They didn't overturn the will of the people, they reminded the people that their "will" is not constitutional. There is a difference.

Discrimination is illegal, you can't just choose to apply the law to those you like.

Actually if the supreme court did its job, it would find that all those marriage bans violate the US Constitution. Given that Obama will likely be president, it might finally swing the right, and appropriate way. And we can stop all this petty xenophobia once and for all, just we have for every other group in the past that the majority saw fit to discriminate against.

Ahmanrah, I'm fine with gay people getting married, but what part of the constitution does this violate?

And we can stop all this petty xenophobia once and for all...

"Xenophobia"? That's fear of outsiders, you mean "homophobia".

SF,

I used xenophobia fairly broadly here, in the sense that like people before them, the "in crowd" wants to prevent the "people that aren't like us" from having the same "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that everyone else has. And frankly telling a gay person who is harming NOBODY by their actions, who they can and can't be without violates the above clause. Furthermore to prevent them from enjoy the benefits (and I don't mean the sexual ones) that come with all other Americans who get married, related to inheritance, health care, retirement, custody etc is flat wrong. I wouldn't have a problem if they demanded a name change from marriage to civil unions, but these morons don't want to allow that. Its flat out violates people's civil rights, based on their sexual orientation is discrimination no matter how you choose to wrap the package...

Look, I think that homosexuals should be able to form unions, and that marriage should be sanctified privately. But I think it's critical to be correct in the details, and when you go saying that something violates the US Constitution, you go out on a limb if you can't say what part.

Why is it important? Because it's always good to offer a prescription, rather than just condemnation. What do you think ought to be done? Or do you just support whatever battle "your side" is fighting? If it's actually unconstitutional, you can point to the laws that ought to be repealed, like the DOMA. If it's not, maybe you think it ought to be, or maybe you can think of other ways to achieve what you think are right.

Mostly you are just criticizing the republicans reflexively, and it's always easy to do that. Rush Limbaugh has a successful career taking selective pot shots at the low hanging fruit.

Also, I knew what you meant by "xenophobia", but you can't broaden the word to mean "hatred of those unlike oneself." It means "hatred of foreigners and strangers," so save it for a debate on immigration.

Some Fellas,

Here is my argument on the unconstitutional nature of denying marriage to gays and lesbians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Basically at one point in this country laws existed preventing whites and blacks from marrying each other, and I would argue that the same BS arguments used to prevent interracial marriage, are being used to prevent same sex marriage. Funny looking back at it, it was the same California Supreme Court that got the ball rolling that finally overturned all the interracial laws. In that case the Justices of the Supreme Court argued that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional because is violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And I would argue the same applies here, using Loving V. Virginia as the precedent.

Here's a piece of the actual argument I forgot to quote.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There is no argument I can see that one could put forward that would prevent "gays and lesbians" the same "basic civil rights of man".

"There is no argument I can see that one could put forward that would prevent "gays and lesbians" the same "basic civil rights of man"."

Really? How about "race" is not "sexual preference."

Of course, you could just as well put anything in there. "The freedom to marry or not marry more than one person resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state." (See also: a person of a younger age; a creature of another species; any person or object with which one is in "love," etc.)

Kerry,

You can take it to ridiculous extremes, but opening up the door to gays and lesbians is not the same as polygamy and pedophilia. I will also remind you that while both polygamy and pedophilia are illegal in this country and have been for a long time, homosexuality and the acts associated with it or not. Probably because homosexuality, along with all the other known genetic sexual disorders out there, isn't something that can be legislated into no-existence short using deadly force. So unless we choose devolve into the primitive ignorance, paranoia, and voodoo of our ancestors, only time is stopping America from recognizing these people have the same rights as the rest of us.

The day you can actually prove gays are actually causing real harm, and not just butter flies in your stomach, is the day that might change, but by then I suspect an undeniable genetic link will have been found, that will force you to ask God why he would create such people and then ask you to persecute them.

Kerry,

Question, would you have a problem if two hermaphrodite's got married? They might both act like men, or like woman, but since they have both sex organs, you can't really tell whether they are behaving homosexual or heterosexual. And you can hardly argue their condition can be "treated" with counseling, because no amount of counseling is going to magically make on organ or the other disappear.... And you can't really argue they are acting ungodly because who the hell made them the way they are if it wasn't GOD!

What's might point? The only thing remotely saving your ass on the homosexual issue, is the fact that there isn't something physical on the outside. But that doesn't mean there isn't something going on biologically or hormonally on the inside God is directly responsible for. Only a matter of time...and even then I doubt you all will believe what the scientists tell you. For God couldn't possibly create something for you to belittle, persecute and spit on as evil and vile.

"You can take it to ridiculous extremes, but opening up the door to gays and lesbians is not the same as polygamy and pedophilia."

The polygamists and pedophiles think it is.

"I will also remind you that while both polygamy and pedophilia are illegal in this country and have been for a long time, homosexuality and the acts associated with it or not."

I'm sorry, that's just silly. Homsexual acts WERE illegal in this country, and for a LONG time. The Court didn't overturn Bowers v. Hardwick (the state could legitimately ban and punish private homosexual behavior, 1986) until FIVE years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas. What's to stop the "tradition" of banning polygamy and pedophilic marriage from being ruled unconstitutional within the NEXT five years?

"Probably because homosexuality, along with all the other known genetic sexual disorders out there, isn't something that can be legislated into no-existence short using deadly force."

No, because the American Psychiatric Association was terrorized by homosexual activists into changing the classification of homosexuality as a disorder, because the unelected courts decided that "private" sexual behavior is untouchable, and because the people haven't engaged this battle against the courts, yet. Now is the time.

"So unless we choose devolve into the primitive ignorance, paranoia, and voodoo of our ancestors, only time is stopping America from recognizing these people have the same rights as the rest of us."

As do polygamists and pedophiles.

Really, please. Give me the logical LEGAL reason why polygamy should be ILLEGAL.

