The judge already tore this point to shreds, Dan. But thanks for playing!

"Society has no particular interest in a platonic relationship between a man and a woman no matter how close it might be, or emotional relationships between other people" but it is vitally important that the government prevent the gays from being together.

"So it really should be illegal for unmarried heterosexuals to have sex at all."

Dan, what makes you think, if given the opportunity, many of the people who were in favor of Prop 8 WOULDN'T support this as well?

Exactly. I've been saying this for years.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed @1?

They use any bogus argument they can think of. Equal protection under the law is not a Christian concept. In fact, it's the exact opposite. They have used lies when states passed anti-discrimination laws. They have used lies when it was serving in the military. They have used lies when it's about marriage equality. They use lies when it's about adoption. And they use lies when it's about civil unions. When you base the law on lies, you imperil the country. It's the same with everything they right wing does on every issue. All lies! All false witness!

Cooper's arguments (like Perkins' & LaBarbera's) sound more and more ridiculous by the day. It's entertaining to watch this meltdown of logic.

If the fundagelicals really have a problem with unintentional pregnancies occuring outside of marriage, then they should be extra-supportive of gay married couples having or adopting children. For a gay couple of either sex to have a child within the marriage, intentional planning is pretty much required. Every child a wanted child, right?

What annoys me about this WHOLE debate is that it should be about entire legality of "marriage" for anyone (straight or gay) as it is a religious institution. It was my understanding State and Church were very clearly meant to be separated.

The founding fathers got many things wrong in the constitution, hence the ability to amend it. Civil unions should be the only recognized union by the Feds or the States. Period.

But Gay people should have the same opportunity to marry the wrong person and ruin their lives like the rest of us.

Arguing about a Gay persons right to marry with people who are predisposed to thinking homosexuality is some sort of abomination is going to be hard to win. Like pushing a rope uphill. Like talking cents into a dollar. Like trying to get my dog to take his heart worm pill (Seriously, how does he KNOW it's in the hot dog?)

Well, either mandate that any pregnant straights get married or mandate that any "unintentional or unwanted pregnancy" is immediately terminated. By abortion. Or possibly mandate that any straights having sex who don't want to fuck afoul of the law have to use contraception, to prevent all those terribly threatening "unintentional or unwanted pregnancies." And mandate that thorough and science-based sex education must be taught in all schools so straights know how "unintentional or unwanted pregnancies" are caused and how to use contraception to prevent them.

oops, sorry, let me fetch those smelling salts for the poor christianists having the vapours.

"annoy" isn't the right word. "frustrates" would be more appropriate.

People fighting for basic civil liberties does not annoy me.

I agree! It is in the state's vital interest that unmarried heterosexuals not procreate. That is why they enforce this in the tax code, and penalize single parents by instituting a steep, per-child tax surcharge. Oh, wait a minute...

I was amazed at the illogical arguments I heard offered by one of the lawyers. High school debate teams can do better, um, at least in a good school district.

Marriage is for procreation? I'm close to menopause. If I lost my husband and wanted to remarry, it wouldn't be for procreation. And are we implying that a man with a vasectomy isn't really married?

Children have to have a father and a mother - why do we allow parents to divorce?

And, of course, statistics on gay and lesbian adoptions show good outcomes, not what he alleges.

And don't get me started on separate but equal civil unions that are legally equal to marriage in all but name. That hasn't been implemented and would be quite complicated to implement in all fifty states. Let's stop pretending that is any kind of viable option.

In the world of Prop 8 bigots, sex before marriage is unethical and illegal, and shotgun weddings are the right way to handle an unintended pregnancy. Even today, even in Seattle, this happens.

It's absurd, and it has nothing to do with the current law, but you won't get anywhere arguing with bigots that sex before marriage is legal and commonplace. They don't like that either.

The reasons used to defend an emotional belief, religious or non-religious, appeals to arguments that have no rational basis. Actual facts are not the point, the argument's focus is rooted in self-conceived protections for maintaining emotional attachments. And, these arguments are only convincing to those who share the emotional investment.

More simply said, this emotional attachment is rooted in either scriptural adherence/pleasing divine being or in avoiding the negative feelings of seeing LGBT people kissing or holding hands, etc. in public. Either way, the goal of the argument is to maintain the psychological peace of those making the argument. And, there is really no way to counter that argument in a way that will bring change. I think the key to opening a closed mind is in the emotions that require defending, and that requires courage to risk learning that one's emotions, not one's brain, has been calling the shots.

