What's your view on "gay rights"

[Eternal]

for those of you who are religious.. what do you think about "gay rights" ... how do you incorporate your personal religious belief? do you think gay people are sinners?

[Friendindeed]

Their rights should have nothing to do with anybody's religious beliefs about it.

[TheWaffle]

I see no reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. The religious argument is completely irrelevant. As long as marriage is an institution recognized and performed under the auspices of the law then it is simply indefensible to inflict one's sexual alignment on others just as you cannot inflict religion or political ideologies on others.
People are grossly overstepping their bounds when they challenge someone's right to be married by a judge of the law. If their church does not want to perform the ceremony then that's their thing; just as a Church may refuse to marry someone outside of their religion.
The law and religion are completely separate entities. Some people say that America was founded on religion and hence is a religious nation...However it says nowhere in the bible that you have the right to tax people, it says nowhere that you have the right to take the child of a improper parent, it never says that you have the right to wage war. This is why we have law and religion. The law is in place because it is necessary and as such it should stand independent of the Church. The right to marriage should not be only bestowed upon those who conform to religious standards.

[palerider]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

[HighVoltage123]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

You make a really good point but do you actually think that we should take away from them the right to be happy (with a same sex partner)... if killing makes someone happy than I agree to take away from them that right because he/she takes a way someone else's right to live... but since homosexuals are not taking anything away from anyone... Why not...

[palerider]

You make a really good point but do you actually think that we should take away from them the right to be happy (with a same sex partner)... if killing makes someone happy than I agree to take away from them that right because he/she takes a way someone else's right to live... but since homosexuals are not taking anything away from anyone... Why not...


Let them be as happy as they want. There isn't a single benefit that married people have that gay couples can't secure for themselves through a good lawyer, except the marriage penalty on your taxes. But then, all of that really doesn't have to do with happiness any way, does it. All that has to do with granting special rights because of one's sexual preference.

And again, no one is taking away any of their rights. They are just not being given special rights and no group really should be able to claim special rights because of sexual preference or anything else.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

actually, if only heterosexuals have the right to marriage, it is heterosexuals who have the special rights.

"special rights" is a weak social conservative talking point

And again, no one is taking away any of their rights. They are just not being given special rights and no group really should be able to claim special rights because of sexual preference or anything else.

So Heterosexuals should not be able to claim special rights to marriage because of there sexual preference. i agree.

[palerider]

actually, if only heterosexuals have the right to marriage, it is heterosexuals who have the special rights.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else. There is no requirement that one be sexually attracted to the person that one marries. Such marriages have taken place all through history. Marriage to one of the opposite sex is a right that everyone of age should have in this country.

"special rights" is a weak social conservative talking point

It is, apparently, not so weak that you can argue it. Attempting to brush it off doesn't constitute an argument. Granting men the right to marry men constitutes a special right. Granting women the right to marry women, constitutes a special right. Granting people the right to marry trees or dogs constitutes granting special rights. No one has the right to expect special treatment or rights because of their sexual preference.

So Heterosexuals should not be able to claim special rights to marriage because of there sexual preference. i agree.

Marriage is what it is. There is no special right about it. Redefining marriage to accomodate other than the union of two people of the opposite sex would constitute a special right. You can try to argue this as much as you like, but you will fail.

If you favor granting people special rights because of their sexual preference, tell me, where exactly would you draw the line and by what right do suggest that you are qualified to draw the line?

[TVoffBrainOn]

Marriage is what it is. There is no special right about it. Redefining marriage to accomodate other than the union of two people of the opposite sex would constitute a special right. You can try to argue this as much as you like, but you will fail.

If you favor granting people special rights because of their sexual preference, tell me, where exactly would you draw the line and by what right do suggest that you are qualified to draw the line?


Where does your definition of marriage come from?

here's Webster's

marriage 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

I'm in favor of equal rights for all. Equal rights to marry another person. "Special Rights" is a tactic used by the religious right because they are bigots. it's that simple. the political right uses that bigotry to create an election issue that will bring said people to the poles. "Special Rights" is a talking point so the religious right can get their bigotry off their chest without actually feeling like hatemongers.

"It's not that i hate fags, it's that i don't believe in Special Rights"

gimme a break.