"The day you can actually prove gays are actually causing real harm, and not just butter flies in your stomach, is the day that might change, but by then I suspect an undeniable genetic link will have been found, that will force you to ask God why he would create such people and then ask you to persecute them."

God created everybody. Everybody has predispositions to different types of sin. Some men are priapists, some adulterers, some pedophiles, some homosexuals, were they to allow themselves free reign of the flesh. It is the challenge of Biblical humanity to overcome those desires and live in accordance with the will of God. I know lots of single Christians who live celibate lives, regardless of how desperately they want to sin. I see no reason why homosexuals should get a pass on holiness, any more than genetically predisposed alcoholics should get a pass on it.

If righteous living were the easy thing, it wouldn't be righteous living. Sin is the easy thing. But only for a season. Then it comes back to bite you. It takes you further than you want to go, keeps you longer than you want to stay, and charges more than you want to pay. In the end, it is better resisted than given in to.

"Question, would you have a problem if two hermaphrodite's got married?"

Not if they fall within the definition of marraige as one man and one woman.

"What's might point?"

I don't know. What's "yourt" point?

"The only thing remotely saving your ass on the homosexual issue, is the fact that there isn't something physical on the outside. But that doesn't mean there isn't something going on biologically or hormonally on the inside God is directly responsible for. Only a matter of time...and even then I doubt you all will believe what the scientists tell you. For God couldn't possibly create something for you to belittle, persecute and spit on as evil and vile."

I don't even understand that paragraph. What are you talking about?

By the way, "evil" and "vile" are attributes of actions, opinions, and attitudes--not people. Homosexual ACTIONS are an offense to God. Adulterous ACTIONS are an offense to God. Pedophilic ACTIONS are an offense to God. For society to encourage such actions by adopting cooperating OPINIONS and ATTITUDES are also offensive to God.

When God judges a nation--as when He judges us--He does not only judge the actions, but the intentions, as well. When a society cares so little for its people in pain, sorrow, and sin that it allows them to remain there, pats them on the head, and tells them they cannot change, God will judge that for the sin that it is.

Ah, another Kerry/Ahmanrah debate. To be honest, I think you both have some gaping holes in your arguments, but I do appreciate that Ahmanrah tried to back up his constitutionality claim.

I'll take some pot shots at you guys, but right now I'm typing from my blackberry and I have a meeting in 5 minutes, so it will have to wait. You're safe for now ;)

ahmanrah missed the most important part while looking to match the argument to a sex-preference one.

....fundamental to our very existence and survival....

As in.....MAKING BABIES...particularly, with high genetic variabililty. Society has a right to promote that which "society" deems as "beneficial for the betterment and future of society".....that being a man and a woman marrying into a monogamous relationship and having children. Homosexual men and women already HAVE "equal rights" pertaining to marriage. They can marry anyone of the opposoite sex they choose...for the betterment of society's future...just like I can.

Having a genetic or developmental or horomonal defect that makes you a homosexual...and biologist like me see it as a defect because it very simply is...should not be included as "beneficial to society".

Sarge,

I didn't miss it at all. But as I suspect you or someone else who assume the only thing they were talking about was making babies. I would argue though that marriage has more to do about one's survival and well being than just making offspring, and I anticipate the court had a broader definition as well. It is a well known fact that love and companionship are psychological requirements for most people to live healthy lives, and I doubt that is any different for homosexuals. All I have to do is look at the unnatural lives of celibate priests to know what life without this type of relationship can lead to. Some say that pedophiles are simply drawn to the priesthood, but I counter that the priesthood makes pedophiles....by forcing its members to live unnatural lives. And in turn it creates sexual predators that are a danger to our children's survival and well being....

Kerry of course will argue that homosexuals offer the same threat but she still can offer any real proof, beyond her queasy stomach and some vague "gay agenda".

As in.....MAKING BABIES...particularly, with high genetic variabililty.

Sarge,

And technically speaking no white and black person would ever have produce another offspring again to ensure the viability of the human race, so I doubt they were talking about the human race at large, and were focused more on the individuals involved.

Kerry,

And here's some slapstick for you, when other species on planet Earth exhibit homosexual behavior, are they committing a sin? Maybe its just the devil playing tricks on our eyes....uugh.

Also, there are many who have theories on the homosexuality of Jesus. I mean come on, hanging out with all those male apostles...

"Jesus, how did you manage to get those cute sandels to match your robe?"

"It's a miracle!"

From "society's perspective" (not for saving the "human race")....love and companionship have nothing to do with marriage. A marriage certificate is little more than society's stamp of approval on what society deems as the ideal situaiton for the betterment and secure future of society.

Soceity isn't trying to save the human race....it's trying to ensure stability and civility in the society.

Having unwed parents is not in the best interest of society......and having no monogamous relationships is not in the best interest of society. What IS is having a mother and a father raising children in stable relationships.

That's the ideal society is striving for....never meeting because people are fallible a-holes.

If you want to bring in love and companionship, you're now talking personal relationships and feeeeeeeelings and the State should butt the frig out. People need not be in love to marry...just look at my parents.

Hell, I love my sister, had great companionship with her for 10 years while she was living with me and WE were raising her daughter...together...with me as the sole male father figure........should we not be allowed to marry.....for the benefits? For the chillllldren??? Sure would've been nice to extend MY health insurance to them.

.....and why the hell not? Isn't marriage now nothing more than an arrangement between 2 people...recognized by the State?

I will never argue that homosexuals marrying is a threat to the instution of marriage as recognized by the State. It's a ludicrous notion......just as ludicrous as a court saying homosexual marriage is a "right". I'da been all for homosexual marriage had it been done through the will of the people through proper legislation or referendum.......if society had deemed homosexual marriage as something that benefits society and thusly merits benefits.

....but it was purposely not done that way.

Kerry is Kerry.....her and her extreme religiocity of God God God sin sin sin sin are the problem with this website and why nobody comes here any more.

I'm already going to hell.....come join me everybody!!!