"Sexual relationships between men and women naturally produce children."

The first time I read that, the lack of specific casual relationships (sexual relationships? sexual relations? penile-vaginal intercourse?) there made it sound to me like children just sort of *occur* while men and women have sex. "Umh ... umh, yeah, yeah ... hey. Look! A baby just rolled out of the corner."

@13 I think we should ban post-menopausal marriage. It's the only logical conclusion. Men can get married until their dying day, but once an unmarried woman hits menopause, she should be shipped off to a spinster farm to care for orphaned/foster children. This also solves the problem of gay adoption (spinsters caring for unwanted kids = no kids for gays to adopt). It's brilliant, I tell you.

One of the judges said, right there, "This sounds like an argument for prohibiting divorce" (or close enough). But yeah, I have no doubts whatsoever that they'd LIKE to ban straight premarital sex, all gay sex, divorce, and any happiness whatsoever in marriage.

... and then... RAPTURE!!!!

*ping* *ow, something twanged in my brane, brb...*

#9, where did you get the ridiculous notion that marriage is a religious institution and that civil unions should be the only ones recognized by the state?

Civil unions are an invented institution. They ONLY exist to give second class status to gays and lesbians. The founding fathers couldn't have mandated them since the concept didn't exist until the late 20th century.

Marriage is primarily secular matter, just like birth and death. The fact that SOME people choose to mark these passages with religious ceremonies doesn't make them religious events. It just means that some people would have a priest bless their bowel movements if they could find one willing to do it.

Lots of societies have been officially atheist, such as the communist countries. Not a single one of them ever decided people couldn't get married anymore and would have to have civil unions instead. Marriage is the ONLY institution that's understood and recognized world-wide. A civil union is whatever a jurisdiction decides to make it. The one distinction all civil unions share is fewer rights than marriage and an explicit insult being made to the people forced to have them.

In jurisdictions where marriage has been legalized, the arguments that the state should only recognize civil unions disappear instantly because they're completely bogus. The come from two sources - straight bigots who are so intent on denying marriage to gays they prefer to deny it to everyone, and misanthropes who are anti-marriage and think their person beliefs should be forced on everyone.

I'm an atheist, from a family of atheists. Fuck you for saying my parents have no right to be married. Fuck you for saying I have no right to be married. Fuck you for daring to tell me my parents' 60 year marriage should only be recognized as a civil union.

Fuck you.

Sterilization of Women used to be mandatory after the they'd had a certain number illegitimate children in some states.

I'm not sure how homosexual marriage is going to cause more illegitimate children, but it is true that the government has a history of trying to legislate extramarital reproduction.

I think it would be nice if the government quit rewarding and/or punishing people based upon whether or not they are married to anyone. Why is the government be rewarding people for couple-hood? Isn't that discriminatory against people who don't want to be coupled with anyone?

If unplanned kids are such a threat to society, why not have every sperm-producing male make a deposit to a sperm bank and then get a vasectomy? Doing this would likely solve a hell-of-a-lot of social problems. Every child a wanted child, right? The only reason I'm not suggesting sterilization for women is that it's a lot easier to get and store sperm than it is get and store ova. I further think that any woman of any age who has decided she doesn't want to be a mom should be able to get a tubal ligation without any fuss or argument about it - at government expense.

Why does the goverment reward people for having kids? Is there a shortage of people in the U.S.? If there is, then there are a lot of well-educated people from other countries who would like to join us here in this country. They would be productive citizens from day one, and not need a lot of tax-paid education to become productive members of society.

I still want to see an initiative banning divorce based on religious requirements. Let's see how that flies.

Charles Cooper is another in a long string of professional logic-choppers, rationalizers and bigots who will cling to any thread, no matter how fragile or tenuous, to confirm and promulgate their bigotry.

Disbar this worthless fuck, would you please?

Both my husband and I had been sterilized before we married; he'd had a vasectomy, I'd had a tubal. So we're doubly unmarried, I guess, since the purpose of marriage is solely procreative. Any offspring of our marriage would be Damien III.

The fundies have been losing this battle since the 60's. Birth control, abortion, divorce, all legal and the genie isn't going to go back in the bottle.

Logical argument fails them because they don't have one. They can't demonstrate real harm, they can't rationally present that state's interest in denying gays equal rights. Basically all they have to fall back on is what Kim in Portland said--emotion and tradition.

They are going to lose.

