Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[Natoma]

First, you can't extend homosexual marriages to anything because homosexual marriages don't exist in this country.

You know what I mean.

Yes, I do.

Besides, we've discussed the problems behind incest,

And your problem with it infriged upon the right for incestual partners to be happy and "recognized". It doesn't make sense in light of your current arguments. They want to be recongized, why shouldn't they be?

My problem with incest are the very high probability of genetic defects in the offspring. Apparently that's the same problem the government has as well because they allow incestual relationships as long as the relationship is equal to or greater than 2nd cousin, in order to reduce the probability of genetic defects in the offspring.

not to mention the problems of marriage between two beings that don't understand the implications of what they're doing (two 5 year olds? c'mon).

c'mon nothing.

What do you care if they understand what it means to be married. Does ANYONE really, until they are married? Shouldn't they be able to have the same trials and tribulations as anyone else? What is your inherent problem with two people, who honestly feel that they want to be married?

Because I believe that a decision as life changing as this should be between two beings who understand the implications of what they're getting into. No this doesnt' happen in every instance, but that's what I think should happen. It should be between two people who are truly in love with one another.

Btw, my partner and I are in every way shape and form married. We have been together for 2.5 years, been living together for 2 of those years, and have been committed to one another, with all the trials, tribulations, ups and downs that any other committed relationship has. We are probably going to change our last names to match one another, we have committment rings, and we are legal domestic partners in the city of new york. So we understand what it means to be married. All that separates us from you is the fact that your relationship is completely and legally sanctioned everywhere in the country, nay the world, while mine is not.

Btw, it is legal in some countries for young men and young women to be married as soon as they're capable of reproduction. I see nothing wrong with their cultural allowances wrt that.

Now this is interestiong....What does reproduction have to do with marriage? Isn't that constiturionally discriminitory? There's no "qual treatment" between those who are old enough to reproduce, and those who can't! Homosexuals can't reproduce (with one another)....so you would support a law that bans marriages on that basis?

You are drawing arbitrary and contradictory lines about when it's "OK" for the state to saction marriage and when it's not OK. (That's basically my point to you.) The states have their own moral guidelines to sanction marriage. You are saying that "homosexual" is not a valid moral guideline to even consider on one hand, but incest and age is not only something that should be considered, but something you agree with.

I just said I didn't see any problem with how other societies define the availability of marriage. I wasn't stating that reproduction has or should have anything to do with it. I was saying that other societies declare you ready for marriage once you're able to physically reproduce, i.e. puberty. While different from our declaration of the ability to marry (once you turn 18 in most states), I see no problem with it frankly because that is their culture.

The last two paragraphs of your response are moot based on that explanation.

 

[Natoma]

The argument I have put in front of you is not based on racism or religion. It is a choice/actions argument. There is a difference between choosing to be discriminated against based on your actions of which are widely disapproved of and of questionable value to society and being discriminated against for your skin color.

If sexuality is a choice then I suppose we're all bisexual and we choose who we want to be with. So are you bisexual Sabastian? Do two guys humping get you off like a guy and a girl? Can you choose equally between the two scenarios?

Most people can not.

lol, no. But I bet you could...

You would lose a lot of money in that bet.

 

[Natoma]

Are you that focused on calling what you want marriage that you cannot realize that this amendment seems to be promoting exactly what you want?

Uhm, please restate that. I don't understand what you're getting at.

This amendment is essentially stating that the states cannot regulate MARRIAGE, but are allowed to regulate civil unions. This would remove marriage (the religious institution) from any special legal considerations and all of the population would be involved in civil unions (according to the state)

And I'm asking if you're so focused on your relationship being called a 'marriage' that you're willing to throw away the baby with the bathwater?

Sorry. Lost track of your post.

What amendment are you referring to? Sorry if I appear a little slow but I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to. Is this an amendment to the constitution that has been proposed, or is this a hypothetical scenario that you are putting forth?

 

[Sabastian]

The argument I have put in front of you is not based on racism or religion. It is a choice/actions argument. There is a difference between choosing to be discriminated against based on your actions of which are widely disapproved of and of questionable value to society and being discriminated against for your skin color.

