Homosexual marriage

[Count Comfect]

People already marry based on the substance of their brains. Children aren't allowed to marry because of the substance of their brains. One can't seriously believe they aren't allowed to marry because of the maturity of their sexual organs . It's because of their brains, their mental state, that we decide they aren't allowed to marry.

This is a completely different situation. Minors are allowed to marry in many states with parental consent; and besides, they are legally incompetent. As a minor, I can't even sign a contract without a parental cosignature. Are you saying that homosexuals are not competent to live their own lives? Because that is the only way you can compare their situation with children.

Each person is biologically different from each other person, in varying degrees. I do not believe that there is a legitimate justification for denial of liberty in the decision of who to spend your life with under legal protections in the claim that women and men are more different than two men. It cannot be child-bearing, as sterile people and women past menopause can marry; it cannot be a state vision of an appropriate relationship, because that relationship exists with or without the state. The only question is whether the state will grant the legal protections.

For example, a divorce law that splits evenly the property of a married couple would wreak havoc on homosexual couples who might marry for a year or two and then split. I have seen much more promiscuity and sexually suggestive behavior among homosexuals and lesbians than amongst heterosexuals, and many other people I know have said the same. This is a commonly held view, and often held because of the evidence of experience. If there is really a far higher speed of separation among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, a different divorce law might be more appropriate for them, for their benefit as well as for heterosexual couples'.

Circa 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce, yet heterosexuals somehow manage to deal with divorce law. Most heterosexual relationships I know end in under 2 years: but most heterosexual relationships don't become marriage. Neither will most homosexual relationships. It is completely unfair and inaccurate to compare heterosexual marriage to homosexual relationships, because married couples are a self-selected group with a bias towards longer-lasting relationships.

Also, have you ever been to a good college party? You'll see enough sexually suggestive behaviour on the part of entirely heterosexual people there to put you in serious doubt that it is possible for homosexual people to do more.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Do you spend a lot of time in homosexual brothels or something lief? Where are all these scores of homosexual deviants that you spend so much time with exactly that you can say such things about “experience” with such confidence?

Of those homosexuals I have come to know on anything more than the most passing acquaintance, and this amounts to three or four persons, there has always been some kind of sexually suggestive behavioral demonstration. Perhaps this is merely coincidence. However, I know a vast number more people who are heterosexual, and from none of them have I seen anything similar. To me, especially in view of the numbers I'm in contact with at college, that strong difference is impressive. Meanwhile, even among those homosexuals I do not know or have seen on a merely passing acquaintance, I still continue to see signs of sexual suggestivity that I do not see elsewhere- suggestive clothing and the like.

I'm sure that there are heterosexuals like that and worse. I'm positive. It's just that in my personal life, I've seen sexually suggestive garb and behavior exclusively (and strongly) in homosexuals, though I've known far more heterosexuals.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And here we see the full fruiting of the notion that ALL gays are ALL the same just as I warned in another thread... That gays are incapable of having a loving healthy relationship.

My principle argument thus far has been that they have different relationships. I am not arguing about the "love" in their relationships, right now. Neither do I intend to. The "health" in their relationships, above, I obviously have questioned. However, this is not foundational to my argument about difference of gender. My primary argument is that because of gender differences, man-woman relationships will naturally be different from man-man or woman-woman relationships.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And nevermind that this would be unconstitutional from the get go since millions of heterosexuals wouldnt meet your standards and you would be allowing them the loophole of being able to marry anyway since they arent gay. Either that or youd have to be willing to enforce it against heterosexuals who dont meet your moral yard stick. And that aint gonna happen...

This is rather similar to saying that the laws for first time criminal offenders and third time criminal offenders should be the same, that there should be no difference in penalty for the third time offender. I'm not saying that either homosexuals or heterosexuals are criminals here- this is just an illustration, you understand.

There may be some children also who have the maturity to marry. It happens in other cultures, at very young ages. However, a law exists because the vast majority of the cases are different. This would be the same with heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They would have different kinds of benefits and rules, because they are naturally different relationships.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But these are ADULTS! Are you saying gays are the equivalent of children on a maturity level? How patently disgusting.

