Cheney On Gay Marriage: Freedom For Everyone

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Absolutely no evidence of this. One study was done years ago, commissioned by a gay rights group, and it has morphed into gospel.

Remove "gay people" and insert any of a number of bad personal choices (criminals, alcoholics/drug addicts, Cubs fans). Doesn't make it a genetic thing.

--You really don't deal with the public much. Just look at the talk and mannerisms of many of them. They are what they are. I don't doubt that some do chose that lifestyle but some folks are just wired that way just as we are the way we are and could not really change.

---Having said the above I do not support calling that type of relationship a marriage... Perhaps some type of legal partnership should exist with a lot of legal "benefits" of marriage, but don't call it a marraige.

[Smitty]

Absolutely no evidence of this. One study was done years ago, commissioned by a gay rights group, and it has morphed into gospel.

Remove "gay people" and insert any of a number of bad personal choices (criminals, alcoholics/drug addicts, Cubs fans). Doesn't make it a genetic thing.

Maybe it's not genetic, but it is not a choice for the vast majority of humans. And equating being gay or lesbian with engaging in criminal activity is ridiculous.

If it is a choice, then tell me if you made a choice for your sexual preference? Did you sit down at some point and say, "Well, it's time to make that sexual-preference decision?" Did you consciously decide to be gay or straight?

I know I did not choose. I am hard-wired for women, and I never had a choice in the matter. It was never a question for debate or discussion. And if we straight people did not choose, then what makes you think gays and lesbians did choose? You may find the occasional exhibitionist who literally chooses to play for both teams, but the vast majority of people have no choice.

Every gay man I have ever known did not choose to be what they are. They did not choose to be bullied, beaten, insulted, and shunned. But I have known gay men who fought their sexual nature, fought it for years at terrible costs, both physical and psychological, to themselves and their families. Men who got married and who had children and who tried for years to convince themselves that they were something they were not because the people around those men could not accept them for what they were.

Those who did not choose to be straight can enjoy the very tangible benefits of marriage, but those who did not choose to be gay are barred from those benefits? You want to have your religious-based "marriage" and make it unavailable to gay people, fine. But as long as there are tangible benefits to "marriage," it should be available to everyone.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Smitty

[Censored by Laurie]

Those who did not choose to be straight can enjoy the very tangible benefits of marriage, but those who did not choose to be gay are barred from those benefits? You want to have your religious-based "marriage" and make it unavailable to gay people, fine. But as long as there are tangible benefits to "marriage," it should be available to everyone.

Ding...if its the whole "God" part of marriage, leave it up to the church, but that ought not infringe upon their civil rights

[Green Guy Bass]

I didn't know you grew up in Missouri/Western Illinois.

Oh...you didn't...but then you went to school there right?

Ohh...really...I know, you have family up there and when you visited you went to a lot of Cards games.

Ohhh...hmmm.

Well, at least your favorite football team is in the Midwest...

Ohhhh...

No, the Cards are my NL drug of choice. My dad took me to busch stadium a few times when I was a kid. Good times and great fans.

[FirefightnRick]

My girlfriend is a theatre teacher in middle school. Some of those kids are gay. I don't think it is a 'bad choice' - it's who they are. They can't help it. If you want to wish something away. Go ahead. But it is not at all a choice. However, as a Cardinals fan I am on board with you about Cubs fans.

How do you know?

Rick

[UNT90]

Being gay is a genetic thing, not a choice.

Ya, tell that to Lindsey Lohan, Ann Heich(Sp?), and all the other publically gay/not gay people who can't decide where on the sexuality meter they land. I suspect if you got every single gay peson to sit down and talk honestly about thier childhood experiences, especially sexual experiences, you would find that in over 90%, these childhood experiences shaped thier sexuality. For some, it may be sexual abuse, for others, sexual experimentation. And what about the bi-sexual people? Are they born that way, too, or just really indecisive?

To say that "they are just born that way" is ignoring so many things that factor into what I like to call "Sexual predisposition".

Hey, I played Dracula in the school play when I was in 7th grade. It didn't make me want to kiss a man.

[UNTflyer]

Ding...if its the whole "God" part of marriage, leave it up to the church, but that ought not infringe upon their civil rights

I paraphrase Adam Kolasinski:

Let's extend this argument a bit more. States heavily regulate marriage even outside of the gay marriage debate. Half of all states say first cousins can't marry, and all of them prohibit marriage with a closer relative (sister, brother, aunt, uncle, mother, father, etc.). Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Some states deny marriage to a person with syphilis or other nasty venereal diseases.

There are high social costs to marriage such as social security benefits, tax exemptions, and family health insurance. We grant these privileges because the state recognizes the likelihood of healthy procreation from such relationships.

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage."

