it can be assumed that the marital emphasis is placed on raising children, incidentally, what this means for the majority of American couples is biological concieving a child.

Of course "creating children" is not a requirement for marriage. Thinking that my position makes this necessary just illustrates how absolutely clueless you STILL are as to the logic behind my argument.

The entire point, once again, is TO STRENGTHEN RELATIONSHIPS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE OFFSPRING - BEFORE THE OFFSPRING ARRIVES.

Why? Because the state has a compelling interest in maximizing the percentage of children raised by their biological parents, and if marriage is only granted after conception or childbirth, then there will always be a larger percentage of children born to a mother who's father decided NOT to stick around.

Finally, those children that are not raised by their biological parents are a greater burden to the state. ALL OF THEM. EVEN THE ONES WHO GET ADOPTED. You can claim all day long that the state has an interest in promoting adoption, but the state already has a mechanism in place for that, and the promotion of adoption is NOT the purpose of marriage. Ask anyone on any of these forums if the purpose of marriage is to promote adoption and you'll be laughed out of here. Adoption, for all it's goodness, is a safety net for when biological parenthood fails.

[Dirty Name]

Those documents are only good if someone is willing to recognize it. For example what if your spouse is in the hospital and you show the hospital your documents, power of attorney etc and the hospital chooses not to recognize it, you may file a complaint later but what good will that do if your spouse dies in the meantime.

I guess I'd choose a different hospital then.

A same sex couple lobbied Senator Nancy Thomas regarding an isse of burial decisions. Senator Thomas asked State Attorney General Burning for a legal opinion. Bruning's opinion was that such a law would be unconstitutional. The reasoning can be found in Bruning's opinion which is It would create new rights which spring from the recognition of a same sex domestic partnership which runs counter to Article 1 Section 29 of the State Constitution What the above means is that any law that would come into contact with same sex couples may now become constutionally supsect and judicially unsound because that would be recognizing same sex realtionships. Gays and Lesbians are a class of people and the law is saying to legislatures thou shall not do anything to recognize same sex relationships. In light of that, how can same sex couples lobby their legislature? the answer is they can't. In order for the legislative branch to stay within the law the legislative branch will have to turn a deaf ear to any same sex couple that approaches the legislative branch. All of the above should be clear enough to you that same sex couple have become excluded from the political process.

Your answer makes no sense. I asked you to show me the specific language that bars homosexuals from the political process. You have again failed to do so. This isn't just my opinion, it's a fact. Let's examine what you said, line by line:

A same sex couple lobbied Senator Nancy Thomas regarding an isse of burial decisions. Senator Thomas asked State Attorney General Burning for a legal opinion. Bruning's opinion was that such a law would be unconstitutional.

First, you fail to elaborate on exactly what the same-sex couple was specifically lobbying for. You merely said they "lobbied...regarding an isse[sic] of burial decisions." You then state that the AG ruled "such a law would be unconstitutional." But from your post, we aren't even clear what the same sex couple was asking for.

We cannot be certain from the information you have presented here that the same sex couple is "barred from the political process." To the contrary, it seems they are able to lobby their Senator rather openly. Just because they didn't get their way means nothing.

If a pro-life group lobbies their senator to overturn Roe v. Wade via a constitutional amendment, and such a request is denied, by your logic the pro-life group is "barred from the political process."

Either prove your point by listing the specific language banning homosexuals from the political process, or admit the claim is little more than an attempt to twist the truth and extract support from ignorant people by making them feel sorry for gay people.

[Dirty Name]

What the above means is that any law that would come into contact with same sex couples may now become constutionally supsect and judicially unsound because that would be recognizing same sex realtionships.

Like a gay guy selling his home to another gay guy? Would that be unconstitional? Are gays prevented from entering into contracts with one another? Of course not. Stop making stuff up out of whole cloth. Show me the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.

It's "put up or shut up time" for this particular claim of yours.

