Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you Emperor Fabulous.

Reason 1: Love. Gays want to be able to express their love in exactly the same way as straights. They want to be able to stick a ring on their partners finger, have a huge ceremony, and have it recognized in the eyes of society.

So will the recognition in law provide acceptance in society? Is 'feeling left out' a good reason to grant benefits?

Reason 2: Inheretance. At this time, only those who have been married have any right to the assets of their partners. Gay people, since they can't be married, have to give up what their partner had to the next of kin.

If a man can give all his inheritence to his dog, I don't see why they would not let someone name whomever they want as next of kin.

Reason 3: Health. Insurance companies will accomadate spouses and children. They will not accomodate girlfriends/boyfriends. Thus, gay people have to find two seperate health plans.

So why not let long-term boyfriends and girlfriends have equivalent access in health plans? Don't they love each other?

Reason 4: Commitment. Goes with love. They are saying that they are pledging their lives to another person. While that doesn't NEED the government, they want the right to be recognized BY the government as much as heterosexuals do. If heterosexuals didn't care if it were recognition of commitment, there would be fair less recognized marraiges.

If it doesn't need the government, why should they intervene?

Reason 5: Children. Believe it or not, gays can be as good or bad as straight parents. If the government allows gays to marry, it would almost eliminate any hesitation to grant them rights to adopt.

So gays should be able to adopt children just because they want to adopt children? I'm going to have to ask you whether the majority of gay couples will want to have children.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Ok, fine, have it your way.

Reason 1: Love. Gays want to be able to express their love in exactly the same way as straights. They want to be able to stick a ring on their partners finger, have a huge ceremony, and have it recognized in the eyes of society.

Reason 2: Inheretance. At this time, only those who have been married have any right to the assets of their partners. Gay people, since they can't be married, have to give up what their partner had to the next of kin.

Reason 3: Health. Insurance companies will accomadate spouses and children. They will not accomodate girlfriends/boyfriends. Thus, gay people have to find two seperate health plans.

Reason 4: Commitment. Goes with love. They are saying that they are pledging their lives to another person. While that doesn't NEED the government, they want the right to be recognized BY the government as much as heterosexuals do. If heterosexuals didn't care if it were recognition of commitment, there would be fair less recognized marraiges.

Reason 5: Children. Believe it or not, gays can be as good or bad as straight parents. If the government allows gays to marry, it would almost eliminate any hesitation to grant them rights to adopt.

Explaination of the MA Court ruling: They found that civil unions do not fit because they are still not granting full rights to all of the citizens. This is more of a reason for the state rather than gays.

There you go. No flames. Full explaination.

I have been silent up to this pont. But now I have to say that EF has summed up my feelings to a tee!

My "Domestic Partner" and I have been together for over 14 years! This is not a one night stand. We both pay taxes and our credit report is totally mixed together - ie, you do a credit report on me, you get both my partner and myself. You perform a credit report on my patner - what do you get? The same - a credit report with my partner and I.

We have worked hard for what we have...but without the legal recognition, what do we really have???

We pay the same taxes as everyone else, we want the same recognition!

And this brings up a point from the Constitution:

"All men are created equal"

So , should the Constitution be reworded to:

"All men (and women) are created equal, unless they're gay"???

Please.

Home of the free my ass. Next we'll be seeing people goose-stepping in the streets!

Sorry for gettting off on a tangent. My main point was to congradulate Emperor Fabulous on his well worded response.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Well thank you Wittlich. I'm actually surprised that I was able to respond without flaminDEATH TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE1!!

...


****...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Ben: you have all these ideas for amending other things to allow gays access...but why not just allow gays to marry? It gets the whole thing in one shibang!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you Drake. Marriage to one man and one woman is neither new nor arbitrary.

"Marriage" as we know it is actually pretty new. For example, up until about a century ago, you could marry a 10-year old in the US. Up until pretty recently, few people married for love. Up until 1967 you could not marry a person from another race.

"Tradition" is not a very good reason to deny someone a right.

I would hope not. All other basic human rights do not require the consent of another in order to be executed. Marriage requires consent, therefore it cannot be a basic human right.

I hope you would agree at least that it is a more fundamental right than voting, no? If you're going to deny a select group some basic right, a right more fundamental even than voting, I think you need a pretty good reason. I have yet to hear one, and I've been listening very closely.

In what sense are they asking to enter marriage? They are asking marriage to embrace them.

You never heard the phrase "enter into matrimony"? You never heard the phrase "enter a contract? "Enter an agreement?"

If they truly wanted marriage, they would find a nice woman to get married to.

Well, now you are being specious. You already admitted you could never marry a man.

It is analogous to wanting to be on the health plan, yet not have to pay the same amount for the services as everyone else.

Analogous? If gays are allowed to marry, in what sense will they not "pay the same amount for the services"?

[Ben Kenobi]

The fundamental problem with it is that alcoholism, unlike love, has clear detrimental effects upon the society in which it is taking place. What detrimental effects on society does gay love have?

Leaving aside the issue of children, I'm going to do something new.

