Seventh Circuit: Gay-marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin are unconstitutional

posted at 6:41 pm on September 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

I barely skim appellate opinions striking down bans on gay marriage anymore. The rationales are almost always the same; if you’ve read one, you really have read them all, especially post-Windsor. But I made an exception for this one and not just because it’s a timely counterpoint to yesterday’s decision in Louisiana. The author for the majority is Richard Posner, Reagan appointee (but not a doctrinaire Reaganite), pioneer in the branch of legal scholarship known as “law and economics,” and a writer of freakishly prolific virtuosity. (Do an Amazon search and see how much turns up. And bear in mind, there are hundreds of judicial opinions and scores of law review articles on top of that.) Not only is he unusually influential, he’s also a guy who disdains overly formal legal writing. A stark example:

p1p2

That’s Posner for you. Another striking difference: He frames his argument in today’s opinion from the beginning as one that’s fundamentally about the welfare of children, not the definition of “marriage” or what level of scrutiny is required under the Equal Protection Clause. If the state’s goal in banning gay marriage is ultimately about children, he says — specifically, encouraging men and women to form stable relationships for child-rearing purposes — how does denying gay adoptive parents the right to marry further that end? Don’t we want those families to be stable too? If the state can’t answer that simple question then all the rest of the legal claptrap involved in this is beside the point. A law that discriminates against a group has to show, at the very least, that it’s a rational means to the end it’s supposedly trying to attain.

Here’s another quintessentially Posnerian passage. Most courts will sidestep the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or an “immutable,” i.e. unchangeable, characteristic. Posner could sidestep it if he chose; a law that discriminates irrationally, as he says the Indiana and Wisconsin bans do, is unconstitutional no matter why the group suffering the discrimination is being targeted. Instead, he gets into the social science:

p3p4

The citations are clickable in the PDF version of the opinion, incidentally, which is the first time I’ve seen that. He did that, I think, because he’s treating this opinion less as an opinion aimed at the legal intelligentsia that consumes such things in the course of its business than as an argument to the general public for why gay-marriage bans are unconstitutional. Go figure that a guy who’s used to writing for a wider audience, not just lawyers, would want to make his case as accessible as possible to laymen on an issue as closely watched as this one is. Here’s the link.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

so rebar lets say they find the gay gene. then youd be all like OH IM SO SORRY! OF COURSE, NOW THAT WE KNOW FER SURE THAT BEING GAY IS GENETIC, PLEASE DO GET MARRIED? or would you be more like WELL GENETICS OR NOT THE BIBLE STILL SAYS ITS WRONG?

brushingmyhair on September 5, 2014 at 7:31 PM

There is no evidence whatsoever that epigenetics cause homosexuality. None. Your claims are simply argument by assertion.

There is also the very real matter of homosexuals leaving that lifestyle, which blows the genetic claim right out of the water, which is why you will refuse to accept that it doe exist. Fortunately, the rest of us know that there are plenty of ex-homosexuals who lead normal happy lives.

No evidence? Here’s what I found spending about ten seconds on Google.

http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality

Your claim of “no evidence” is false. Call me surprised you’re not up on the scientific literature.

Genes in their entirety are heterosexual, since the genetic code needs to be passed from generation to generation – an impossibility with homosexuals. More – any genetic component involved in such contra-survival behavior would have been selected out long ago – you do believe in evolution? Even more – plenty of homosexuals have left that lifestyle and lead happy normal lives, an impossibility if the condition was genetic.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Read the link. You will learn something.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:34 PM

brushingmyhair on September 5, 2014 at 7:31 PM

First, are you admitting that the science is correct, that homosexuality is not genetic?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 7:35 PM

How can I be wrong when stating what it is that I think..not “the majority that were polled” to paraphrase?
You claim has no basis.

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even if their opinions are incorrect.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Let me ask you another question…Do you believe in prodigies?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Irrelevant, my opinion one way or the other does not change the scientific evidence, nor the plain common sense that homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 7:22 PM

It’s not irrelevant.

Just for my sake…because I’m asking nicely :) Do you believe some people are born with “God-given gifts” or certain innate abilities to excel at art, science, music, etc.?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even if their opinions are incorrect.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Thats just silly and shows a closed mind..i.e. “I’m right”.

How can you possible claim to know more about me and the basis of my views than me? It’s not an opinion.
That said, can you answer those two questions?

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 7:39 PM

The opinion of the Seventh Circuit comes from Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee who just so happens to be one of the most cited legal minds of the 20th century, if not the most cited of all.

Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Thats just silly and shows a closed mind..i.e. “I’m right”.

How can you possible claim to know more about me and the basis of my views than me? It’s not an opinion.
That said, can you answer those two questions?

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 7:39 PM

You’ve expressed an opinion that is contrary to the available facts. Your opinion is, for lack of a better word, uninformed. Based off the fact your opinion is uninformed then, you’re right, it does make me hesitant to give your opinion much weight. The basis of your opinion is irrelevant; I don’t know what it is but I do know it’s not facts.

Do you give uninformed opinions much credence? If not then why should I?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Is it your intention to cram your religious beliefs and everything that goes with them down everyone else’s throats?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Seems pretty much what the gay advocacy is doing, actually.

Ricard on September 5, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Read the rest of what I wrote. I mentioned Posner’s credentials but then based everything off his reasoning, not his resume. It’s an appeal of authority of I say “Because Posner said it then it must be right.” I didn’t. Posner is right because he recognizes the arguments made my the opposition are so full of holes that they cannot be taken seriously.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:54 PM

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:34 PM

I wasn’t going to engage with you further, since you’ve shown such brazen dishonesty – but your thesis that homosexuality is a birth defect gave me such a good laugh, well here goes:

from your link:

The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.

Yes, the same kind of mathematical modeling that stated we’d all be 20 feet underwater at this point because of global warming.

Identical twins are identical genetically – including your magical “epigenetics”. They are formed from the exact same genetic code. If epigenetics was a trigger for homosexual behavior, both twins would be effected the same. They are not. Therefore the mathematical modeling that these folks simply doesn’t pass the common sense test.

Do you believe some people are born with “God-given gifts” or certain innate abilities to excel at art, science, music, etc.?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 7:39 PM

We will have to agree to disagree, it is irrelevant. Frankly I’m a little surprised that you’d start appealing to emotion rather than accept the science presented.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM

You’ve expressed an opinion that is contrary to the available facts. Your opinion is, for lack of a better word, uninformed. Based off the fact your opinion is uninformed then, you’re right, it does make me hesitant to give your opinion much weight. The basis of your opinion is irrelevant; I don’t know what it is but I do know it’s not facts.

Do you give uninformed opinions much credence? If not then why should I?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:51 PM

You’re just making that up.
Here’s a test. What was the post that I responded to..that you then claimed I was wrong about? What was I responding to?
Oh..and, can you answer those 2 questions that are directly connected to your post?

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM

It’s disingenuous to suggest that because one mathematical model is incorrect that the entire concept is incorrect as well. You can mathematically model the volume of a room by multiplying its length times its width times its depth, to which you would say “That can’t be right because that’s a mathematical model and mathematical models were used to attempt to find the effect of CO2 on climate and they were wrong so all models must be wrong!” And you would be laughed at. Rightfully so.

But if you really don’t like the concept of mathematical models then there’s this:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/02/twins-identical-genes-different-health-study

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 8:22 PM

You’re just making that up.
Here’s a test. What was the post that I responded to..that you then claimed I was wrong about? What was I responding to?
Oh..and, can you answer those 2 questions that are directly connected to your post?

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 8:01 PM

It appears we might be talking past each other.

I asked what you believe and you answered. You truthfully answered about what you believe, but what you believe is not truthful.

The questions you tacked on about which religion I was referring to (the answer is “None in particular,”) and what the “everything that goes with it,” was about (that’s a broad question because it’s predicated on my answer to the prior question which was itself broad) is immaterial.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Posner is right because he recognizes the arguments made my the opposition are so full of holes that they cannot be taken seriously.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Thats your opinion. You believe they are correct because that is the way you have (most likely) always felt about the topic. You validate that position by citing Posner, in affect appealing to his greater knowledge..one that you..in your great wisdom, share a place.
It’s still an appeal to authority .

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM

It’s disingenuous to suggest that because one mathematical model is incorrect that the entire concept is incorrect as well.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 8:22 PM

I can say that the model for global warming is incorrect, because we’re not 20 feet underwater.

I can also say the model in your link is incorrect, because it does not account for identical twins, which is an awfully low bar to hurdle, if in fact homosexuality was genetic.

