Drawing a Line In the Sand

"compelling interest"??? What compelling interest is served by excluding my brother and I? What "compelling interest" is served by annuling marriages in platonic relationships that have not been consummated?
Absurd to argue that there is no compelling interest served by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, but there is one served by limiting marriage to sexual couples.

 

Dunno, could be breaking up a family by strengthening an existing family tie, maybe not? You'll need to present the arguments in court but the point is they'll be different arguments because it's a different scenario.

The compelling interest would be the equal application of the law where one party had a reasonable expectation of a sexual relationship. Would be the same regardless of genders. If there was no expectation (as in paraplegics) annulment would be harder to seek as a remedy. Remember the compelling interest is to treat similar things similarly. Not to have a compelling interest in the outcome but to have a compelling interest in the equality of the outcome. Subtle but important.

Marriage is not limited to sexual couples. A lesbian can marry a gay man. Two paraplegics can marry. A woman can marry a man with her dying breath.

 

Why would anyone be so INSISTENT upon implying... that "procreation" be mentioned at all in these arguments?

What is the possible "agenda" there?

Anyone have a clue about that?

 

This is false on its face. Nowhere in the law does it limit it only to gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans couples. In point of fact, the extension of marriage equality to same-sex couples didn't add any new restrictions to the law - it took away a restriction.

Strawman - no one here argued that this was the reason for their exclusion.

Another strawman - no one here has argued this, either.

Another strawman - no one has argued this, either.

Yet another strawman that no one has argued.

You're the one producing fictions. Procreation is not required for marriage, and marriage is not required for procreation. Marriage is first and foremost a contract that two people enter into by their mutual consent (though it hasn't always been that way).

Whatever legal linkage exists between marriage and procreation is a man-made construct. It is man-made rules superimposed over human relationships - including those that clearly have no chance whatsoever of resulting in procreation yet are recognized as legal marriages.

 

Because YOU say so? No. You are nobody, and your declarations of "nonsense" in lieu of presenting an actual argument convince no one.

No, the point of all that is to demonstrate that animus toward homosexuals is behind the prohibition against same-sex couples marrying. It is not the purpose, as you so completely absurdly assert, to show that only gay people are similarly situated to people who marry heterosexually. It does, however, recognize the practical reality that gay people are the one's most likely to suffer from not being able to marry a person of the same sex, which serves to reinforce the fact that the bans were adopted not to further heterosexual procreation, but to stick it to gay people through a public disapprobation of their relationships.

 

The law in California still limits marriage to heterosexual couples, silly. We were talking about Perry v in California. Which held that the law must be extended to gays because "Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation".

 

No, because I present quotes from the court decision that directly support my assertions. You have your personal opinions based upon hormones and emotions to support yours.

 

Noooooo. Prior to the early 70s, use of the word "marriage" excluded same-sex gay couples. From 1973 decision.

And Kentucky left their laws as they had always been, and still marriage excluded same sex gay couples

 

It limits marriages to opposite-sex couples. Are you going to contend that people have to demonstrate their inclination to engage in heterosexual behavior as a requisite of marriage recognition?

"burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry" is sufficiently broad.

The phrase "creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation" requires a nuanced understanding of the term. "Sexual orientation" in this context doesn't refer to an inclination to engage in sexual behavior. It means a classification that irrationally denies those oriented toward choosing a spouse of the same sex.

I'll repeat: An orientation based on sex (gender), not on having sex (behavior).

Certainly one can argue that a person oriented toward having a same-sex spouse is likely attracted to that person in such a way that they hold an interest in enaging in sexual behavior with them. HOWEVER: That doesn't mean an interest in sexual behavior is the exclusive incentive for being oriented toward a spouse of the same sex.

The court may presume that most same-sex couples will be sexually-involved with each other, but it's not saying those are the only couples oriented on having a same-sex spouse, and it's not saying that it's ruling only applies to sexually-involved couples. Moreover, to limit it to sexually-involved couples would still be unequal to the treatment of opposite-sex married couples, who aren't required to demonstrate an intent to engage in sexual relations in order to obtain legal recognition of their marriages.

So yes, the ruling says "sexual orientation". You've simply misunderstood what that means within the context of this ruling.

 

No, I simply have a clearer understanding of the quotes you provided, which don't actually support what you've asserted.

Your assertions are still a reflection of your personal opinion and your (mis)interpretation of the ruling you quoted. I seriously doubt that you are a Vulcan who effectively suppresses any emotions you might feel about the issue, or your body's production of hormones. Especially in light of the fact that you're the one attempting to personalize the issue by attacking me when you find your position on the issue weakened.

 

I just showed you the exclusion that existed before then. But you arent bright enough to realize

 

I didnt interpret the case. I quoted it. And you still have your personal opiunions fueled by emotions and hormones.