I am simply saying that these two different kinds of adult relationships are indeed two different kinds of relationships, and should be treated as such by the law.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

This is a completely different situation. Minors are allowed to marry in many states with parental consent; and besides, they are legally incompetent. As a minor, I can't even sign a contract without a parental cosignature. Are you saying that homosexuals are not competent to live their own lives? Because that is the only way you can compare their situation with children.

I said above that indeed minors are allowed to marry in places. And sometimes that probably works! However, the vast majority of the time, that wouldn't work well. That is why we don't allow it.

I'm not saying that homosexuals are similar to minors. I'm simply saying that the legal issue is similar- they both relate to the biological state of people's brains. With minors, marriage isn't allowed because the brains are not mature enough yet. With homosexual adults, unions probably (and we need studies for this) shouldn't be given the same status as marriage because the brains of the people involved in homosexual relationships (and brains command every aspect of the relationship) are different from the brains of the people involved in heterosexual relationships.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Each person is biologically different from each other person, in varying degrees. I do not believe that there is a legitimate justification for denial of liberty in the decision of who to spend your life with under legal protections in the claim that women and men are more different than two men. It cannot be child-bearing, as sterile people and women past menopause can marry; it cannot be a state vision of an appropriate relationship, because that relationship exists with or without the state. The only question is whether the state will grant the legal protections.

My question is whether or not the state will grant the same legal protections and privileges. I think that different protections and privileges are in order, because of the biological differences inherent in the two different forms of relationships. There also is where civil unions fall into error. They assume that homosexual relationships are no different from heterosexual relationships, without taking into account the major impact of having people of the same genders involved rather than people of different genders. The gender difference is an important one, as I learn the more I get to know my fellow men and the dear but different women better.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Circa 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce, yet heterosexuals somehow manage to deal with divorce law.

This number, I expect, is including people who marry multiple times and divorce. That would indicate the number of "real" heterosexual marital couples actually isn't as low. We don't know what the figures would look like with homosexual couples. That is part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Most heterosexual relationships I know end in under 2 years: but most heterosexual relationships don't become marriage. Neither will most homosexual relationships. It is completely unfair and inaccurate to compare heterosexual marriage to homosexual relationships, because married couples are a self-selected group with a bias towards longer-lasting relationships.

True.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Also, have you ever been to a good college party? You'll see enough sexually suggestive behaviour on the part of entirely heterosexual people there to put you in serious doubt that it is possible for homosexual people to do more.

I expect you're right. I'm not saying there aren't many heterosexuals who behave in that way. I haven't met any yet, but I know they're out there.

Hang on, that's inaccurate, I do know one such heterosexual in college. He's still the minority in my experience, however .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Pedophiles, be happy .

irrelavant to the marriage debate... pedophilia is against the law, homosexuality is not

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here is a list of areas involving marriage where laws apply.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
I'll get back to you with more information on this subject, if you press me.

but my point is that all those legal situations also occur in cases where people are not married... maybe we should rethink the way we approach all these issues

if a single man buys a house and shortly thereafter finds a roomate who lives there for the next twenty years and pays rent which helps pay the mortage, there would be legal documents involved (a rental contract) that would keep the renter from claiming any of the gains from appreciation if the house was sold... in contrast, if the man renting failed to do the proper paperwork, the renter would have a pretty strong case if they went to court and decided to sue for part of the profits

yet, if the same single man marries a woman who doesn't even hold a job and divorces six months later, she could make all kinds of claims against the property

and this is just one example... my point, the "civil marriage contract" as it currently exists is simply too broad... simply marrying someone, no matter how short that marriage is, trumps a whole host of rights most individuals have in our society... this is exactly why you see so many endless pre-nuptial agreements these days

if the goal is to reduce court cases, don't give so many rights just because someone decides one day to get married... deal with each issue case by case... children via paternity instead of marriage... property via who you choose to share it with as opposed to a purely civil agreement like "marriage"

the problem with "marriage law" is that it assumes a reality that no longer, and will never again exist, in our society... that a man and a woman marry at a very young age... the man works, the woman cares for the home... and they stay together for the rest of their lives

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

different laws should be applied to the different types of relationship.