Nor does it account for those who indulged in the homosexual lifestyle quitting same and leading a happy normal life – does this persons genetic code magically rewrite itself based on their decision? How about the straight man who goes to prison, does their genetic code rewrite itself to enable a homosexual lifestyle, then rewrite itself yet again when released? Or how about bisexuals – is their genetic code rewriting itself on an hourly bases to account for their attraction of the moment?

And there’s this:

Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics. Recent studies have shown that many environmentally induced differences are reflected in the epigenome.

No one is born homosexual, it is a behavior. One that can be overcome like any other behavior.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 8:36 PM

It appears we might be talking past each other.

I asked what you believe and you answered. You truthfully answered about what you believe, but what you believe is not truthful.

The questions you tacked on about which religion I was referring to (the answer is “None in particular,”) and what the “everything that goes with it,” was about (that’s a broad question because it’s predicated on my answer to the prior question which was itself broad) is immaterial.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 8:28 PM

That may be true.
You need to go back to the actual post that I responded to.
My questions as to “what religion” and “everything that goes with then” are YOUR statements that I first responded to.

If that is what I was responding to, how can it be immaterial?

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 8:38 PM

We will have to agree to disagree, it is irrelevant. Frankly I’m a little surprised that you’d start appealing to emotion rather than accept the science presented.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM

How can we agree or disagree when you won’t tell me if you believe in so-called “God-given gifts”? The answer is either “yes” or “no” or “I don’t know”. Refusing to answer is merely a cop out, because you know exactly why I’m asking that question. And having to challenge your own preconceived beliefs of nature vs. nurture vs. perhaps there’s more to human existence than simply DNA and environment.

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Thats your opinion. You believe they are correct because that is the way you have (most likely) always felt about the topic.

Actually I changed my mind on this subject around 2005 or so when I was challenged to defend my opposition, failed miserably at doing so and had the wisdom and humility to admit when I was wrong and changed my position.

You validate that position by citing Posner, in affect appealing to his greater knowledge..one that you..in your great wisdom, share a place.
It’s still an appeal to authority .

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM

It is most certainly not. For a true appeal to authority fallacy I would have to make it out that said authority was unassailable, and only correct on that basis. Posner is most certainly assailable, as am I. So if you can object to anything he says or highlight places in the opinion that Posner is wrong then I’m perfectly willing to hear you out.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 9:00 PM

And having to challenge your own preconceived beliefs of nature vs. nurture vs. perhaps there’s more to human existence than simply DNA and environment.

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Why should I engage in such a discussion, when you won’t admit that there is no scientific basis to claim homosexuality is genetic?

The typical leftist doesn’t admit to their errors, they try to deflect and obfuscate by appeals to emotion. You claim to be a conservative, why the appeal to emotion?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:02 PM

That may be true.
You need to go back to the actual post that I responded to.
My questions as to “what religion” and “everything that goes with then” are YOUR statements that I first responded to.

If that is what I was responding to, how can it be immaterial?

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 8:38 PM

I don’t know yet because the person who I asked if they want to cram their religion down everyone’s throat hasn’t specified if they want to, and if so what that religion is.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Why should I engage in such a discussion, when you won’t admit that there is no scientific basis to claim homosexuality is genetic?

The typical leftist doesn’t admit to their errors, they try to deflect and obfuscate by appeals to emotion. You claim to be a conservative, why the appeal to emotion?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:02 PM

When you read a post that contains information you disagree with or that challenges your preconceived notions does that challenging information just not enter your head or something? You’re attempting to simplify something – the root of sexual orientation – that is not as simple as you’re making it out to be – genetics alone. Myself and several other people have repeatedly explained it to you and you’re refusing to acknowledge it.

Are you not reading the new information we’ve presented? Are you too afraid of being proven wrong to check it out? Do you not understand the information in the first place? Seriously, what gives here?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Seriously, what gives here?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Once again you are being dishonest.

I’ve addressed the links you posted in detail.

That you don’t like that they didn’t hold up to cursory scrutiny, is hardly my fault.

There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic, therefore the claim that homosexual “marriage” is a civil right, is a false one.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Why should I engage in such a discussion, when you won’t admit that there is no scientific basis to claim homosexuality is genetic?

The typical leftist doesn’t admit to their errors, they try to deflect and obfuscate by appeals to emotion. You claim to be a conservative, why the appeal to emotion?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:02 PM

I’ve always agreed there is no “gay gene”…at least none that’s been ever found conclusively. I’m not arguing that. I’ve always said that I don’t know what causes homosexuality. Nobody can say they know what causes some people to be gay…it may hormone levels in the womb…it may be something else entirely.

All I’m differing on with you is that you claim it’s learned/behavior and that’s that…while I’m suggesting it could possibly be something else, something outside our DNA and environment. What that is, I don’t know.

But since you refuse to answer a simple and relevant question to all this: Do you believe some people, in some way, are born with so-called “God-given gifts”?

Yes?

No?

I don’t know?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Once again you are being dishonest.

I’ve addressed the links you posted in detail.

That you don’t like that they didn’t hold up to cursory scrutiny, is hardly my fault.

There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic, therefore the claim that homosexual “marriage” is a civil right, is a false one.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:15 PM

You did no such thing. You accuse the model of not holding for identical twins when the whole thing from the Guardian was about identical twins and why they’re different.

Nor does it account for those who indulged in the homosexual lifestyle quitting same and leading a happy normal life – does this persons genetic code magically rewrite itself based on their decision?

Was the ex-governor of New Jersey or jet boy or any other homosexual not really a homosexual until the first time they engaged in sexual relations with a person of the same gender? Would a woman who has no interest in men and only is attracted to other women not be a lesbian until she did whatever it is that lesbians do together in the privacy of their own homes?

How about the straight man who goes to prison, does their genetic code rewrite itself to enable a homosexual lifestyle, then rewrite itself yet again when released?

I assume you’re talking about prison rape. Most rape is about power, not sex.

Or how about bisexuals – is their genetic code rewriting itself on an hourly bases to account for their attraction of the moment?

I believe with bisexuals they can find themselves to members of either gender, not that they go from preferring only men for a time then only women for a time then switch back to only men.

And there’s this:

Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics. Recent studies have shown that many environmentally induced differences are reflected in the epigenome.

No one is born homosexual, it is a behavior. One that can be overcome like any other behavior.

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Your scientific ignorance is showing itself again. “Environmental factors” can refer to many things, like the hormones a developing fetus is exposed to in utero, which, I should point out, is NOT the same even for identical twins.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 9:36 PM

I’ve always agreed there is no “gay gene”…at least none that’s been ever found conclusively. I’m not arguing that. I’ve always said that I don’t know what causes homosexuality.

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Then why are you advocating, as you’ve done these many years, for homosexual “marriage”?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:38 PM

But since you refuse to answer a simple and relevant question to all this: Do you believe some people, in some way, are born with so-called “God-given gifts”?

Yes?

No?

I don’t know?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM

.
Y E S . . . . . . and there ain’t nothing “so called” about them.

listens2glenn on September 5, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Then why are you advocating, as you’ve done these many years, for homosexual “marriage”?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Aaaaaaaand…still no answer.

I think we’re done here.

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 9:48 PM

It is most certainly not. For a true appeal to authority fallacy I would have to make it out that said authority was unassailable, and only correct on that basis.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 9:00 PM

No. Not at all. Thats an argument via assertion.

A person can just use a “Experts” insight to imply it’s more relevant than it is. It’s often used as a dodge or a means of changing the subject.

The claims you made are made up by you.
One does not have to ” make it out that said authority was unassailable,”
for it to be an authority fallacy. It’s just works better for you to claim it does.

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 9:53 PM

I don’t know yet because the person who I asked if they want to cram their religion down everyone’s throat hasn’t specified if they want to, and if so what that religion is.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 9:03 PM

So you were thinking in terms of some specific religion? It seemed that the comment made by you, was more general than that.

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 9:57 PM

Aaaaaaaand…still no answer.

I think we’re done here.

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 9:48 PM

Why should agree to a new discussion, when the old one is unresolved?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 9:57 PM

No. Not at all. Thats an argument via assertion.

A person can just use a “Experts” insight to imply it’s more relevant than it is. It’s often used as a dodge or a means of changing the subject.

The claims you made are made up by you.
One does not have to ” make it out that said authority was unassailable,”
for it to be an authority fallacy. It’s just works better for you to claim it does.

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 9:53 PM

If examining the work of experts at any time in any field is a fallacy then what is the point of having experts in the first place?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 10:16 PM

Y E S . . . . . . and there ain’t nothing “so called” about them.

listens2glenn on September 5, 2014 at 9:38 PM

See how simple that was, Rebar?

Since he’s busy dodging…I’ll direct this at you:

Would a God-given gift show up in a person’s DNA?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 10:17 PM

So you were thinking in terms of some specific religion? It seemed that the comment made by you, was more general than that.