 

Not that everyone here isn't guilty of it in some way... but it would help if you wouldn't insult people.

BTW, what is it that homosexual people could, would or would not do, that would please you?

Are you against what gay people do (the freedoms they seek), or are you against homosexuals and homosexuality period?

Without a doubt, the things you say and the ideas you communicate express your disapproval of homosexuality (in general); I'd just like to know why... if you could share that.

The only time I would be legally against ANY homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality (or asexuality), would be if they were IMPOSED upon someone or a group of others; lack of consent. Other than that, I don't see the sense in pushing for laws which seek to control what people do sexually.

Also, I am (and always have been) concerned about possible health hazards surrounding sexual activity of any type; the spread of disease is surely worth preventing or guarding against. But this obsession of some, where they are so anti-gay... just doesn't make sense to me at all.

So honestly dixon (or anyone else) I have to asks:
What is YOUR problem with homosexuals (or homosexuality)?

 

that's funny, because there was no exclusion before then. it didn't exist. If you think it did, then post the law making same sex marriage illegal before 1973. I know you need to pretend otherwise to keep you fragile, scared little world from shattering, but reality is not going to change for you.

 

Laughable. If you're using the quote to support an assertion you made (which you were, and said as much), then very obviously you have interpreted the content of that quote in a way that makes you believe it's supportive of your assertion.

Funny that you're now resorting to repeating the personal attack on me as being fueled by emotions and hormones, while completely failing to provide any relevant response to the points I raised in challenge to your assertion and your interpretation of the quote's meaning.

Not surprising, though.

 

???? The above are facts. Why? I prefer to remain attached to reality as opposed to the detachment, you and Rahl seem to thrive upon.

 

You offered your personal, baseless opinions. I quoted the case law that demonstrates you are wrong. You can post all the opinion you want, it doesnt change the words of the case.

 

I just showed you the exclusion. Kentucky didnt change their law in 73. The same law that excluded same sex gay couples after 73, did so before 73.

 

lol, it's not an opinion that no law existed prior to 1973 excluding same sex marriage. Maybe in the world you live in, but not back here in reality.

 

You'd have to speak for yourself really. To myself and others I know gay/straight, "be yourself" doesn't necessarily exclude a sense of duty and responsibility to others and society. What you say may be true of some, but certainly not all.

While there ARE certain civil rights issues surrounding homosexuality in our society, the "movement" is about more than civil rights; it is about finding a place to be fully human as well.

Only a person who hasn't paid proper attention to what homosexuality is, how society affects homosexuals and how society changes over time... loses track of the most important things. It IS very complex overall, and one BIG problem is that many people don't think deeply about homosexuality at all. A great number of people possess an overly-simplistic view of human sexuality; that leads to a plethora of issues overall.

Two people who are competent and love one another... can be bonded successfully, despite their 'gender'; that is well-known and proven. And like it or not, it is typically an optimal environment in which to raise a family. As for your fears... those are for you to address as you experience them. Society cannot accommodate your own fears. We all experience fear of some sort, but reasonable people realize that they only have so much autonomy in this reality; we cannot (and should not seek to) control everything that bothers us. That would be neurotic.

That is a decent practice, IMO.

But being against someone who is "homosexual", is like being against someone for being Black, left-handed, tall or particularly preferring the color "blue" over "red". Your 'belief' is noted, but society must NOT necessarily adjust to meet the same; that would be expecting too much.

Yes.

Most people learn and know the above, by the time they reach adulthood; many have it by the time they are teens. I've met MANY horrible people who are homosexual, and scores of heterosexual people who seemed virtually inhuman.

What is a "homolover"; and who categorizes "everyone" that way? What you say above, is generally an exaggeration.

I don't FEAR being politically correct (often means being civil) and I don't fear being blunt (as long as I'm not being deliberately brutal/hurtful). Many try to HURT homosexual people (for whatever reasons); often it is some low-level attempt to cause a change in a person's behavior. Conflict often ensues at many levels, as a result of the dehumanizing 'bluntness' of some who have an "opinion". After all, regardless of the 'believed' truths we seek to communicate, we are all dealing with human beings; not inanimate objects in some lab.

Even so, that is your opinion. The accepted "norms" have changed all along in this society and the world. Some places/cultures have changed more than others, but they have certainly been changed over time/space. That is indisputable. Even so, with change comes concerns and new problems. And to a certain degree, that is so with society's (gradual) 'acceptance' of homosexuality. The troubles aren't insurmountable nor is it some inherent quality of "homosexuality" itself, to generate the problems we see. Most often, it is some people's RESISTANCE to the gradual changes, which create the controversy and problems we so often discuss here and in other fora.