[Guest JohnDenver]

I paraphrase Adam Kolasinski:

Let's extend this argument a bit more. States heavily regulate marriage even outside of the gay marriage debate. Half of all states say first cousins can't marry, and all of them prohibit marriage with a closer relative (sister, brother, aunt, uncle, mother, father, etc.). Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Some states deny marriage to a person with syphilis or other nasty venereal diseases.

There are high social costs to marriage such as social security benefits, tax exemptions, and family health insurance. We grant these privileges because the state recognizes the likelihood of healthy procreation from such relationships.

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage."

Right, the whole slippery slope argument. If you allow gays to marry, then you will have to allow men to marry goats. Personally, I don't care if first cousins marry either. Not that is is a part of this conversation.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Hey, I played Dracula in the school play when I was in 7th grade. It didn't make me want to kiss a man.

But do you want to sit down and honestly talk about it?

I think there definitely is portion of the gay population that is gay for either status, comfort, coolness, experimenting, confused, etc. Whatever. Really, I don't care. I also know there is a portion of the straight population that is really gay. There are *plenty* of men at the gay clubs who are married with kids, but live the straight lifestyle to fit in normal society. That knife cuts both ways.

[UNTflyer]

Right, the whole slippery slope argument. If you allow gays to marry, then you will have to allow men to marry goats. Personally, I don't care if first cousins marry either. Not that is is a part of this conversation.

There was no slippery slope argument at all in that paragraph, don't try to create one.

The purpose of marriage is procreation, and there are already limits on marriage that all boil down to healthy procreation for society.

[Guest JohnDenver]

There was no slippery slope argument at all in that paragraph, don't try to create one.

The purpose of marriage is procreation, and there are already limits on marriage that all boil down to healthy procreation for society.

The slippery slope is there and I hear it all the time. I apologize if you didn't mean it that way.

In all my social anthropology readings, marriage is to form healthy families for society, not procreation. You won't find a law that says infertile women will remain unmarried. Nor will find a law that says post menopausal women aren't able to marry once their first husband dies. Marriage is not about procreation.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Would be interesting to know who caused the friction with Gingrich. Was it because he was outspoken in his opposition and refused to accept his sister? Or, was it because his sister was outspoken and refused to accept a family member who wouldn't confirm her feelings about herself?

But each would probably say it was the others fault.

Newt married his high school teacher and then later traded her up after all their kids were raised ... for a younger woman. He is the very definition of morality.

[UNTflyer]

In all my social anthropology readings, marriage is to form healthy families for society, not procreation. You won't find a law that says infertile women will remain unmarried. Nor will find a law that says post menopausal women aren't able to marry once their first husband dies. Marriage is not about procreation.

Isn't "forming healthy families for society" the very definition of procreation... In the context of defining the purpose of marriage, I think that fits.

And it is true there are no laws preventing infertile couples from marrying. That being said, one could make the argument that if legal marriage is about the survival of a civilization in exchange for the legal benefits bestowed upon married people, then why not either A. eliminate the benefits, or B. eliminate marriage altogether?

But again, I am playing Devil's Advocate here. Let gays marry.

[Censored by Laurie]

Isn't "forming healthy families for society" the very definition of procreation... In the context of defining the purpose of marriage, I think that fits.

And it is true there are no laws preventing infertile couples from marrying. That being said, one could make the argument that if legal marriage is about the survival of a civilization in exchange for the legal benefits bestowed upon married people, then why not either A. eliminate the benefits, or B. eliminate marriage altogether?

But again, I am playing Devil's Advocate here. Let gays marry.

Would 2 people not constitute a family?

Thats the max I'm shooting for in life...

[eulessismore]

Would 2 people not constitute a family?

Thats the max I'm shooting for in life...

That makes 4 of us!

[Green Guy Bass]

How do you know?

Rick

Because I supported my lovely girlfriend and attended the kiddos performances. It was pretty obvious dude.

[FirefightnRick]

Because I supported my lovely girlfriend and attended the kiddos performances. It was pretty obvious dude.

Hmm, interesting. The reason I ask is since it's obvious to some, and not so obvious to others, and since there are going to be certain entitlements(not sure this is the correct term to use here with this) connected to the gay/civil marriage issue, should there be some kind of validation system? And if so, what would that entail?

Rick

[eulessismore]

Gay marriage and/or civil unions will all come down to money. If conservatives can figure out a way gay marriage can reduce government expenditures and liberals can find a way for lawyers to make money out of it, it will happen.

[Green Guy Bass]

Gay marriage and/or civil unions will all come down to money. If conservatives can figure out a way gay marriage can reduce government expenditures and liberals can find a way for lawyers to make money out of it, it will happen.

Best point of the thread. That is an ender if I have ever read one. Nice work.