If sexuality is a choice then I suppose we're all bisexual and we choose who we want to be with. So are you bisexual Sabastian? Do two guys humping get you off like a guy and a girl? Can you choose equally between the two scenarios?

Most people can not.

lol, no. But I bet you could...

You would lose a lot of money in that bet.

You ever been with a woman? If you are an exclusive homosexual you are a part of a group that represents less then 1% of the population. Come on admit it Natoma, deep down you really wouldn't mind sleeping with a woman. hehe

 

[Natoma]

So by that argument, the establishment of a "religion" for homosexuals so that we can have our marital status recognized would be unconstitutional.

I said "religion of Tiumbuktoo" (and not somthing like "Religion of Homosexuality") for a reason.

I did not say you needed to have a "religion for homosexuals", nor do you need one. A religion can be sexual orientation agnostic with respect to marriage.

You are free to create your own religion. It may have NOTHING to do with sexuality at all.

The state may have laws against marriage between, say a 20 year old, and a 10 year old.

Is that unconstitutional? The "only way" such a marriage could be recognized is via a "religion" that has no issue with it...

Yes, but why the construct of creating a religion anyways? Why is that necessary? If you have to create a religion for the government to recognize the marriage, that's putting in an unnecessary, and potentially illegal wrt individual rights in this country, buffer.

I don't see the relevance of the point? :?

 

[Natoma]

The argument I have put in front of you is not based on racism or religion. It is a choice/actions argument. There is a difference between choosing to be discriminated against based on your actions of which are widely disapproved of and of questionable value to society and being discriminated against for your skin color.

If sexuality is a choice then I suppose we're all bisexual and we choose who we want to be with. So are you bisexual Sabastian? Do two guys humping get you off like a guy and a girl? Can you choose equally between the two scenarios?

Most people can not.

lol, no. But I bet you could...

You would lose a lot of money in that bet.

You ever been with a woman? If you are an exclusive homosexual you are a part of a group that represents less then 1% of the population. Come on admit it Natoma, deep down you really wouldn't mind sleeping with a woman.

Actually I have. I threw up. It wasn't pretty to say the least. A face full of woman groin still makes me hurl. This was during my repressive religious years as an adolescent when I tried to force myself to be straight.

Btw, you are right. Roughly 1% of the population is completely heterosexual or homosexual. The rest of the population are in some way shape or form bisexual. Sometimes on a conscious level. Sometimes not. I'm not 100% gay, but then, the human sexual response also determines the attractiveness of other people, and a response to those people. While I am not attracted to beautiful women in a sexual arousal response way (only men, to the chagrin of a few of my female friends), I am attracted to beautiful women in a societal "lets get to know one another" sexual response way. We are all naturally attracted to people who have good looks. That is a human sexual response. But sexual response has nothing to do with the actual sexual arousal response. They are related, but different in enough ways to be separately defined.

Thanks psyche 101. I loved that class.

 

[Sabastian]

Yes, but why the construct of creating a religion anyways? Why is that necessary? If you have to create a religion for the government to recognize the marriage, that's putting in an unnecessary, and potentially illegal wrt individual rights in this country, buffer.

I don't see the relevance of the point? :?

Marriage is mostly a cultural / religious creation. Why do homosexuals need to get married? Marriage is also based off the natural family model of which a homosexual arrangement could never be equated to in reality except on paper.

 

[Natoma]

Yes, but why the construct of creating a religion anyways? Why is that necessary? If you have to create a religion for the government to recognize the marriage, that's putting in an unnecessary, and potentially illegal wrt individual rights in this country, buffer.

I don't see the relevance of the point? :?

Marriage is mostly a cultural / religious creation. Why do homosexuals need to get married? Marriage is also based off the natural family model of which a homosexual arrangement could never be equated to in reality except on paper.

If it's a religious creation then the government cannot legislate on it. It would be sanctioning a religious body/institution to the exclusion of others, which is unconstitutional. Even convicted murderers and criminals can get married. C'mon now.