@9- No, it's not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a secular institution that the States regulate. It's a contract. Religious people can have all the religious weddings they like, it doesn't mean they've gotten a real wedding until they register it with the government.

There's some confusion because there are two similar things with the same name. But we know the difference between a motorcycle and bicycle, even though they're both called "bikes," we all should be able to tell the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

None of this "state's interest", "function of marriage", or other social engineering shit is of any relevance. As long as we have a Federal statute that prevents discrimination on the basis of sex, we can't treat gay people differently. The IS no debate here: you might not LIKE the law, you might want it changed because you hate gay people and want to fuck them up socially, physically, economically, etc., but none of that changes the fact that gay marriage bans are straight-up illegal in any context covered by existing civil rights law that bans sex-based discrimination (binary-sex-based sexuality e.g. "gay", "straight", is a function of "sex" - if I can marry that woman if I'm a man, but I can't marry that woman if I'm a woman, that's obviously different treatment under the law based on my sex). Your reasons for not wanting that to be legal might be excellent (they're not, but that's not the debate here), but that still doesn't make it legal. You'd need to pass some sort of Constitutional amendment that would supersede Federal Law.

As a judge, I'd order the lawyers to stick to the law, and find them in contempt when they tried to drag "it's good for society" arguments with no legal precedent in. This whole process is so fucking stupid.

I got a kick yesterday when Chris Cooper was talking about the potential for straight couples to have "accidental procreation," as though the highest purpose of marriage was to protect children from their parent's procreative mistakes. Cooper was actually arguing that gays and lesbians don't need marriage because their procreation is always intentional. Say what? Now gays and lesibans are being denied an institution because they're more responsible when it comes to childbirth?

@9

#28 is right; marriage in this country is not now, nor has it ever been, a religious institution. Two people who are married by a judge, a justice of the peace, or an Elvis impersonator in Vegas are entitled all the rights and priveliges accorded to a man and a woman who get married by a bishop in a cathedral with 500 guests in attendance. Legally, there is no distinction between the two marriages.

Even if I conceded your your point, #9, I would point out that SOME churches believe in and endorse same-sex marriage, and perform such marriages in states where it is allowed. In fact, my husband and I were married by a non-denominational minister, although our marriage is recognized neither by the federal government nor by the state in which we live.

@21 - "Marriage is the ONLY institution that's understood and recognized world-wide"

Well, the actual definition of marriage --worldwide-- changes from culture to culture. There is NO universal definition of this marriage "institution". From an anthropological perspective, this whole "traditional marriage" argument holds no water at all because of the many, many different types of marriages that can and do currently exist among humans on Earth.

Even among western europeans, which is my genetic stock and the source of my cultural traditions, partnerships were engaged in by agreeing to get together for "a year and a day", afterwhich time the couple could decide to continue on, or quit each other. If they wanted more, they would get a 'handfastening', a public ceremony stating their allegiance to each other. If there was a time they decided to quit each other, they could do a 'handunfastening' ceremony.

That's *my* traditional marriage. I don't know what those Christians are on about. Christianity came to Europe with the fucking Roman Empire, it sure isn't native to the soil I'm traditionally from.

There are cultures extant on Earth today where all the men and all the women consider themselves fathers and mothers of all the children in the village. And act that way. Their actual adult partnerships fluctuate much more than those in the US, and "marriage" is done by hanging your hammocks next to each other, which can last years, months, or simply days. Hardly resembling anything we call "marriage" in the U.S. But hey, their society seems to be working just fine.

I'm not arguing with you RealityBites, obviously, but your one phrase there indicated a bit of cultural blindness that I think pervades a lot of the arguments around "marriage" upon which I wanted to elaborate. Thanks!

I really wish there was more anthropological perspective entering into these court cases.

Personally I think the government should stop issuing marriage certificates to EVERYONE (heteros too) and ONLY offer civil unions, or probably under a different name, because the phrase "civil union" has such a negative connotation. Governmentally Recognized Unions? I'm sure someone can come up with a cute name.

Anyway, once that's done, every couple that wants to get "married" gets the governmental piece of paper that gives you the tax breaks and the legal protection and the deathbed visits and that sort of thing, and everyone who wants to be married in the eyes of God has to go to church to do it.
Orthodox Jews have been doing this since they came to America - you get once wedding license from the government and another from your rabbi. You get one divorce from the government and another from a rabbi.

That way, the fundies can keep "teh gayz" out of their pristine churches, and everyone gets to legally, emotionally, and spiritually couple with whomever they want.
Ta-da!

