No. Just the lawyers, unfortunately.

when the adults get a divorce, does society get a breach of contract refund?

That distinction in rights should be the distinction between CU’s and marriage, so that marriage continues to protect a couple’s right to use their own genes to conceive. If a same-sex couple and a man-woman marriage have different rights, they can’t both be called marriage.

I’ve heard David Benkof before argue against same sex marriage. It seemed to me the basis of the argument was the Bible. It also seems to me that he is using this additional evidence is “proof” that his argument is correct. I also recall him saying that the beliefs and ideology from the Bible (and one other source) are unchanging.

The problem is that things do change. Society changes, people change, institutions change, traditions change, and language changes. All one has to do is follow the history of the English language to see that is the case. The English language (and many other languages) are well accustomed to adapt to the changes when they occur.

And Dan, I guess we look at the definition of marriage differently, but it seems to me that same sex marriage is a contraction of the definition. Depending on the definition, you either need to remove the phrase “of the opposite sex” or at most, change the phrase “a man and a woman” to “two adults.”

So to wind this down, I’ll summarize. Once again, despite your saying otherwise, I recognize the differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. But since, IMO, the difference between heterosexuals who cannot or will not procreate and homosexual couples is not enough to deny marriage to same sex couples. Further, IMO, I believe this change will benefit gay persons, and society as well.

I respect your difference of opinion here. I do not regard you as a “bad person” because you disagree. What I don’t respect is the fact that for most of this discussion you stated incorrectly what my actions and beliefs were regarding this discussion. My pointing this out several times did not help.

So I’m pretty much done with the discussion here, unless you have a comment or question on what I actually said, as opposed to what you think I meant.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

A lot of stupid teenagers have proven you don’t need to get married to have a baby.

It is therefore not surprising that all languages differentiate between mother and father. Are there any with no different words for male persons as opposed to female persons? I would imagine that such a thing would be incredibly rare since even small children can tell the difference between male and female with reliable accuracy. (Unfortunately not all people fall into those categories quite so easily but that’s another topic.)

Among the European languages with which I am familiar (I can’t vouch for Finnish, Estonian, Basque or Hungarian), English is unique in that it allows for gender-neutral terminology which leads to all sorts of conclusions (as well as the silliness of gender-neutral liturgy).

All that is to say, I find it interesting as someone who spends a good deal of time dealing with other languages, but I don’t think it means anything in regards to the gay marriage debate.

Marriage doesn’t make people, boinking does!!!

NDT, did you know they are working on ways to achieve same-sex conception? They’ve done it with a mouse (google Kaguya), but it is terribly unsafe and unethical. we need to argue against same-sex conception, which is ultimately what same-sex marriage comes down to. We need to get Congress to make a law protecting natural conception rights and banning the experimental use of modified or artificial gametes to make people. There is no right to make people except by marriage.

Pat: You keep, wrongly, repeating that I have not acknowledged the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation. I have acknowledged that, while acknowledging the fact that no infertile couple is capable of procreation. I’ve stated many times that I have absolutely no problem with couples who cannot or will not have children from getting married, because I’ve never stated that having children should be a prerequisite of marriage.

Yes, but infertile married couples have a right to procreate, they just have trouble achieving it. But they aren’t prohibited from trying. Same-sex couples should be prohibited from trying. Even 70 year olds shouldn’t be prohibited from trying. Having children isn’t a pre-requisite, it is a right of marriage. No marriage should be prohibited from attempting to conceive children together, using their own genes, but every same-sex couple should be prohibited from attempting to conceive children together.

I think that the disconnect on gay adoption and gay marriage reflects the ambivalent feelings people have. On the one hand, they like the fact that gay couples are adopting and making homes for children who have been abandoned by their biological parents (statistics show that gay couples are much more likely than straight ones to adopt harder to place children, a fact borne out in the experiences of my husband and myself). As you note, gay adoptions probably fly under the radar for many people, so an “out of sight, out of mind” ethos applies.

Same-sex marriage is a much more visible issue and roils people. The issue is also nettlesome since arguments against same-sex marriage can also be used against other changes to traditional marriage, and yet these changes have not been systematically challenged. As we spoke about before, the question is why the line has been drawn here when other opportunities presented themselves earlier. The difference now is that gays and lesbians will benefit from same-sex marriage, while the introduction of no-fault divorce benefited heterosexuals, and while many may deplore it, there was (and is) no movement to rescind a benefit that some time in the future heterosexuals may want to avail themselves of.