What happened to the notion that we should all be equals before the law?

If statistics showed that blacks are more likely to commit crimes than white people, wouldn't it be reasonable to give more severe punishments to black criminals?
I think NOT. We always have to look at every individual case, otherwise discrimination is inevitable. This works only if the law is the same for everyone.

It's the same thing with marriages. The fact remains that all marriages are unique and it would be silly to separate different kinds of marriages. You can't divide marriages into only two groups, like heterosexual and same-sex marriages. If you were to put marriages into groups, there would be one unique group for every individual marriage. I find it all ridiculous, every type of marriage should have the same laws applied to them. Every marriage should be equal before the law. Anything else would be discrimination.

On a side note: You say gays are more likely to divorce. Is that reason enough to apply different marriages laws for them? Now if gays were the only ones to divorce there would be a point in it, but heterosexuals divorce too. And it's common. So since both heterosexuals divorce a lot and gays divorce a lot, that should be one reason why the same laws should apply to both examples.

Lief, I guess we're not talking laws like tax cuts here (if a heterosexual couple got a tax cut because they're man and wife whereas a gay couple didn't get the cut, how would one defend this?). What laws do you think should be different for gay couples and man-and-wife couples?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

People already marry based on the substance of their brains. Children aren't allowed to marry because of the substance of their brains.

I get your point but I think this is a bad example. Children aren't allowed to marry because of their age. Every child, once they pass a certain age, can legally get married and this by no means take into consideration whether or not the child has matured mentally (ie the "substance of their brains" is completely irrelevant).
Every child can marry after they pass that certain age and it is the same for all children. Different marriage laws don't apply to different children, once they grow up. The laws are always the same.

[Count Comfect]

Lief, children cannot, cannot be a parallel to homosexuals in this case. The law is not different for a general "biological difference in their brains" - it is different because those brains have not developed. We don't have different laws for a C student in a state college and Stephen Hawking - they have a major biological difference between their brains, but because they are both adults with developed brains, we give them the same laws. Men and women live under the same laws. There is a world of difference between an un or underdeveloped brain and one that has developed in a different way from others. The one is a basis for legal differentiation... the other is not. There's an old Victorian book I had to read for history called something like "Children, Idiots, Criminals and Women: Is the Classification Sound" about the categories of people who had different laws from the generality during that time period. The first two of those have undeveloped brains; they still have different laws. The third are disqualified by their illegal acts, which are known to carry that penalty. The fourth, however, was only differentiated because they were felt to be biologically different... and I think it is instructive that it is THAT one that has not stood the test of time.

I really must question how generally applicable your experiences are if you are claiming to know no (or only one) heterosexuals who exhibit sexually suggestive behaviour. It's all over our popular culture, it's omnipresent at every university and high school I have attended or visited, and there are statistics out there for it (check out somewhere the % of American teens who have had sex before their majority).

If you want to say that divorce rate figures are inflated by serial monogamists, you must admit that any figures you have for homosexual relationships are skewed by their equivalent... and I still deny the validity of saying "homosexuals break up... therefore homosexual marriages will break up" because the exact same thing could be said about heterosexuals if we didn't have the marriage statistics (and, actually, given the divorce rate, with the marriage statistics).

PS The Constitution of the United States requires that "no State shall...deny the equal protection of the law" to any "person born or naturalized in the United States" (Amendment XIV). You need a very high threshold of public interest to create an exception. I cannot see how a ban on homosexual marriage meets that threshold.

