Holy cow!

[BackInTex]

How's this for a federal marriage amendment:

"Marriage will be defined as the joining of one adult human being with one consenting unrelated adult human being."

So any moron (I'm looking at you, Rick Santorum and Jon Cornyn) who says that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to legalized marriages between man and dog, man and box turtle, man and child, man and blow-up doll, three women, etc. will have their arguments shot down by the simple yet specific wording of that amendment. All of those marriages will explicitly be declared illegal.

But I'm related to everybody!

Why not just "Marriage will be defined as the joining of one man and one woman."

Seems to have worked pretty well for thousands of years.

The homosexual community says "hey we are just changing two words, man and woman, to be adult."

The polygamist community says "hey we are just changing one word, one, to several."

The beastiality community says "hey we are just changing one word, woman, to animal."

The necrophiliac community says "hey we don't want anything changed. Don't put the work 'live' in it."

[BackInTex]

Wrong is an opinion. Just like right is an opinion.

I appreciate your 'line in the sand' argument. I do not appreciate your 'wrong is wrong' argument.

I say it is right for two people who love each other to be allowed the honor of publically and legally commit to one another.

You say it is wrong.

Now what?

I still say its wrong, and that you are wrong for thinking it is not.


Some people (millions) think it is O.K. to behead their daughters because they were raped and brought shame to the family.

You think that is wrong, but that is just your opinion.

[nitrah55]

Here's a question I have to ask:

What about homosexual activity makes it wrong?

If you're tell me that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, I can respect that, as long as you're as equally vehemently against crewcuts, tattoos, and handling footballs, all of which are also prohibited. If you are not so equally vehemently against those, then I have to assume that you have some other criterion for right and wrong.

If your other criterion is that the behavior harms other people, then I have to ask who is harmed by monogamous, consentual homosexual behavior?

[gotribego26]

The homosexual community says "hey we are just changing two words, man and woman, to be adult."

The polygamist community says "hey we are just changing one word, one, to several."

The beastiality community says "hey we are just changing one word, woman, to animal."

The necrophiliac community says "hey we don't want anything changed. Don't put the work 'live' in it."

I must be an idiot - I have absolutely no problem seeing that only one of these could gather even a modicum of support in a judicial or legislative setting.

Making that change doesn't make the others more likely.

[BackInTex]

Here's a question I have to ask:

What about homosexual activity makes it wrong?

If you're tell me that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, I can respect that, as long as you're as equally vehemently against crewcuts, tattoos, and handling footballs, all of which are also prohibited. If you are not so equally vehemently against those, then I have to assume that you have some other criterion for right and wrong.

If your other criterion is that the behavior harms other people, then I have to ask who is harmed by monogamous, consentual homosexual behavior?

What is wrong with polygamy?

What is wrong with necrophilia? Who is harmed? Especially if the deceased has given permission?

Why would beastiality be any worse than putting a saddle on a horse and riding it? Or for that matter, steering a young bull? I assume you think riding a horse is O.K. and that steering a young bull is O.K. so I assume you think having sex with a young bull is O.K. No? Why? Can't use the 'unconsent' or 'harming the bull' if you think riding a horse or steering is O.K.


Regarding your attempt to bring the Bible into it, you need to do more research than go to some homosexual site. Perhaps you should read the New Testament.

[BackInTex]

The homosexual community says "hey we are just changing two words, man and woman, to be adult."

The polygamist community says "hey we are just changing one word, one, to several."

The beastiality community says "hey we are just changing one word, woman, to animal."

The necrophiliac community says "hey we don't want anything changed. Don't put the work 'live' in it."

I must be an idiot - I have absolutely no problem seeing that only one of these could gather even a modicum of support in a judicial or legislative setting.

Making that change doesn't make the others more likely.

Why only one? If a man marrying a man is O.K. why is it not O.K. for a man to marry two women, or two men, or a man and a woman. Or three, or four.

Seriously, what possibly could be your argument against polygamy that would make is wrong if gay marriage is right?

[nitrah55]

I didn't go to a homosexual site.

I really do read the Bible. Nearly daily. OT and NT.

The passage beginning, "Judge not, lest..." leaps immediately to mind.

The problem with polygamy, necrophilia and bestiality is that none of them are both monogamous and consentual.

I just answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

[BackInTex]

I didn't go to a homosexual site.

I really do read the Bible. Nearly daily. OT and NT.

The passage beginning, "Judge not, lest..." leaps immediately to mind.

The problem with polygamy, necrophilia and bestiality is that none of them are both monogamous and consentual.

I just answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

If your answer to "Why is ploygamy wrong?" is that is is not monogamous.

