The crux of the gay marriage issue is immutabilitiy or not

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I seem to recall trying to have this debate before. . . .

I did think of one way to "test" mutability, and sure enough, so had others:

http://worldpolicy.org/projects/glob...ent/twins.html

And here is one interpretation of this and similar data:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

Immutability is certainly a factor in the discussions, but I disagree that it's a home run, and that no other factors are important. Apparently others share this belief, as they categorically reject pedophilia, as do I, perhaps zooism, and other what we commonly consider to be "disorder" or "deviant" behavior driven by genetic characteristics. It is a cruel aspect of nature that people are driven to not be attracted to the opposite sex, be it purely instinctual or partially "learned".

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

should we legitimize alcoholic behavior even by consenting adults?

Do you really analogize alcoholism and sexual preference? I can't begin to think of the principled distinctions. I don't think you have a lot of credible support here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Do you really analogize alcoholism and sexual preference? I can't begin to think of the principled distinctions. I don't think you have a lot of credible support here.

An analogy is not identical. I just don't buy your argument that we should be protected even if something is necessarily immutable. Grey hair may be immutable, but that doesn't make it protectable in my mind. I challenge that assumption.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

An analogy is not identical. I just don't buy your argument that we should be protected even if something is necessarily immutable. Grey hair may be immutable, but that doesn't make it protectable in my mind. I challenge that assumption.

Archaea, coming from you, this is a bit ironic. Isn't the sexual drive, in your world, akin to thirst and hunger? It's not hair color; it's the very essence of being. Would you ask someone to stop eating? Only difference is, if you stop eating or drinking, you die. Sadly, there are many families whose children have killed themselves who would say there is no difference. Whether you ask a gay person to stop drinking or to refrain from expressing his sexuality, the end result is the same: death.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

Archaea, coming from you, this is a bit ironic. Isn't the sexual drive, in your world, akin to thirst and hunger? It's not hair color; it's the very essence of being. Would you ask someone to stop eating? Only difference is, if you stop eating or drinking, you die. Sadly, there are many families whose children have killed themselves who would say there is no difference.

I'm just analyzing, and I don't believe in creating rights for rights sake. I believe in limited government, limited rights reserved by the people, and I don't tend to follow trendy analysis just to fit in with snobs. That's a Hoya thing.

Sexuality is important but that doesn't mean we should pursue it without any convention or that every convention we design is healthy or good. My prediction is that gay marriage may eventually become the law, but because of normalizing societal expectations, not due to the overwhelming force of argument. This a normalized right some people wish to create by virtue of a change in social convention, not terribly overwhelming.

Do you favor incest between consenting adults, whether or not it should be protected is another matter, but as a societal convention, do you favor it? If not, why not?

Will life cease due to gay marriage, but the force with which each combats it is comical, to say the least. I don't see any real societal benefits for it, and a hypothetical detriment to the redefinition of marriage. But my vote will ultimately not count. And my way of life will change more out of changes in economic conditions than social engineering not affecting me.

Again, do away with civil recognition of marriage and make all unions, merely civil. Let the churches decide religious connotations, or let LDS refer to them as sealings alone removing the marriage connotation.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by levin

archaea, coming from you, this is a bit ironic.

lol

[LA Ute]

Great Britain defines it as male-female. Elton John is reportedly very happy and satisfied with his civil union.

France, that bastion of refined culture and civilization whose approval all American liberals crave, also defines marriage as man-woman. Unless I am mistaken, they also allow civil unions.

The French and British say, like California does, that marriage means the union of a man and a woman. Like California, those two nations say gay unions can be legally formalized and given all the rights of traditional spouses. (See California Family Code Sec. 297.5. It's a very clear statute.)

Unlike many Californians and at least one resident of the State of Washington, neither the French nor the British governments seem to equate recognition of only man-woman marriage with bigotry.

You can try to make it a civil rights issue all you want, but that is a diversionary tactic. The question is, what does "marriage" mean?

Peace and love,

LA Ute

[LA Ute]

I posted this earlier but you did not respond. It's an honest, good-faith question:

If (when?) gay rights activists finally succeed in establishing that homosexuality is immutable and is just like race, won't that place the U.S. government in the position of viewing a great many-- perhaps most-- traditional faith communities as bigotswho are at odds with the law of the land? Won't churches who oppose same-sex marriage be equated with Southern churches in the 50's who taught that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will?

I'm not talking about the faith community you loathe most (the Mormons). Think about Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Conservative and Orthodox Jews, and the African American Christian churches you view with such amazing (racist?) condescension. ( I believe you said their members just need a little education to understand the true civil rights issues involved in gay marriage, didn't you?)

Seriously, won't that raise some truly difficult issues for people of good will to work out? As you ponder this question, try not to jump to some of your favorite words, like "obvious," to describe your own views. You might not have as great cause to be certain as you think.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

Great Britain defines it as male-female. Elton John is reportedly very happy and satisfied with his civil union.

France, that bastion of refined culture and civilization whose approval all American liberals crave, also defines marriage as man-woman. Unless I am mistaken, they also allow civil unions.

The French and British say, like California does, that marriage means the union of a man and a woman. Like California, those two nations say gay unions can be legally formalized and given all the rights of traditional spouses. (See California Family Code Sec. 297.5. It's a very clear statute.)

Unlike many Californians and at least one resident of the State of Washington, neither the French nor the British governments seem to equate recognition of only man-woman marriage with bigotry.

You can try to make it a civil rights issue all you want, but that is a diversionary tactic. The question is, what does "marriage" mean?

Peace and love,

LA Ute

How did they define "regisered voter" in this country 100 years ago? 150 years ago?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How did they define "regisered voter" in this country 100 years ago? 150 years ago?

Ooooh, GOOD one, SU. But why stop there? How did they define "registered voter" say, 500 years ago? 2000 years ago?

Oh! The definition of registered voter has changed! So why not marriage?

Heck, they gave blacks the priesthood!