Mimzey on September 5, 2014 at 9:57 PM

I didn’t have anything specific in mind because I’m unfamiliar with the beliefs of the person I originally queried. It seems logical that the person I asked the question to does have a specific religion and once that’s established it will be easier to determine if they do indeed intend to cram that and some or all of that faith’s tenets down our throats, but before we can get to that I need to discover some things about the individual in question and as of now I haven’t. Clear enough?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 10:19 PM

See how simple that was, Rebar?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 10:17 PM

So, no answer to my legitimate question?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Twelve hours later, and still the usual suspects yammering away about religion and DNA and NOT ONE OF YOU has answered the question:

Do you support marriage equality for polygamous and consanguineous relationships?

It’s a yes or no question, and you can’t answer it because you have no morals whatsoever. You just want what you want.

Rather pathetic, actually.

AJsDaddie on September 5, 2014 at 11:00 PM

So, no answer to my legitimate question?

Rebar on September 5, 2014 at 10:48 PM

Your problem is you’re starting from a false premise, basing your argument around that, drawing a faulty conclusion because of your false premise and refusing to acknowledge the fact it’s been shown to be false.

Your false premise is “If it’s not genetic (i.e.: in the DNA) then it’s a choice.” That is patently false. Because it is false you cannot use that premise to infer anything else to be true, yet you’re trying to do so. This is wrong.

I’m still not sure whether you aren’t smart enough to understand why your premise is false, or if you are just refusing to acknowledge it because you’re smart enough to recognize it’s devastating to your case to accept the facts.

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM

Twelve hours later, and still the usual suspects yammering away about religion and DNA and NOT ONE OF YOU has answered the question:

Do you support marriage equality for polygamous and consanguineous relationships?

It’s a yes or no question, and you can’t answer it because you have no morals whatsoever. You just want what you want.

Rather pathetic, actually.

AJsDaddie on September 5, 2014 at 11:00 PM

Are you asking if the state should be able to prohibit those types of marriages?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 11:14 PM

listens2glenn on September 5, 2014 at 9:38 PM

.
See how simple that was, Rebar?

Since he’s busy dodging…I’ll direct this at you:

Would a God-given gift show up in a person’s DNA?

JetBoy on September 5, 2014 at 10:17 PM

.
I am insufficietly educated as to whether a “God given gift” could or would show up in the DNA.
I can neither confirm or deny it. Interesting subject, to say the least.
.
You haven’t come right out and said, so I’m going to ask :

Are you trying to claim … that homosexuality is God given, and God ordained ?

listens2glenn on September 5, 2014 at 11:35 PM

Your false premise is “If it’s not genetic (i.e.: in the DNA) then it’s a choice.”

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM

So you’re admitting that homosexuality is not genetic?

Rebar on September 6, 2014 at 12:02 AM

So you’re admitting that homosexuality is not genetic?

Rebar on September 6, 2014 at 12:02 AM

The way your question is worded answering in the affirmative would be claiming to have proved a negative, which is impossible. I’ll answer it instead in a more technically correct manner which you can then proceed to misunderstand and take out of context.

The root of human (or any other animal’s) sexual orientation is complex. There is evidence to suggest our DNA plays a role in its formation but, at the moment to my knowledge, there has been no specific gene identified which controls sexual orientation, i.e.: If a person has Gene ‘A” then they will definitely be heterosexual but instead if they have Gene ‘B” they will definitely be homosexual. It could be that such a gene, or some combination of genes, does exist and we merely have yet to identify it but at the moment there is no identified item in our DNA that makes us either heterosexual or homosexual. That’s also not to say that genes can’t influence sexual orientation even if they do not have complete control; some research has suggested that certain genes can make homosexuality more likely, although they do not 100% guarantee it. This phenomenon isn’t unique to sexual orientation; predisposition to certain forms of cancer has been extensively studied and can inform people well in advance if they’re more likely to develop cancer in their lifetimes. The genes in question don’t mean for sure that they will get cancer, it’s just a matter of the odds. And so it appears to be with sexual orientation as well, which explains why homosexuality has been observed to run in families.

The problem with your entire argument, indeed almost everything you’ve said on this topic, has been that you’ve based it around a false dichotomy. What you have attempted to construct is a situation where there either must be something specifically in our DNA that we can point to and say “If ‘this’ then heterosexual, if ‘that’ then homosexual,” or “Sexual orientation is a choice.” You’ve only left those two options and human beings are WAY more complex than that. For lack of a better way to put it, you just don’t understand the biology. I wish there was a nicer way I could say it because I know no one likes to be called ignorant or made to feel stupid so this will probably have the effect of making you dig your heels in ever harder but there’s still no escaping the fact that you simply don’t understand what you’re talking about.

The facts have been presented; the error of your reasoning has been explained in plain English. If you still don’t understand that now then I admit I’m at a bit of a loss as to how to better help you understand. After putting in the amount of time I have with you I do actually want to help you understand so if anything is still unclear then say the word and I’ll do my best to go through it again and turn up some more illustrative examples of whatever you’re still hung up on.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 2:33 AM

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 2:33 AM

Well, thanks for the heaping helping of argument by assertion, I guess.

None of which explains the identical twin issue, nor how many folks simply give up on the homosexual lifestyle and live normal happy lives.

The bottom line is, homosexuality is not genetic, thus same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with civil rights, or any other special rights progressive homosexual activists such as yourself keep claiming.

Rebar on September 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM

The bottom line is, homosexuality is not genetic, thus same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with civil rights, or any other special rights progressive homosexual activists such as yourself keep claiming.

Rebar on September 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Agreed. Does it take really any scientific study to determine if homosexual activity in prisons, for example, is genetic?

Is it “temporary homosexuality”? Are the inmates genetically disposed to it while in the slammer, and then they quickly get back in the closet when they are released?

Is there a difference between frank homosexual activity and “being gay”? Is bi-sexuality genetic? Is bestiality or pederasty genetic? And if it is, does that mean we just legalize anything genetic?

virgo on September 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Well, thanks for the heaping helping of argument by assertion, I guess.

How many times must we go over this?

Here’s yet another source that takes your “question” dead on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

None of which explains the identical twin issue, nor how many folks simply give up on the homosexual lifestyle and live normal happy lives.

The above link explains the identical twin non-issue.

I will also note, Mr. Argument By Assertion, that I asked you several pages ago to quantify and cite a reputable source for how many folks simply change their sexual orientation and you got really quiet. Did I catch you in a lie you that you simply tried to ignore so that I wouldn’t make you look any more foolish?

While I’m asking questions you can’t or won’t answer, I’ll throw this one out there too. What’s the difference between “sex” (the physical act) and “sexual orientation”?

The bottom line is, homosexuality is not genetic,

Not entirely, as far as we know.

thus same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with civil rights, or any other special rights progressive homosexual activists such as yourself keep claiming.

Rebar on September 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Are only things that arise from genetics worthy of protection as civil rights?

Please, Mr Argument By Assertion, don’t focus only on that last question when you respond. I know it’s tempting because those earlier questions about quantifying and citing a reliable source for your assertion about people changing which you have repeatedly dodged, and the question about the difference between the physical act of sex and “sexual orientation” are tempting things for you to ignore because you can’t give good answers to them and no matter what you say I’m going to make you look terrible on account of the fact you’ve stepped in it and don’t even know it yet, but do try to be intellectually honest.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM

To re-center the argument, remember that the question before the courts and the public is not if homosexual behavior is legal (at this point, it is), but rather if all people that object to the promotion of homosexual behavior can be forced by law to promote it.
Laws granting “same sex marriage” equal standing with real marriages are explicitly promoting homosexual behavior and frequently force private individuals to do so as well.

Count to 10 on September 6, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Are you asking if the state should be able to prohibit those types of marriages?

alchemist19 on September 5, 2014 at 11:14 PM

In your mind, can two biological brothers marry one another? If they love each other and truly cmomit to one another, does that fit your definition of marriage?

AJsDaddie on September 6, 2014 at 6:25 PM

To re-center the argument, remember that the question before the courts and the public is not if homosexual behavior is legal (at this point, it is), but rather if all people that object to the promotion of homosexual behavior can be forced by law to promote it.

Individuals, all individuals, who object to same-sex marriage will be forced to promote it? What exactly does that mean? Will the state force all of us to go through the gift registries for same-sex couples and buy them a blender or something? How exactly will all of us be forced to promote anything?

Laws granting “same sex marriage” equal standing with real marriages are explicitly promoting homosexual behavior and frequently force private individuals to do so as well.

Count to 10 on September 6, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Laws granting same-sex marriage promote homosexual behavior? How does that work? Do same-sex marriage laws turn heterosexuals into homosexuals? If not then how is homosexual behavior promoted by the state issuing a legal document?