[BeardofPants]

I've lost count of the gay couples that I know, and I'm really struggling to think of any that act any different from the hetero couples I know. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 committed lesbian relationships, and one homo one. There's no glaring ****ing symbol on their heads that denotes them as any different from your "norm". Feh. I am disgusted that you (lief) are implying that homos are sluts, and heteros are not, and as for deviants? Don't get me started. I'd hate to think that I'd be a deviant cos of some narrowminded view of some uptight virgin population.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if the goal is to reduce court cases, don't give so many rights just because someone decides one day to get married... deal with each issue case by case... children via paternity instead of marriage... property via who you choose to share it with as opposed to a purely civil agreement like "marriage"

[Bugeyes]This is supposed to reduce the number of court cases? Dealing with each case separately and individually?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the problem with "marriage law" is that it assumes a reality that no longer, and will never again exist, in our society... that a man and a woman marry at a very young age... the man works, the woman cares for the home... and they stay together for the rest of their lives

This reality is gone? (Thinks of his parents and grandparents on both sides of his family, as well as all his uncles and aunts save one pair, and is rather confused) It is weaker now than it was, but it still exists. Having laws that sweep through all such cases often make more sense. Generalization save massive time, energy and money that could be better used elsewhere. The trick is to have generalizations that encompass the maximum number of people. If society changes have made these laws no longer entirely appropriate, perhaps a few changes are in order. This is just a thought, however. I would want to see arguments on both sides of the issue before coming to a conclusion on whether or not marriage law changes should be made.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

Lief, I guess we're not talking laws like tax cuts here (if a heterosexual couple got a tax cut because they're man and wife whereas a gay couple didn't get the cut, how would one defend this?). What laws do you think should be different for gay couples and man-and-wife couples?

Divorce laws are, of course, first on my mind. That there should be differences is only logical, because the biological difference. I now cannot say what changes would be appropriate and which would not be, however. Reliable, unbiased studies have not been done on homosexual and heterosexual relationships to see what differences and similarities exist. What I mainly am advocating is that because of the obvious important biological difference, studies should be taken to discover what differences and similarities exist between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. If there are no significant differences, then the evidence from these studies would serve as a useful argument for homosexual rights activists to use when seeking to get marriage laws extended to homosexuals. If it is apparent from the studies that there are significant differences between the relationships, this should be used as a useful argument that different rights should be given to homosexuals.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

If statistics showed that blacks are more likely to commit crimes than white people, wouldn't it be reasonable to give more severe punishments to black criminals?
I think NOT. We always have to look at every individual case, otherwise discrimination is inevitable. This works only if the law is the same for everyone.

If there is strong evidence that it is the fact that blacks are black that is causing them to be more violent, then yes, a different "discriminatory" law could very possibly be reasonable. We don't allow animals into most movie theaters. Why? The biology is different. It causes animals to behave in ways that are inappropriate for their setting. We have different laws for animals than for humans because of the difference in biology- most especially the difference in brains.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

It's the same thing with marriages. The fact remains that all marriages are unique and it would be silly to separate different kinds of marriages. You can't divide marriages into only two groups, like heterosexual and same-sex marriages. If you were to put marriages into groups, there would be one unique group for every individual marriage. I find it all ridiculous, every type of marriage should have the same laws applied to them. Every marriage should be equal before the law. Anything else would be discrimination.

Laws can be made that generalize to best fit the needs of large groups of people. With so many different kinds of opinions and beliefs from one individual from another, it would be ridiculous for the law to seek to sort through them. Biology differences are widespread and constant, however. I am positive that generalizations about them can safely be made. Many shops have shelves full of books about men or women that clearly acknowledge the gender differences and analyze them. Even just from "Readers' Digest", I keep reading articles that discuss specific gender related differences between men and women. I've begun modifying my behavior at college toward women, not because of any of these articles, but simply because of gender-related differences I've seen on my own.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

On a side note: You say gays are more likely to divorce. Is that reason enough to apply different marriages laws for them? Now if gays were the only ones to divorce there would be a point in it, but heterosexuals divorce too. And it's common. So since both heterosexuals divorce a lot and gays divorce a lot, that should be one reason why the same laws should apply to both examples.

We don't know what the separation rates for members of the two different types of relationships are. Thus, we don't know whether or not the same laws should apply to both examples.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

I get your point but I think this is a bad example.

I'm glad you understand my point. Your response proves that you understood what I was saying, and that makes me happy.