My answer to "Why gay marriage is wrong?" is that is is not heterosexual.


Both really good answers.

But where do you get that polygamy is wrong? It is more natural than homosexuality. It is biologically supported. It is supported by evolutionary theory. It is supported by the animal kingdom. It is supported by every argument the homosexual community brings up to support gay marriage, but yet, most 'say' that it is not included as a consentual loving relationship that should be legal. Why?


Oh, and what is not consentual abou a person leaving in their will that it is O.K. for their spouse to continue to have sex with their body when they die?

What a bout a dead cow? O.K. to cut it up and eat it, but not have sex with it because.....? You can't say because "it's just wrong" because apparently nothing is "just wrong".

[gotribego26]

I didn't go to a homosexual site.

I really do read the Bible. Nearly daily. OT and NT.

The passage beginning, "Judge not, lest..." leaps immediately to mind.

The problem with polygamy, necrophilia and bestiality is that none of them are both monogamous and consentual.

I just answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

If your answer to "Why is ploygamy wrong?" is that is is not monogamous.

My answer to "Why gay marriage is wrong?" is that is is not heterosexual.


Both really good answers.

But where do you get that polygamy is wrong? It is more natural than homosexuality. It is biologically supported. It is supported by evolutionary theory. It is supported by the animal kingdom. It is supported by every argument the homosexual community brings up to support gay marriage, but yet, most 'say' that it is not included as a consentual loving relationship that should be legal. Why?


Oh, and what is not consentual abou a person leaving in their will that it is O.K. for their spouse to continue to have sex with their body when they die?

What a bout a dead cow? O.K. to cut it up and eat it, but not have sex with it because.....? You can't say because "it's just wrong" because apparently nothing is "just wrong".

Your definiton of "It's Just Wrong" and my definition of "It's Just Wrong" are different. I respect that you have a different definition - we don't pass laws based on either (Most should be really thankful).

Yuo seem to contend that just because you don't accept that a marriage can be between 2 and only 2 consenting adults, that any any definition that is not a man and a woman opens the door to any definition that any wacko comes up with - there I don't think you're opinion is wrong, I think you are factually wrong.

You can define marriage to include homesexual and heterosexual unions and exclude others (and codify it in law) - it isn't at all difficult.

[nitrah55]

I didn't go to a homosexual site.

I really do read the Bible. Nearly daily. OT and NT.

The passage beginning, "Judge not, lest..." leaps immediately to mind.

The problem with polygamy, necrophilia and bestiality is that none of them are both monogamous and consentual.

I just answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

If your answer to "Why is ploygamy wrong?" is that is is not monogamous.

My answer to "Why gay marriage is wrong?" is that is is not heterosexual.


Both really good answers.

But where do you get that polygamy is wrong? It is more natural than homosexuality. It is biologically supported. It is supported by evolutionary theory. It is supported by the animal kingdom. It is supported by every argument the homosexual community brings up to support gay marriage, but yet, most 'say' that it is not included as a consentual loving relationship that should be legal. Why?


Oh, and what is not consentual abou a person leaving in their will that it is O.K. for their spouse to continue to have sex with their body when they die?

What a bout a dead cow? O.K. to cut it up and eat it, but not have sex with it because.....? You can't say because "it's just wrong" because apparently nothing is "just wrong".

Oh, come on, you're not going to try that trick. I already know how it works.

Arguing that something's "natural" or "biological" won't work, because I've seen you in prior posts say that alcoholism is a "biological" condition, and we don't encourage that, either.

Ok, you got me on the clause in the will. That's definately consentual and monogamous. And if it ever happens, I will eat a dead cow. Oh, wait a minute, I do eat dead cows. And it's ok, because it's not a sexual relationship. At least the way I do it.

I never said "nothing is just wrong." I gave you my criteria for what's right and wrong in sexual relationships. And you just gave me yours. Thanks.

[Ritterskoop]

Second, you can keep stating that homosexuality is genetic, and a person no more can help being gay than they can being left-handed, but there is no scientific proof of it. Moreover, a genetic disposition to being left-handed will not cause the extinction of the species. However, a genetic disposition that could lead to no procreation between the opposite sexes of a species can. Does that make sense?

We understand scientific proof in different ways, so I won't try to work with that part. I have read plenty of articles by reputable scientists and sociologists to feel certain of the 9-11% figure, across cultures. But they are in textbooks, and not somewhere I can provide a link. But we can set that distinction aside, because regardless of the number, it seems you may be agreeing that some number of people are born with a genetic condition that is not of their choosing.

Your extinction argument, though, I cannot follow. If 2% or 10% of humans are not producing children in the usual ways, I see no reason why that brings us closer to extinction. Our population problem is in the other direction. We approach 7 billion people on the planet. Our issue is not extinction due to underpopulation but overpopulation. This is not a compelling argument for me.