I agree with almost everything Sarge just said. However, I think he's missing a good point that Ahmanrah said, which is basically that this logic could be used to say that there is nothing "necessary" about interracial marriage. So, Sarge, do you agree that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional? If your answer is "no" then you will be consistent, although in my opinion a bit overly so.

Also, I think you SHOULD be able to form a civil union with your sister, or best friend, or whomever. People sharing long term households should be able to benefit from certain kinds of basic legal recognition. I'm not sure how all the details should go, but that's the outline of it. As I've said, marriage should happen in churches, unions should happen in courthouses.

Ahmanrah, gay couples do have the same psychological and emotional needs...but that still begs the question: why marriage? Love is not constrained to an institution.

Kerry, why bother talking about legality if you're going to mix and match with jesus-talk? And why is all that jesus-stuff reason for a law? You've previously said that God gave us free will to sin...why are you so eager to take it away? Stick to the legality, and screw your morality.

....aaand I seriously don't want to hear any hair-splitting argument about how all laws are based on morality. There's a difference between morals that protect the stability of society, and those that uphold the norms and mores of where you go on Sunday. And until you can demonstrate the harm of gay marriage in terms clear enough for a heathen such as myself, have a nice day (or not).

"I didn't miss it at all. But as I suspect you or someone else who assume the only thing they were talking about was making babies. I would argue though that marriage has more to do about one's survival and well being than just making offspring, and I anticipate the court had a broader definition as well."

You don't "anticipate," actually. You "imagine." And your argument isn't very "legal."

"It is a well known fact that love and companionship are psychological requirements for most people to live healthy lives, and I doubt that is any different for homosexuals."

Are you really trying to claim that one must be MARRIED to be happy?

"All I have to do is look at the unnatural lives of celibate priests to know what life without this type of relationship can lead to."

Oh, please. There's a lot more to the priesthood than not having sex. Not to bash the Catholics, but I think a lot of people who want to be priests just aren't really called to it. Quite frankly, I think the modernization of the seminaries led to a willingness to take on people who shouldn't have been priests to begin with.

"Some say that pedophiles are simply drawn to the priesthood, but I counter that the priesthood makes pedophiles....by forcing its members to live unnatural lives."

That's an interesting theory, but there can be no doubt that pedophiles are drawn to any venue in which they are likely to be left alone with children. That's got to play into it at least a little. Or do you want to argue that day care centers and scout troops also "force" their members to "live unnatural lives?"

"And in turn it creates sexual predators that are a danger to our children's survival and well being...."

Granted.

"Kerry of course will argue that homosexuals offer the same threat but she still can offer any real proof, beyond her queasy stomach and some vague "gay agenda"."

Actually, I will argue that homosexuals ARE the threat, and that equalizing or normalizing homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior (or even appropriate heterosexual behavior with the inappropriate) leads to greater and greater confusion in the minds of children, who no longer have the ability to resist homosexual (or heterosexual) temptations (in fact, society then punishes them for doing so.)

Regardless, society has NO interest--short or long-term--in cultivating homosexual behavior. Biologically, it has no advantage. Culturally, "gay marriage" adds nothing of value. Economically, it would in fact cause more havoc than we can even imagine.

"And technically speaking no white and black person would ever have produce another offspring again to ensure the viability of the human race, so I doubt they were talking about the human race at large, and were focused more on the individuals involved."

WHAT?!?!?!

Can someone explain that paragraph to me? Because it sounds like he's trying to say that heterosexual interracial couples don't have babies.

"And here's some slapstick for you, when other species on planet Earth exhibit homosexual behavior, are they committing a sin? Maybe its just the devil playing tricks on our eyes....uugh."

Animals have no moral volition; therefore, they cannot sin. However, they are also not intended to be models for human behavior.

"Also, there are many who have theories on the homosexuality of Jesus."

Yes, there are. They are what is technically referred to as "morons."

"I mean come on, hanging out with all those male apostles..."

Actually, that would have been the norm. It was Jesus' interactions with women that made Him unusual in his time. And Samaritans. Jesus actually treated everyone equally, yet didn't let them walk away in sin. Imagine that. (or, perhaps you and ahmanrah could "anticipate" it.)

"From "society's perspective" (not for saving the "human race")....love and companionship have nothing to do with marriage. A marriage certificate is little more than society's stamp of approval on what society deems as the ideal situaiton for the betterment and secure future of society."

FINALLY. The POINT of civil marriage is discovered!

Film at 11.

Can someone explain that paragraph to me? Because it sounds like he's trying to say that heterosexual interracial couples don't have babies.

He's saying there is nothing about interracial marriage that makes it necessary for human survival or social stability.

To Sarge, on the same topic:

As in.....MAKING BABIES...particularly, with high genetic variabililty.

There is nothing in the decision that references this, and you would be hard pressed to prove that the genetic variability within a race is somehow insufficient for human survival, or even that "miscegenation" (gotta love that word) is at all beneficial. Not that I have a problem, naturally...my last two girlfriends have been non-white.

I missed this on first pass, had to address it. I'm not even sure I totally understood you since it's a bit fragmented, but I am addressing what I think you're trying to say.

...and on top of that, Sarge, that would not be enough to declare local bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In fact, none of your arguments would support declaring bans on miscegenation (there's that word again) to be unconstitutional. Perhaps you agree with the decision but not the reasoning?

Some Fellas,

Marriage, civil unions, etc from a functional standpoints its pretty much the same to me, so I use the words interchangeably. That said, folks like Kerry don't want homosexuals to have either choice, and that is the rub. She can't really stop them from having sex (since homosexuality isn't illegal), the one thing she really hates, so she is going to penalize them the only way she can, by denying them the legal benefits that come with marriage...which I have already outlined above.

Kerry,

As far as homosexuals posing a threat, if you were really concerned about this you and all the conservatives would be going after a constitutional ban on homosexuality, not on homosexual marriage, because preventing them from marrying isn't going to stop homosexuality. They like most heterosexuals these days are going through the "motions" long before they ever attempt to tie the knot.