Originally Posted by Jonathon

Children aren't allowed to marry because of their age. Every child, once they pass a certain age, can legally get married and this by no means take into consideration whether or not the child has matured mentally (ie the "substance of their brains" is completely irrelevant).
Every child can marry after they pass that certain age and it is the same for all children. Different marriage laws don't apply to different children, once they grow up. The laws are always the same.

Who cares how old the child is, when he or she gets married? I totally don't understand what divine factor there is in the age of a child that makes him or her ready for marriage. The law concerning the marriage age is a generalization as to when people are ready. It was a generalization made first because of cultural tradition, but secondly because the government would prefer not to be bogged down in endless, pointless court cases, deciding whether or not the person was "fit" for marriage. Eighteen is a reasonable general estimate, a generalization about marriages.

The only reason for the age law is the mental maturity. Why do you think a magical marriage age was set up? There must be a reason.

Many marriage laws are generalizations. For example, the divorce law is a generalization. It isn't appropriate for all couples. Some people divorce very often, and the property splitting law is a maddening hornet to them. The law is a generalization. The marriage age law is a generalization based on biology. Several of the current marriage laws were set up with a certain type of society and a certain type of biology in mind. The society has changed some, and that does mean there may be problems existing in current laws that perhaps should be smoothed aside. I don't know. But the biology difference should certainly be examined before we say that we will treat significantly biologically different relationships the same as another sort of relationship. There should be hard evidence and visible reason that the marriage laws should be changed to include homosexual couples. This is simply because of the obvious difference in biology.

If these studies are taken, and you all are correct about homosexual relationships being no different than heterosexual relationships, then the studies should turn out that way. The studies would be an argument for whatever side they end up supporting. However, because of the obvious biological differences between men and women, we should at least take the studies to find out what we can.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief, children cannot, cannot be a parallel to homosexuals in this case. The law is not different for a general "biological difference in their brains" - it is different because those brains have not developed.

That underdevelopment is a general biological difference in their brains.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

We don't have different laws for a C student in a state college and Stephen Hawking - they have a major biological difference between their brains, but because they are both adults with developed brains, we give them the same laws.

First of all, I deny that they have significant biological difference between their brains. Each person has the option of developing his or her mind as much as he chooses. Sure, there are times where a person strives his hardest and just doesn't have the same god-like inspiration as another student. Some people are natural geniuses. However, many times this genius comes from a certain way of training oneself. Discipline is sometimes a very influential factor. This involves training oneself. Plus, a C student growing up in different circumstances might be the A student. Furthermore, a C student might be a C at math, but an A at clothes designing. He or she might have simply a different area of genius. It is rare to find a person with no strengths. Thus, any law that attempted to split A students and C students would be arbitrary at best. This has little to do with the biology. Where there are students who are significantly mentally biologically different from other students, different laws DO apply. Why do you think criminals in court can sometimes get off in with a lighter sentence because of being "insane"? Why do you think people who are mentally retarded often have lighter penalties on them?

As regards men and women living under the same laws, I am not entirely sure that this is appropriate. There are general, broadly acknowledged differences between men and women that exist because of differences in gender. Perhaps if our laws were somewhat (I don't know to what extent) modified, they could better take into account these differences. I haven't thought about this until you just brought it up, but it does make some sense to me.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There is a world of difference between an un or underdeveloped brain and one that has developed in a different way from others. The one is a basis for legal differentiation... the other is not. There's an old Victorian book I had to read for history called something like "Children, Idiots, Criminals and Women: Is the Classification Sound" about the categories of people who had different laws from the generality during that time period. The first two of those have undeveloped brains; they still have different laws. The third are disqualified by their illegal acts, which are known to carry that penalty. The fourth, however, was only differentiated because they were felt to be biologically different... and I think it is instructive that it is THAT one that has not stood the test of time.

In the opinions of a few . As I said before, differences in gender between men and women, general differences in brains that causes them to behave in visibly different ways, are broadly acknowledged to exist.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I really must question how generally applicable your experiences are if you are claiming to know no (or only one) heterosexuals who exhibit sexually suggestive behaviour. It's all over our popular culture,

I have seen hideous advertisements. However, I also have seen pictures of gay pride parades .