The biggest problem with you're argument, is that YOU and the religious right want to redefine marriage to EXCLUDE homosexuals, as demonstrated by the Marriage Amendment that has been pushed by the Bush administration for 4 years. And thereby, you are the one in favor of Special Rights.

Why, in America, would we want to rewrite the constitution to exclude a group of people from a basic right that the constitution grants?

in 1996? Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Was the Defense of Marriage Act a "Special Rights" Bill? Did Clinton grant heterosexuals the special right to marriage?

[Friendindeed]

Three words palerider, Loving v. Virginia.

[palerider]

The biggest problem with you're argument, is that YOU and the religious right want to redefine marriage to EXCLUDE homosexuals, as demonstrated by the Marriage Amendment that has been pushed by the Bush administration for 4 years. And thereby, you are the one in favor of Special Rights.

Which edition of websters did that definition come from? Let me guess, the latest? The one with the newly redefined marriage? Marriage is what it is and has been since we walked out of the jungle and found that we needed to form a sort of relationship between couples that could reasonably be expected to last long enough to see to the raising of children.

Any argument that changes the definition of marriage to allow two members of the same sex to marry is a special right no matter how you slice it.

Why, in America, would we want to rewrite the constitution to exclude a group of people from a basic right that the constitution grants?

The constitution doesn't grant any right to marry. In fact, the constitution doesn't grant any rights at all. It acknowledges our rights and sets up the framework of a government to protect them.

in 1996? Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Was the Defense of Marriage Act a "Special Rights" Bill? Did Clinton grant heterosexuals the special right to marriage?

Nope. It was simply an effort to close the door on granting special rights based on sexual prefrence. I asked you before if you are in favor of granting special rights based on sexual prefrence, were would you draw the line?

[palerider]

Three words palerider, Loving v. Virginia.

Allowing a black man and a white woman and vise versa to marry does not constitute a special right based on sexual preference. I am curious to learn how you believe race effects sexual preference.

[TVoffBrainOn]

Nope. It was simply an effort to close the door on granting special rights based on sexual prefrence. I asked you before if you are in favor of granting special rights based on sexual prefrence, were would you draw the line?

You can keep asking, because you're question is completely invalid to me. "Special Rights" is social conservative bigotry.

[palerider]

You can keep asking, because you're question is completely invalid to me. "Special Rights" is social conservative bigotry.

The idea of granting a group the right to do a thing based on their sexual preference, or any other preference that no other group has ever had the right to do is a special right.

Attempting to brush it off as bigotry hardly constitutes an argument. Either you can argue the point or you can not and it is becoming increasingly apparent that you can not.

[TVoffBrainOn]

The idea of granting a group the right to do a thing based on their sexual preference, or any other preference that no other group has ever had the right to do is a special right.

Attempting to brush it off as bigotry hardly constitutes an argument. Either you can argue the point or you can not and it is becoming increasingly apparent that you can not.

I've summed it up quite easily actually. The right to marry any person you choose is not a special right. defining marriage between a man and a woman makes marriage a special right for heterosexuals.

[Friendindeed]

Allowing a black man and a white woman and vise versa to marry does not constitute a special right based on sexual preference. I am curious to learn how you believe race effects sexual preference.

Loving v. Virginia affirms the right of everyone to marry whom they see fit.

[palerider]

I've summed it up quite easily actually. The right to marry any person you choose is not a special right. defining marriage between a man and a woman makes marriage a special right for heterosexuals.

A sanctioned union between a man and a woman (or women) is not defining marriage, it is what marriage is, and has been since the institution was first concieved. Calling it anyting else, is changing what is for whatever reason and in the case of gays, it would be changing because of their sexual preference which would constitute granting a special right based on sexual preference.

[palerider]

Loving v. Virginia affirms the right of everyone to marry whom they see fit.

And once again, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Refer to your history books. Allowing two gays to form a legal union no more constitutes a marriage, than allowing one to check out a book from the library constitutes purchasing the book. Borrowing is what it is and marriage is wht it is and it is not a union between two people of the same sex.

[The_Giver]

My history books tell me slavery has been a long and widely practiced tradition. Why do we no longer have it? Perhaps it is because it was unfair to those who did not benefit from it (inhuman to say the least).

You may claim it is on a completely different level but I do not see why "just because we have been doing it for a long time" is reason enough to keep marriage the way it is.