But legally I suspect most conservatives know they don't have a chance in hell of banning something that majority of us knows is not a choice on the part of the person with the problem. But that doesn't mean you don't have the support to stick a bigoted ice pick in their back.

BTW, homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time, and in some countries they thrived unmolested, like ancient greece...which is a cornerstone of the civilization that bore America. The Greeks managed survive gays and so will you.

Kerry,

Actually I take that back, you may not survive your gay fixation, since you and conservatives in general fixate on such unimportant things, while you let the politicians you elect, burn down the house around you, either through incompetence or blatant disregard for far more pressing issues...like telling Americans the facts of life. You can't borrow and spend forever...so open your pockets are pay your taxes. And quit your whining.

Kerry,

Thought this was rather revelant to this discussion. I've always said that the conservatives in Iran and America were a lot a like, And here is one more common thread.

Heaven forbid you guys ever look across the oceans and see a common face in the mirror. It would be a dark day indeed.

Gay Iranian wins UK asylum fight http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/20/iran.gay.uk/index.html

"...and on top of that, Sarge, that would not be enough to declare local bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In fact, none of your arguments would support declaring bans on miscegenation (there's that word again) to be unconstitutional. Perhaps you agree with the decision but not the reasoning?"

Actually, it's a very simple argument. African-Americans (or "Negroes" at the time) are, as of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments, full citizens, entitled to full and equal rights by the Equal Protection clause. Since there is no difference between a black man and a white man in their desire to marry and in the effect of marrying a white woman (or a black woman, whichever way you want to go), there is no justification for treating them differentially under the marriage laws.

On the other hand, there are substantial differences (physical, cultural, sociological, and theological--in fact, in every area in which the word "marriage" is understood) between a union of a man and a woman, and a union of two of one or the other. The state has a substantial interest in the continuation of childbearing, which is one of the central purposes of heterosexual marriage. Therefore, the state's interest is served by defining marriage as a heterosexual enterprise in a way it is not served by invidious racial discrimination. And there is no discriminatory effect between heterosexual and homosexual individuals, because they are each subject to the same rules. It is not the fault of the law that some individuals are made unhappy by it. That, in fact, is the result of nearly all laws.

ahmanrah,

Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody here wants to hang homosexuals. Not allowing someone to marry is not the same thing as legally executing them.

"But legally I suspect most conservatives know they don't have a chance in hell of banning something that majority of us knows is not a choice on the part of the person with the problem."

See, this is where you are really coming from, as are most straight liberals. You believe that homosexual behavior is not a choice, as you seem to believe that most everything you don't want to do anything about is not a choice. People, in your minds, can't control their impulses. You condemn them to a life without the hope of change.

And at the same time, you admit that it's a "problem."

If it's a "problem," why not try to "solve" it? Do homosexuals think of themselves as having a "problem?" They should talk to their straight liberal allies--because, secretly, those "friends" are not their friends at all.

The truth is, most white liberals are elitist bigots under the skin. They celebrate gays, but they are secretly disgusted by them. They make jokes about them, and when they get into a fight with another man, they emasculate him with the accusation of being gay. They also think that blacks and minorities (and, of course, women) can't make it without their help. Because, secretly, they think they are better than everyone else.

Animal Farm is a much better representation of "the descent of man" than Darwin is.

See, this is where you are really coming from, as are most straight liberals. You believe that homosexual behavior is not a choice, as you seem to believe that most everything you don't want to do anything about is not a choice. People, in your minds, can't control their impulses. You condemn them to a life without the hope of change.

Kerry,

You are a perfect example just how hard that change would be. You are so revolted by the idea of homosexuality that you will fixate yourself on it, when the world has a million other things more important going on it. I would submit that telling a gay person to become straight would be as hard as me asking you that you must become a homosexual. I suspect you'd rather jump off a cliff before doing that, and many a gay person has killed themselves under the pressure of trying to fit into a lifestyle they can never have.

I have said it once, and I will say it again. Asking gays to stop having sex is like telling straight people to stop having sex. And my proof that that is largely impossible, is the fact that you and I are here to debate this subject. If sex were an urge that easy to control we would died out as a species a long long time ago. Condoms wouldn't be needed, premarital sex would exist, nobody would have affairs, abortion wouldn't be an issue, and neither would pedophilia.

Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody here wants to hang homosexuals. Not allowing someone to marry is not the same thing as legally executing them.

Kerry,

This may be true, but see banning same sex unions doesn't achieve your goal, ridding the world of the homosexual act. All marriage is a piece of paper when it really comes down to it, here on Earth anyway. Anything and everything gays do will remain legal regardless of you banning them from marriage. So I really don't see what your point is, because to achieve what you really want, to rid the world of homosexuality you really need to dig down into a darker area of your soul and do what the Iranians are doing. I would submit that some or all of you would like to go to that darker place, but you don't have the stomach, much less the votes to go there. Because throwing gays in jail aint going to solve the problem...hell prisons promote homosexuality..does it not. Prisoners like priest resort to drastic measures when they are desperate and thrown in an unnatural environment....one more example of just how uncontrollable your supposedly controllable urge really isn't.

that should have been "really is", not "isn't".

"Because throwing gays in jail aint going to solve the problem...hell prisons promote homosexuality..does it not. Prisoners like priest resort to drastic measures when they are desperate and thrown in an unnatural environment....one more example of just how uncontrollable your supposedly controllable urge really isn't."

Wow. I really didn't know you were this uneducated. Let's start at square one. Prison sex is not about sex or "uncontrollable" urges. It's about power; the prisoners themselves don't even think of it as sex. It's not a way to form relationships, or bond, or even achieve some kind of sexual release. It's about dominating other men and obtaining and retaining power.