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 6:36 PM

In your mind, can two biological brothers marry one another? If they love each other and truly cmomit to one another, does that fit your definition of marriage?

AJsDaddie on September 6, 2014 at 6:25 PM

What’s in any one person’s mind doesn’t really matter a whole lot because no one person makes the laws. Now if a state doesn’t want to allow incest (heterosexual or homosexual) and they can come up with a rational basis for prohibiting it then they’re free to do so, and that law would withstand a Constitutional challenge. We’ve already seen this play out, in fact. In Justice Scalia’s rather poorly thought-out and childish dissent in the Lawrence case (that’s the case that legalized sodomy) he warned that because of that decision that incest and polygamy were right around the corner. Well there was a challenge to California’s incest law about two years after Lawrence and the law easily stood up to a Constitutional challenge without any trouble at all. If legalizing homosexual sex didn’t legalize incest then there’s not much reason to think legalizing homosexual marriage will also bring about incestuous marriage. If you want more proof, look at the 19 states where same-sex couples can get married right now and in none of them have legalized incest.

If you’re really concerned with a slippery slope to incest and polygamy then don’t be; we’ve heard people, judges even, crying “Wolf!” on changes to the marriage laws since the 40s and despite their dire predictions it never seems to come to pass.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM

we’ve heard people, judges even, crying “Wolf!” on changes to the marriage laws since the 40s and despite their dire predictions it never seems to come to pass.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Bullshit.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Laws granting same-sex marriage promote homosexual behavior? How does that work? Do same-sex marriage laws turn heterosexuals into homosexuals? If not then how is homosexual behavior promoted by the state issuing a legal document?

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Maybe a better word would have been “Advocacy” in place of behavior.

We are living in a world of stunted adolescence. If traditional values are the norm, the adolescent mind advocates the opposite. Its actually just childishness. It’s like listening in on kids in grade school express how they think the world works…and then imagine that their bodies have grown up and they are in college or middle age, but their minds never evolved and they still bitterly cling to those childish views of reality.
Sad, really..well..actually kind of pathetic.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 6:52 PM

You’re back!

Remember before when we showed that you have opinions, but that your opinions are wrong and so not worth being taken seriously? I will commend you for your consistency!

From the dissenting opinion in the California Supreme Court case Perez v. Sharp challenging California’s ban on interracial marriage in 1948.

The regulation does not rest solely upon a difference in race. The question is not merely one of difference, nor of superiority or inferiority, but of consequence and result. The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages, and bigamy. (citations omitted)

So there is was. Back in 40s we were told that if we changed the marriage laws – that time to allow for mixed-race couples – we would end up with incest, incestuous marriage and polygamy. It hasn’t happened. You can call BS all you want, but you’re wrong. Completely, totally, clearly, absolutely, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt wrong. The only way you could be wronger would be to change your name to Barack Obama. Let this lesson sink in and try to learn something from it. The big takeaways for you should be that you don’t know as much as you think you do about history, the law and the important points on this issue; and to make sure to check your facts before you open your mouth and make yourself look stupid all over again. Your apology is accepted in advance.

Class dismissed.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 7:21 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Isn’t it a bit suspicious that the news article failed linking to the actual study? It’s not that linking to that study to PubMed or Nature would’ve been plagiarism. Are you sure the author’s not trying to pass off this 1995 study [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n3/abs/ng1195-248.html] as new? If so, the results have not been reproducible. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/665.short]

The “slippery slope” argument is valid because the same arguments for allowing homosexual “marriage” can be applied to incestual “marriage”. For example:

1. If it’s consensual and that they love each other, why should you care?

2. If they are both practicing safe sex, why should you care? Get out of their bedroom!

3. Some people are just that way/born that way. They can’t necessarily help whom they’re attracted to.

So, if it’s not in anyone’s place to say who they can’t marry, then we can’t object to how many they can’t, the age, or genetic similarity (familial). Age, number, and genetic similarity under this logic become arbitrary taboos.

DevilishSoda on September 6, 2014 at 8:02 PM

So there is was. Back in 40s we were told that if we changed the marriage laws – that time to allow for mixed-race couples – we would end up with incest, incestuous marriage and polygamy.

Thankfully back in the 40s we didn’t have an entire generation of liberal indoctrination in the courts and in the classrooms.

It hasn’t happened.

You don’t read much do you?

Pregressive genius, brought to you by…

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 7:21 PM

AJsDaddie on September 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Isn’t it a bit suspicious that the news article failed linking to the actual study? It’s not that linking to that study to PubMed or Nature would’ve been plagiarism. Are you sure the author’s not trying to pass off this 1995 study [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n3/abs/ng1195-248.html] as new? If so, the results have not been reproducible. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/665.short]

From what I can see the story was based off a report the PI delivered at a national meeting previewing a manuscript that, at the time the Guardian piece was written, had yet to be published. It is not someone trying to make Hamer’s work look new. A better account of the details of his talk can be accessed here:

http://www.ibtimes.com/does-gay-gene-exist-new-study-says-xq28-may-influence-male-sexual-orientation-1555564

The “slippery slope” argument is valid

Oh god, not this again.

because the same arguments for allowing homosexual “marriage” can be applied to incestual “marriage”. For example:

1. If it’s consensual and that they love each other, why should you care?

2. If they are both practicing safe sex, why should you care? Get out of their bedroom!

3. Some people are just that way/born that way. They can’t necessarily help whom they’re attracted to.

So, if it’s not in anyone’s place to say who they can’t marry, then we can’t object to how many they can’t, the age, or genetic similarity (familial). Age, number, and genetic similarity under this logic become arbitrary taboos.

DevilishSoda on September 6, 2014 at 8:02 PM

You know, I’ve got a bit of hope for you. As opposed to some of the rest of them, you might actually be smart enough to figure out why your wrong, and I’m hoping with that goes enough wisdom and humility to admit it and change your position once you realize it.

Let me ask you this:

Why should incest be illegal? I’m not asking about your personal opinion, nor am I stating my own. What I want to know is if you can comes up with a list of reasons why incest should be prohibited.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 8:32 PM

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Yeah..just checkin back now and then.

You’ve yet to make a case that extends beyond your own opinion, yet in your mind everything is clear cut and unquestionable. That condition is usually referred to as self delusion.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Alchemist wrote:
Now if a state doesn’t want to allow incest (heterosexual or homosexual) and they can come up with a rational basis for prohibiting it then they’re free to do so, and that law would withstand a Constitutional challenge.

Hmm, let me look….

Ah, yes, Baker v. Nelson. Where it was said that the federal government would not be involved in states regulating marriage.

Funny though, how do you determine a ‘rational basis’ Al? Baker shows there’s a perfectly fine reason the Federal Government shouldn’t be involved.

So there’s your ‘rational basis’ to survive a constitutional challenge.

I’m glad to see you so openly admit you’d support children marrying though. Such honesty is refreshing.

The_Livewire on September 6, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Thankfully back in the 40s we didn’t have an entire generation of liberal indoctrination in the courts and in the classrooms.

The 60s wasn’t an entire generation of liberal indoctrination in the courts and in the classrooms?

You don’t read much do you?

AJsDaddie on September 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

You don’t read your own links, do you?

That case did not deal with marriage, at least in the legal sense that we’re talking about with same-sex couples. It dealt with “religious cohabitation”. Utah laws against polygamy did not only prohibit a man from being legally married to multiple women, it also prevented married couples from sharing their living space. Under Utah law if a two-bedroom apartment was being shared by a married couple who lived in one bedroom and a single person who lived in the second bedroom to help pay the rent, the three of them could have been criminally prosecuted. The plaintiffs in that case challenged the law on the grounds that it violated their First Amendment right to freedom of religion because their beliefs called for them to be able to co-habitate. The judge ruled that, yes, the First Amendment protects them. Your link points this out. You see that thing about the “Free Exercise Clause”? That’s the First Amendment. If you read the opinion of the court rather than reading the headline and jumping to a conclusion because you think you got me you will see the judge says specifically that bigamy is still illegal in the state of Utah even after his ruling.

Now you’re probably not understanding why same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the religious cohabitation case you cite. All of the successful challenges to same-sex marriage statutes have been ruled on on equal protection grounds; that is, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with some going farther to say they violate the Due Process Clause as well. The Utah law was ruled to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If you want to try to blame the fall of Utah’s religious cohabitation law on the advancement of same-sex marriage then you would have to point out developments in law after same-sex marriage cases (which, remember, have all be equal protection cases) lead to the later development in the religious cohabitation case. But you can’t because the rulings are different. The polygamists won by hiding behind their religion; same-sex couples have not done so. The two are not related and your argument has no substance.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Yeah..just checkin back now and then.