[palerider]

My history books tell me slavery has been a long and widely practiced tradition. Why do we no longer have it? Perhaps it is because it was unfair to those who did not benefit from it (inhuman to say the least).

You may claim it is on a completely different level but I do not see why "just because we have been doing it for a long time" is reason enough to keep marriage the way it is.

Slavery was what it was, and we stopped it in this country. We didn't re-define it and keep on doing it. We stopped the practice. It became against the law to own another human being.

Marriage is what it is and you are talking about redefining what it is and giving a special right to some based on their sexual preference. If you are prepared to grant special rights based on sexual preference, where are you prepared to draw the line and by what right do you draw that line?

[Truth-Bringer]

Homosexuals have the right to get married exactly the same as you and I. They don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex, however, which would be a special right and while no one deserves to have rights taken away because of sexual prefrence, no one deserves to be given special rights because of their sexual preference either.

Actually, what EVERYONE possesses is the right of unlimited contract in regards to all behavior that is peaceful, honest or voluntary. The government has no right to grant privileges in regards to marriage or require licensing of what they deem is an acceptable view of marriage.

People have a right to marry whoever they want, whenever they want, free of any interference from the government.

[palerider]

Actually, what EVERYONE possesses is the right of unlimited contract in regards to all behavior that is peaceful, honest or voluntary. The government has no right to grant privileges in regards to marriage or require licensing of what they deem is an acceptable view of marriage.

Actually, the government does have the right.

People have a right to marry whoever they want, whenever they want, free of any interference from the government.

I don't find such a right in my constitution. Could you point it out for me?

[n0spam4me]

Modern "Marriage" is a CONTRACT between two people and the state, to define the distribution of property by inheritance.

ALL such contracts should be called "Civil Union" and if the parties involved insist on calling it "Marriage" so be it. However under the LAW there should be no discrimination as to its a heterosexual or homosexual couple.

Logical
no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

[palerider]

Logical
no?

No. Marriage is what it is. Societies since the beginning of history haven't so much "defined" marriage as acknowledged what marriage is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A union between two people of the same sex is simply not a marriage.

We, are all restricted from marrying close blood relatives, animals, another married person, and a person of the same sex. To grant one group a dispensation from these restrictions is to grant a special right based on sexual preference. Where do you draw the line?

There is no legal inequality with regard to marriage, only an inequality of desire and the state has no business granting special rights based on the desires of individuals based on sexual preference.

[TOGU]

Hello everybody, this is my first post

Palerider says it well.

Furthermore, homosexuality itself is immoral in almost every culture. It's completely unnatural and sinful.

I don't think the government should necessarily punish immorality, yet I do believe it is in the government's interest to discourage immorality in keeping with some basic standards of civilized behavior.

Still, homosexual marriage is a relatively minor issue in the big scheme of things. We should let the people decide what the law on homosexual marriage should be.

[Truth-Bringer]

Actually, the government does have the right.

Under what specific Constitutional authority? Please define the specific authority. Good luck. While you're at it, see if you can find the Constitutional authority that would forbid prostitution. That's not there either:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua2.shtml

Also please tell me under what authority you seek to control and regulate the peaceful, honest behavior of other human beings.



I don't find such a right in my constitution. Could you point it out for me?

A marriage is a contract between two (or more in some cases) people. Only those people are involved in the contract. I believe the Supreme Court settled the right to contract issue a long time ago, back when the Justices actually still understood the Constitution:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

[Truth-Bringer]

I don't think the government should necessarily punish immorality, yet I do believe it is in the government's interest to discourage immorality in keeping with some basic standards of civilized behavior.


Then let them do it through PERSUASION (non-violence) as Jesus Christ did, and not through COERCION (violence - guns of government threatening punishment).

[TOGU]

All laws imply coercion for enforcement. Otherwise they wouldn't be laws in the first place.

[HighVoltage123]

ahamz ... :)

[palerider]

Under what specific Constitutional authority? Please define the specific authority. Good luck. While you're at it, see if you can find the Constitutional authority that would forbid prostitution. That's not there either:

You don't seem to understand what the constitution actually does. It doesn't tell either the federal government or the states what they may do, it tells them what they may not do. In order for you to claim that the government has no right to do a thing, that thing must be specifically forbiden by the constitution.