You may be of the 'belief' that "homosexuals are sexual deviants", but reality (science) itself challenges you. Most likely, you were TAUGHT that to engage in homosexual acts is morally wrong. And often, such things are TAUGHT using examples and beliefs which do not reflect REALITY accurately at all. I'm homosexual, but I've seen no more troubles from homosexual people, than from heterosexual people; human beings.

Okay, maybe the word "deviant" isn't the proper word to use. And yes, I'd agree that many people in the world can/do 'deviate' from what may be widely acceptable, especially if that behavior is made public. Even so, my primary concern in the vast majority of cases, is that no one be forced or victimized by the actions of others (to include what they may say; words can be as dangerous as knives/guns).

All of that is way too broad. Can you define the above further?

Not really.

Not really.

If you believe the above, then you haven't been frank, honest or relatively knowledgeable concerning human sexuality. Or, you've been TAUGHT something which significantly 'distorts' the reality of human sexuality. Normal sexual behavior is surely not as limited as you profess it to be.

If people aren't being 'victimized' by the sexual behaviors of others, then there is most likely no issue to be concerned with. I'd say that people's diets (nutrition) would be a greater concern overall. Sex, as long as it is consensual and builds a person overall... is a good thing. Of course, there are those (gay/straight/bi) who could screw-up any freedom or good thing they possess; that is reality.

You were TAUGHT that; that is not the case. I've known gay people who were morally excellent in virtually every way; I've known heterosexual people who resided only a few degrees from being outright criminal in a plethora of ways. Human sexuality (or sexual-orientation), doesn't measure a person's "morality". In our society today, LUST FOR MONEY AND POWER are the greatest pitfalls in our path. Still, those very same greedy people, use their opposition to homosexuality, as a show (of sorts) to divert attention from themselves (WHAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE DOING)... as multitudes of people fight amongst themselves, focused upon what is (at least comparatively) a non-issue. Greed and violence and hatred in this world, dwarf the problems surrounding human sexuality (pick any flavor). (continued in Pt. 2)

 

(continued from Pt. 1)

Abstinence, pornography, bad relationships and the (social) equivalents of TV/radio (in a given era) have always been there. My concern is with what is INSIDE OF THE PERSON. We cannot 'fix' a darned thing about this society, from the OUTSIDE of people. A person has to be built and nurtured from the inside as children. That is, while outside influences can/do affect us all... surely not all of us are define in-total by those external influences (nor pleasures). I'm homosexual, but that definitely isn't the definition of 'me' as a HUMAN BEING.

My being gay is only evident in a significant way, when I'm into sex; which is certainly not ALL DAY, everyday. I have a life, full of HETEROSEXUALS and the work I perform to make a living. Now, if I were filming gay/straight porn... then I suppose the conversation would be something else.

Well... "They say..." a LOT of things that SCIENCE does not. There are MANY factors evidenced to contribute to homosexuality, but no absolute conclusions have been reached. It is generally accepted by scientists that virtually no one 'chooses' their sexual-orientation.

You're either gay or you aren't. Do you think that you or anyone could talk someone into being straight or out of being gay? I'm sure there are those who are (for whatever rare reasons) truly ambivalent over their sexuality, but a guy who gets HARD looking at other GUYS and not women, isn't straight and likely will not ever be. I know it bothers some people that such cannot be fully-explained... but that is the (blunt) reality of things.

No, not likely. (When will animals be able/willing to consent?)

(see the above)

What about "pedophiles"? (Pedophilia isn't what we're discussing; homosexuality is the general topic. Right?)

That time has already passed (in most places on this Earth); look in the Bible for evidence.

People have been stupid and dark-minded before... and hopefully will do better as we move forward.

If you ACT like one or speak like one, you can BET on it.

If you dish that out, yes... it will return to you.

Okay now... please STOP with the FEAR... move along an DO YOUR PART to make society better. We have to BE the 'good' thing (as an example) for others to emulate. That is, if YOU have a fine set of morals you put into play in your own life, then let that shine as a light for others to see. And make no mistake about it: People can see when you have a way that helps others; that your children are happy and well-kept/behaved, love their parents and spread the love they've been shown to others in their lives (friends, acquaintances, lovers, co-workers etc.); there is no getting around that. It is certain that you could do more (in this world) SHOWING your morality, than criticizing that of others. Gay people aren't going away; they aren't going to become heterosexuals (and they've always been on this planet, in every aspect of life).

Okay.

And unless you back that up with action (as I suggested above), then it's all just useless words. When the wind and waves of reality test what you've said, it takes something of true substance to withstand the same.

 

Sure there was. Kentucky's marriage law excluded samesex gay couples. Always had done so.Thats what the court held.