Ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. There is not some ultimate lawgiver called "Science" that gives down commands like "you may only use your mouth for consuming food and drink" and "you may only use your spleen to clean up debris in the blood such as worn out red blood cells". You are confusing principles of science and evolution with religious principles.

 

What principles am I confusing?

Dave

 

>>DAW> There are examples of wrong behavior in the Bible, but the narrative clearly points that out.<<

So Abraham was in the wrong?

>>DAW> Are all religions correct? If God is offended by the behavior, then perhaps we should not promote the behavior in society. Restricting the rights of some is what government does; are you against all current forms of government?<<

No, I'm against rights being restricted for contributing members of socity by laws based on religious beliefs. I think the government and the law should, "Enforce the majority while protecting the minority." (Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, can't remember.) There is no logical, non-religious reason to restrict gays from marrying.

>>DAW> Actually, the religious, moral or ethical implications are the only ones that matter, as the legal system can and will evolve to match the will of the people. A more interesting question is what should the will of the people be?<<

Is the will of the majority always right? As above, shouldn't the minority be offered protection? Remember Jim Crow laws? Those were enforced by the majority in those states and were sometimes backed by religious reasons. Yet, in that case, right, and morality, overcame law.

Also, is the majority opposed to gay marriage? Don't the polls show the attitude shifting? So, should we just wait for the polls to shift enough or make the right change now?

 

Nonsense. Please forgive my bluntness, but your assertion is untenable on scientific grounds. The gay lifestyle is clearly a choice arising from developmental and behavioral factors, not genetics. (Of course, Piaget et al might argue that it arises from genetic manifestations of intelligence...) From an evolutionary perspective, homosexual tendencies would have been eliminated from the gene code long ago, regardless of whether you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist. While some gay couples have had children by previous relationships, they do not replicate in sufficient numbers to keep the supposed genetic traits in the gene code for millions (i.e., Evolution) or thousands (i.e., Creation) of years. While I know Christians who are gay (and practicing) the fact that a casual reading of the Bible reminds them that the lifestyle along many other things is wrong causes them a lot of anguish... The anguish increases as they give into the tendencies they feel and the anguish lessens as the exert control over their behavior. Feeling gay could arise from genetic, developmental and behavioral factors; Begin gay is choice.

Blessings,

Dave

 

Nonsense. Please forgive my bluntness, but your assertion is untenable on scientific grounds. The gay lifestyle is clearly a choice arising from developmental and behavioral factors, not genetics. (Of course, Piaget et al might argue that it arises from genetic manifestations of intelligence...) From an evolutionary perspective, homosexual tendencies would have been eliminated from the gene code long ago, regardless of whether you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist. While some gay couples have had children by previous relationships, they do not replicate in sufficient numbers to keep the supposed genetic traits in the gene code for millions (i.e., Evolution) or thousands (i.e., Creation) of years. While I know Christians who are gay (and practicing) the fact that a casual reading of the Bible reminds them that the lifestyle along many other things is wrong causes them a lot of anguish... The anguish increases as they give into the tendencies they feel and the anguish lessens as they exert control over their behavior. Feeling gay could arise from genetic, developmental and behavioral factors; Begin gay is choice.

Blessings,

Dave

 

Why does it matter if homosexuality is genetic or not? How does that effect their rights? Why should the general public care what happens between two consenting adults in their home? If they are paying into society, why shouldn't they have the same rights?

Dave, we are never going to change each other's opinions. You believe being gay is an abomination in the eyes of God. I don't.
That pretty much sums it up.

 

Deb,

Well, it's because of this:

If homosexuality is a choice and not an immutable charactoristic, then the homosexual has the SAME opportunity under existing marriage law to marry someone of the opposite sex. He receives equal protection of the laws and there is no constitutional question for the Courts to resolve.

If, on the other hand, homosexuality is an immutable charactoristic and not a choice, then the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex is meaningless and the homosexual is deprived of the many benefits attending upon the married state. Thus arises a constitutional issue that must be decided by the Courts.

The reason that THIS matters is, the Courts are ill equipped to consider what marriage should be or not be; state legislatures and, I suppose, Congress are the ones entrusted with codifying family relationships in law.

In short, in this case, I side with my evil nemesis little fauss: the Courts should not be permitted to impose their own social prejudices on so central an institution as marriage.

 

>>DAW> Sure, include all the journal articles and monographs that suggest that it isn't genetic as well.<<

But check the sources. The ones that support the theory usually have appeared in peer review sources, not someones blog.

>>DAW> Does the existence of Albinos prove that homosexual tendencies are genetic? Is that logical?<<

No, it proves that a small population that carries a resessive gene can continue to exists in a larger population.

