demagogue on 21/5/2008 at 18:50
Quote Posted by Louis Cypher
Hence, this 'homosexuality is genetic' argument is overblown.
But you could say the "if it's not genetic, if there's an environmental influence, it's not "natural"" argument is overblown also. The term "natural" is a politically charged category usually more about perception than biology, at least as it's used in political debate. I think that's okay, since it's also a political question, not just scientific, but people need to be open about it.
I wrote a class paper in favor of a right to gay marriage on equal protection grounds, although under the German constitution (which has a fundamental right to marriage written into the constitution).
Because I studied it, I can think of the opposing side, though. I hate to take up too much space to describe it, but it may be worth it for the record.
The argument isn't that gay marriage is wrong. It's that equal protection isn't the right way to get it.
Whenever you argue something on EP grounds, the core question you ask is if the __ability (whatever the law is about, why it creates a right) is really different among the groups. E.g., work-ability isn't different from blacks and whites, so it's an EP violation to keep blacks from certain jobs. Pee-ability
is different between men and women, so it's not an EP violation to have more female bathrooms than male bathrooms in a building. (i.e., we're not looking at what anybody's opinion of what's "natural", or what's socially good. Just, does X group have an equal __ability which this right was created to protect?)
Here, the question is if marriage-ability is different between gays and straights. Then that throws you right at the definition or function of marriage. If you define it as "lifeterm sexual partner", the ability is the same (there are arguments it's different, but I'm not sure they hold much water); if it's "maintaining an important, historical cultural institution" the ability is different by fiat. Then those two things become the battlelines in the argument.
Then there's a meta-argument that, well, the argument seems to be turning on the proper function or purpose of marriage, which the current laws are ambiguous on; it's not really enforcing EP on the current laws as they stand. So the courts shouldn't really be the ones answering the issue, at least not under EP; it's the job of the legislature to identify a clear purpose of marriage where the __-ability is the same for gays and straights.
Then there's another argument that you don't have to care what the legislature thought because marriage is a "fundamental right" which exists outside of any legislation, which other Sup Court cases seem to have decided, although in another context. But that has problems here too because that still doesn't give you a clear purpose of marriage in this context, and it opens you up to the counterargument that, if it's so fundamental in the way you suggest, it must have been existing from the beginning of time (beginning of society, anyway); then how do you explain that no one "discovered" it until just the last few decades? And whatever you might find that you could argue makes it so fundamental, it's
still hard to find a clear purpose on which to hang the "equal __ability" argument on. Where does a court "get" it from?
(The German constitution at least has the advantage of writing the right directly into their constitution. You can ask the guys that wrote it what they meant; unlike the US constitution, where the right is unwritten and more nebulous in the details ... then again, the UK doesn't have a written constitution at all.)
Even if you really support an outcome, people should pay attention to what a court can and can't do with ambiguous laws, because what works in your favor in one case can work against in you another. Since I think gay cohabitation is just as fundamental as straight cohabitation, I don't see any reason why the latter can be marriage but not the former; I'm happy with this outcome. But it would have been better if it were done by legislation than a court through EP. But then again people don't have the luxury to wait for that to happen; so it goes.
One thing though, there's a risk this issue may get pushed to the Supreme Court, and I can already tell they'll tend strongly towards the above anti-argument, which would find lack of gay marriage is not an EP violation on the laws as they stand, and then force that on
all states. Then other laws can stand on that foundation and it only makes life harder for cohabiting gays in the end. Hopefully that won't happen, other state courts gradually come around, and the whole issue slides into history, taken for granted, like a lot of issues before it.
jay pettitt on 21/5/2008 at 21:18
And there was me just wondering why I might want to use the law to discriminate against homosexual partnerships and couldn't think of a good reason.
Starrfall on 21/5/2008 at 22:06
haHA but I have found a flaw with your plan how does gay reproduce to begin with answer me that (marriage is about babies)
The_Raven on 21/5/2008 at 23:31
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Doesn't our current situation with these diseases just reek of mommy saying "I told you so!" when we touch the hot iron...