[TheCalvinator24]

Here's a question I have to ask:

What about homosexual activity makes it wrong?

If you're tell me that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, I can respect that, as long as you're as equally vehemently against crewcuts, tattoos, and handling footballs, all of which are also prohibited. If you are not so equally vehemently against those, then I have to assume that you have some other criterion for right and wrong.

If your other criterion is that the behavior harms other people, then I have to ask who is harmed by monogamous, consentual homosexual behavior?

Hold the phone on tattoos. The interpretation that tattoos are prohibited is based on a sloppy reading of a passage in Leviticus.

I do understand that several people believe that interpretation, but it's not nearly as clear as is the Bible's prohibition against homosexual behavior.

Handling a football would be related to "touching an unclean animal." After the New Testament clearly stated that Christ made all foods (and thus animals) clean, that prohibition went away.

Crewcuts? Why would crewcuts be prohibited? Some people read the Bible to prohibit long hair for men, but I've never hears anybody say that a crewcut would be prohibited.

[TheCalvinator24]

Second, you can keep stating that homosexuality is genetic, and a person no more can help being gay than they can being left-handed, but there is no scientific proof of it. Moreover, a genetic disposition to being left-handed will not cause the extinction of the species. However, a genetic disposition that could lead to no procreation between the opposite sexes of a species can. Does that make sense?

We understand scientific proof in different ways, so I won't try to work with that part. I have read plenty of articles by reputable scientists and sociologists to feel certain of the 9-11% figure, across cultures. But they are in textbooks, and not somewhere I can provide a link. But we can set that distinction aside, because regardless of the number, it seems you may be agreeing that some number of people are born with a genetic condition that is not of their choosing.

Your extinction argument, though, I cannot follow. If 2% or 10% of humans are not producing children in the usual ways, I see no reason why that brings us closer to extinction. Our population problem is in the other direction. We approach 7 billion people on the planet. Our issue is not extinction due to underpopulation but overpopulation. This is not a compelling argument for me.

The earth is not overpopulated. Not even close. The carrying capacity of this planet is something we're not even beginning to approach.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Is it time to bring out the beaten equine yet?

[BackInTex]

Is it time to bring out the beaten equine yet?

Only if it consents.

[Ritterskoop]

The earth is not overpopulated. Not even close. The carrying capacity of this planet is something we're not even beginning to approach.

This would be true if we were all in the same lifeboat (using Garrett Hardin's metaphor). Since nations think they are their own lifeboats, and don't want to let others on, and don't see the globe as one shared boat, people do starve to death. Several thousand every day.

[Ritterskoop]

Also we use more than our share of the earth's resources, and drain the carrying capacity that way. As China uses a disproportionate share of resources, like Americans do, we will in fact run out, of something. My guess if trees but it's not clear.

[BackInTex]

Oh, come on, you're not going to try that trick. I already know how it works.

Arguing that something's "natural" or "biological" won't work, because I've seen you in prior posts say that alcoholism is a "biological" condition, and we don't encourage that, either.

Ok, you got me on the clause in the will. That's definately consentual and monogamous. And if it ever happens, I will eat a dead cow. Oh, wait a minute, I do eat dead cows. And it's ok, because it's not a sexual relationship. At least the way I do it.

I never said "nothing is just wrong." I gave you my criteria for what's right and wrong in sexual relationships. And you just gave me yours. Thanks.

All I'm doing is point out to those that argue that legalizing homosexual marriage will not lead to legalized polygamy or legalized beastiality or whatever that their arguments are full of holes.

They say that "marriage is between two..." because we say so.

But they won't accept "marriage is between a man and a woman" because we say so.

We say so (both sides for their respective arguments) because what we say is wrong not because there is a natural law (such as gravity) that prevents it but because it is not acceptable to us. Therefore, at some point polygamy will become acceptable and then legal just has homosexuality has become 'acceptable' and gay marriage is 'legal' (so to speak in CA and MA).

[Ritterskoop]

I am in favor of polygamy, in certain situations.

I think sex with animals is immoral because the animal cannot give consent.

Until we see the example of someone saying in their will they want to have sex with someone after they die, I'm not sure we can count that as a real issue.

[nitrah55]

Here's a question I have to ask:

What about homosexual activity makes it wrong?

If you're tell me that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, I can respect that, as long as you're as equally vehemently against crewcuts, tattoos, and handling footballs, all of which are also prohibited. If you are not so equally vehemently against those, then I have to assume that you have some other criterion for right and wrong.