There is no section of the constitution that forbids government at either the federal or state level from regulating contracts between people (if that is what you want to call marriage) or from regulating who may marry for that matter so the government may indeed become involved. In order for government to be restricted from becoming involved in the issue of marriage, the right to marry whoever or whatever one wishes would have to be a protected constitutional right which it is clearly not.

Ditto for prostitution.

Also please tell me under what authority you seek to control and regulate the peaceful, honest behavior of other human beings.

I just did

A marriage is a contract between two (or more in some cases) people. Only those people are involved in the contract. I believe the Supreme Court settled the right to contract issue a long time ago, back when the Justices actually still understood the Constitution:

Once again, the government has the right to regulate contracts between people. Following your logic, a brother and sister or a father and daughter could enter into a marriage contract.

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

Here, you have grossly misunderstood what was said in your rush to prove your point. The entire argument here is that our rights existed in the form of the common law long before the state held any sway over them and that the state's responsibility is to protect those rights that we held.

In the context of this argument, take some time to learn what the common law says about marriage. It does not recognize, or even acknowledge the possibility, of marriage existing between two members of the same sex.

[palerider]

Then let them do it through PERSUASION (non-violence) as Jesus Christ did, and not through COERCION (violence - guns of government threatening punishment).


Marriage between a man and a woman is traditional and that in and of itself is basis enough for law. The onus is upon those who wish to change tradition to do it through persuasion. Any attempt to redefine an institution that has existed as man/woman since its inception through the law constitutes coersion (violence - guns of government threatening punishment) on the part of those who are attempting to grant a special right based on sexual preference.

[Truth-Bringer]

You don't seem to understand what the constitution actually does.

I understand it perfectly. But we're really getting sidetracked because, ultimately, the issue isn't about the Constitution. The Constitution, in truth, is not a valid legal contract and cannot be used to deprive anyone of any rights. Lysander Spooner proved that conclusively in his treatise "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

Now, I happen to like the Constitution - but only because it was the most freedom orientied document (along with the Declaration of Independence) ever written. But as far as being a valid legal contract, it certainly is not.

So, we're going to go to the root logic on this matter, which has nothing to do with the Constitution - even though I'll talk about it a little more to address your other points.

It doesn't tell either the federal government or the states what they may do, it tells them what they may not do. In order for you to claim that the government has no right to do a thing, that thing must be specifically forbiden by the constitution.

Actually, in some areas, it clearly does tell the feds or the states what they may do. Now, it's primarily a negative document, in that it predominently tells government what it may not do, but it doesn't grant us our rights. And your assertion that "government has no right to do a thing unless it's specifically forbidden" is flawed. If a Constitutional amendment tomorrow is passed requiring every adult to kill one child under the age of 10 per year - is that ok with you because it's been made "Constitutional"?


There is no section of the constitution that forbids government at either the federal or state level from regulating contracts between people (if that is what you want to call marriage) or from regulating who may marry for that matter so the government may indeed become involved.

Yes, there is, even though the Constitution is not the ultimate authority in the matter for reasons previously stated:

* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."
* Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."
* Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
* Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
* Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

"A central issue is whether a person owns his or her body. For the government or state to own our bodies would be slavery. But the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. Clearly, this means that we as individuals own our bodies, not the state or government.

Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right. It seems to me that a person who owns his or her body has the right to "contract out" the use of that body for the pleasure of another - provided no rights are violated.

There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime."

Again, from: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua2.shtml


In order for government to be restricted from becoming involved in the issue of marriage, the right to marry whoever or whatever one wishes would have to be a protected constitutional right which it is clearly not.


The use of the specific term "marry" is not relevant, as the act itself is simply a contract.

The previous Supreme Court case I cited stated there is "an unlimited right to contract" - that ruling was correct and based logical reasoning.



Once again, the government has the right to regulate contracts between people.

No, it doesn't.

Following your logic, a brother and sister or a father and daughter could enter into a marriage contract.

Indeed they could. I certainly wouldn't advise it, just as I wouldn't advise same sex marriage, but since I don't own them, and since their actions don't violate my or anyone else's rights, I don't have a right to use force against them to stop it. I would certainly try to persuade them not to do this, but I may not use violence, either singularly or by voting for a larger group, such as government, to send armed men to threaten them if they do something I don't agree with.