You’ve yet to make a case that extends beyond your own opinion, yet in your mind everything is clear cut and unquestionable. That condition is usually referred to as self delusion.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 8:47 PM

There you go with those opinions of yours again. Look, I’m human and I understand human nature; if I’d stepped in it like you did and made myself look as foolish as you have I get the temptation to not slink away with my tail between my legs but to instead try to save face any way possible. And I’m really a nice guy who has compassion for people so I’ll tell you what. I’ll give you one free ad hominem attack on me. You may fire when ready.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Alchemist wrote:
Now if a state doesn’t want to allow incest (heterosexual or homosexual) and they can come up with a rational basis for prohibiting it then they’re free to do so, and that law would withstand a Constitutional challenge.

Hmm, let me look….

Ah, yes, Baker v. Nelson. Where it was said that the federal government would not be involved in states regulating marriage.

Baker was a summary dismissal, which is not binding if significant doctrinal developments occur afterward so as to cast doubt on its validity. If you listen to the Prop 8 oral arguments the lawyers fighting for the referendum cited Baker and were told in no uncertain terms that there’s not much to be gained from that summary dismissal any longer, and that was before the Windsor opinion.

Funny though, how do you determine a ‘rational basis’ Al? Baker shows there’s a perfectly fine reason the Federal Government shouldn’t be involved.

So there’s your ‘rational basis’ to survive a constitutional challenge.

I’m glad to see you so openly admit you’d support children marrying though. Such honesty is refreshing.

The_Livewire on September 6, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Should the federal government not have been able to get involved with the states regulating marriage like they did in 1967 when they struck down the state laws against interracial marriage in the Loving case?

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 9:06 PM

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Your reasonings continue to be weak and repetitive. Adding ad hominems doesn’t make them any stronger.

You know who determined that a man and a women make the best unit for a family and the best combination to raise a child and a stable social order? Nature. Nature made the case for this arrangement. A speck in cultural time cannot handwave that away. To raise a child..which is the backbone of a continuing society, a man and a women is hands down the best arrangement.
To arbitrarily remove that barrier is foolish. Is that opinion? No. That is history. That is objective and observable reality. To remove a barrier without understanding why that barrier was established in the first place is foolish. Grow up and put the ideological tantrums on the shelf. There are no barriers on who someone can associate with, live with, or love. Why not stop acting like the persecuted victim.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Should the federal government not have been able to get involved with the states regulating marriage like they did in 1967 when they struck down the state laws against interracial marriage in the Loving case?

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 9:06 PM

The attempt to equate interracial marriage to gay “marriage” is specious at best. It was an affirmation of the right of a man to marry a woman.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Your reasonings continue to be weak

Yet strong enough to defeat your arguments.

and repetitive.

If an argument is strong and credible, as mine are, they’re worth repeating as needed.

Adding ad hominems doesn’t make them any stronger.

I was offering to let you launch an ad hominem attack on me, to which I was offering not to respond because ad hominems might be the best you can manage against me.

You know who determined that a man and a women make the best unit for a family and the best combination to raise a child and a stable social order? Nature. Nature made the case for this arrangement. A speck in cultural time cannot handwave that away.

No one is trying to handwave it away.

To raise a child..which is the backbone of a continuing society, a man and a women is hands down the best arrangement.

Yet all reputable investigations on that question – read the ASA’s brief and the references contained therein if you want to see it for yourself – says that it isn’t necessary for optimal outcomes.

To arbitrarily remove that barrier is foolish. Is that opinion? No.

That is opinion, another one of which is not supported by facts. Like I said, at least you’re consistent.

That is history. That is objective and observable reality. To remove a barrier without understanding why that barrier was established in the first place is foolish. Grow up and put the ideological tantrums on the shelf. There are no barriers on who someone can associate with, live with, or love. Why not stop acting like the persecuted victim.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Since I know you won’t read the ASA brief or the references they cite so you won’t examine the data collected on the subject for yourself, I will forget for a moment that I suggested you educate yourself. Heck, I’ll even accept your premise that one man and one woman is indeed optimal and no other combination is as good. To be clear: that premise has been shown to be false but just for the sake of argument we are going to pretend it is true.

So now that we’re pretending that one man and one woman is optimal for a family and nothing else is as good, we have to consider whether two men or two women being suboptimal for raising children is justification to exclude those arrangements from accessing the legal status of civil marriage. If so then what else can other couples likely to produce sub-optimal results in child rearing similarly be excluded? We will forbid gay couples from legally marrying because children raised in those homes don’t fair as well but would we also forbid marriage of black couples if children raised in those homes don’t fair as well? Would we forbid marriage of rural people? Southern people? People without college degrees? If we can fence gay people off from marriage on that basis then why not those other groups as well?

As a final reminder, the above hypothetical was presented based on the premise that male-male or female-female couples were suboptimal when it came to raising children despite the fact it has been demonstrated that children raised in such homes fair equally as well.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 10:26 PM

The attempt to equate interracial marriage to gay “marriage” is specious at best. It was an affirmation of the right of a man to marry a woman.

Mimzey on September 6, 2014 at 9:39 PM

We can get to the lack of speciousness later. For now I’m just trying to establish whether or not the person who posted that has a problem with the concept of the federal government invalidating a state’s marriage statutes like they did in Loving.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 10:28 PM

The 60s wasn’t an entire generation of liberal indoctrination in the courts and in the classrooms?

Yes, yes they were.

You don’t read much do you?

AJsDaddie on September 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM

You don’t read your own links, do you?

Yes I do. Polygamy is on its way.

AJsDaddie on September 6, 2014 at 11:23 PM

Yes I do. Polygamy is on its way.

AJsDaddie on September 6, 2014 at 11:23 PM

You’re free to say that, and you’re free to believe that, but unless you have some evidence to support that bit of speculation then no one should make the mistake of taking you seriously or even believing a single word you say.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 11:43 PM

You’re free to say that, and you’re free to believe that, but unless you have some evidence to support that bit of speculation then no one should make the mistake of taking you seriously or even believing a single word you say.

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 11:43 PM

I have evidence and I’ve linked to it. There will be more lawsuits. You invited this. Embrace the suck.

AJsDaddie on September 7, 2014 at 12:53 AM

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM

I’ll ask again – why should I produce the citations you demand, when you’ve flat out stated that you’d reject the evidence regardless?

I do find it amusing that you think you have even a shred of credibility left, and you are seemingly unaware that the folks who are arguing with you now are merely toying with you.

Rebar on September 7, 2014 at 1:30 AM

I have evidence and I’ve linked to it. There will be more lawsuits. You invited this. Embrace the suck.

AJsDaddie on September 7, 2014 at 12:53 AM

What you’ve linked to is not evidence supporting the notion of a slippery slope we are doomed to slide down once same-sex marriage is legal in the remaining 31 holdout states. There might be court cases – there is nothing stopping a would-be polygamist from filing a lawsuit today – but if there are such cases they will succeed or fail on their own merits. Same-sex marriage is legal today in 19 states and none of them have been forced to legalize polygamy as well. We were first warned by dissenting judges back in 1948 that legalized polygamy was next as soon as we started striking down parts of the marriage restrictions and it hasn’t happened. Your citing a First Amendment Case in something dealing with Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence betrays your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the law in this country, and that strains your overall credibility.

To be absolutely clear about things: You have presented just as much evidence to support the notion “Once gay marriage is legal then polygamy is inevitable as well,” as you have provided to support the notion that there are monsters under our beds who are going to come get us. Now I don’t doubt that you might earnestly believe that there are monsters under the bed and that those monsters are going to get us, but for those of us who care about things like facts and evidence, your suggestions aren’t very believable.

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 1:42 AM

I’ll ask again – why should I produce the citations you demand, when you’ve flat out stated that you’d reject the evidence regardless?

I won’t reject any evidence at all so long as it’s credible and applicable. I’m not sure if that smell I’m detecting from you is fear or shame; maybe it’s a bit of both.

I do find it amusing that you think you have even a shred of credibility left, and you are seemingly unaware that the folks who are arguing with you now are merely toying with you.

Rebar on September 7, 2014 at 1:30 AM

At this point everyone who’s left except for possibly DevilishSoda is like the black knight threatening to bite my legs off. There doesn’t seem to be a thimbleful of legal knowledge between the rest of the lot, and if any of them really do think they’ve made a point then that just means they’re not smart enough to know they’ve been outclassed.

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 1:49 AM

Why should incest be illegal? I’m not asking about your personal opinion, nor am I stating my own. What I want to know is if you can comes up with a list of reasons why incest should be prohibited.