@24 -- I take it you haven't heard of covenant marriages??

@9: Put it in a blob of cream cheese. It works like a charm.

@20: Society also used to impose stiffer sanctions on having an alcoholic beverage, being a different religion, and moving to another country. Hell, in late 18th-century Britain, you could be hanged for impersonating an Egyptian!
Do you want to go back to the feudalistic and stultifying Middle Ages? Or do you want to be civilized?

@33 That is how marriage is done in parts of Europe as well. You get your civil marriage at the courthouse and then you can choose whether or not to have a religious marriage ceremony. In the US we let religious leaders conduct the civil portion as well as the religious portion of a marriage ceremony. This causes confusion where there shouldn't be any. In Europe (since that is the source of much American culture and law) the church didn't really get into the marriage business until the 16th century up to that point it was a private family matter.

This is kind of an odd post of Dan's. A reductio ad absurdum doesn't work when the people who you're talking to don't think the end conclusion is absurd. The whole basis for banning gay marriage is the belief that sex is for purpose of the procreation within a marriage, so, yes, the people supporting such a ban would be all for making premarital sex, adultery, and divorce illegal once again. A man having premarital sex used to be considered the crime of "seduction."

@34: Covenant marriage is a voluntary agreement by two people getting married to encourage commitment by making it harder, but not impossible, to get divorced. It's only available in two states. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a purely secular institution, and it's a good option for secular people who want their marriage to last. Ideally, every state would allow people getting married to determine for themselves how easy or difficult divorce should be.

@21: You seem a little confused. Marriage is a type of civil union. Marriage has been a civil union as long as it's been around. 'civil' means recognized by society. Does it matter whether a marriage license (whether for a gay or straight couple) says "marriage" vs. "civil union" on it, if the people have the same rights? You're correct that some states have created a different class of civil union for gay couples that is inferior and does not give the same rights, but don't get confused by the wording. The issue is that gay and straight couples need to be part of the same institution, and have the same rights. Whether we call it "marriage" or "civil union" is not the point. The term 'civil union' itself just means a union recognized by society.

@37: Dan Webster, who defeated Alan Grayson in the elections, has been a proponent of making all marriage covenant marriage.

@37 I would strongly disagree that covenant marriage is purely secular (you underminded your own argument by pointing out that all marriage is fundamentally secular (at least from the legal standpoint)). What w'ere looking at here is the religious *view* of marriage. Take a good look at the forces behind the covenant marriage. Even the most cursory of digging shows that while the legal defintion of covenant marriage is written neutrally with respect to religion it has strong roots in a variety of religious faiths and as such is widely marked as a religious form of marriage.

(btw, I typoed sexular for secular. I don't even wanna think about that...)

@39: I'm a complete atheist, disagree with religious people on most things, and yet I'm a strong supporter of covenant marriage. Marriage should be an agreement where parties can choose the terms that make sense to them, and they should be able to make divorce difficult. I think every state now has some form of 'no fault marriage,' that is, allows you to get divorced without a good reason, and it makes sense to me that people would want to insist on a very good reason for divorce. I'm missing the connection with the "religious view" of marriage: saying that marriage should be forever, or that relationships work better when there's no escape clause, seems like a straightforward and reasonable secular view of marriage to me.

Covenant marriage is actually more of a libertarian or contract theory arrangement. And making a binding agreement that you can't get out of seems very universal to me. You could compare this to, say, laws against theft: while most religions have rules against theft and promote values of not stealing, you could hardly say that anti-theft laws are religious in origin.

While there may be a lot of religious support for a stronger and more meaningful form of marriage, this is one area that both religious and secular people who care about marriage can agree on.

I'm not quite sure how I undermined my own argument. Explain?

@38: That's essentially the same thing as getting rid of no-fault divorce. In other words, limiting marriage to people who are sure that they want to stay together, forever, without having the option of divorce whenever they want it. As long as we can include same-sex couples, I'd be all for that.

Oh, they're getting there, Dan.

They're getting there...

40: I think "not wanting to be married" is the most valid reason in the world to get a divorce.

There would be no way to enforce covenant marriage. Beforehand, just about every couple is "absolutely sure" that they want to stay together forever, so that criterion you propose is completely null.

And afterwards, well, by then it's too late. Even if they themselves chose to set very strict circumstances for when they can get a divorce, it's just plain stupid to have a system where they would then be forced to remain in a bad relationship once they were older and wiser. And "Wouldn'ta-Couldn'ta-Shouldn'ta" is no excuse.