Mmm, no. I suppose you are going to tell me that there's also a good reason why left-handed people were viewed to be the devil's tool as well. Let's face it, people dislike anyone who doesn't conform to their views. Visibly identifiable individuals and groups who fall outside the considered "norms" are easy targets for all sorts of crazy shit; religion just happens to give them the perfect tools to justify their actions and conscript large amounts of people for a good old fashioned, public lynching.
<HR>
Quote Posted by Louis Cypher
Heritability of homosexuality in humans is not 100%. It is probably more like 60%. Which means it is biased towards genetics, but nurture plays a highly significant role as well.
The 60% figure is just the general estimate on heredity's impact on behavior, not really any real estimate unique to homosexuality. Homosexual behavior really isn't that unique to human, for some reason not too long ago I was reading the wiki article on homosexual behavior in animals, and that certainly gives some weight to there being at least some genetic component to homosexuality. Though, most of the examples cited in the wiki article are more appropriately labeled as bisexual behavior, and not homosexual.
Fun links:
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals) Homosexuality in animals (wiki)
(
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1279583.html) Gay penguins won't go straight
<HR>
Quote Posted by fett
fett's perfectly valid argument
So anal sex carries certain risks, vaginal intercourse does as well. Like everything else, these risks can be minimized with the proper precautions -condoms, proper lube, not stretching the sphincter muscle, etc...
Remember kids, always wipe front-to-back and say "no" to post-anal fellatio.
EDIT: Starrfall, if you're not popping kids out by the truckload; you're a hypocrite. :p
Gingerbread Man on 22/5/2008 at 00:10
we are growing hordes of babies in clear plastic jars in the bathtub in five years we will conquer woodland that filthy helltown
fett on 22/5/2008 at 02:07
Quote Posted by The_Raven
So anal sex carries certain risks, vaginal intercourse does as well. Like everything else, these risks can be minimized with the proper precautions -condoms, proper lube, not stretching the sphincter muscle, etc...
Remember kids, always wipe front-to-back and say "no" to post-anal fellatio.
EDIT: Starrfall, if you're not popping kids out by the truckload; you're a hypocrite. :p
OHMYGOD. Do I have to spell this out? There is NO POOP in the vagina people! Bacteria in the digestive tract better very well stay there, because if it ends up in other parts of the body. Liver failure, kidney failure, colon cancer, etc. etc. etc. STD's are the main risk of vaginal disease, but are preventable by the methods you listed above. The medical community is growing more concerned about the rise of anal sex (primarily among homos) because poop gets ON the condom, THEN goes other places, thereby depositing said bacteria into the body. YES it can happen with heteros as well, but it doesn't happen near as often.
Epos Nix on 22/5/2008 at 02:10
Quote:
Mmm, no. I suppose you are going to tell me that there's also a good reason why left-handed people were viewed to be the devil's tool as well. Visibly identifiable individuals and groups who fall outside the considered "norms" are easy targets for all sorts of crazy shit; religion just happens to give them the perfect tools to justify their actions and conscript large amounts of people for a good old fashioned, public lynching.
You might have a point if the Bible condemned gay people period. But in fact it only condemns men who have sex with other men.
Jennie&Tim on 22/5/2008 at 02:12
So teach people to change their condoms, no big deal.
I thought many of the Bible rules were to help create a group identity, one that would distinguish them from the surrounding groups. I don't see any particular reason why the ban on gay sex couldn't simply be a way to distinguish them from other local more permissive religions.
Epos Nix on 22/5/2008 at 02:22
Try this:
Quote:
I thought many of the Bible rules were to help create a
healthy group identity, one that would distinguish them from the surrounding groups.
Many of the laws in Leviticus have to do with personal and communal cleanliness. I think the idea of keeping one man's wang out of another man's bunghole follows this trend, but I could be wrong.
a flower in hell on 22/5/2008 at 03:02
They'll allow same-sex marriage but want to make civilian ownership of firearms illegal. California is rather selective in the type of freedom they're for...
Note: Let's not turn this into a "guns r bad mmkay" thread, it was just the most obvious thing that California beats up on and was the easiest way to make the comparison that California lawmakers are hypocrites.