Making something legal makes something socially acceptable, whereas criminalizing/making something illegal makes it socially unacceptable. Generally, this is based on whether the cost exceeds the benefit. Obviously, it’s not always the case, but it’s essentially perceived net societal benefit.

Based on the characteristics of incestual couplings, such relationships are pointless at best.

Heterosexual incestual relationships can produce children. Some of the children born to incestual couples do, in fact, get lucky on not getting severe genetic diseases, depending what percentage of DNA they share. Still, it’s unnecessary and avoidable to put potential children at risk for disorders.

Okay, then why not practice safe sex? Yes, but many practices and medications such still have failure rates. So, let’s say one sibling impregnates the other (consensual), despite practicing safe sex and the failure rate was only 0.01%. The fetus would likely have to be aborted. All right, so what was the entire point of having sex? The siblings knew pregnancy was a possibility, and would have to kill a fetus. What, is it “just because”?

Let’s say that the couple wasn’t even aware of it, that the body aborted it spontaneously because of a chromosomal abnormality. Again, it raises the question of why, especially if the couple were aware of this possibility.

Okay, maybe they were having sex to bond. I’m aware of the hormones that are released during and after sex, but it’s not the end-all-be-all, since there are many “serial cheaters” and men seeking prostitutes. There are other ways to bond too, like cuddling, but why resort to incestual sex that can produce negative consequences to a fetus?

That’s not including the potential sexual tensions within the family. That could very easily mess up a family unit, regardless whether the couple is fertile.

Really, you’re forced to come to the conclusion that an incestual relationship is based on misplaced lust or some mental/emotional problem.

But wait! If we’re criminalizing incest to prevent defects, why not criminalize other people with defects from having sexual relations? A few reasons. Parents who have ~25-50% DNA will predictably and usually cause irreversible, sometimes lethal, and difficult-to-treat/cure defects in the children. Other diseases are more difficult to predict and can be spontaneous mutations and/or the parents don’t know they’re carriers. Parents who have diseases/or are carriers might not even know they’re diseases in the first place. Or that the family history could be too far back and might not be recorded or misdiagnosed.

Based on incest’s M.O., there’s no logical reason to have it socially acceptable or legal, especially in regards to marriage.

I might’ve missed something somewhere, but I didn’t want to make it long-winded or have the browser eat up my post. I’ll try to reply on other points later.

DevilishSoda on September 7, 2014 at 3:22 AM

DevilishSoda on September 7, 2014 at 3:22 AM

Wow. I would honestly, truly like to commend you. I’ve put the question I put to you to others before and no one has been willing and able to answer it but you took it head-on and answered perfectly. It’s amazingly refreshing. Please don’t think I’m being cute or sarcastic or anything here; as you can see these threads attract a number of people who are long on passion but shorter on knowledge and understanding and thus the level of “debate” is lowered considerably but you seem like the exception to the general rule. I don’t know what to say beyond “Thank you.”

I also agree with what you said. I didn’t think it was too hard to come up with reasons to oppose incest but you’re the first who I can remember trying and your answer knocked it out of the park. I would only add on thing to it, and it’s something that came up a few years ago when a man in California was prosecuted for incest with his daughter and he challenged the Constitutionality of the state incest law -which was of course upheld. There’s a natural power dynamic or hierarchy present within a family where parents are above or more powerful than their children, older siblings are above younger siblings, etc. Because of that natural power stemming from familial roles the court reasoned it is difficult for the less powerful person to give consent to a more powerful person who is desires to have the incestuous relationship. So there’s one more thing for your list.

But here’s the rub.

All of the very excellent reasons you gave for incestuous relationships to be illegal come from the unique features of incestuous relationships and are not present in same-sex relationships. The reasoning the California court gave when upholding their incest statutes similarly applies to incest but not to same-sex relationships. Just as those features of incest are present today, so will they be present even after same-sex marriage is legalized in the remaining 31 states.

Now about that slippery slope. Activists who are on my side of the issue use phrases like “Love is love,” or whatever as a way to try to persuade people but honestly “Love is love,” is a terrible legal argument; if that were the crux of the legal push for marriage rights for same-sex couples and if courts were ruling for them on that basis then the slippery slope would have some merit but that’s not the way it works. The way it works when any law’s Constitutionality is questioned – be it a law against same-sex marriage, against incest or the Obamacare contraception mandate – the person suing claims what specifically in the Constitution the offending law violates and then the state goes to court and argues why the law is Constitutional. For a slippery slope of striking down one law leading directly to striking down another we would necessarily be considering the same clause of the Constitution being used to challenge both laws. All the same-sex marriage rulings have been based on violations of the Equal Protection Clause, so that’s where we will focus our attention. To have a law struck down as an unconstitutional violation of that particular clause the person bringing the suit would have to show they’re being discriminated against. Both the same-sex couple and the incestuous couple can do that pretty easily, so now it’s up to the state to justify their discriminatory law. The legal standards we’ve developed since passing the Fourteenth Amendment say that if the state can present to the court a rational basis for their discriminatory law then the law will stand and if not it will be struck down. A state having their incest law challenged in court could basically copy and paste your post, call it good at that, and win their case before lunch. A state having their same-sex marriage prohibition challenged is…. going to have to think a little bit harder. In the end the incest laws will stand for all the reasons you gave while the same-sex marriage laws like the interracial marriage laws before them will fall because there is simply no reason for those laws to exist in the first place.

The troubles with incest are inherent to the practice; they are never going away. They provide ample rational basis to sustain state incest laws against equal protection challenges. That is why there is no slippery slope from same-sex marriage to incestuous marriage.

QED

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 5:42 AM

Perhaps the homo v hetero thing is more about self-validation and social acceptance than Some may care to admit. The homo agenda in forefront for years may be simply a social phenom amid the other turmoils presently _facing_ people in current times. Jackals and hyenas also have their place/s in the animal world; that doesn’t mean All animals have to validate or ‘like’ them — they simply Are.

Similarly, that there exist among our midst other-than-historically-Normal types, is nothing new. What is aggravating about the homo agenda tho, is them pushing legislation and formerly-credible judicial agents to force the rest of us to “accept” it as _normal_ when logic et al conflict with proven biological evidence of its non-normalcy.

One cannot prove true that which is false. Ergo, all fallacies will be proven false. My wish would be, Sooner rather than later.

BTW, attempting to equate homos with “G_d-given” talents is an abomination, and strikes as yet another Cheap attempt to discredit the Original Giver of Life, as well as potentially dicey (given final judgment theory and Long-held belief) for those who may espouse such nonsense, as in, “Where were you when the world was begun, so that you may legitimately claim a hand in its Divine Design?”

Society may well be crumbling for those who wish it to; however, do Not think you will take down the rest of us with you! Go it alone, or don’t go there.

KissMyAmericanFlag on September 7, 2014 at 6:35 AM

alchemist19 on September 6, 2014 at 10:26 PM

Too many fallacies to bother with. You can’t reason a person out of a position that wasn’t reasoned into in the first place..and verbose opinion is not reason.

8 am here and looks like this thread was still active most of the night and the assumed basis of gays having their “rights” violated by not being able to marry has yet to be established….and thats the whole basis of the case.

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

I’m re-posting this from the Louisianna ‘same sex marriage’ thread, since that thread is about to disappear from the front page. It’s worthy of a response, but I haven’t had the time.
.

“Christian Bible standards of morality” are NOT equivalent to “Sharia law.”

The Founding Fathers chose Christian Bible moral standards, because they worked whenever they were enforced. Our biggest problems early on in the history of the U.S. were when government didn’t enforce these standards on ITSELF (allowing institutionalized slavery, treating the native tribal Americans inhumanely AFTER breaking treaties that had been made with them, etc).

Moral standards have to be ‘uniform’ (or “standard”), otherwise you have anarchy.

listens2glenn on September 4, 2014 at 8:09 PM

.
The problem with that is… eventually the courts start scrutinizing those standards, and they’ll get to those rules that have no legitimate reasoning to them other than “God said so” and justifiably strike them down. That’s why we can have laws against murder, rape and slavery – they run afoul of the Constitution’s protections to “life, liberty and property” – but strike down the laws against homosexual activity between consenting adults or government recognition of same-sex marriage, since the Equal Protection Clause has been proven in court to cover those two issues.

TMOverbeck on September 6, 2014 at 10:35 AM

listens2glenn on September 7, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Perhaps the homo v hetero thing is more about self-validation and social acceptance than Some may care to admit . . . . . .

KissMyAmericanFlag on September 7, 2014 at 6:35 AM

.
I’m going to say “yes.”

listens2glenn on September 7, 2014 at 9:18 AM

I won’t reject any evidence at all so long as it’s credible and applicable.