First off, I want to clarify. By the word it, I'm making a distinction between the desire and the action. One may not be able to choose the desire, but one can indeed choose the action. Genes cannot determine behavior. Jut as an alcoholic, under treatment can learn to control his impulses, the same is with homosexuality.

The analogy can be extended. Alcoholism has serious physical consequences, the most obvious being deterioriation of the liver, and the capacity of the liver to detoxify the body.

What about homosexuality?

In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

Again, from a study in New Zealand:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org

Attempts at self-inflicted harm by both men and women were increased significantly with the degree of homosexual attraction. Even among men who reported only "minor same-sex attraction," a marked increase in the occurrences of physical self-injury was noted.

Episodes of depression during the twelve months prior to the polling were rated significant by the researchers, especially among the male subjects, and also increased greatly in proportion to increased levels of homosexual attraction.

Substance abuse was also a major factor examined by the study. Both sexes reported elevated rates of substance abuse during the same twelve-month period. The researchers note that the women particularly appeared to show increased incidents of substance abuse with an increased degree of lesbian attraction.

Domestically, men and women who reported strong, consistent homosexual attraction were less likely to be living with a spouse or partner of either gender.

Overall, men who admitted any same-sex attraction of whatever degree and persistency, seemed to be at a significantly higher risk than women of like responses in their reporting of deliberate self-harm over the course of a lifetime.

[Japher]

I have been silent up to this pont. But now I have to say that EF has summed up my feelings to a tee!

'bout time Wittlich! Of all the gay posters here I'd think you'd at least have something to say

Your problem, however, is that you are in CA... And we give you homos everything you want... Every company I have worked at honors same sex marriages... As it should be.

Where in SF are you, by the way? I had a thread on moving in the Castro, and I was thinking about you.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

**** it. I'm going to go drink.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MtG:

(sorry mindseye)

Not the first time I've addressed this question either. What qualitative benefits does society retain from traditional marriage? The first is that a stable marriage is the best environment for raising children. Why, if the state has no interest in the preservation of marriage, do they work to decrease the divorce rate?

Let's say you have a traditional marriage between a wife-beating (but she never prosecutes, since she believes it's her fault), crackhead, and an obese, alcoholic smoker who supplements her income by street prostitution (I picked factors which all play into fetal health risk). What "qualitatitive" conditions does the state impose? Gee, they're married, and by God they stay that way. Good for the kids. Right?

Does "society" retain benefits from any two people of the opposite gender marrying for any reason, and then being forced by statutory design (a la Ireland) to remain technically married?

Or does it benefit from the character and nature of specific parents who bring healthy values, positive actions and dedication to their relationship and their choice on whether to raise children?

The fact is that the state takes no action, or simplistic kneejerk action alone (procedural impediments to divorce) with respect to marriage, and no significant action at all with respect to real qualitative issues of bringing up children.

Why? Well, social conservatives have this real issue of consistency - if it's hetero Jerry Spring rejects, there's all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth about parental rights and parental choice and none of the government's business, along with the obligatory whining about ol' Hillary's "It takes a village" liberal BS. Let a couple of queers talk about getting married to each other on the same basis as a couple of heteros, then these same social conservatives who routinely discard qualitative arguments in favor of individual rights do an about face, and talk about "society's interests."

You can't have it both ways. If it's the state's business to interject itself into personal relationships and decide what is permitted and what is prohibited, when there is no coercion or abuse, then the state can intervene for any reason at all. If there is a nexus of personal rights that are not subject to state intrusion,

But we cannot marry a man, nor can we marry 6 women who happen to strike our fancy should we desire them. So does Mr. Fun. He can marry a nice woman if she also desires to marry him. Same rights, same equality.

Let's substitute "coloreds" for "6 women." What is the fundamental difference? Why is it purportedly right for the state to regulate who may enter into marriage with whom in the one case, but not the other? For that matter, what compelling interest does the state have in prohibiting polygamy, given that the most venal human trash can marry if they're of age, mentally competent (at least as the legal standard goes) and of opposite gender? The state doesn't prohibit you or me from shacking up with six women, does it? Ah, but there could be some confusion on child custody, survivorship of assets, and other property issues if the husband dies, or just divorces some wives. Then there's that whole question of working out rules for vesting of property interests depending on when wife number so and so enters or leaves the picture. Ah, the state might have some interest in regulating the number of people who are concurrently married to each other, because there is this confusion of legal interests that's a mess to sort out.

So let's make it two people, one to the other. Now let's take four people - two gay men, two lesbian women. Let one man marry one woman, so you have two marriages. The two men live together and do their evil, abominable sodomite thang^TM, as two the two women. Four people, two marriages, two sets of people living together, all sorts of sinful sodomiteness going on. Perfectly "legal." After all, the state is having those men marry those women due to the societal interest in two-parent households in rearing children.

Just change that around a bit, and let the two men marry each other like they want to, and let the two women marry each other. Four people, two marriages, two sets of people living together, all sorts of sinful sodomiteness going on. What in God's name is the difference from the state's perspective? Let alone a difference so compelling to the public interest that the state should refuse to recognize or actively prohibit one marriage relationship, but allow the other even though it is a patent sham?