I want to get married to my mate because I *love* him and wish to express that in the ways deemed by our culture as one of the ultimate expressions of love and committment. That is my sole reason for wanting to get married to him.

p.s.: People getting married who are seniors, or are incapable of reproduction due to whatever reason can also never be equated to a natural family model of one wife, one husband, and 2.5 kids because of the exclusion of the children in the equation. Are they to be excluded as well?

 

[Sabastian]

Actually I have. I threw up. It wasn't pretty to say the least. A face full of woman groin still makes me hurl. This was during my repressive religious years as an adolescent when I tried to force myself to be straight.

Btw, you are right. Roughly 1% of the population is completely heterosexual or homosexual. The rest of the population are in some way shape or form bisexual. Sometimes on a conscious level. Sometimes not. I'm not 100% gay, but then, the human sexual response also determines the attractiveness of other people, and a response to those people. While I am not attracted to beautiful women in a sexual response way (only men, to the chagrin of a few of my female friends), I am attracted to beautiful women in a societal "lets get to know one another" way. We are all naturally attracted to people who have good looks. That is a human sexual response. But sexual response has nothing to do with the actual sexual arousal response. They are related, but different in enough ways to be separately defined.

Thanks psyche 101. I loved that class.

lol. yeah you should put the old sarcasm quotes around that one. Exclusive homosexuals represent less then 1% of the population. Exclusive hetrosexuals represent over 80%. Bisexuals whom choose their actions represent the vast majority of homoesexual activity. You puked, lol. So you are proclaiming that you were born gay?

 

[RussSchultz]

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.htm

I like their outcome (http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/colorchart.cfm), but I'm a bit leary of their wording, and I'm not sure how their wording ends up at their outcome)

 

[Natoma]

Actually I have. I threw up. It wasn't pretty to say the least. A face full of woman groin still makes me hurl. This was during my repressive religious years as an adolescent when I tried to force myself to be straight.

Btw, you are right. Roughly 1% of the population is completely heterosexual or homosexual. The rest of the population are in some way shape or form bisexual. Sometimes on a conscious level. Sometimes not. I'm not 100% gay, but then, the human sexual response also determines the attractiveness of other people, and a response to those people. While I am not attracted to beautiful women in a sexual response way (only men, to the chagrin of a few of my female friends), I am attracted to beautiful women in a societal "lets get to know one another" way. We are all naturally attracted to people who have good looks. That is a human sexual response. But sexual response has nothing to do with the actual sexual arousal response. They are related, but different in enough ways to be separately defined.

Thanks psyche 101. I loved that class.

lol. yeah you should put the old sarcasm quotes around that one. Exclusive homosexuals represent less then 1% of the population. Exclusive hetrosexuals represent over 80%. Bisexuals whom choose their actions represent the vast majority of homoesexual activity. You puked, lol. So you are proclaiming that you were born gay?

Uhm, no sarcasm necessary. If you're speaking about exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexual wrt established relational patterns, then the percentage would be roughly 10% for homosexuals and 90% for heterosexuals.

If you're speaking of a sexual response, then the numbers skew very heavily towards 99% of the population being bisexual in some nature, with only 1% of the population being exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex or same sex *only*.

 

[Sabastian]

Actually I have. I threw up. It wasn't pretty to say the least. A face full of woman groin still makes me hurl. This was during my repressive religious years as an adolescent when I tried to force myself to be straight.

Btw, you are right. Roughly 1% of the population is completely heterosexual or homosexual. The rest of the population are in some way shape or form bisexual. Sometimes on a conscious level. Sometimes not. I'm not 100% gay, but then, the human sexual response also determines the attractiveness of other people, and a response to those people. While I am not attracted to beautiful women in a sexual response way (only men, to the chagrin of a few of my female friends), I am attracted to beautiful women in a societal "lets get to know one another" way. We are all naturally attracted to people who have good looks. That is a human sexual response. But sexual response has nothing to do with the actual sexual arousal response. They are related, but different in enough ways to be separately defined.