Here, you have grossly misunderstood what was said in your rush to prove your point. The entire argument here is that our rights existed in the form of the common law long before the state held any sway over them and that the state's responsibility is to protect those rights that we held.

No, rights existed from the beginning of the universe. They existed prior to common law as well as prior to governments.


In the context of this argument, take some time to learn what the common law says about marriage. It does not recognize, or even acknowledge the possibility, of marriage existing between two members of the same sex.

Again, the common law is not the determining factor. Slavery was once common law. Did that make it right?

[Truth-Bringer]

Marriage between a man and a woman is traditional and that in and of itself is basis enough for law.

But not a basis for logic and reason. If you stumbled upon a tribe in the wilderness whose tradition it was to sacrifice one child under the age of 10 for each adult in the tribe to the "magical chicken god" every year, would the fact that it's a tradition make it right?

Law can also be flawed - slavery was once legal, but it was still wrong.

The only consistent basis of morality to found law upon is freedom for all peaceful, honest, voluntary acts. This allows maximum freedom and the law only becomes a factor if people initiate violence or fraud against others.

The onus is upon those who wish to change tradition to do it through persuasion. Any attempt to redefine an institution that has existed as man/woman since its inception through the law constitutes coersion (violence - guns of government threatening punishment) on the part of those who are attempting to grant a special right based on sexual preference.

I'm not advocating a special right, what I'm advocating is that government get out of the institution of marriage - and stop interfering in contracts between free individuals.

My position is not the liberal position. I don't agree with "special rights" for some and not for others. My position is to remove all government involvement in marriage or any other contracts based upon peaceful, honest, voluntary activities.

A question for you - do you own yourself?

[palerider]

I understand it perfectly. But we're really getting sidetracked because, ultimately, the issue isn't about the Constitution. The Constitution, in truth, is not a valid legal contract and cannot be used to deprive anyone of any rights. Lysander Spooner proved that conclusively in his treatise "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"

Actually, you don't, and your reference to Lysander Spooner's writing makes that abundantly clear. Like him, you believe that you understand it, but in fact you, and he have missed it entirely.

And his "treatise" proves nothing except that he is skilled with the language and has the capacity to say much without saying anything at all.

Yes, there is, even though the Constitution is not the ultimate authority in the matter for reasons previously stated:

No there is not.

* Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

Obligation of contracts is the key phrase here and even then, the obligation of the contract must be legal. The fed and the state have every right to regulate what sorts of contracts may be entered into, and regulate the nature of said contracts. They may not make legislation that frees you from a legal contract that you have entered into, but they have every right to regulate how you enter into it.

* Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

Nothing to do with contracts.

* Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nothing to do with contracts.

* Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nothing to do with contracts

* Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nothing to do with contracts.

"A central issue is whether a person owns his or her body. For the government or state to own our bodies would be slavery. But the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. Clearly, this means that we as individuals own our bodies, not the state or government.

I was going to ask if you are a libertarian, but you just answered the question. And the idea you just put forward is the flaw at the heart of libertarianism. No philosophy that freely expresses such a paradox can, or should be taken seriously.

Libertarians claim to be firmly against slavery, and yet, view bodies as property. If I own my body it is my property. Therefore, a good libertarian must admit that I may sell my body into slavery if I choose. And since, according to libertarianism, my body is my property, it may also be claimed for payment in a damages lawsuit if I have no other real property with which to pay damages.

This aside, it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

Article I, Section 10 effectively guarantees the right to contract and prohibits any State from passing any law that impairs this right. It seems to me that a person who owns his or her body has the right to "contract out" the use of that body for the pleasure of another - provided no rights are violated.

Legal contract. I have no right to contract a killer to do my wife in, and I have no right to enter into an illegal marriage contract. This is another flaw within libertarianism. You pick and choose principles that suit you and seek to absolve yourself of personal responsibility in those that don't suit you.

There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim there can be no crime."

Again, nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Are you just slinging crap against the wall to see if something will stick?

The use of the specific term "marry" is not relevant, as the act itself is simply a contract.

Marriage is the sort of contract and is relavent and since marriage is a contract between a man and woman, it has no place in a contract between two men or two women any more than the decscriptive term real estate woud have a place in a contract between you and I for services to analyze a specific chemical. Language in contracts is of paramount importance.