No good reason? Care to address my point about the interchangeability of genders?

I just did. Even to the extent that genders are not interchangeable, that's irrelevant if there are no kids (what do we do with 70 year olds who want to marry? - kids aren't an issue there.)

Society does not have a requirement to provide all benefits equally, otherwise, you would have to give unmarried bachelors the same provisions as a married couple.

Only because the society we lived in developed from a white male dominated patriarchy. We deigned to give rights to darkies, women, and other lesser beings when and to the extent we decided to. Queers need not apply. The question is not what society does, but what a moral and just society ought to do. We could step back 140 years to one of my collateral relations' properties in Virginia or Kentucky and argue that society's lack of obligation to provide benefits equally justifies the institution of slavery. Southern society at that time did justify the evil institution, in some case a bit reluctantly, but nonetheless, we did justify it. (We fought a war over state's rights, though, so shove off, MrFun )

Why should unmarried bachelors have different rights? For tax purposes in the US, two single people are generally better off than two married people in most income ranges or filing status. Property rights, survivalship, power of attorney, etc. are different only to the extent of being able to ascertain then intent of the parties. If you and I are roommates, there's nothing that establishes our intent with respect to property rights, power of attorney, or anything else. If we get married , that is generally recognized as a fairly clear signifying of our intent with respect to those issues.

Reason with me here. What tangible differences will marrying a black woman have for the marriage, as marrying a white woman?

Society is simply not ready for this kind of public mixing of the races. And if we allow this sort of miscegenation, we risk the purity of our blood lines, and public morals as well.

Will the children in one be more likely to be deformed, as in the other?

The mixing of the bloodlines can not be beneficial to the white race. And we know that coloreds are more susceptible to syphilis due to their looser morals, they're more likely to engage in criminal behavior, and they carry inheritable diseases from their African heritage.

All of these arguments have been used in relation to miscegenation statutes.

However, we can say that the two will create a tangible difference in both incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages.

Can we? We don't know about incestuous marriages without a detailed genetic assessment of both parents. And many states allow first cousins to marry, so there's not that much difference, although adopted siblings can not marry - there's no objective reason, just an assumption by the state.

Homosexual marriages generally don't result in the production of offspring, although either partner might have kids from heterosexual relationships, or by adoption. However, why should the state (regardless of parental rights) make a blanket, a priori assumption about parental fitness for homosexuals when it does not do so for heterosexuals?

[Combat Ingrid]

@ Ben's last post.
Man you are really a moron

I'm off to bed now, happy -ing all of you

[mindseye]

Originally posted by yavoon

followup than, why do some not like the civil union and demand that it be marriage if the union carries similar rights?

Because it does not carry equal recognition. Like it or not, having two categories implies they are different - or else there would just be one category. It wouldn't make sense to have two categories for something unless there was some kind of difference.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, it's just a finer form of discrimination. If you have all the rights, but not the title, there is an implication that for some reason you still don't qualify.

We've already seen how "seperate but equal" works in real life. It doesn't

To use an anlogy of Ramo's, what if there were two classes of US citizenship ("citizens" and "members") legally equal in every way, and that all black people were asked to accept United States "membership". How do you think they would feel about that?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, but you are what you eat. (bada-bing!). Sorry.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What about homosexuality?

Does the study clarify (no one study could) that it is homosexuality per se, rather than risky behavior by some segment of the gay population, that is responsible for any apparent differences?

And you can find similar heterosexual at-risk groups that skew their results as well.

Again, from a study in New Zealand:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org

Again, is this a result of homosexuality per se, or a result of psycholigical and emotional reactions to factors such as harassment, ostracism, fear, misplaced guilt, etc? which are exacerbated by society at large and typical treatment of and response to gays?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What about homosexuality?

In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

Are you proposing limiting marriage on the basis of disease risk? I don't know of any other group in the nation discriminated against in this manner.

Straight sex also carries significant risks for all sorts of diseases. Are you also calling for some sort of discouragement of all non-procreational heterosexual sex?

As for the cost to society, most of the people who have these diseases are heterosexuals.

Attempts at self-inflicted harm
(...)
Episodes of depression
(...)
Substance abuse

Ben, which do you think is more likely the cause of these:
(1) something intrinsic to homosexuality, or
(2) the fallout of social discrimination?

When your society brands you as officially unequal, that inflicts difficulties and pain into people's lives. Other minorities suffering similar discrimination show similar problems.

Domestically, men and women who reported strong, consistent homosexual attraction were less likely to be living with a spouse or partner of either gender.

Gee, do you think that has anything to do with the fact that they can't get married?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Japher


'bout time Wittlich! Of all the gay posters here I'd think you'd at least have something to say

Your problem, however, is that you are in CA... And we give you homos everything you want... Every company I have worked at honors same sex marriages... As it should be.

Ah, but what if my patner and I wish to move to say....Ohio? (I know, it's crazy - But I was born and raised there and my parents family still reside there). Then what? We need Federal recognition as a fellow American.

Where in SF are you, by the way? I had a thread on moving in the Castro, and I was thinking about you.

We live in Ingelside (just south of South Market) but still in San Francisco proper.