Loose divorce laws, taken to their extreme, lead to a lot of people getting too readily married and too readily divorced. The result: some people have to feel like marriage just ain't as sacred as it used to be (shucks). Strict divorce laws, taken to their extreme, lead to the prevention of a lot of divorces that SHOULD happen. The result: lots of people are legitimately miserable, and abusive marriages are just that much harder to escape from.

If we have to err one way or another on strictness, I think I'd rather err towards the former. Let the religious nuts condemn all divorcees to hell, and let people who take marriage more seriously than the rest of society just go ahead and take THEIR marriage more seriously and ... not seek out a divorce. Even if they can easily get it.

And if that's you, go ahead and give a superior smirk to all those divorcees that just don't "get" the concept that a marriage is forever. But there should not ever be a legal requirement for a marriage to be forever; even if the contract is written by the couple themselves.

Setting aside the fact that the prop 8 guys are a bunch of hypocritical hacks, I honestly think the merits of the case are going to prove irrelevant.

It really looks like the appellants are going to lose on standing, so the Circuit Court won't even reach the merits of the case. Which might not actually be a good thing; Judge Walker's opinion striking down Prop 8 will hold in California, but we won't be able to get similarly good caselaw in Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Dear Ol' Washington (man, the 9th circuit is huge).

I've got a few classmates who went to Gibson Dunn DC. Maybe I can pick their brains to find out what, if anything, Mr. Olson has said about his thoughts on where the case is going. *Shrug*

I'm back just to say @21, I didn't mean to devalue your parents marriage and am sorry if you took that personally.

Something to ponder over the holiday: just because they look happy and you say they've been "happily married" for 60 years doesn't mean you know fuckall about what happens in their relationship. Many people live together unhappily married for longer.

But thanks for the pointless example.

There are words that mean something by definition and centuries or millenia of context. Take the word 'gentleman' as an example. At one time it meant a man who lived on the income from some form of property who did not work for a living. That's all. Didn't mean he was a nice guy, or well mannered. It wasn't just some generic word of vague approval. It meant something, and those who heard a man described with this term knew exactly what that something was.

Marriage is much more emotionally charged, but it is a word with a meaning gays are attempting to demean and denigrate by placing their deviancies under the same term as my parents lifelong commitment to each other. They would place the mental illness that is their relationship on the same terms as the family my parents celebrate this time of year with their children, grandchildren and soon great grandchildren. Call yourself a civil union or whatever you like. I don't care. The state should recognize that even deviants, who aren't hurting others through their choices, have a right to equal status under the law.

That isn't enough for the likes of Savage and other sexual deviants though. Until their perversion is celebrated in all schools and has a national holiday with compulsory attendance to the parade he won't be happy. Maybe every gay person should be given a flag to hang on their home. That way the rest of us can know that their perversion grants them special immunity from any social consequences of their choices.

Here's the thing. You're the one who chose a socially distasteful or repugnant lifestyle, Mr. Savage. Government may owe you equal treatment, but society emphatically does not. Asking the sane among us for a round of applause for your mental illness is simply asking too much. Have sex with your boyfriend, the cast of Cirque de Soleil or a Morris Mini, for all I care. Just accept that you're the deviant, and accept the social costs of your deviancy.

@45:

1st paragraph: Sane exposition of linguistic drift.

2nd paragraph and onward: Insane rant against linguistic drift.

Conclusion: Something about the gays makes you lose your shit. Probably the fact you really, really want to suck cock.

@45: Thank fuck people who think the way you do are an ever-shrinking minority. Your shameless embrace of your own bigotry and hatred are repellant.

Sorry to disappoint, Dwight, but the thought of men having sex with men acts on me in much the same way Ipicac would. Nor have I ever understood the fairly common heterosexual male fascination with lesbians. Still, I'm sure things that turn my crank do nothing for a lot of other folks.

Bomber, nowhere did I espouse violence or hatred against homosexuals. Nor would I. Homosexuality is venal but so is heterosexual promiscuity. So is habitual lying or any other less emotionally charged vice. All are self destructive behaviors deserving of pity, and help where it is desired, more than censure.

Under the law I cannot refuse a job, apartment or seat in a restaurant to someone based on this perversion, and shouldn't be able to do so. Gays hurt only themselves and are no subject for law or object of discrimination.

That has nothing to do with whether I would want to socialize with someone intent on making a public display of a private deviancy. And it has nothing to do with extending the social umbrella of marriage to those who simply don't fit the purpose of that august institution. Family and marriage mean something, and gays simply don't fit the meaning.