Thanks psyche 101. I loved that class.

lol. yeah you should put the old sarcasm quotes around that one. Exclusive homosexuals represent less then 1% of the population. Exclusive hetrosexuals represent over 80%. Bisexuals whom choose their actions represent the vast majority of homoesexual activity. You puked, lol. So you are proclaiming that you were born gay?

Uhm, no sarcasm necessary. If you're speaking about exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexual wrt established relational patterns, then the percentage would be roughly 10% for homosexuals and 90% for heterosexuals.

If you're speaking of a sexual response, then the numbers skew very heavily towards 99% of the population being bisexual in some nature, with only 1% of the population being exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex or same sex *only*.

Wow what a skewed view you have. Over 80% of human kind is absolutely strictly heterosexual. Exclusive homosexuals represent less then 1% and bisexuals the remainder. They represent the largest portion of homosexual activity and absolutely choose one way or the other. I am not going to argue on your fantasy figures you've presented.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes, but why the construct of creating a religion anyways? Why is that necessary? If you have to create a religion for the government to recognize the marriage, that's putting in an unnecessary, and potentially illegal wrt individual rights in this country, buffer.

Now I'm confuised.

When did I say you had to create a religion for government to recognize the marriage? I'm saying a religion (or any parties) can have what they call a "marriage". If what you call marriage, happens to meet the requirements of governmentally recognized marriage, then that marriage is recognized.

My point is, government is not putting restrictions on how religions, or any two or more parties, define marriage. Only what government recognizes as marriage.

 

[Natoma]

Wow what a skewed view you have. Over 80% of human kind is absolutely strictly heterosexual. Exclusive homosexuals represent less then 1% and bisexuals the remainder. They represent the largest portion of homosexual activity and absolutely choose one way or the other. I am not going to argue on your fantasy figures you've presented.

Then you don't understand human sexual psychology. I haven't created any "fantasy" figures at all. Roughly 90% of the human population is predominantly sexually aroused by members of the opposite sex. Roughly 10% of the human population is predominantly sexually aroused by members of the same sex. The remainder percentage is what we deem true bisexuals, i.e. those who are equally sexually aroused by members of both sexes.

If you look at the numbers from a sexual response viewpoint, which means simply attraction to someone else, then the numbers become far more bisexual in nature. Roughly 1% of the population from a sexual response viewpoint is exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, meaning that they cannot look at a woman if they are a man, and see anything attractive about them. Or they cannot look at a man if they are a man, and see anything attractive about them. Etc etc etc.

This was all covered in my psyche courses on the human sexual response and condition, not to mention myriad books I've read on the subject. You didn't study this stuff?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I want to get married to my mate because I *love* him and wish to express that in the ways deemed by our culture as one of the ultimate expressions of love and committment. That is my sole reason for wanting to get married to him.

We've been through this before.

The government doesn't define "our culture." You have not explained why having the label of "governmentally recognized marriage" is so special to you.

Do you love him? Do your peers know you love him? Can you not have some public ceremony declaring your love for one another? I can tell you that the government recongnizing MY marriage to my wife was not a factor involved in wanting to get married.

It's for the reasons you stated (ultimate expression of love)....but the government has nothing to do with that, AFAIC.

 

[Natoma]

I want to get married to my mate because I *love* him and wish to express that in the ways deemed by our culture as one of the ultimate expressions of love and committment. That is my sole reason for wanting to get married to him.

We've been through this before.

The government doesn't define "our culture." You have not explained why having the label of "governmentally recognized marriage" is so special to you.

Do you love him? Do your peers know you love him? Can you not have some public ceremony declaring your love for one another? I can tell you that the government recongnizing MY marriage to my wife was not a factor involved in wanting to get married.

It's for the reasons you stated (ultimate expression of love)....but the government has nothing to do with that, AFAIC.

The government has something to do with it if it keeps us from getting married.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The government has something to do with it if it keeps us from getting married.

Now there's a circular argument.

The government is only keeping your marriage from being legally recognized.

You have not addressed my earlier concerns though. That somehow you feel the government does have the "right" from keeping incenstual couples or "not old enough to reproduce" copuples from "being legally recognized marriage." Yet, it doesn't have the right to prevent homosexuals from the same...

