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

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

Study gages attraction, not actions.

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

Trope (n)

"A short distinguishing cadence interpolated in Gregorian melodies."

We've heard this music before.

If so, why did this study find differences between the men and women? They both live in the same environment that is supposed to harrass them equally.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If so, why did this study find differences between the men and women? They both live in the same environment that is supposed to harrass them equally.

Gee, do you suppose that it could be possible that women and men respond to stress in different ways? Or that they are subjected to different forms of discriminatory pressures?

Trope indeed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow!

I hope you're enjoying yourself MtG. Gets your mind off things for awhile.

Gee, they're married, and by God they stay that way. Good for the kids. Right?

Social services exists for a reason.

I will not condone wife battering, I will not deny that to a woman as grounds for divorce. What she needs is counselling so that she does not blame herself for getting the **** kicked out of her. So she can divorce this ****er.

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?

Umm, even the Catholic church will not deny them a divorce on these grounds, just for the wife beating.

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?

Marital counselling should help discourage people from marrying each other, and getting into these situations in the first place. Not a perfect solution, but reasonable.

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.

Sounds like a complaint to social services, eh? Gay marriage will not fix this problem.

Why? Well, social conservatives have this real issue of consistency -

Strawman. Deal with my points.

routinely discard qualitative arguments in favor of individual rights do an about face, and talk about "society's interests."

I'm not sure how this critique is applicable. I have consistently argued that marriage is not about individual rights, and why it should be distinguished from other issues. If the state issues marriage licenses, then it is not a private issue, but rather a public concern.

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?

Reciprocity and symmetry found in marriage, is not found here.

The state doesn't prohibit you or me from shacking up with six women, does it?

But the state does not give benefits to those who are shacked up, now does it?

abominable sodomite thangTM,

LMFAO!

Shame I can parse away the rest.

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.)

Let's see. I answer companionship. Gay people pounce saying, we can be companions too.

Better argument. They love each other, as they would when they are younger, but it is no fault of their own they can't have kids.

lack of obligation to provide benefits equally justifies the institution of slavery.

So are you arguing that all benefits should be distributed equally to the population? Even the commies don't go that far. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. "

that is generally recognized as a fairly clear signifying of our intent with respect to those issues.

That's not a strong argument. If a declaration of intent is sufficient, than anybody can say that anyone else ought to have these benefits.

purity of our blood lines, and public morals as well.

So tell me MtG. Did the public morals of the good old USA decline with the increase of Hispanics?

Secondly, what tangible benefits can be derived from purity of blood? Last I saw just the opposite could be true. Just look at the beloved Hapsburgs.

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

Very good. Now can you say men and women are completely interchangeable?

although adopted siblings can not marry - there's no objective reason, just an assumption by the state.

I wonder why?

Can it generally be shown that marrying your mother will not cause these problems? You're very close to an argument by Walter Saletan.

Homosexual marriages generally don't result in the production of offspring, although either partner might have kids from heterosexual relationships,

Back up. Isn't sexual orientation fixed? How could this happen if this were so?

a priori assumption about parental fitness for homosexuals when it does not do so for heterosexuals?

Would it be beneficial for the child to have parents of both genders? If so, then that's a credible a priori assumption.

[Q Classic]

sweet! even more reason to lead a revolution to get rid of every single idiotic bastard in power ruining the country and the world for the rest of us!

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee, do you suppose that it could be possible that women and men respond to stress in different ways?

That's like an alcholic telling his wife that she drives him to drink by her nagging.

Or that they are subjected to different forms of discriminatory pressures?

Why would an ignorant society be able to distinguish between lesbianism and gayness? Why would they make such a distinction.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Note: Drinking = no hard feelings

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If so, why did this study find differences between the men and women? They both live in the same environment that is supposed to harrass them equally.

How many lesbians have been threatened, beaten or killed by heterosexual women who felt the lesbian was somehow threatening to their womanhood?

No gender issue around affects both men and women equally.

And you might have heard the beat before, but then flat earthers probably hear that the earth is round a lot, too.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's like an alcholic telling his wife that she drives him to drink by her nagging.



Why would an ignorant society be able to distinguish between lesbianism and gayness? Why would they make such a distinction.