@48: You continually describe homosexuals in hateful terms:

"the mental illness that is their relationship"
"sexual deviants"
"their perversion"
"socially distasteful or repugnant lifestyle"
"your mental illness"

Now, having read your earlier posts on the topic, I expect you will attempt to position the above as objective statements of fact, when they are simply your opinions. The truest thing you wrote is that "the thought of men having sex with men acts on me in much the same way Ipicac would."

This goes to the core of your position: the thought of gay sex makes you feel physically ill. It disgusts you.

Fair enough. De gustibus non est disputandum and all that. But your distaste is simply your opinion. Your bigotry lies in the way you wish to define your distastes as immutable moral laws - such that anyone with different tastes is deviant and wrong.

And that is a pile of crap.

@45:"They would place the mental illness that is their relationship on the same terms as the family my parents celebrate this time of year with their children, grandchildren and soon great grandchildren."
And I'm sure that unless your parents were hitched in an arranged marriage set up by their fathers and never so much as kissed before tying the knot, your antecedents half a millennium ago would say the same thing about your parents' marriage. You're the sort of stodgy old butthurt who seeks to spread his butthurt to everyone else, sucking the entire world into a vortex of butthurt. Also, you're butthurt.
@48: One, it's "ipecac", not "ipicac". If you're going to be an obnoxious hipster and try to use obscure words in a futile effort to feign intelligence, please use them correctly.
Your objection to Backyard Bombadier putting words in your mouth, by the way, consisted of putting words into HIS mouth. Nowhere did he say anything to the effect that you espouse violence against homosexuals. You clearly exhibit homophobic hatred, however, in your dismissal of homosexuality as something to be abhorred. Yours, in fact, is the worst and most insidious sort of hatred: that which pretends that it only wants to help those against which is directed.

@48: "Sorry to disappoint, Dwight, but the thought of men having sex with men acts on me in much the same way Ipicac would."

Deep in the gut.

Take Cooper's claim about "Societies' Interests" and change the word "Society" to "Miss Manners" and I think you've got something:

"Miss Manners has no particular interest in a platonic relationship between a man and a woman no matter how close it might be, or emotional relationships between other people as well, but when the relationship becomes a sexual one, Miss Manners has a considerable interest in that."

@53: Cite your source that there was no research behind classifying Teh Ghey as "not a mental illness". If my memory serves me yet, there was quite a lot of science going on on that front.
Also, what you said reminded me of something.
The mouth is an opening at the opposite end of a mammal's digestive tract from the anus. Its function is to take in and break down food, as well as aiding in vocalization. Some individuals pervert it's function to sexual use.
That's right, if you were to kiss anyone (we all know you're a neckbearded virginfag), you'd be just as much a pervert as the buttsecksiest queer homo.
Luckily, it doesn't matter what percentage of Americans think homosexuality is a sin. Plenty of Americans probably think I'm imperfect because I don't praise Jesus, but they can't do Jack Squat about it. Remember, Alleged, the masses are asses.
Also, Alleged, when you have to capitalize the "Truth", that's a sign that it's probably not very truthful at all.

@55: First you try to make a scientific basis for homosexuality being wrong...and when I dismantle your argument, you immediately try to switch to a religious basis as if nothing had happened. Lovely. That really says something about your integrity or lack thereof.
Also, Leviticus, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't say anything about French-kissing. You are aware that making openly false claims about Scripture counts as blasphemy, right? And probably also as heresy? If, as you chumps believe, there is a hell, you're probably going there at this rate.

@57: If God gets sarcasm, that's His will. If he doesn't, that's also His will. If I'm trying not to offend God, I don't go so far as to assume that God will find my sarcasm funny; that would be putting words in His mouth, so to speak.

Wow, my very first direct reply from the Troll. I feel so... dirty.

"Until recently mental health professionals classified homosexuality as a mental illness."

Congratulations. You've discovered that medicine - including psychology - is a field that constantly grows and changes over time as people learn more. Did you know that mental health professionals up until the 17th century or so used to think that a woman's uterus could wander around her body, causing various symptoms that fell under the diagnosis of "hysteria"?

As to deviation from the norm, another norm for homo sapiens is handedness. The majority of humans are right-handed - typically about 90% depending on the population studied. Historically, the left-handed were viewed as unlucky, clumsy, or even malicious and evil (see the etymology and definitions of words such as "right", "sinister", "gauche", "dexterity", etc.). As recently as the mid-twentieth century, North American children who showed signs of left-handedness were in many cases forced to use their right hands. (It rarely worked. My father is still left-handed in spite of countless swats with a ruler to the back of his hand.)