Square two is that "ridding the world of the homosexual act" is not anyone's goal. Homosexuals are not the issue in gay marriage. In other words, it's not the "gay;" it's the "marriage. The majority of voters, even those voting to ban gay marriage very often report that they would not object to civil unions or something of the sort. But polluting the concept of "marriage" with the word "gay" is right out.

You might as well petition to have a new construct called "adulterous marriage" that's considered equal to REAL marriage.

And, by the way, Lawrence v. Texas has only been the law for about five years. Give us another Supreme Court justice and another shot at it and it won't be anymore--It was a 6-3 decision, and O'Connor and Rehnquist have been replaced with Alito and Roberts; and there's a good chance a new strict constructionist would make it a 5-4 game the other way.

"I have said it once, and I will say it again. Asking gays to stop having sex is like telling straight people to stop having sex."

Which is what the Bible asks of them, unless and until they are married. (Actually, not starting is the first goal, not "stopping.")

"And my proof that that is largely impossible, is the fact that you and I are here to debate this subject. If sex were an urge that easy to control we would died out as a species a long long time ago."

Um...perhaps in your weird world, there is no marriage?

"Condoms wouldn't be needed..."

Condoms aren't "needed."

"premarital sex would exist..."

I believe it does. So does armed robbery. That doesn't mean we should consider it a normative good.

"nobody would have affairs, abortion wouldn't be an issue, and neither would pedophilia."

That would be nice, wouldn't it? And all it would take is self-control.

Wow. I really didn't know you were this uneducated. Let's start at square one. Prison sex is not about sex or "uncontrollable" urges. It's about power; the prisoners themselves don't even think of it as sex. It's not a way to form relationships, or bond, or even achieve some kind of sexual release. It's about dominating other men and obtaining and retaining power.

Kerry,

Please, are you really that naive? No straight guy in the world would get caught dead having anal sex with another guy outside of prison. And yet you thinks its entirely a power trip in prisons? Come on. There are alot of other ways you can control another person and instill fear in them, with resorting to an act you wouldn't have done outside of prison. Do you see gangsters doing this outside of prison. No. Because they have another outlet for this....because it is at its most basic level an outlet for sexual urges, and not a power trip in and of itself. And prison sex never was about forming a relationship or a bond, its about getting yourself off...the hell with the instrument you might use to get you to that point.

Square two is that "ridding the world of the homosexual act" is not anyone's goal. Homosexuals are not the issue in gay marriage. In other words, it's not the "gay;" it's the "marriage. The majority of voters, even those voting to ban gay marriage very often report that they would not object to civil unions or something of the sort. But polluting the concept of "marriage" with the word "gay" is right out.

Pure BS. I can't think of very many states that voted against gay marriage that also nixed the idea of civil unions. You don't like what gays represent and so you are going after them in the only way that seems legally acceptable at the moment.

"I have said it once, and I will say it again. Asking gays to stop having sex is like telling straight people to stop having sex."

Which is what the Bible asks of them, unless and until they are married. (Actually, not starting is the first goal, not "stopping.")

And nobody was very good at controlling their urges back then or now. Although it helped back in the time after Christ where it was perfectly acceptable to marry 12 and 14 year old girls. But how many kings and queens (the only ones people wrote about, but probably not unique) who couldn't keep their pants on, but yet were sanctioned by the church anyway.

Condoms aren't "needed."

Sure they are if you want to have your urge and not get some women pregnant. They are the ultimate example of the inability of man to control his urges, because condoms allowed men to have sex hundreds of times more often with as many women as they wanted, without consequences. If sex was something you could just turn off you would...but like a crack addiction most healthy guys can't. And nature has wired them so they don't...because that is what preserves the species.

"Please, are you really that naive? No straight guy in the world would get caught dead having anal sex with another guy outside of prison."

My, aren't we a little homophobic?

"And yet you thinks its entirely a power trip in prisons?"

Perhaps not entirely, but primarily. Anal rape and sodomy, like all rape, is about power--not SEX.

"Come on. There are alot of other ways you can control another person and instill fear in them..."

None nearly so effective.

"...with resorting to an act you wouldn't have done outside of prison. Do you see gangsters doing this outside of prison."

Are you meaning "gangsters," like Al Capone, or are you talking about gang members? Not in the first instance, but in the second instance--yes. Yes, you do see gangs committing homosexual rape, depending on the message they are trying to send.

A man who is raping another man does not generally consider himself to be a homosexual, by the way. They see themselves as dominating that man, not "loving" him in any sense of the word.

"No. Because they have another outlet for this....because it is at its most basic level an outlet for sexual urges, and not a power trip in and of itself."

Actually, radical feminists argue that sex is almost entirely about power. And they make a pretty good case. If you think about it, sexual relationships are far more power-oriented than most other human relationships or interactions.

"And prison sex never was about forming a relationship or a bond, its about getting yourself off...the hell with the instrument you might use to get you to that point."

No, it's not. Have you ever read any prison sociology, by the way? Or, perhaps you are speaking from experience? If so, I'll take it under advisement, but that's not what the literature says.

"Pure BS. I can't think of very many states that voted against gay marriage that also nixed the idea of civil unions."

Well, I don't see how it helps your case, but I'll help you think. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah voted to ban both FYI, that's 81 electoral college votes, or 30% of what's needed to win.)

"You don't like what gays represent and so you are going after them in the only way that seems legally acceptable at the moment."

What do gays "represent?"

"And nobody was very good at controlling their urges back then or now."

The failure to obey a law does not make that law bad. It makes the law-breaker a criminal.

"Although it helped back in the time after Christ where it was perfectly acceptable to marry 12 and 14 year old girls. But how many kings and queens (the only ones people wrote about, but probably not unique) who couldn't keep their pants on, but yet were sanctioned by the church anyway."

What are you talking about? Kings and queens were all people wrote about when? Or are you just historically illiterate?

""Condoms aren't "needed.""

"Sure they are if you want to have your urge and not get some women pregnant."

See? Keyword there is "want," not "need."