Why do men often behave differently in male dominated social groups from women in female dominated social groups?

[JohnT]

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.

Not just "any right", but the right to a tax-free inheritance (if the estate is large enough to pay taxes on it, that is).

Ben, what in your life would be different if gays were to marry? If this has been asked and answered, just point me in the general direction and I'll read from there. Thanks.

[Ben Kenobi]

bipolarbear:

I just get such a laugh saying that.

Having citizens who are ahppy doesn't generally lead to a "moral decay". I quote the famous gay comedian from the "Kids in the Hall" Scott Thompson-"When the govt. realizes that gay marriage cures gay activism, they will jump all over that!"

Read the posts by some of the others in the thread. Do you really think that the activism will end?

Secondly, I never make the point of moral decay. I figure we can't do much worse than where we are already.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wow!

I hope you're enjoying yourself MtG. Gets your mind off things for awhile.

It's been almost two months already, I just never mentioned it. I do have a lot of work I can't find the motivation for, however.

Social services exists for a reason.

I will not condone wife battering, I will not deny that to a woman as grounds for divorce. What she needs is counselling so that she does not blame herself for getting the **** kicked out of her. So she can divorce this ****er.

And social services agencies are constantly under pressure in both directions - be more interventionist, and be less interventionist. The simple truth is that the state has a very fragmented approach to these problems, depending on the agendas of the political directors of the state. I wouldn't suggest that you do condone battery, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the view that any hetero marriage is good, and any gay marriage should be forbidden. Even if two severely dysfunctional, iresponsible heterosexuals decide on the spur of the moment to get married, as long as there's no obvious issue of mental competence, the state let's them. Nothing in that lax approach to who is "entitled" to marry is consistent with the notion of a blanket prohibition on gays marrying each other.

Umm, even the Catholic church will not deny them a divorce on these grounds, just for the wife beating.

It depends on the diocese, and in particular the petitioner's advocate and the members of the diocesan tribunal, but the annulment process is often very timeconsuming, intrusive, and unpredictable, and in many dioceses, the quasi-official policy is to aggressively look for grounds not to annul. That is also different from the statutory schemes in many countries with extensive Catholic church influence.

Marital counselling should help discourage people from marrying each other, and getting into these situations in the first place. Not a perfect solution, but reasonable.

"Reasonable" to be imposed by the state? Not in my view of proper state power.

Sounds like a complaint to social services, eh? Gay marriage will not fix this problem.

The point is that states which accept that this type of situation is permissible have a real problem of consistency arguing for "sanctity of marriage" or any other excuse to prohibit gay marriage.

Strawman. Deal with my points.

Not a strawman at all. I think consistency in one's view of the scope and application of state power is important, otherwise you tend towards that "tyranny of the majority" thang my ancestors filled the Brits full of holes over. I support parental rights against state power as a general proposition, and I support gay marriage on the same basis - limitation on the power of the state to regulate personal conduct absent compelling reasons it should do so.

I'm not sure how this critique is applicable. I have consistently argued that marriage is not about individual rights, and why it should be distinguished from other issues. If the state issues marriage licenses, then it is not a private issue, but rather a public concern.

And I'm a proponent of individual rights over state power. I'm the pro-Confederate southerner, you're the socialist-light Canuck, remember? The fact that the state issues a marriage license means the state has interjected itself into marriage in general, but it should not do so in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

Reciprocity and symmetry found in marriage, is not found here.

Since when are reciprocity and symmetry in personal relationships legitimate interests of the state?

But the state does not give benefits to those who are shacked up, now does it?

In many ways, it does. You marry, you get divorced and pay alimony. Your ex shacks up rather than remarries, and she still gets alimony. You shack up with your new girlfriend rather than get married, and you file taxes as two single individuals (assume the US here). In most instances, your income tax liabilities are less than if you got married. If you apply for welfare or public health benefits, or student grants or loans, and you are means tested on your earnings or assets, if you're married, both spouses income counts. If you shack up, you are treated as a single individual. In many cases, married couples are treated significantly worse, in others, they have superior rights (intestacy, legal privilege, implied power of attorney, etc.) It's a mixed bag due to inconsistent and poorly thought out legislative meddling.