[Dirty Name]

Gays and Lesbians are a class of people and the law is saying to legislatures thou shall not do anything to recognize same sex relationships. In light of that, how can same sex couples lobby their legislature? the answer is they can't. In order for the legislative branch to stay within the law the legislative branch will have to turn a deaf ear to any same sex couple that approaches the legislative branch.

Absolutely bogus claim. Are you telling me that homosexuals aren't even allowed on the capitol steps? Is that your claim?

You ask, "...how can same sex couples lobby their legislature?"

The answer is that they drive to Lincoln, any time the legislature is in session, they get an appointment with their representative or state senator, they walk in the door of his/her office and they ask for what they want. That's called lobbying, and you haven't shown me ANY LANGUAGE WHATSOEVER that would prohibit ANYONE from doing exactly what I have described. You can try to ask for all the changes and accomodations in the law that you wish. But just because what you are asking for is illegal or has no popular support does NOT mean you are "barred from the political process." It just means your ideas have ZERO traction.

Get used to it. The more people understand the issues, the less traction you are going to have everywhere else, too.

[DTB123]

Quote by: Dirty Name But just because what you are asking for is illegal or has no popular support does NOT mean you are "barred from the political process." It just means your ideas have ZERO traction. Get used to it. The more people understand the issues, the less traction you are going to have everywhere else, too.

Very well said. Without verifiable evidence; it will be hard to prove the point.

[Boetie]

DirtyName I admired you for being a mental contortionist, all your posts above are amazing examples of twisting statements around and feigning ignorance. Here is timeline

May, 2000: A group of anti-gay activists begin gathering petition signatures on "Initiative 416," a proposed constitutional amendment. The amendment will ban same sex couples from being legally married in Nebraska as well as prohibit recognition of same sex relationships in any form. Organizers and donors to the initiative project include a coalition of Christian, Mormon and Catholic churches. Reports of the amount of money raised for their public campaign indicate they have nearly ten times the funds that opponents to the initiative have. The initiative's supporters launch a television, radio, newspaper, and direct mail campaign is launched across the state to promote the initiative.

November, 2000: At the polls, the initiative passes by majority vote.

December, 2000: Governor Mike Johanns signs Initiative 416 into law. It becomes Article I, Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution. The new amendment reads:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January, 2003: A bill is introduced in the Nebraska legislature that would allow same sex partners the right to make funeral decisions for each other after death.

March, 2003: Attorney General Jon Bruning issues a legal opinion about the funeral bill, stating that the bill cannot pass into law because it would violate the constitutional amendment. He opines that allowing same sex partners to make decisions about burial arrangements would be "recognizing" a same sex relationship, which is now forbidden by Article I, Section 29 of the state Constitution. The bill does not move out of committee after the legal opinion is issued.

April, 2003: Lawsuit challenging the constitutional amendment is filed in federal court. The suit is filed on behalf of three organizations that work to protect same sex families who assert the constitutional amendment bars them from participating in the political process. The case title is "Citizens for Equal Protection, Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality, and ACLU Nebraska vs. Attorney General Jon Bruning and Governor Mike Johanns."

June, 2003: State of Nebraska files a motion to dismiss, asking the court to end the case without even going to trial. The State argues, among other things, that no one has been injured by the constitutional amendment.

November, 2003: Federal Judge Joseph Bataillon denies the State's motion to dismiss and orders the case to proceed. While the judge’s decision does not decide the ultimate question of whether the amendment is lawful, his decision indicates that he has serious concerns about the constitutionality of the amendment.

August, 2004: Both sides of the lawsuit submit final exhibits and evidence they intend to rely upon to prove their case. The court set final briefing dates for a trial on the record.

May 12, 2005: The United States District Court strikes down the state constitutional amendment, finding it violates the US Constitution.

All the above is factual. I know it's the sand that you see before you close your eyes. Note: that last poetic line means ostrich effect. All of your posts above is a classic example of closing your eyes to the facts. That is sad very sad.