"They are the ultimate example of the inability of man to control his urges, because condoms allowed men to have sex hundreds of times more often with as many women as they wanted, without consequences."

Without consequences? Get your head out of your Playboy magazine and come back to the real world, where recreational sex causes all kinds of problems.

"If sex was something you could just turn off you would...but like a crack addiction most healthy guys can't."

We don't accept that excuse from crack addicts, either.

"And nature has wired them so they don't...because that is what preserves the species."

Which, I believe the point has been made here quite often, gay marriage does NOT.

Suppose the hormonal age continued to go lower as it has been over time recently. If girls get their first period at 8 or 9 now, should we give them condoms and teach them how to have sex, since their "wiring" is starting up? Or do we assert our unique human characteristics and teach them the value of self-control

I sure hope you don't have any kids.

African-Americans (or "Negroes" at the time) are, as of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments, full citizens, entitled to full and equal rights by the Equal Protection clause.

Bans on interracial marriage do not discriminate against black people, unless you imagine that it's a special privilege to marry a white person as opposed to a black person. In other words, white people are equally restricted by such laws against marrying outside their race.

Since there is no difference between a black man and a white man in their desire to marry and in the effect of marrying a white woman (or a black woman, whichever way you want to go), there is no justification for treating them differentially under the marriage laws.

You could say that they have the same rights as everyone else -- to marry someone of their own race. That's very similar to how conservatives often cast the gay marriage question i.e. they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a straight person.

Yes, there are. They are what is technically referred to as "morons."

Morons? The probability of Jesus being the savior of all man, and the "son of God" is drastically less likely than him being a homosexual. End of story. I don't care what the bible says, that book says there was a great flood, in a previous thread, it was shown that would have been also very improbable.

I'll believe a man name Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago, but he most likely was no "God-man" and did not rise from the dead, but could have been; it's just more likely that he was a homosexual.

Jesus actually treated everyone equally, yet didn't let them walk away in sin. Imagine that. (or, perhaps you and ahmanrah could "anticipate" it.)

-Sung flatly- "cause the bible tells me so..."

Sure, whatever lets you sleep at night. Please don't lump me together with ahmanrah to make some sort of egotistical point. Nothing against ahmanrah, but we're two different people and don't agree on everything so your generalizations about our anticipation of some stupid Christian idiocy aren't welcome by me. I'm sure he doesn't appreciate being lumped in with me either.

Thank you very much.

"You could say that they have the same rights as everyone else -- to marry someone of their own race. That's very similar to how conservatives often cast the gay marriage question i.e. they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like a straight person."

No, this does not follow the law. At the time of Loving v. Virginia, no one argued as to whether "marriage" was about a man and a woman or not. Everyone knew it was. African-Americans were denied the right to marry whites (in fact, blacks were differentially punished for it than their white spouses). In other words, the same right (the right to marry a person of the opposite sex) was denied on the sole basis of RACE. RACE is a protected classification, for which any form of discrimination triggers the Court's strict scrutiny. That is not the case with sexual orientation/preference, whatever you want to call it.

The protected classifications are race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Three of these (race, color, and sex) are innate immutable characteristics, while one is specifically protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Sexual orientation is neither an innate immutable characteristic nor protected by any portion of the Constitution.

While there are examples of people changing their sexual preference, there is no known case of someone changing their race.

Again, I cannot say strongly enough that when many of the African American Christians who are following after Obama now find out his coziness with gay rights groups, they will leave him in droves.

This IS the issue.

SSE,

It is amazing to me that you are unwilling to believe a well-attested document that has been believed by billions of people throughout history, yet are fully capable of inventing an alternative theory with absolutely no evidence of any kind.

By the way, in my previous comment concerning the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments, I of course intended to say the "13th, 14th, and 15th" amendments.

Sorry for any confusion.

It's not proof. There is no proof. The likelyhood of any of it being true is very low. It's not difficult to understand.

Why not believe in any of the hundreds of other God's created and written about? The evidence is just as "well-attested". Your Christianity just has better publicity and you just happen to live in a time where Christianity is one of the major world religions. Big deal, it means nothing. But as I've said many times in the past, I welcome you to have your faith, I can't prove you wrong, you just have no "proof" that I find to be compelling enough. The "evidence" of the hundreds of "witnesses" seeing Mohammed play around with the moon is available too, that was "well-attested" but I don't jump to be a Muslim now, do I?

I'll stick with Science to tell me what we know about the natural world.

"It's not proof. There is no proof."

I didn't say "proof." I said "evidence." There is at least SOME documentary evidence for the Jesus-as-God narrative, and none at all for your alternative explanation.

"The likelyhood of any of it being true is very low. It's not difficult to understand."

As measured by what? What is the statistical probability of whatever it is you are talking about, and how do you arrive at the figure?

"Why not believe in any of the hundreds of other God's created and written about? The evidence is just as "well-attested"."

No, it's not. And you can't possibly know anything about archeology and the Bible to even entertain such a silly idea.

"Your Christianity just has better publicity and you just happen to live in a time where Christianity is one of the major world religions. Big deal, it means nothing. But as I've said many times in the past, I welcome you to have your faith, I can't prove you wrong, you just have no "proof" that I find to be compelling enough."

There is no such thing as "proof" compelling enough for you to accept the Bible.

"The "evidence" of the hundreds of "witnesses" seeing Mohammed play around with the moon is available too, that was "well-attested" but I don't jump to be a Muslim now, do I?"

Actually, there is a vast difference between "hundreds" and "thousands" of contemporaneous witnesses to Christ and "billions" of people who believe the evidence.

"I'll stick with Science to tell me what we know about the natural world."

That's fine, but it's terribly limiting. So sad for you.

Yes, it is so sad. I am crying because I don't have a religion that limits my understanding of the incredible universe we live in. How depressing, say a prayer for me, would ya?

Kerry,

What is really funny is that you continue to use that "strength in numbers" defense, "Oh it must be the only true religion, BILLIONS OF PEOPLE have been Christians" Even with all those Christians all the billions of adherents to rival religions really have got it all wrong, how come they're so stupid?