Let's see. I answer companionship. Gay people pounce saying, we can be companions too.

Better argument. They love each other, as they would when they are younger, but it is no fault of their own they can't have kids.

It's not the argument, it's the demonstration that the state regulatory mechanism accepts marriage for reasons other than procreation, so arguments about prohibiting gay marriage can't rely on that facade.

So are you arguing that all benefits should be distributed equally to the population? Even the commies don't go that far. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. "

Nice troll, considering my view of government in general and commies in particular. I'm saying that to the extent government grants benefits to individuals, there should be no inbuilt bias due to marital status, especially if marital status (to the legally competent partner of choice, not for a sham) is denied to a segment of the population. That is, that the benefit for two married people should be identical to the benefit for two single people, assuming there are any benefits at all. Same thing with the cost side (i.e. taxation)

That's not a strong argument. If a declaration of intent is sufficient, than anybody can say that anyone else ought to have these benefits.

The point is, it's a universally recognized, easily verifiable declaration of intent. These specific things can be covered by separte documents - wills, living wills, creation of trusts, executed powers of attorney, but generally with much more cost and legal complication than the blanket set of rights conveyed to married couples.

So tell me MtG. Did the public morals of the good old USA decline with the increase of Hispanics?

Depends on who you ask. Plenty of racists would say yes.

Secondly, what tangible benefits can be derived from purity of blood? Last I saw just the opposite could be true. Just look at the beloved Hapsburgs.

That's a little too pure. Just like 200 proof whiskey - God made Bourbon and water for a reason. My point is that the same arguments were made for miscegenation. Can you, based on (remember that good ol' Establishment Clause that applies down here) secular reasoning, say that gay marriage will result either in some inherent social harm or loss of morality?

Very good. Now can you say men and women are completely interchangeable?

They should be, to the extent of the state's regulatory interest in marriage. The state shouldn't give a fair damn.

I wonder why?

Can it generally be shown that marrying your mother will not cause these problems? You're very close to an argument by Walter Saletan.

Is his basis that the state is hard pressed to find any legitimate basis for regulatory authority? I don't like incest or polygamy, I don't approve of either, but I don't see that the state has any absolute, clear cut legitimate regulatory interest.

Back up. Isn't sexual orientation fixed? How could this happen if this were so?

Yes, it is fixed. But with a good dose of repression, guilt, coercion, social pressure to "conform,"perceived familial obligation, etc. people can do all sorts of "unnatural" things like breed and have kids. Ask Arriana Huffington's ex-hubby, or Greta Cammermeyer.

Would it be beneficial for the child to have parents of both genders? If so, then that's a credible a priori assumption.

It depends on the character of the individuals. If mindseye and Wittlich happened to be an item, for example, from what I know of each of them, if something happened to orphan either of my kids, I'd much rather that they raise them than a great many heterosexual couples I can think of.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Just a side note: Drew Barrymore has a fetish for furries...

thought that'd be a nice break for everyone...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Drew's kinda cute, but tell me about Salma's fetishes, then you're going somewhere.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, what in your life would be different if gays were to marry?

One of the proposals up before the legislature, in Canada, where we do have gay marriage, is to do away with marriage altogether. There would be a civil union recognised by the state and marriages performed in churches.

Secondly, we get this drivel stuffed down our throats on a day set aside by some of the conservatives to honour traditional marriage. Now, the CBC is funded by the government, so this is what our taxes are paying for.

Event: CBC hosts same-sex marriage
2004-02-15


Canada-wide

CBC News Sunday will broadcast the marriage of Douglass Drozdow-St. Christian (50) and his partner Stephen Drozdow-St. Christian (33) live to the nation on Feb 15 . The couple plan to shorten their hyphenated surname to "St. Christian" after their marriage. The hour-long ceremony will be augmented with edited portions of pre-recorded(Feb. 13) edited debates.. Rev. Deana Dudley of Christos MCC will be the officiant. More details to-follow

[Ben Kenobi]

Drew's kinda cute, but tell me about Salma's fetishes, then you're going somewhere.

Where were you when I wanted a babe thread...

I knew there was something I liked about you.