 

[Natoma]

Yes, but why the construct of creating a religion anyways? Why is that necessary? If you have to create a religion for the government to recognize the marriage, that's putting in an unnecessary, and potentially illegal wrt individual rights in this country, buffer.

Now I'm confuised.

When did I say you had to create a religion for government to recognize the marriage? I'm saying a religion (or any parties) can have what they call a "marriage". If what you call marriage, happens to meet the requirements of governmentally recognized marriage, then that marriage is recognized.

My point is, government is not putting restrictions on how religions, or any two or more parties, define marriage. Only what government recognizes as marriage.

Ok.

However, there's nothing stopping you from creating a "church of Timbuktoo", which includes some service by which your church recognizes you as "married."

The STATE might not reconginze that marriage as "a legal union", but they are not interfering with your "right to be recognized by your church as married."

The Constitution can set the rules by which the federal government recognizes "marriage". If your church happens to meet those rules, such a marriage can also be recognized as a legal union by the state. So it's not a matter of the government favoring one religion or another, or being separate from religion.

It's a practical matter of religious beliefs and practices falling under governmental legal requirements.

The government can NOT declare your religion as illegal to practice on the basis that your religious definition of marriage is not the same as its own

Now if I understand what you're saying correctly, if I join a religion (or create a religion) that allows gay marriages, and because the government cannot discriminate in favor of one religion at the exclusion of others, then my marriage to my partner through that religion would be legally recognized.

But what I'm saying is that I don't require religion, nor should I require religion, in order to get married. If the requirement is some umbrella of religion (and there are some sects of Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism I believe that fully sanction homosexual marriage), then the government would be forcing a religious requirement upon homosexuals in order to get married and enjoy all the priviliges and benefits associated with marriage, which is unconstitutional, based on the separation of church and state.

 

[Natoma]

The government has something to do with it if it keeps us from getting married.

Now there's a circular argument.

The government is only keeping your marriage from being legally recognized.

You have not addressed my earlier concerns though. That somehow you feel the government does have the "right" from keeping incenstual couples or "not old enough to reproduce" copuples from "being legally recognized marriage." Yet, it doesn't have the right to prevent homosexuals from the same...

If the government keeps my marriage from being legally recognized, then in all effects of legal protections and rights, our relationship doesn't exist. Adult Heterosexual couples can choose to get married or not. Adult Homosexual couples do not have that choice. Based on the Equal Protection Clause, that discrimination is unconstitutional.

Wrt incest, Homosexual unions cannot produce deformed children. The conditions applied by the government to stop incest beyond the 2nd cousin level do not apply.

Homsexual unions *and* heterosexual unions should be between consenting adults.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Now if I understand what you're saying correctly, if I join a religion (or create a religion) that allows gay marriages, and because the government cannot discriminate in favor of one religion at the exclusion of others, then my marriage to my partner through that religion would be legally recognized.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. :?

I'm saying the government can define marriage as meeting conditions X-Y-Z.

Religion A might define marriage as A-B-C. However, If religion A's marriage is not inconsistent with the government's definition marriage, then by definition, Religion A's marriages are recongized by the state as legal.

Religion B might define marriage as D-E-F. If Religion B's definition of marriage IS inconsistent with the governenmen't s definition, then everyone in religion B's community might consider themselves married, and the government doesn't stop "marriage ceremonies" from occuring, etc, but the religion B marriages are not legally recognized.

But what I'm saying is that I don't require religion, nor should I require religion, in order to get married.

That's sort-of what I'm saying as well. What should be required is your own personal belief of what "marriage" is, and that it be consistent with your partner (or partner's) belief. As long as you and your partner agree on what "being married" means to you...(and that you agree to enter the arrangement with one antoher) then you're married as far as you're concerned. Shout it from the roof tops. Rent a cheezy catering hall, hire a cheezy band or DJ, cut your "wedding cake", do the Macharina, etc.

If the requirement is some umbrella of religion...

Again, I am making no such requirement.