How long are you going to use this reasoning? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world now, it must mean that's now the only true faith!

But back on topic, they hate "the gays" too, so you won't have to worry about that issue.

"But back on topic, they hate "the gays" too, so you won't have to worry about that issue."

Actually, that is an important thing to remember. Every major religion rejects gay marriage (for complex theological reasons, the term "hate" is incorrect here.) For the Democrats to take the pro-gay side on this just pushes them further from "most" Americans. And it makes them look (if possible) even more elitist and condescending.

It is amazing to me that you are unwilling to believe a well-attested document that has been believed by billions of people throughout history

Kerry,

Kind of like SSE said above, this statement could be used to describe the Koran, the Hindu scriptures, and some Chinese scriptures. But you don't believe any of them are true, so you can't use this argument to persuade anyone, otherwise by your logic I must by default believe all these others too, because they meet your criteria.

"Pure BS. I can't think of very many states that voted against gay marriage that also nixed the idea of civil unions."

Well, I don't see how it helps your case, but I'll help you think. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah voted to ban both FYI, that's 81 electoral college votes, or 30% of what's needed to win.)

Totally by accident you proved my point on this one, because what I meant to say was that in very few cases did states fail to pass the same restrictions on civil unions, which suggests that your statement that most of the conservatives pushing for marriage bands don't mind civil unions. If that were true, you wouldn't have them overwhelmingly supporting bans on any type of legal union. And the fact that they want ban any type of union, suggests they don't care as much about marriage as they are about sticking their finger in the eyes of gays anyway they legally can.

Someone should frankly have the courage to put forth Amendments to ban homosexuality, this will likely prove my point about how many raging bigots there are in this country, and where they live. Something tells me, the geography of bigotry and hatred in this country won't have changed much from the 1950's, just the people being targeted.

"Totally by accident you proved my point on this one, because what I meant to say was that in very few cases did states fail to pass the same restrictions on civil unions, which suggests that your statement that most of the conservatives pushing for marriage bands don't mind civil unions. If that were true, you wouldn't have them overwhelmingly supporting bans on any type of legal union."

No, YOU just proved MY point.

They don't "overwhelmingly" support a ban on ANY type of union. In fact, 8 states have either domestic partnerships or civil unions, while 41 states have legislative bans on same-sex marriage, and 27 have constitutional amendments doing the same. The fact that 8 have bothered to pass laws against civil unions doesn't really support your contention.

Kerry,

So a bunch of states that ban gay marriage but don't offer an alternative for gays to use to achieve the same legal benefits. That is basically accomplishing the same thing as a ban. Try again.

Perhaps not entirely, but primarily. Anal rape and sodomy, like all rape, is about power--not SEX.- Kerry

and

"And prison sex never was about forming a relationship or a bond, its about getting yourself off...the hell with the instrument you might use to get you to that point." - ahmanrah

No, it's not. Have you ever read any prison sociology, by the way? Or, perhaps you are speaking from experience? If so, I'll take it under advisement, but that's not what the literature says. - Kerry

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but I would say that relationships in prison come from a wide variety of reasons, but saying they are all about power is not something I would agree with. It's an odd debate where so many self declared straight people discuss the motivations of gay people in having sex. I'd say the motivations are much the same of straight people - how would you feel Kerry if I sat here telling you that your marriage was about power and comparing your sex life to rape and that it was all about power? Maybe I've misunderstood you but if not you've clearly misunderstood what motivates gay people.

Interestingly the 10% of the population is gay idea came from the Kinsey report and the reason that this distorted figure came out because Kinsey had problems finding subjects to interview and used prisoners disproportionately.

I would agree with Kerry when she says that some of those defending gay people here have put forward some ideas that many gay people would object to and find quite offensive.

I do think Kerry is playing some slight of hand thought when she says for Christians sex outside marriage is wrong, but we shouldn't allow gay people to marry or enter into civil unions.

For the record I'd be happy with Sarge's solution that the state should get out of the marriage business, but if it involves itself, then the benefits extended to married people should be extended to gay people. Whether this be in the form of civil unions or marriages I don't much care. I do object to people saying because they are part of a religion they have the right to the word "marriage", but I'm not that bothered about it.

"I'm not sure where you are getting your information from..."

The sociological literature on prison relationships.

"...but I would say that relationships in prison come from a wide variety of reasons, but saying they are all about power is not something I would agree with...."

There may be a few that are not, but the primary function of prison sex is to structure and maintain power within the total institution.

"It's an odd debate where so many self declared straight people discuss the motivations of gay people in having sex."

Perhaps you missed my point. The men who engage in sexual relationships with other men in prison do not generally consider themselves to be "gay." Men who dominate other men through sex for power even outside of prison or other total institutions do not generally consider themselves to be "gay." It doesn't make sense to the rest of us, but many human thought processes don't.

"I'd say the motivations are much the same of straight people - how would you feel Kerry if I sat here telling you that your marriage was about power and comparing your sex life to rape and that it was all about power?"

I would say, "Oh, you must be a radical feminist. So sad about Andrea Dworkin. Do you have a cigarette?"

"Maybe I've misunderstood you but if not you've clearly misunderstood what motivates gay people."

I don't know if you've misunderstood me or not.

"Interestingly the 10% of the population is gay idea came from the Kinsey report and the reason that this distorted figure came out because Kinsey had problems finding subjects to interview and used prisoners disproportionately."

Yes, and they were also disproportionately pedophiles. That's why the entire Kinsey structure is based on fraud, and why the resultant theories on human sexuality have done so much damage to children.

"I do think Kerry is playing some slight of hand thought when she says for Christians sex outside marriage is wrong, but we shouldn't allow gay people to marry or enter into civil unions."

How am I doing that?

See, the problem you have putting those things together is that you are dividing people into "straight" and "gay," and you think both of them should be having sex. I am dividing people into "Biblically married" and "not," and believe the second group should not be having sex.

