The Legality of homo/bi/transsexuality and Marriage

"Sexual activity seeking gratification without even the possibility of reproduction, because the act cannot be reproductive in type, does not comport with what sex is naturally ordered toward."

And how do you know this? Cause some guy in a funny hat says so?

I just wish people would stop trying to win points with God by trying to make other people follow their religion.

 

Many secular sociologists have done numerous studies that having a male-female pair bond is the best way (and the ONLY natural way) to have and raise children. That is what the fabric of society is built upon, the family. If we redefine what family is (e.g., any sort of aberrant sexualization of behavior), this doesn't make us more free - it makes us lawless

Many psychologists have done studies on gay couples raising children, and found that the children turn out quite well-adjusted, and that the gay parents are as good in many respects, and in others better, than heterosexual parents. No one is seeking to redifine the family in terms of sexual behavior. Gay families in which same-sex parents raise children already exist. Who is the government to say that it isn't really a family? And why should those children be denied the benefits that the government gives to heterosexual couples?

 

Basically, what we're talking about right now is not the whether or not homosexuality and homosexuals themselves are legal (yes I know the thread title implies otherwise; I meant it to include all issues involving homosexuals specifically). You can't "ban" gay people. What you do "ban" are their actions - like marriage.

Same with black people. There was never, AFAIK, any "ban" on African-Americans. There were bans on their actions, however - like sitting in the front of the bus, marrying a white person, drinking from a "white" water fountain, etc.

So the discrimination against LBGT's and the discrimination against African=Americans are actually very similar in concept.

Actually, while LBGTs are not banned from drinking from the same water fountains or taking the prime seats on the bus, there is a comparison to be made to laws that prevented interracial marriage.

After all, since most people do tend to date and marry within their own race, it would be considered "normal." And you're not making a judgement on them based on their race, but rather, on their actions (their sexual activity with a member of another race).

Would it be fair to say that laws against same-sex marriage are as constitutionally permissible as laws against interracial marriage?

 

That's still raced-based discrimination.

Interracial couples still had sex the same way.

 

Interracial couples still had sex the same way.

So do gay couples, unless you think anal and oral sex are exclusive to them.

How someone has sex is irrelevent.




Anata Baka?!

 

Abs: What if heterosexuals choose to have sex the same way homosexuals do? Is it then wrong for homosexuals to have sex that way, but not heterosexuals? Or is it wrong for both of them?

My personal opinion is that God has many more things to worry about than what position we're in when we're making love.

Also, I think the point is that interracial marriage was illegal because other races were somehow considered inferior to whites. Thankfully we became enlightened and realized that skin color does not matter. Hopefully someday we will all realize that people who are attracted to those of the same sex are not inferior to those who are attracted to people of the opposite sex.

 

Let me clarify.

Those laws were entirely not based on arguments for sexual freedom. They had everything to do with keeping one race from socializing with the other.

Please don't act ignorant of this fact and twist it around and use it to support the notions of sexual freedoms. They had nothing to do with that.

 

This has probably been asked before in this thread but I'm going to ask again anyway...

Is there any reason not to allow sexual freedoms for responsible, consenting adults, other than religion?

If reproduction comes into play, then I, as a person who does not plan to have children, would also be denied my sexual freedom.

 

Those laws were entirely not based on arguments for sexual freedom. They had everything to do with keeping one race from socializing with the other.

Yeah, because it was "unatural" for a white woman to sleep with a black man or a black woman sleeping with a white man.

 

Nice post up there, Kuna.

If non-procreative sex is our problem, in accordance with natural law (utter hogwash, IMO), than we abandoned natural law with the advent of oral contraceptives, decades ago. As has been pointed out already, anyone who is not particpating in procreative sex is breaking it as its been set forth in this thread. Any married couple using birth control, participating in sexual acts other than intercourse, and so on, should be excluded from obtaining a marriage liscence too.

And I dispute that homosexual conduct harms no one. Not least, it results in greater health risks for the practitioners themselves, which can pose social health consequences.

Casual heterosexual conduct hurts people too!

Let's get real here. Syphilis was an epidemic spread between heterosexuals long before AIDS landed in America. So was/is herpes, the HPV virus and dozens of others. How can we shout at one group and not another? Additionally, we should point out that this is more of a natural reflection of the way the two sexes work, more a male issue than a homosexual one. Women more often take the initiative, demanding birth control and protection. Men are naturally more promiscous. The incidences of STDs among lesbians for example, is remarkably lower than straight couples.

Secondly, we're talking about marriage. When we say it results in greater health risks for the practitioners themselves, it is only logical to conclude that we are referring to casual encounters - which are just as hazardous to the health of heterosexuals. And if this is the sort of reply one would make, then I've got to say I think there's something fundamentally wrong when a response to the legality of marriage for same-sex subtly references casual sex.

The rather vivid implication is that marriage means LESS to them and they take their vows less seriously than heterosexual people.

*You know, I think when you have to fight so hard for something it probably means a hell of a lot to you than it does to people who take it for granted.*

Sorry, but one can't use natural law argument to selectively discriminate against homosexuals. If one advocates it, I think one has to use it to protest marriage between all persons who are marrying without intending to practice procreative sex. That this issue is moot in our country leads me back to my reference that natural law being used here is sheer hogwash. It's just a fancy way to dance away from religion.

Interesting note on the Massachusetts ruling, too.

The Massachusetts legislature has six months to come up with how to handle the court's ruling. At that point, whatever they devise must agree with it.

Even if they decide to go for a DOMA amendment, Massachusetts is different than the other states. Two consecutive state legislatures must pass any proposed constitutional amendments before it goes to the voters- meaning the soonest this would get to the ballot box is in 2006. That means that from the spring of 2004 until the fall of 2006, unless the federal government acts, same-sex marriages are going to be legal in Massachusetts.


