Just to clear up a minor error that a few people have made here: married homosexuals can have children without adopting, since "homosexuals" come in both male and female flavors. I'm friends with a lesbian couple who have two children of their own - artificial insemination, I assume, although it's really no one's business but theirs. I also know several women and one man who had biological children from heterosexual relationships, then later married someone of the same sex. Again, adoption is not the only way that a homosexual couple can come to have children.
Waggie, what exactly was Prohibition (Amendment XVIII) if not restricting one's rights? What exactly was the Fugitive Slave clause (Article IV, section 2, second paragraph) if not discrimination against a group of people? Or the bit about counting Negroes as 3/5 of a person for purposes of calculating apportionment (Article I, section 2)? (I won't get into Amendment XVI here... ) I only bring this up because you've posted several times in this thread that neither the original Constitution nor any subsequent amendments ever restricted anyone's rights. This is clearly not true. Justice Ginsburg's statement as quoted earlier in this thread would be more accurate: "The story of our Constitution is the extension of constitutional rights to people formerly ignored or excluded." All of this is legalistic quibbling on my part, and not contributing to the main discussion, as I'm in complete agreement with you on everything else you've written here. This is indeed a civil rights issue and will in time be decided on that basis. And you're absolutely right to point out that we live in a society based on law and not simple majority rule.
The legalization of gay marriage will certainly open pandora's box. Polygamists will come out of the wood work and demand their rights.
Alfonso, I have no problem conceding this point. I'm actually in agreement with you that legitimizing gay marriage will lead to a substantial increase in homosexuality in America. In fact, the growing acceptance and visibility of gays in our society is already doing this. You are correct in predicting that children will feel more freedom to experiment, will often choose to emulate gay parents and teachers, and that many will ultimately decide that they prefer to be with partners of the same sex. Human sexuality is a malleable thing and while genetics plays a huge part, it is not all-deciding. So what? What is wrong with people having the freedom to make this choice for themselves?
how boring already! The issue is do homosexuals deserve equality or do we legally make an exception becuase they don't fit our aesthetic moral ideals? Rather than monogamy, gays often have many <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=sex&v=55">sex</a> partners which helps spread disease. If gays were encouraged to be monogamous I think there would be a great change in the amount of <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=gay&v=55">gay</a> <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=sex&v=55">sex</a> occuring because of marriages. As far as child rearing, maybe it will be more acceptable to experiment in homosexual activity, but so what. We have a population crisis. And on average gays are more intelligent than heterosexual males therefore more productive (I cannot support the prior sentence with any statistical evidence).
People are saying that if gays show themselves as normal, others will follow. Can anyone provide research to back up this claim? Do facts just support the case that openness among gay people will produce more gay people? NY and SF have had open environments for gay people for quite some time and there are no more home grown gay people %wise in these cities than others. The gay population in New York and San Francisco is probably comprised mostly of people who have moved to these areas because of lifestyle choices. What is true is that anti gay bais stifles expression of gay identity. But will lack of antigay bias produce more gays? It sounds like we're comparing gay people to weeds. If we don't use poison, they'll take over the fields. Is there anyone here who claims that the recognition of Gay marriages will cause a rise in the numbers of gays be willing to admit that they would have chosen to be gay were it not for the climate of moral antipathy to homosexuality when he was growing up?
Being pro marrriage for man and a women is not anti gay. When I lived in a community with a lot of gays I had gay friends and numerous gay acquaintiances. I have got no problem with gays. But I am getting pissed at the ones who are not satisfied restruturing their society but trying to restructure mine. A marriage is between one man and one women. Why not just lobby for gayiage or even take over a new word like elite or something. This is my ashley were "elite".
Please forgive me for leaving out an important word in my phrasing above . . . A Constitutional Amendment has never been used to discriminate against a group of people. In any event, thank you for your kind words and support. I really do believe that this is a States Rights and Civil Rights issue. Besides, why would I, as a heterosexual male feel "threatened" by a gay male or female couple that have been living together in a commited relationship for the last several years?
>I have got no problem with gays. But I am getting pissed >at the ones who are not satisfied restruturing their society >but trying to restructure mine. This is the height of absurdity(and selfishness)...they are in no way trying to restructure "your society". At worst (through your eyes) they are trying to restructure *OUR* society of which they are a valid portion, and at best they aren't restructuring "your society" at all because you can just ignore them and they then don't effect you. The society happens to be all of ours and not just yours. JB