People who are not in a consecrated marriage to a person of the opposite sex are forbidden from having intimate relations. That applies to them, no matter what their inclinations, or what particular sexual sin or another they want with all their heart to pursue.

The only difference between a person who cannot get married because they can't find the right person and a person who cannot get married because the person they want to marry is impossible to marry is that the second person has decided to define themselves by and focus on that problem.

Bob can't marry Steve. Sue can't marry Joan. I can't marry Shakespeare (he's dead, you see. Plus, I'm already married.) Morris the Cat can't marry Flipper. That's just life. Get used to it, and get over it.

"I'm not sure where you are getting your information from..."

The sociological literature on prison relationships.

"...but I would say that relationships in prison come from a wide variety of reasons, but saying they are all about power is not something I would agree with...."

There may be a few that are not, but the primary function of prison sex is to structure and maintain power within the total institution.

"It's an odd debate where so many self declared straight people discuss the motivations of gay people in having sex."

Perhaps you missed my point. The men who engage in sexual relationships with other men in prison do not generally consider themselves to be "gay." Men who dominate other men through sex for power even outside of prison or other total institutions do not generally consider themselves to be "gay." It doesn't make sense to the rest of us, but many human thought processes don't.

"I'd say the motivations are much the same of straight people - how would you feel Kerry if I sat here telling you that your marriage was about power and comparing your sex life to rape and that it was all about power?"

I would say, "Oh, you must be a radical feminist. So sad about Andrea Dworkin. Do you have a cigarette?"

"Maybe I've misunderstood you but if not you've clearly misunderstood what motivates gay people."

I don't know if you've misunderstood me or not.

"Interestingly the 10% of the population is gay idea came from the Kinsey report and the reason that this distorted figure came out because Kinsey had problems finding subjects to interview and used prisoners disproportionately."

Yes, and they were also disproportionately pedophiles. That's why the entire Kinsey structure is based on fraud, and why the resultant theories on human sexuality have done so much damage to children.

"I do think Kerry is playing some slight of hand thought when she says for Christians sex outside marriage is wrong, but we shouldn't allow gay people to marry or enter into civil unions."

How am I doing that?

See, the problem you have putting those things together is that you are dividing people into "straight" and "gay," and you think both of them should be having sex. I am dividing people into "Biblically married" and "not," and believe the second group should not be having sex.

People who are not in a consecrated marriage to a person of the opposite sex are forbidden from having intimate relations. That applies to them, no matter what their inclinations, or what particular sexual sin or another they want with all their heart to pursue.

The only difference between a person who cannot get married because they can't find the right person and a person who cannot get married because the person they want to marry is impossible to marry is that the second person has decided to define themselves by and focus on that problem.

Bob can't marry Steve. Sue can't marry Joan. I can't marry Shakespeare (he's dead, you see. Plus, I'm already married.) Morris the Cat can't marry Flipper. That's just life. Get used to it, and get over it

By the way, since we have this on the opinion side, as well, how come y'all want to do the big discussion over here on the *news* side?

I mean, I don't mind. I just think it's weird, and I'm curious how it came out this way.

I agree with almost everything Sarge just said. However, I think he's missing a good point that Ahmanrah said, which is basically that this logic could be used to say that there is nothing "necessary" about interracial marriage. So, Sarge, do you agree that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional? If your answer is "no" then you will be consistent, although in my opinion a bit overly so.

It's not about what's NECESSARY....it's about what society thinks is in the best interests of society...to both keep us relatively civil (not fighting over women) and to promote the bearing and raising of offspring in a household of a man and a woman (both are needed for "the best" childhood emotional development). There is nothing NECESSARY about everyone that is CAPABLE or marriage (by being "alive" and of age)...actually marrying, either, but that doesn't make it any less a benefit from society's perspective to promote it. No, it's not NECESSARY to have interracial marriage, chinese marriage, Inuit marriage.....it's beneficial to have "man and woman marrying and raising children". It's not "necessary" to even HAVE "white people" "black people" "Inuits" in the human race to further thhuman race....but that's the way it is through a few million years of genetics. I only mention genetic variability (and better genetics altogether) as a benefit for society ....as more of a side-effect to outlawing marrying close relatives. Society deems that cousin-cousin marrying is "bad" mainly because it increses the coefficient of inbreeding such that it is extremely more likely you'll have deformed (genetically "bad") children. Siblings is 10 times worse. That is not in the interests of society from a genetics perspective......nor is failure to interbreed among races or even "outsiders" as Iceland is finding out with their incidence of genetic diseases like breast cancer. Samll number in the gene pool....more chances of genetic wierdness.

It's completely asinine and unConstitutional to have bans on interracial marriage under ANY logic other than "purity of race" bullshite that doesn't belong in the modern civil world. In the legal world, well, the 14th Amendment pretty much covers that. Any argument that "'they' should get 'equal protection' too" is simply lame. "They" HAVE "equal protection" the EXACT same as I do.....equally...as in "EQUAL" protection. "They" get to make an EQUAL choice to marry someone of the opposite sex too...or not.....just as I get to.....or not.

Marry....and have society give its stamp of approval, that is.

Being mostly a libertarian, I don't care much for the State being in the marriage business anyway, but so long as it is, the PEOPLE should get to define the behaviors that they want to promote as beneficial to their society.

Sin sin sin sin sin sin god god god god god god god god.......continue screwing up the site with your religious-based bigotry.

Look,

*I'M* not the one who brings up God. I just respond when people frame their questions in terms of God. I did not bring God into this article or into the commentary until ahmanrah MADE it about God.

I am perfectly happy talking about the fact that it is the right of the people of any given state to determine what constitutes "marriage," and that the Courts are busily overturning the will of the people all over the nation, and that if they are not stopped, the will of the people will have no meaning.

Or talking about the difference between a behavioral preference and an innate and immutable characteristic.

But ahmanrah always wants to talk about God.