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

it's omnipresent at every university and high school I have attended or visited, and there are statistics out there for it (check out somewhere the % of American teens who have had sex before their majority).

I know. However, I also have seen in my experience a MASSIVELY higher percentage of such behavior amongst homosexuals than among heterosexuals.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

If you want to say that divorce rate figures are inflated by serial monogamists, you must admit that any figures you have for homosexual relationships are skewed by their equivalent... and I still deny the validity of saying "homosexuals break up... therefore homosexual marriages will break up" because the exact same thing could be said about heterosexuals if we didn't have the marriage statistics (and, actually, given the divorce rate, with the marriage statistics).

I agree with you. I'm not sure in what way the statistics could be done that they would be fair. Just comparing homosexual and heterosexual unmarried relationships might not be valid, because many of heterosexual couples who are unmarried and living together have no intention of being married. It would be removing from the heterosexual community the great majority of those who do intend to live together permanently. What are your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

PS The Constitution of the United States requires that "no State shall...deny the equal protection of the law" to any "person born or naturalized in the United States" (Amendment XIV). You need a very high threshold of public interest to create an exception. I cannot see how a ban on homosexual marriage meets that threshold.

However, there is a clear precedent for making differences in law based upon biological differences. These laws are always just generalizations that try to make things best for the greatest number. They include children, idiots, insane people, and I suspect should include gender. It'll take some trustworthy studies to find out the truth about gender differences, whether they exist or no.


BeardofPants, I'm sorry that my views have disgusted you. I hope that I never become guilty of the sin against intellect of choosing to believe something based on wishes rather than evidence. As I am unwilling to intellectually defile myself in that way, there really is no help for our difference here, and no remedy. I hope that this difference does not damage our overall good relations .

~Lief

[Jonathan]

Just a quick reply since I'm in a hurry

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If there is strong evidence that it is the fact that blacks are black that is causing them to be more violent, then yes, a different "discriminatory" law could very possibly be reasonable. We don't allow animals into most movie theaters. Why? The biology is different. It causes animals to behave in ways that are inappropriate for their setting. We have different laws for animals than for humans because of the difference in biology- most especially the difference in brains.

Fortunately, black pigments don't make people more violent. Other factors do, and if blacks exposed to these factors more than other groups, that's unfortunate. This is why we can't have more severe punishments for blacks. Their pigments are irrelevant.
It is exactly the same thing with same-sex marriages. If such relationships are more likely to end in a divorce, it is not the homosexuality that is the key factor responsible. There can be so many different things involved when a couple break up. We can't judge all gay couples alike because of their sexual preferance, just as we can't judge all blacks alike because they happen to have the same skin colour.
If blacks were more violent, it wouldn't be because their pigments make them violent. If gays were more likely to divorce, it wouldn't be because of their sexuality.

Animals are a more homogenous group. The animals don't behave like humans because of their biology, like you say. With animals, their biology is relevant whereas in the case of gay couples, their homosexuality is not relevant if they divorce (and, if blacks were indeed more likely to be violent, their skin colour would not be relevant either).

No offense intended to blacks! I just made up an example to prove a point.

[Insidious Rex]

Honostly Lief... blacks and animals now?? You really need to work on your examples...

What you continually fail to appreciate is that you are approaching the issue of gay marriage different from any other. They DONT require silly tests and studies to determine if they should allow females to vote. Or asians to drive. Or Christians to breed. They dont even ban smoking based on clear and countless studies showing how horribly bad it is for you... So WHY on EARTH would you isolate only gays and gay marriage for your super special testing procedures to determine if it should be allowed? If you ask me this simply is an elaborate front to somehow separate gay marriage from any other social concept. And thats an incredible double standard if you ask me.

[Lotesse]

Oh - my - god. No he didn't. Lief, if I were in the same room with you at the moment you made this awful, unbelievably crass, ignorant, and asinine comment/comparison, I'd beat the sh*t out of you. And no, I'm not black.