So the lesson for today is, as society progresses and learns, we discard old prejudices and misinformed or misguided opinions, and move forward.

At least, most of us do. I'm guessing that you'd be down with the 17th century in a lot of ways.

@59: Good example. Coincidentally, my girlfriend and her little brother and their dad are all ambidextrous for that reason.

BB,

One of three things is true-

Sexuality is chosen. A person choosing homosexuality therefore is not protected by equal rights provisions which are based on things like race, sexuality and so on that aren't chosen. Though as a matter of basic civility, such protections should be extended anyway, as the activity doesn't harm any but its practitioners. Nor should homosexuals expect society as a whole to be accepting of their chosen lifestyle. Moral strictures and the disapprobation are attendant on such choices are part of the price for them.

Sexuality is genetically pre-established. The homosexual is the helpless victim of his or her predilection for sex with other of the same gender. Government would have no choice but to regard these people as protected from discrimination, since their sexuality, like their race or gender is immutable. Society would have eventually to see them as equal partners in the social contract, and treat them accordingly.

Or, more likely, the two act together. Genetically there are tendencies to homosexuality, as there are to heart disease or other destructive traits. The practicing homosexual chooses to embrace this pre-disposition. Collectively, we agree from the perspective of governance that discrimination or violence directed against homosexuals is unacceptable. But we view it askance, and should. My family in fact has a pre-disposition to heart disease. In light of that I could see heart attack as a foregone conclusion, eat badly and never exercise. Or I could watch my diet, take care of myself and either avoid or mitigate a heart attack. Your example of handedness is a bit less apt, as the consequences of being right or left handed are nowhere on the same scale socially or physically as those of having a heart attack or practicing homosexuality.

Having said all that, no opinions will change on anything I have written or will write. In that light, I'll save you folks the bother of reading my opinions.

May you all have a Merry Christmas and blessed New Year.

@61: "Though as a matter of basic civility, such protections should be extended anyway, as the activity doesn't harm any."

Fixed it for you.

@ 45
In your first paragraph, you wrote about the evolution of the word gentleman. The point you were making is that meanings change over time to reflect changes in social perceptions and institutions. Therefore, by your own logic and example, the meaning of the word marriage can also evolve to refect changes in social perceptions and institutions.

You followed that with a paragraph saying, "Marriage is much more emotionally charged, but it is a word with a meaning gays are attempting to demean and denigrate by placing their deviancies under the same term as my parents lifelong commitment to each other. They would place the mental illness that is their relationship on the same terms as the family my parents celebrate this time of year with their children, grandchildren and soon great grandchildren."

I've got new for you, seattleblues: my parents have been married for 59 years. I suspect the union will last. Like your parents, mine have children (5) and grandchildren (9). No great-grandchildren yet, but a union likely to produce them is on the horizon.

Where your family and mine differ, seattleblues, is that neither my parents, my siblings, nor my married nieces and nephews felt "demeaned or denigrated when I married my same-sex spouse. In fact, they came to the wedding, gave us gifts, and celebrate our anniversary. Our wedding portrait hangs on my parents' family room wall!

Your language about "mental illness" and "deviancy" makes one thing very clear, seattleblues: You're not talking about preserving a sacred institution, seattleblues. You're talking about preserving your own bigotry.

@61: You're quite thick, Seattleblues, and none of the three scenarios you posited are supported by the evidence. We have yet to find a "gay gene", but modern science has shown something interesting. Neurochemically speaking, certain key centers in the brains of homosexuals behave more like the corresponding centers in the brains of people of the opposite gender. While this is not genetic, it is entirely innate, determined by hormonal fluctuations in utero. In other words, gay people are gay, and there's nothing they (or anyone else) can do about it, but it's not in any way genetic.

venomlash,@ 60, is there a correlation? My dad is left handed, and spent a lot of time with his left arm tied behind his back as a child. Sure there were the "left hand is the sign of the devil" reason given. Others told him it was because it was a right handed world and he would be better off. He thought it was because he was making such a mess with the fountain pens. His early years where in a one room country school back in Ohio. Anyway, he learned to write with both, but habitually chooses the right hand, and all of his children (and grandchildren) are ambidextrous. Seems strange to think that my dad (who is 68 now) having had his left hand tied behind his back as a boy, would be the reason I can write and sketch with both hands (I can also switch hit, etc., too).