I will admit to my self-interest in wanting same-sex marriage: it is good for me, my husband, our children, and our community. I just wish heterosexuals would admit that their failure to move against no-fault divorce in any meaningful, powerful, or organized way is an act of self-interest on their part and undercuts their claim that in opposing same-sex marriage they are only concerned about maintaining the integrity of traditional marriage.

Consequently, society must not consider this preference to be absolute since it has allowed and encouraged these alternatives.

I do not see any evidence whatsoever that “society” has encouraged gay adoption.

I do not think gay adoption is a “festering sore” among the people, but when a significant part of the population opposes gay marriage, I question whether society “encourages” gay adoption. For the most part, I think adoption by gays, singles or straights flies under the general radar.

Then you should state publicly that voters have the right to ban gay marriage and that you will respect that decision.

I have acknowledged that, while acknowledging the fact that no infertile couple is capable of procreation.

However, Pat, you have not acknowledged that, while a heterosexual couple may be infertile, this is the exception; on the other hand, no homosexual couple, without exception, is fertile.

The reason why is because that destroys completely your argument that homosexual and heterosexual couples are the same and that their potential effects on society are the same.

I’ve made it clear that what I’ve stated was speculation.

I like how Jane Galt outlines this particular tactic you’re using, Pat:

More seriously, surely an attorney can understand the problem with this sort of insult-by-speculation. Let’s try it: Since Mr. Williams calls the Bush Administration a ‘Junta’ I ‘wouldn’t put it past him’ to pull out a gun and assassinate the President. After all, isn’t the correct reaction to a Junta a revolt? Based on his view of the way, I ‘wouldn’t put it past him’ to put Saddam Hussein back in power. After all, isn’t Saddam’s corrupt tyranny the brand of regime he has advocated?

Next:

I’ve made it “clear”? Boy, I hate to live in the world of fog that you apparently live in. Try reading that passage again.

And once again, Pat, you make it clear that someone who disagrees with you or challenges you is a bad person. You’re demonstrating my point rather nicely.

On the one hand you say this, and then on the other you say later on,

You left out the portion after the semicolon in my quote; I’ve added it back, in bold.

You are right that liberal heterosexuals who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility, as well as “no-fault” divorce, have done an enormous amount of harm to marriage; however, what is forgotten is that the vast majority of heterosexuals never bothered to trash marriage in the first place, and in fact are living quite happily within its rules and regulations.

Next:

So, if we don’t need marriage to be committed and monogamous, why do heterosexuals need to get rid of no fault divorce, when marriage isn’t necessary in the first place?

As I have said before, marriage is a ratification of the attitude of commitment and monogamy that already exists. However, in a no-fault situation, that commitment and responsibility can be ignored at will without penalty. Hence, no-fault divorce should be eliminated to ensure that, should the attitude of commitment and monogamy fail, the marriage and all its attendant benefits and privileges will vanish.

What it all boils down to is this, Pat. You can’t acknowledge the biological and sociological differences that revolve around procreation and its effects between heterosexual and homosexual couples because you have convinced yourself that difference = “inferior”; hence, you tie yourself into convoluted knots trying to insist that there isn’t any difference. You can’t acknowledge that the vast majority of heterosexual couples are not promiscuous, do honor their marital vows, and look with contempt on promiscuous people because it makes it difficult to explain why gays and lesbians like yourself tolerate such behavior among other gays.

Um, since when did I ever refuse to acknowledge that most people oppose gay marriage? The most I ever said was that the trend is moving towards a majority supporting gay marriage.

Okay, let’s put it this way. First of all, I can form an opinion even if my opinion flies in the face of every one else’s opinion.

I’ve stated that, in my opinion, I believe that homosexuality and the proper expression is not wrong, or immoral, and just as legitmate as heterosexuality and the proper expression. (If you disagree with that, fine, that’s your opinion). As such, IMO, we should have the same rights and privileges afforded to heterosexuals. I am fully aware that, in order for this to happen, that either a majority, or at the very least, a significant minority must also believe this to be the case. If that doesn’t happen, so be it. I lose.

On the other hand, I oppose pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and promiscuity. As such I would oppose government recognizing these by allowed such “couples” to get married, or to allow polygamy. If others do find value in any of these things, then they should try to convince others of the value of these relationships, and extend it to marriage rights. But right now, and for the forseeable future, I don’t see even a significant minority of persons who will take that position.