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 1:49 AM

Now you are simply out-and-out, bald faced lying.

You understand readers can go back and read you post wherein you flat out stated there is no evidence that will convince you?

Your feeble attempt to simply pretend you didn’t post what you did, is ludicrous. But don’t worry, we all already know you progressives are all liars.

Rebar on September 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Too many fallacies to bother with.

So you can’t raise any specific objections to what I said. Hey, maybe you’re learning!

You can’t reason a person out of a position that wasn’t reasoned into in the first place..

That’s my line. Hey, you are learning! There may be hope for you yet! :D

and verbose opinion is not reason.

True. Reason is reason, and my rather verbose posts are full of reason.

8 am here and looks like this thread was still active most of the night and the assumed basis of gays having their “rights” violated by not being able to marry has yet to be established….and thats the whole basis of the case.

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Um, are you denying that same-sex couples cannot get legally married in 31 states?

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Now you are simply out-and-out, bald faced lying.

Really? Where?

You understand readers can go back and read you post wherein you flat out stated there is no evidence that will convince you?

There might be people who have said there is no evidence that will convince them but I don’t think I was one of them. But then again you’ve had no luck posting anything to support your claims before when challenged to do so, so I’m not hopeful you will do any better now. Besides, even if hypothetically you could find me saying something like that, and I’m very doubtful you can, it would only serve as a distraction from the thread topic by making the discussion about me personally instead of the issue. I’m wondering if maybe it’s starting to sink in that you can’t discuss the issue so now you’re reduced to finding anything to draw attention from your lack of a solid argument or reasoning to support your preconceived notions.

Your feeble attempt to simply pretend you didn’t post what you did, is ludicrous. But don’t worry, we all already know you progressives are all liars.

Rebar on September 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM

I’m a libertarian, not a progressive and that’s an ad hominem. You’re still trying to distract from the topic. Does this mean you’ve surrendered on the subject of the thread, maybe because you realized you don’t have a leg to stand on?

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

.
Um, are you denying that same-sex couples cannot get legally married in 31 states?

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM

.
Yes, I am . . . . . what the government/state says about it, be damned.

It’s not a “marriage,” just because some “black-robed bench-sitter” says it is, and must be accepted, as such.

It’s a “civil union” . . . . . period.

listens2glenn on September 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM

You’re a legend in your own mind. You have been repeatedly spanked in this thread and you don’t realize it. Why should anyone bother? What difference, at this point, does it make?

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 3:58 PM

While Posner makes a case for gay marriage, he failed to say why a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. If one looks at the text of the marriage bans, at least the ones passed by referendum or constitutional amendment, they do not mention homosexuality. Instead, they forbid all men, gay or straight, from marrying other men; and they forbid all women, gay or straight, from marrying other women. So where is the discrimination against a minority?

J Baustian on September 7, 2014 at 4:32 PM

You’re a legend in your own mind. You have been repeatedly spanked in this thread and you don’t realize it. Why should anyone bother? What difference, at this point, does it make?

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 3:58 PM

You’re trying to make me the issue rather than let the issue be the issue. That’s the sure sign of someone who deep-down thinks they’ve won an argument.

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Instead, they forbid all men, gay or straight, from marrying other men; and they forbid all women, gay or straight, from marrying other women. So where is the discrimination against a minority?

J Baustian on September 7, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Because they are going to argue that it has a disparate effect on gays, a “protected group”.

This is the absurdity that comes from free-association type thinking, the only way to ensure “equal protection” and argue that a lack of equal treatment is a lack of equal protection , is to create a special protected groups, who receive the protection of the law, which is an unequal treatment from individual to individual, and thus arguably a lack of equal protection, if treatment is protection.

Which is why we have ourselves in a predicament that less and less self-government is going to take place and more and more rules of the Expert Class will take its place.

Axeman on September 7, 2014 at 5:11 PM

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Delusional. You’re projecting again.

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Delusional. You’re projecting again.

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM

While I have at various times pointed out how your opinions do not conform with facts and used that as a basis to call you ignorant (because that’s what it means to not know the facts) I’ve largely kept things non-personal. All objections you’ve made have been met by me with reason, logic and facts to support my case. You have not been able to answer direct questions about your position put to you in the manner I’ve had questions put to me, and that’s on top of the aforementioned ignorance you have demonstrated which I brought to light. It’s well beyond time for you to tuck your tail, slink away and go lick your wounds yet here you still are. It almost appears that since you can’t make any points of substance you’re trying to save your pride by at least getting the last word in, even if the last word lacks substance just as much as everything else you’ve said so far. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

Also please be mindful of the fact that I don’t hold you to be ignorant or stupid just because of your position on this issue. DevilishSoda, for example, appears to disagree with me on this issue just like you do but s/he is clearly intelligent, has kept the discussion centered around the issue rather than making it personal, hasn’t said anything provably false – as far as I’ve noticed at least, and I think we’ve had a largely productive discussion because of it. That said, DevilishSoda is wrong on the issue but intelligence and thoughtfulness were never questions for me. You though…..

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 7:40 PM

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Childish.

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Childish.

Mimzey on September 7, 2014 at 10:01 PM

It’s childish that all you can do is call names instead of intelligently discussing the issue? On that, we agree.

alchemist19 on September 7, 2014 at 10:51 PM

It appears I’ll have to settle this in the usual fashion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Everyone who agrees with me is right

The rest of you are WRONG !
.
.
.
There’s nothing on this earth worse than a Christian with a “superiority complex.”
.
But thank God … I’m not one of those . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aren’t chy’all relieved to know that ?

listens2glenn on September 8, 2014 at 1:17 AM

Wow. I would honestly, truly like to commend you. I’ve put the question I put to you to others before and no one has been willing and able to answer it but you took it head-on and answered perfectly. It’s amazingly refreshing. Please don’t think I’m being cute or sarcastic or anything here; as you can see these threads attract a number of people who are long on passion but shorter on knowledge and understanding and thus the level of “debate” is lowered considerably but you seem like the exception to the general rule. I don’t know what to say beyond “Thank you.”

Thank you, and you’re welcome!

Activists who are on my side of the issue use phrases like “Love is love,” or whatever as a way to try to persuade people but honestly “Love is love,” is a terrible legal argument; if that were the crux of the legal push for marriage rights for same-sex couples and if courts were ruling for them on that basis then the slippery slope would have some merit but that’s not the way it works.

That’s a big part of the problem. The loudest of the activists are arguing based on “love is love”, as well as:
1. Homosexuality is great for population control.
2. Homosexual marriages will stimulate the economy, as more couples will be paying taxes.
3. Interracial marriages were prohibited; why are ours?
4. Homosexual couples can raise families just as well as heterosexual couples can.
5. The divorce rate is 50%, so clearly heterosexual marriages aren’t working well.

Based on #1′s logic, then we shouldn’t try to stop serial killers or vaccinate as much as we can.

#2: Taxes don’t stimulate an economy. It’s consumers with disposable income spending on frivolous things, like gold-plated pens. Also, it’s illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation for employment.

#3: Racial appearance is not the same as a sexual behavior. Yes, some diseases are more prevalent in certain races, but they’re mostly dermatological and the ones that aren’t can be acquired by other races because of a specific biological pressure in an area, i.e. malaria. The arguments against interracial marriage back then were based on a supposed overall genetic inferiority of blacks, which is clearly not true. And, well, some people just love to hate. You could argue that interracial marriages are good on a strictly genetic basis, as it can increase genetic diversity. Sometimes, though, skin color and skeletal structure doesn’t comprise much DNA.

#4: This is where things get hairy. Supposedly there was “good quality” science for and against this, but that all depends what you’re measuring for ideal parenthood. There’s maturity, income level, education, lack of abuse/neglect, overall family health/how well the parents can provide, and dozens of other variables. The question is whether we can sufficiently study this and have all variables be the same with the exception of sexual orientation.

#5: Last I checked, it was an overall divorce rate regardless of years together and not based on sexual orientation.

The problem with the Equal Protection Clause is that it’s vague and therefore it isn’t clear what constitutes as unconstitutional. To me, the vagueness is on par with “boost the immune system”, but I digress.

My problem with homosexual marriage is I don’t see a reason to recognize their relationships as overall beneficial to society.
As I’ve mentioned before, there are claims that homosexuality is for population control. This makes no sense, humanity wouldn’t have developed so many defenses to protect its vital and reproductive organs. Some biologists think that the reason we age is because cancer was more important/deadly; don’t you think our immune systems would be weaker if we really needed population control? Apparently, there was a study that those related to homosexuals produced more children. That defeats the purpose of population control.

I’ve considered the idea that homosexual relationships control the population just enough so humanity still maintains a healthy population. But I’m skeptical on this.