>>DAW> I stated that I know several Gays who are Christians. You talk of gay and straight as if they are binary choices of affect, cognition and conation. Affect seems developmental. Cognition is developmental and genetic. Manifestations of conation (i.e. behavior) are volitional though. Read up on any of the social science disciplines and modern methods of assessing belief, attitude, intention and behavior. You may find it illuminating.<<

Thank you. I have. Many of the social studies support that intervention can "prevent" homosexuality because of the taboo theory. On the reverse, when given no taboos, the population goes up. The problem here is that it supports both theories.

>>DAW> I wouldn't reject the veracity of the Bible as many of done, nor the veridicality of notion that the practice tears down society, if that is what you are asking me. Is there undeniable proof of anything though?<<

I agree that to you there is no undeniable proof. It was a hypothetical question since you seem to imply that if it were genetic that would make it somehow different from being a choice.

I was just curious if it were absolutely undeniable if it would change your opinion.

>>DAW> How do you feel about the discussion? I feel we have moved forward with vector and magnitude... However, I sense you are becoming frustrated because people won't say what you want to hear. Which of your earnest questions did I overlook?<<

I am frustrated, not by you not agreeing with me, I knew that would never happen - but I hate arguing in circles and repeating the same arguments over and over and over. We both knew from the beginning there would be no conclusion to this discussion that we would agree on. Except to disagree. I will agree it makes for nice practice. After awhile though practice gets boring.

Questions:
Reconciling the rest of Leviticus' list of laws
Why was Abraham one of God's choosen but voilated his laws?
Should the majority, as in the civil rights era, always be followed or must we as a society protect the minority?
Why does it make a difference if homosexuality is a choose or not if it is not a harm to society?

 

Re: Re: dilemma

I like that suggestion.

Actually, I'm not completely clear why the government needs to recognize civil unions in the first place. What business is it of the government which adults are having sex with one another, or who is living together?

I do emphatically think that children need to be protected, and there's already a huge body of family law that does just that. Unmarried parents still have their parental responsibilities and unmarried fathers are sued for paternity and child support every day.

If people want to form life partnerships or something, what does that fact that they are or aren't having sex have to do with it?

I can imagine people who aren't life partners getting it on, and I can imagine all kinds of platonic life partnerships among those who aren't so lusty: life partnerships among the disabled and among senior citizens and so on.

So I think that there might be an argument to be made for civil law concentrating on child-guardian relationships and for its making some provision for life partnerships (which may or may not be modeled on contract law, depending on the technicalities). These partnerships could subsume most the legal aspects of the existing marriage relationship, such as community-property, inheritance, spousal benefits, tax status and so on.

Of course, this would conflict to some extent with the child-parent relationship which obviously carries its own legal rights and responsibilities. But that's alredy true with marriage. People often have children by one parent, then end up married to another unrelated person. The courts are already filled with visitation, support, custody and inheritance disputes. So making some top-level name changes changes in how this area is described probably wouldn't add a whole lot to existing problems.

Marriage itself could easily be something left to the churches, allowing couples to solemnize their partnerships in that time-honored religious way if they so choose. (And many will, church weddings are very popular, even among otherwise secular people.)

So gays could become life partners if they wanted, just like anyone else, their sex lives being essentially irrelevant. And if a particular church refused to solemnize their union by marrying them, then fine. Just look for another church.

 

Re: Re: Re: dilemma

Nice summary of the situation, Bill.

 

All of them! "Science would say that human anatomy only works one way" is just such a wrong statement I don't even know where to start. It's applying the same logic as "if God had meant us to fly, he would have given us wings." Science doesn't say anything; science is simply a method and set of guidelines used by scientists.

But in regards to the legal issues, one serious problem with the current situation is child custody. I read a very telling story about a lesbian couple who had raised two children together. They were together for very many years and shared parenting equally. However, after they broke up, the biological mother took the children away and did not allow her partner to see them or even talk or write to them.... and the other mother had no legal recourse. In the exact same situation for a heterosexual couple -- similarly absent any kind of abuse, misconduct, etc. -- one parent would at least have been awarded some visitation rights.

 

Oh, and another thing... this is going to sound totally nuts to people who don't read a lot of science fiction, but the current debate about how gayness is inherited is going to become totally obsolete once genetic engineering gets off the ground. Many people (both religious traditionalists and leftists) really, really, don't want to think about this. Personally, I hope to live to see the day when humans can be genetically engineered to colonize Mars! Somewhere between here and there, it will become possible for two men or two women to produce children by combining DNA. Hopefully the culture and laws of the U.S. will be a little more forward-thinking by that point.

 

Is science void of interpretation? Is not the human reproductive process obvious from the respective shapes of the male and female genitalia?

Blessings,

Dave

 

But sex isn't just for procreation. Sex can be just for fun. Not a very biblical idea but true.