[Jonathan]

C'mon Lotesse, give him a break. I think Lief rather made a poor example than an actual comparison here.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Just a quick reply since I'm in a hurry
Fortunately, black pigments don't make people more violent. Other factors do, and if blacks exposed to these factors more than other groups, that's unfortunate. This is why we can't have more severe punishments for blacks. Their pigments are irrelevant.

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

It is exactly the same thing with same-sex marriages. If such relationships are more likely to end in a divorce, it is not the homosexuality that is the key factor responsible.

I believe that there are statistics already available which shows that this trend of higher divorce rates exists in countries where homosexual marriages are allowed. This would imply it's fairly universal. However, I'd have to research that, obviously. Different groups produce different statistics, on this matter.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

If blacks were more violent, it wouldn't be because their pigments make them violent. If gays were more likely to divorce, it wouldn't be because of their sexuality.

That's one opinion.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Animals are a more homogenous group. The animals don't behave like humans because of their biology, like you say. With animals, their biology is relevant whereas in the case of gay couples, their homosexuality is not relevant if they divorce (and, if blacks were indeed more likely to be violent, their skin colour would not be relevant either).

This is all coming down to mere opinion. This is another of the reasons I think we should have studies.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Honostly Lief... blacks and animals now?? You really need to work on your examples...

First of all, I wasn't the person to bring blacks into this in the first place. Secondly, neither Jonathon nor I intended ANYTHING against blacks in anything we have said. We are NOT saying blacks are like animals. Neither am I saying homosexuals are like animals. If I made that statement, it would prove that I am a very sick individual.

My only reason for bringing up animals was to say once again that the state of brains impacts what laws are set up in our society. Different laws apply to the people of the US, if general differences in brains can be seen. Animals have different rights according to law than I do. For example, drivers' licenses will not be given to chimpanzees. Is this because of cultural differences? No, it is because of the biological state of its mind and my mind. Biological difference in brains is used already to create different laws for different people or creatures. This applies to me and an animal, and me and a child, and me and an insane person. This is not to say that homosexuals are similar to any of those. It is merely to say that biology is taken into account in the making of laws. Men and women have significantly different brains from one another. Thus, it makes sense that laws would be different for man-woman and man-man or woman-woman relationships. Laws should take into account these significant biological differences. This is not an argument that homosexual relationships are less than heterosexual ones. It is merely an argument that they are strongly different, and there is a precedent for the making of laws in the cases of such differences. Thus, studies are in order.

Please understand, I am not attacking homosexuals or lesbians here. They certainly can be lovely people.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What you continually fail to appreciate is that you are approaching the issue of gay marriage different from any other. They DONT require silly tests and studies to determine if they should allow females to vote. Or asians to drive. Or Christians to breed. They dont even ban smoking based on clear and countless studies showing how horribly bad it is for you...

There is clear proof that women are every bit as intelligent as men. Womens' success in mind challenging work places proves this routinely. This is not the case with homosexuality . . . large numbers of people do note significant differences from their experiences and from statistics from several groups.

We know from biology as well as constant evidence that Asians are just the same, mentally, as anyone else. Thus, from biology there is absolutely no reason to differentiate between them and people of other skin pigmentation.

Your statement about Christians breeding is irrelevant, because that is not a matter of biology but culture.

Your point about smoking is probably a poor choice, as it is still being strongly debated.

For three of your examples, there already is massive evidence supporting that the groups should be treated the same as everyone else. One of your examples then is irrelevant, and the other is still being debated. So this wouldn't be "isolating" homosexuals.


Lotesse, I promise you, I intended no offense whatsoever against blacks. I have not said they are like animals. I have not said they are exceedingly violent. I have not intentionally said anything against them. They are people no different from you and me, and deserve full respect. I have good friends who are black. Racism sickens me. I am positive that I have said nothing in any of my posts that attacks blacks.

[Count Comfect]

There is clear proof that women are every bit as intelligent as men.

Not the point. You have asserted that "Men and women have significantly different brains from one another." You assert that, regarding homosexuality "large numbers of people do note significant differences from their experiences and from statistics from several groups." Yet we do not have different laws for women than from men, despite their differences. Why should we have different laws for homosexuals?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Not the point. You have asserted that "Men and women have significantly different brains from one another." You assert that, regarding homosexuality "large numbers of people do note significant differences from their experiences and from statistics from several groups." Yet we do not have different laws for women than from men, despite their differences. Why should we have different laws for homosexuals?