That’s why I don’t lump together homosexuality with pedophilia, et al, and believe I made a compelling case to not lump them together, regardless of whether same sex marriage should be allowed or not. I’m afraid I don’t understand your penchant to lumping homosexuality with pedophilia, et al.

And yet again, the exception is used to argue for the rule and as a way of avoiding acknowledging the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation — and that homosexuality would vanish within a generation without heterosexuality.

You keep, wrongly, repeating that I have not acknowledged the fact that no homosexual couple is capable of procreation. I have acknowledged that, while acknowledging the fact that no infertile couple is capable of procreation. I’ve stated many times that I have absolutely no problem with couples who cannot or will not have children from getting married, because I’ve never stated that having children should be a prerequisite of marriage. You’re the one that keeps up with the argument of procreation. You’re the one that should be saying, “Yes, this couple in the 70s is getting married. Although I don’t want a law banning them from being married, and it’s only an exception, they really shouldn’t get married, because no couple in their 70s cannot procreate.”

Then you shouldn’t state any.

You’re making me laugh, NDT. I’ve made it clear that what I’ve stated was speculation. You have outright lied and slandered others based on your grossly incorrect suppositions, and repeated them when told otherwise.

But of course, you went ahead and made it clear that, if you don’t support gay marriage, you’re a bad gay.

I’ve made it “clear”? Boy, I hate to live in the world of fog that you apparently live in. Try reading that passage again.

Once again, the stupidity of blaming the absence of a piece of paper, rather than a very real and jealously-protected aspect of gay and lesbian culture, is made blatantly obvious.

You’re making me laugh again. On the one hand you say this, and then on the other you say later on,

You are right that liberal heterosexuals who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility, as well as “no-fault” divorce, have done an enormous amount of harm to marriage;

So, if we don’t need marriage to be committed and monogamous, why do heterosexuals need to get rid of no fault divorce, when marriage isn’t necessary in the first place?

This thread is a perfect example of why gay marriage should be rejected. Proponents of gay marriage have given the institution and the ramifications of change so little thought that they cant even identify what the changes would be in the first place.

This was addressed, American Elephant. Perhaps you don’t agree with it, or believe that as some stated that the changes are limited, with any negatives not enough to ban same sex marriage, while the other changes would be beneficial overall.

If society had a problem with gay families, I would have expected that Florida would not be the lone state to have passed a law forbidding them. Also, I do not know of any efforts to amend state constitutions to prevent gay adoption or of any attempts to undo gay adoptions that have occurred.

What the results of a ballot initiative would be are unknowable, but the fact that there has been no campaign mounted to have any is indicative to me that for a majority of the citizenry the question of gay adoptions is a non-issue.

As for the courts, they are a mechanism of society. If citizens dislike an action taken by a particular societal mechanism, other societal mechanisms exist that can be emplolyed to counteract the action, e.g., the initiative on the ballot this November in California.

Biological parents may be the preference, but that did not prevent society from allowing alternatives that produce positive results from being legitimized. Consequently, society must not consider this preference to be absolute since it has allowed and encouraged these alternatives.

Meanwhile, on the “homophobia” front, you should know that adoption was not opened to gays by “society” or general consensus: it was through the courts.

I wonder if gay adoption or single parent adoption were a ballot initiative what the result would be.

My point being that one can not correctly say that

Consequently, society must not consider this preference to be absolute since it has allowed and encouraged these alternatives.

Biological parents may be the preference, but that did not prevent society from allowing alternatives that produce positive results from being legitimized. Consequently, society must not consider this preference to be absolute since it has allowed and encouraged these alternatives.

As for this bond between biological parents and children, I have never once felt the need to find out who my biological parents were (nor have they sought me out). The same is true for my siblings and for the majority of adopted children I know. The deep and irrevocable bond I have is with the two people who loved and cared for me, not the two people whose genes I happen to have.

Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Attmay, you are now free to roam about the universe of “rights.” Have fun and do send a postcard.

If marriage is a privilege, then the actions and beliefs of a few gays who treat the rules of monogamy blithely are not sufficient to deny the extension of that privilege to same-sex couples who are unrelated and of the age of consent. That NYT article is not a representative sample of all gays who wish to marry.

#27: That would defeat all amendments to the Constitution, wouldn’t it?

Your question is too vague to answer.