Ivy

*who finds it interesting that a few of the same people supporting the notion that marriage is a privilege here consider parenting to be a duty/consequence of one's actions in 'another' thread.' If we're all so overly worried about children having two parents, shouldn't it be encouraged? I mean, how do we mandate/force parenting and restrict marriage? Just sounds a little hypocritical to me.*

 

*who finds it interesting that a few of the same people supporting the notion that marriage is a privilege here consider parenting to be a duty/consequence of one's actions in 'another' thread.' If we're all so overly worried about children having two parents, shouldn't it be encouraged and not restricted?*

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

It's pretty easy to translate though--these folks want to put sex in a tightly controlled environment and make sex a "privilege" for the elite few who have "earned" it by being straight and by desiring parenthood.

 

Control who reproduces and you control the future.

 

I actually don't have a problem with controlling who reproduces--but we shouldn't control who has sex.

 

I assume you're taking shots at me, so I'll shoot back.


I find it so interesting that liberals will ride the coattails of the Civil Rights movement, which had to do with the oppression of a particular race in our country, to further the cause of sexual liberation.

Again, race does not determine character, which is based on a person's outward actions.

Sexual acts are included in that umbrella because they are conscious, willful actions, which, for some reason, a whole culture has emerged from. So it says a lot more about a person's character than pigmentation will. (See Michael Jackson, for example)

I'm sorry some people are repressed because they can't get government benefits from the sexual proclivities but not every choice comes with a reward. But it does fit very well with our culture. If you can get money for being stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee in your lap, then I see no reason why you can't get government benefits for deviant sexual behavior.

And for those who claim, "I Doesn't Hurt Anybody!!!!", when my tax dollars are used to give benefits to things like this, I would hope I would be given some choice in the matter. Court rulings like these completely subvert democracy and place an unfair burden on the majority of taxpayers who would rather not support this special interest cause.

 

Alright--one, I was not taking a potshot at you. I've disagreed with you on a lot of things but I still consider you a friend. Two, if you want to use tax dollars as an argument, then I don't want mine going to support any conservative programs either. But I don't exactly get that choice.

It's about treating people like equals, not rewarding or punishing certain behavior. Homosexuals can't help being homosexual anymore than you or I can help being heterosexual, and they should not be denied the opportunity to marry the person they love just because that person is of the wrong gender. Other restrictions on marriage don't apply here. There is an age restriction on marriage because anyone under 18 is not considered mature enough to decide who they will spend the rest of their lives with. There is a restriction on marrying close relatives because of the harm caused by inbreeding. There is no danger in homosexuals getting married. Lesbian sex is actually safer than heterosexual sex as far as the spread of STDs, and if we're concerned about monogamy, we should be encouraging marriage, not forbidding it.

 

Pathetic that we live in a nation that claims equality for all, yet this kind of crap just reinforces this notion that we do not believe in equality for all.

The only good thing I can see in this situation is that people die. And so do attitudes when they die.

 

I know a gay couple and a lesbian couple who are raising children. They're doing a terrific job, too. But it would help them as parents if they could marry and have all the legal benefits of marriage.

 

Again, race does not determine character, which is based on a person's outward actions.

But who's to say that an outward action like sex with a member of the "wrong" race is any more permissible than sex with a member of the "wrong" gender?

 

I'm sorry some people are repressed because they can't get government benefits from the sexual proclivities but not every choice comes with a reward. But it does fit very well with our culture. If you can get money for being stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee in your lap, then I see no reason why you can't get government benefits for deviant sexual behavior.

The fact is these relationships are based on everything as valid as your own might be. Love, companionship, mutual support, a sense of family, and YES, sex between two of the same sex. Because one individual considers these sexual acts to be deviant, a choice or proclivites does not mean they can be excluded from government support.

That is an opinion, and one that I consider to be in violation with equal rights. As did the courts of MA.

Ivy

 

Just as a legal note, the Equal Protection clause doesn't mean everyone has to be equal all the time. It depends on whether equal protection is being denied to suspect classes. Race, religion, and national origin are suspect classes - laws denying equal protection on these grounds will almost always be struck down as unconstitutional (and morally wrong). Gender tends to get a middle level of scrutiny - there can be many more legitimate reasons not to give equal protection here, based on real differences between men and women, than for the suspect classes. Age, disability, and sexual orientation aren't suspect classes for the purposes of equal protection jurisprudence. So it's not an automatic in constitutional jurisprudence that homosexuals must be treated equally in all things to heterosexuals.

Courts tend to get in under the Due Process clauses here - that sexual activity is protected under liberty ("privacy") interests. Until Lawrence, however, the Court had *never* said the sexual privacy interest extended outside the bounds of marriage; Lawrence was a landmark (I say terrible; you all say great) in that sense. But I was just pointing out there's no Equal Protection argument to be made here, really, legally speaking.

 

Maybe not but there should be. Thank God we live in a country that can update its laws, otherwise birth control might still be illegal, it might still be legal for a man to rape his wife or beat her on the courthouse steps on Sundays with a rod the size of his thumb, and minimum wage might still be $3.35 an hour (as it was when I started working).

 

I have yet to see this question answered: Why should the government be enforcing your religion?

Whatever happened to "render unto caesar"?

 

So it's not an automatic in constitutional jurisprudence that homosexuals must be treated equally in all things to heterosexuals.

[Yoda voice]It will be. It will be...[/Yoda voice]

 

Then we are not an equal society and we do not believe in a lot of things this country is supposed to represent.

 

I have yet to see this question answered: Why should the government be enforcing your religion?

Who says it has anything to do with religion?


I just want to know why progress for progress's sake is always the right answer.