So, let’s say the current LBG global population is 3%. I’m just basing this off “high” estimates. Gays and lesbians seem to outnumber the bisexuals, so I’ll estimate it as 1.25% gays and lesbians with 0.5% bisexuals.

The current population is 7.2 billion, and there are 2-7 children per parent globally. Estimated gay and lesbian population is 180 million. So, the gays and lesbians prevented anywhere from 360 million to 1.2 billion children.

But bisexuals have a chance of reproducing. I really don’t know what the chances are for bisexuals producing children. Perhaps half, depending on the fidelity or divorce rate.

We might be looking at a maximum of 1.2 billion from being born. But, the bisexuality part–as well as adoption and whether those adoptees will be heterosexual–confounds things.
Another confounding factor: whether gays and lesbians will become bisexual or heterosexual.

Obviously, lots of unknowns, but I’m leaning more towards “no, the LG population (at least alone) isn’t sufficient to control overpopulation”. Overall, it’s a weak argument to claim homosexual relationships are beneficial in that way.

The crux, to me, is why I should find homosexual sex itself as socially beneficial or at least “normal”. Really, what’s the point of it? Anal sex carries infectious risks, and those who are gay, that’s a major way they can express themselves. Lesbians don’t as much, but they can if they participate in deep kissing or oral sex. Even if they practice “safe sex”, there’s still a possibility of transmitting the diseases, as no sexual practice is 100% safe. So, are they doing it to bond? If it’s true that LGB have more partners than heterosexuals, that sexual bonding isn’t working so well, and why must the LGB community must “insist” sexual bonding’s the answer. I’ve heard arguments that legalizing homosexual marriage will increase fidelity, but they can’t just seriously commit to someone in another way? I see that the costs are greater than the benefits, overall.

I’ll wrap it up here for now. It’s been great to debate with you, and I haven’t been this engaged looong time to say the least. I wish more people would just put more time into debates, but perhaps they don’t have the time.

DevilishSoda on September 8, 2014 at 4:06 AM

DevilishSoda on September 8, 2014 at 4:06 AM

.
WOW . . . . . I had to read your reply to alchemist19 (on September 7, 2014 at 5:42 AM), to find the words to answer TMOverbeck. Very well said.
.

listens2glenn on September 4, 2014 at 8:09

.
The problem with that is… eventually the courts start scrutinizing those standards, and they’ll get to those rules that have no legitimate reasoning to them other than “God said so” and justifiably strike them down. That’s why we can have laws against murder, rape and slavery – they run afoul of the Constitution’s protections to “life, liberty and property” – but strike down the laws against homosexual activity between consenting adults or government recognition of same-sex marriage, since the Equal Protection Clause has been proven in court to cover those two issues.

TMOverbeck on September 6, 2014 at 10:35 AM


.
My apologies for being so slow in responding to your very thoughtful comment.

I know with the utmost confidence, that there are perfectly “legitimate”, and ‘logical’ reasons for opposing “government enforced, societal acceptance of homosexuality, as a valid, legitimately ‘normal’ condition”, besides “God said so.”

I started to respond to you twice, then cancelled the responses … because in proof-reading them, they seemed so grossly ‘insufficient’. I simply couldn’t put my ‘mental pictures’ into words.

DevilishSoda has found the words, that I could not. So out of mental insuffiency (or laziness, or both — take your pick), I defer to DevilishSoda’s comment above

listens2glenn on September 8, 2014 at 12:13 PM

DevilishSoda on September 8, 2014 at 4:06 AM

The five reasons you cite initially are again reasons people might give in an attempt to win hearts and minds. Legally though it’s not necessary to go there; it can help, but it’s the state who has to give some justification for its discriminatory law. After Romer it’s difficult to justify discriminating against a unpopular group just for the sake of discriminating against them. If you can present some rational reason for discriminating then the state is fine but unless and until they can they’re doomed. And they can’t, or at least they haven’t been able to so far.

There are some other interesting legal precedents at work in this case. I think we can start by agreeing that a gay person is in fact a person entitled to the same rights under the law as any other American citizen. The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that there is a fundamental right to marry that is protected by the Due Process Clause. That leads to me ask: What is the substance of the right to marry for a homosexual person? We don’t really want gay people marrying straight people, do we? Would the marriage of a heterosexual – who has presumably been duped by a person who concealed their sexual orientation – to a homosexual likely to be the kind of loving, caring, committed, faithful relationship that we expect from a marriage? The high-profile example of former Governor of New Jersey Jim McGreevey suggests the answer is “No.” Judge Posner pointed out in his opinion that a ban on same-sex marriage removes from homosexuals the entire field of partners from which they might pick to find a spouse. That, he points out, in a way makes these laws even more odious that the interracial marriage bans of 50 years ago. If a fundamental right to marriage exists and the right is protected by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has said that there is, then these laws are infringing on the Constitutionally-protected rights of a certain segment of the population for no legally-justifyable reason at all that anyone can articulate.

The parenting issue is a red herring. Even if it were true that same-sex couples will on average not do as good a job at opposite-sex couples when it comes to raising children, optimal child-rearing skills has never been a necessary qualification to obtain the legal status of civil marriage. If we could exclude same-sex couples from marriage just because they, as a group, perform sub-optimally at rearing children then could we also exclude African-Americans from marriage on an identical basis if children raised in those homes were found to perform sub-optimally? Could we exclude rural people from marriage on that basis? Southerners? Gun owners? People without college degrees?

If you do want a good summary of the research on same-sex parenting with citations then I strongly encourage you to check out the amicus brief filed by the American Sociological Association in the Windsor case last year. They examine the research in support of same-sex couples as well as the few papers cited by the opposition in offering a strong and well-reasoned synopsis for the Court.
http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

I’m not aware if needing to justify ones sex life as socially beneficial has ever been a barrier to the legal status of civil marriage either, especially in a post-Griswold world. Indiana allows marriage of first cousins if both parties are over the age of 65 and I’m at a loss on the social benefit of that couple’s sex life, yet their marriage can be legally recognized all the same. Let’s brainstorm for a bit though and see if maybe we can come up with a something to satisfy the question though. First consider the reality that there is no legal impediment to homosexuals – male or female – having sex. The Lawrence case saw to that years ago. So now what do we do with the homosexual segment of the population? You are quite right that anal sex (be it heterosexual or homosexual) is more apt to transmit disease than vaginal sex or oral sex, and gay men in particular probably have a disproportionately high amount of anal sex and thus are at higher risk for contracting and spreading some diseases, including HIV. If you focus strictly on the act of sex though you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. There is nothing inherently dangerous about heterosexual or homosexual anal sex; if both members of a couple – gay or straight – are disease free, there’s no IV drug use and there is no infidelity then they can have anal sex every day for the rest of their lives and there is zero chance at all of them contracting HIV or any other STD you can think of. So in the interest of public health it would seem to me it would be useful to try to channel the homosexual minority into stable, lasting, committed, faithful relationships, i.e.: marriage. Marriage of course doesn’t guarantee fidelity for homosexuals any more than it does for heterosexuals as certain ex-presidents have so clearly demonstrated, but it’s a step in the right direction. Making marriage available gives same-sex couples something to aspire to as opposed to a lifetime of dating. Hold up successful stable gay couples as role models (Andrew Sullivan comes to mind) and embrace them rather than trying to make their lives more difficult. The opportunity is there to prove a counter to the homosexual counter-culture and marriage is a part of that.

alchemist19 on September 8, 2014 at 4:13 PM

DevilishSoda on September 8, 2014 at 4:06 AM

The five reasons you cite initially are again reasons people might give in an attempt to win hearts and minds. Legally though it’s not necessary to go there; it can help, but it’s the state who has to give some justification for its discriminatory law.

alchemist19 on September 8, 2014 at 4:13 PM

.
Nope . . . . . it’s the “same-sex marriage” proponents who have to justify redefining marriage.
.
Government tax benefits, and medical insurance benefits are insufficient/not good enough.

Government enforced, societal acceptance of homosexuality, as a valid, legitimate, normal condition is unacceptable.

listens2glenn on September 10, 2014 at 8:33 PM

DevilishSoda on September 8, 2014 at 4:06 AM

The five reasons you cite initially are again reasons people might give in an attempt to win hearts and minds. Legally though it’s not necessary to go there; it can help, but it’s the state who has to give some justification for its discriminatory law.

alchemist19 on September 8, 2014 at 4:13 PM

.
Nope . . . . . it’s the “same-sex marriage” proponents who have to justify redefining marriage.
.
Government tax benefits, and medical insurance benefits are insufficient/not good enough.

Government enforced, societal acceptance of homosexuality, as a valid, legitimate, normal condition is unacceptable.

listens2glenn on September 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6