If your other criterion is that the behavior harms other people, then I have to ask who is harmed by monogamous, consentual homosexual behavior?

Hold the phone on tattoos. The interpretation that tattoos are prohibited is based on a sloppy reading of a passage in Leviticus.

I do understand that several people believe that interpretation, but it's not nearly as clear as is the Bible's prohibition against homosexual behavior.

Handling a football would be related to "touching an unclean animal." After the New Testament clearly stated that Christ made all foods (and thus animals) clean, that prohibition went away.

Crewcuts? Why would crewcuts be prohibited? Some people read the Bible to prohibit long hair for men, but I've never hears anybody say that a crewcut would be prohibited.

Cal, old buddy, you and I have had an extended conversation about all this stuff, which I enjoyed and was helpful.

But, in this case, BiT took the Biblical arguments (pro or con) off the table already when he appealed to something other than the Bible to make his case. Which is ok.

But, since you brought it up, and everyone else might want to know the source, here's Leviticus 19: 27 and 28:

You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or print any marks upon you. I am the Lord.

Rounding hair sounds much like a crewcut to me- Orthodox Jews won't use razors on their beard or head. Printing any marks sounds like tattooing to me, and the Revised Standard Version uses the verb "tattoo" in that verse.

I like your reading of the unclean animal, makes me feel better about the Jets' chances this year. Jesus also said he had arrived to do away with the Law, period. So maybe he meant the business about the tattoos and the crewcuts doesn't count, either.

[hf_jai]

Jesus also said he had arrived to do away with the Law, period.

Did Jesus say that? I thought he specifically said he didn't want to do away with it.

Paul, otoh, pretty much negated all of Old Testament law... you know, no Jew or gentile, no man or woman... circumcised in his heart only (well, not his, but all the new recruits).

Personally, I think the government should be required to treat all adult citizens equally. That means gay marriage, and polygamy/polyandry.

All the evidence I need that homosexuality is not a choice is the knowledge that I could never choose it. It might be physically possible to engage in homosexual acts, but I would never EVER be attracted to another woman. I can only believe that a homosexual man feels basically the same way -- hard to imagine what else about being homosexual would make it worth choosing.

Also, to me, it would be very sad if partnership with someone I could never be attracted to were the only option available.

I think it's kind of funny that BiT thinks legalizing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, since actually that's where most of mankind comes from, and many societies are still there. It was certainly acceptable in the Bible

[BackInTex]

Personally, I think the government should be required to treat all adult citizens equally.

So I can park in the handicap spots? Cool

[peacock2121]

Wrong is an opinion. Just like right is an opinion.

I appreciate your 'line in the sand' argument. I do not appreciate your 'wrong is wrong' argument.

I say it is right for two people who love each other to be allowed the honor of publically and legally commit to one another.

You say it is wrong.

Now what?

I still say its wrong, and that you are wrong for thinking it is not.


Some people (millions) think it is O.K. to behead their daughters because they were raped and brought shame to the family.

You think that is wrong, but that is just your opinion.

It is just my opinion.

You can give me all the examples you want where my opinion doesn't match someone elses and I think they are wrong.

Laws are opinions that enough people agree upon. Then they are laws and opinions.

[hf_jai]

Personally, I think the government should be required to treat all adult citizens equally.

So I can park in the handicap spots? Cool

In your case, probably so.

[Bob78164]

Bob, it is my understanding that there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment this Fall. In that the California electorate passed a state statute defining marriage as being between a man and an woman, do you think that the constitutional amendment also will gets a majority of votes, thereby "overturning" this decision?

In that the federal government will not recognize the marriage, and state governments do not have to recognize the marriage, plus state laws already gave gay couples essentially all of the rights of hetero married couples (as noted by the court), this appears to be an opinion of more flash than actual substance and legal reasoning.

I might opine more when I get a chane to actually read all 172 pages of the opinion. (Brevity is a dying art.)

No one has yet picked up on the legal importance of the ruling. The California Supreme Court held that under the California Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, sexual orientation is a suspect classification, so that laws classifying based on sexual orientation must survive strict scrutiny. (By the way, the main opinion in <B><I>only</I></B> 120 pages long.) --Bob

I had gleaned the "suspect classification" thoughts of the court.

In my view, it is an erroneous legal conclusion. One can not equate choice of sexual orientation with race and national origin, those being immutable characteristics, or even gender (which is quasi-immutable). Even religion can be viewed as being more deeply ingrained and "closely held", deserving a higher level of scrutiny than orientation.

Are you familiar with California's jurisprudence under the state constitution's equal protection clause? If not, what is your basis for this conclusion? By way of context, it is established law, for example, that California's free speech guarantees are more protective of speech than is the federal First Amendment. --Bob