I was forced by a judge to either get married or spend 30 days in jail for violating a no cohabitation clause that my vindictive stalker ex-husband insisted get included in my divorce decree. We got married, and are mostly better off for it, but I hated being forced into that position because the court thought I didn't have the right to live with my boyfriend because I have physical custody of my children from my first marriage. People should have the right to marry, or not marry, whom they love and want to commit to, to become a family on their own terms.

Are people still making that "sexuality is a choice" nonsense? I thought that argument stopped after we all pointed out that a person "choosing" heterosexuality is not really a heterosexual.

You can choose your sexual activities. You can choose your sexual partners. But you can't choose your sexuality; you can't choose what you actually, honestly enjoy.

And if millions of people are going to be forced to "choose" something they don't enjoy, there'd better be a reason beyond those that drive your ilk's motivations:

1) It makes a few sheltered pussies feel icky (I guess it's the gays' job to coddle you just like mommy did for way too long?)

2) It makes some closet cases feel like they've been wasting their efforts

3) In an alternate universe it could theoretically hurt straight marriages, for reasons which we will not get into and which will not remain consistent for more than five minutes (They're too slutty for marriage! I mean, they USED to be too slutty! I mean, they can't have kids! I mean, they can't have kids WITH EACH OTHER. I mean, straight people might have bastard kids! I'm not sure why I mentioned that! Just give me five minutes and I'll shit out something that connects the two!).

Just give the fuck up already. Go move to the middle of nowhere or join some backwards WACO cult if you're too big a pussy to deal with the variety that comes with living in a society.

@67- "Are people still making that "sexuality is a choice" nonsense?"

I still haven't figured out why that discussion is even relevant. I CHOOSE to be a Liberal, that doesn't mean anything in regards to my freedom of speech, religion, marriage, etc... If people are choosing to love and marry people of their own gender, what's the harm? So far, no one has proven any harm.

But it really does make one wonder about these Religious Right figures who are so committed to the homosexuality-is-a-choice meme

Seattleblues: "I'll save you folks the bother of reading my opinions."

Is that a promise?

Sorry, but your heart disease example doesn't fly. Physical consequences of a disease, and social consequences of being a sexual minority, are not comparable at all. Here's the difference: With heart disease, a bad diet causes your heart to malfunction, on its own, independent of the actions of others. Heart attacks are a direct consequence of a bad diet.

With homosexuality, other free-willed members of society inflict harm ("social consequences") upon you. Gay-bashing, physical or legislative, is not an inevitable, direct consequence of homosexuality. With heart disease, we as a society do not choose whether or not to inflict heart attacks on people with bad diets. We can, however, choose whether or not to inflict "social consequences" on gay people. And when we choose to do so, we are responsible, not the gay person.

This difference is very, very obvious.

Handedness is a much better analogy, because it is also unusual, innate, and harmless. Any condemnation of handedness would make just as much sense as condemnations of homosexuality, and any social consequences would be just as unjustified.

If some political party started up a bunch of anti-southpaw rhetoric and drafted a bunch of anti-southpaw legislation, left-handedness could become socially dangerous while remaining otherwise harmless (just like homosexuality). All we'd need is to make handedness into a taboo like we've done with sex, and people will have all sorts of hangups and believe all sorts of crazy shit about it. And after enough generations of people just accepting anti-southpaw rhetoric, those social consequences would be seen as a given. And then plenty of unthinking assholes would argue that although handedness is partially innate, southpaws can just train themselves to be right-handed if they don't want to deal with the social consequences just like how a guy with a weak heart shouldn't eat churros. And they'd be just dumb, blind, and unquestioning enough to actually believe this logic.

@67: I do think the eventual legal recognition of gay marriage will alter straight marriage, in the sense that it will be another step for society to further disconnect marriage from procreation (which I think is a good thing). It's also another step forward for sexual freedom, and will possibly make straight couples more open and willing to talk about sex, have open marriages, or form whatever kind of relationships they like: also a good thing.

For someone who believes that marriage is all about procreative sex, or that sex is sacred and should be reserved for specific contexts like marriage, or that everyone is ethically obliged to practice sexuality in the same way, I can understand why gay marriage might be seen as threatening.

Oh boy, this again?

Stop feeding the trolls, guys. Seriously. Let SB wank off in his mother's basement to, like, 4Chan, or some other blog. No need for that crap here.