I'm not sure that treating men and women exactly the same, under law, is always appopriate. The gender differences to people's minds do create overall differences between men and women which, sometimes, the law probably should apply to. I feel that this could be an error in our system.

[Count Comfect]

And I think it's the brilliance of our system to realize that once you conceded one difference you must concede them all: and that therefore everyone should have "equal protection" under the law.

[Lief Erikson]

We have already seen several examples where biological differences are noted and accounted for by law.

[Count Comfect]

Biological differences of a different degree and kind.

But that's not really going to get us anywhere.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Biological differences of a different degree and kind.

But that's not really going to get us anywhere.

The biological differences are of the same kind- they are relating to the differences in people's (and animals') minds. A different degree? Perhaps. That is what the studies would determine.

But I guess we may have rather reached an impasse.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is clear proof that women are every bit as intelligent as men. Womens' success in mind challenging work places proves this routinely. This is not the case with homosexuality . . .

um homosexuals haven’t shown they can handle “mind challenging work”? Yer truly scary lief… And hopefully just extremely unfortunate in your continual word usage in regards to homosexuals here…

But let me play devils advocate here. I could make some great arguments for females not being allowed in a wide variety of professions based simply on the fact that men have different hormonal levels then females and that females tend to utilize certain aspects of their brain that men do not and vice versa. In fact the differences are so glaring that we shouldn’t allow females to engage in certain activities. Of course the reverse argument holds true. Wed have to ban males from other more female designed activities. Like anything involving communication since studies show that females have much greater communication skills then males. Studies also show that females aren’t mathematical thinkers (remember Harvard?) so we will need to ban them from any occupation that requires a strong grounding in mathematics. And of course get them all out of the military now. They don’t have enough testosterone and all those fun aggressive male hormones. Clearly males were designed for all activities like that right?

We know from biology as well as constant evidence that Asians are just the same, mentally, as anyone else.

Actually year after year by sheer test scores alone we are shown that Asian students are way ahead of American students in most every category. We also know that asians devote much more of their time to perusing education then American students are willing to spend. Furthermore, we can divide it up further and show that Asians are ahead of white Americans who are ahead of black Americans who are ahead of Hispanic Americans scholastically and in every measure of pure “intelligence” like IQ. So does this mean we should go back to laws against intermarriage between different races lief? Because the numbers sure are there…

And Im waiting for your “but that’s just cultural” argument…

Your statement about Christians breeding is irrelevant, because that is not a matter of biology but culture.

And there it is! So here is my question to you then. Show me how you completely and perfectly splice out culture from nature so easily. Im afraid much better minds have been working on that one for centuries and have made very little head way so far. What is it you propose to show that gays (only for some reason…) are so different from heterosexuals on a brain level ONLY that it justifies making special laws just for them and that there is not a HINT of difference in how they are effected by culture versus how heterosexuals are. Id be awfully impressed if you could pull that one off lief. But you cant. So your only alternative is to ignore culture and make discriminating laws anyway. And that, my friend, is where you open the door up to Asians not driving and Christians not breeding and other atrocities. You may be on top now and therefore feel comfortable with making discriminatory laws based on your biases and misconceptions and desires but the tables could be turned later on. And then youd be crap out of luck wouldn’t you. “First they came for the jews…”

Your point about smoking is probably a poor choice, as it is still being strongly debated.

Whats debated? That its harmful? Are you for real?

For three of your examples, there already is massive evidence supporting that the groups should be treated the same as everyone else. One of your examples then is irrelevant, and the other is still being debated. So this wouldn't be "isolating" homosexuals.

Well what do you say now that Ive shown evidence that these groups should be treated differently according to your logic? And Im sure you are aware that I could come up with 1,000 other examples like this. Do you really think you could explain away every single one of these one by one and STILL hold out that gays alone should be treated differently? Don’t you see now how preposterous and illogical your stance is?