The previous Supreme Court case I cited stated there is "an unlimited right to contract" - that ruling was correct and based logical reasoning.

Legal contracts, not illegal contracts. Again, I have no right to contract a hit man to kill my wife even though the transaction would in fact, be a contract. Marriage between two people of the opposite sex does not constitute a valid contract because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Indeed they could. I certainly wouldn't advise it, just as I wouldn't advise same sex marriage, but since I don't own them, and since their actions don't violate my or anyone else's rights, I don't have a right to use force against them to stop it. I would certainly try to persuade them not to do this, but I may not use violence, either singularly or by voting for a larger group, such as government, to send armed men to threaten them if they do something I don't agree with.

Owning them has nothing to do with the state's right to forbid the contract. The state doesn't own either me or the hit man I might hire to kill my wife, but it certainly does retain the right to forbid the contract and punish both of us if we make the contract anyway.

Tell me, would you argue that statistically, the children of traditional marriage fare better than the children of divorced or same sex couples? The evidence is overwhelming that you have a better chance of avoiding mental problems, drug abuse, and risky behavior if you are the product of a mom/pop marriage. If you accept this fact, then the argument could be made, that allowing a marriage contract between two people of the same sex, statistically violates the rights of the children of these couples to grow up to be well rounded, mentally healthy individuals. Since it is in society's interest to be made primaraly of mentally healthy individuals, society has a responsibility to do all it can to promote a healthy environment for its citizens and to do all it can to deny unhealthy environments.

No, rights existed from the beginning of the universe. They existed prior to common law as well as prior to governments.

So you argue common law, and when that argument is defeated, you switch to something else? You are losing credibility very quickly here.

Again, the common law is not the determining factor. Slavery was once common law. Did that make it right?

Then why did you reference common law?

[Rokerijdude11]

awww isnt that cute..........T-B has a stalker buddy

[USMC the Almighty]

awww isnt that cute..........T-B has a stalker buddy

What the hell are you talking about?

You haven't been here long enough to understand -- there are only a handful of active members and active threads, and so it is likely that if Truth and Palerider disagree in one thread about libertarianism, they'll also likely disagree on gay marriage.

[palerider]

awww isnt that cute..........T-B has a stalker buddy


Awww. Isn't that cute... I do too.

[Rokerijdude11]

well no matter what you say


im NOT gonna give you a reach around

[vyo476]

Back on topic...palerider, could you sum up in a few easy sentences why you believe gay marriage shouldn't be legal (if that is what you're trying to say - when you and Truth-Bringer get into the message gets lost quickly).

[Rokerijdude11]

yeah can you tell us in 2 or 3 lines ?

[palerider]

Back on topic...palerider, could you sum up in a few easy sentences why you believe gay marriage shouldn't be legal (if that is what you're trying to say - when you and Truth-Bringer get into the message gets lost quickly).

Marriage is what it is. It is a union between a man and a woman. I don't favor redefining words, or granting special rights based on such trivialities as sexual preference.

[palerider]

yeah can you tell us in 2 or 3 lines ?

You might mention the concept of brevity to your cut and paste bud as well to avoid sounding completely hypocritical.

[invest07]

I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:
1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.
2. Because gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights, the "gay" gene would diminish in numbers with each successive generation and would soon virtually disappear. Example: assume generation 1 contains 10% homosexual individuals and 90% straights. If the homosexuals reporduce at half the rate of straights (and the actual rate is probably much lower than this) the compostion of generation 2 would be 5% homosexual and 95% straight. Generation 3= 2.5% homo and 97.5% straight. Do the math for 6 or 8 generations. The percentage of people professing homosexuality in our society is not declining, so there can not be a "gay" gene. It is a choice.
I know the next argument: why do we have any recessive traits at all? Shouldn't all recessive traits disappear in a few geberations? My father had wavy hair which is a recessive trait for an Anglo male. But wavy hair does not result in a lower birth rate. So wavy hair is passed on to each successive generation at the same rate as non-wavy hair.
I know my belief is not PC but it is based on dispassionate scientific assessment.
Homosexuality is a choice and not genetic.
And gays now have exactly the same marital rights as any straight: to marry a member of the opposite gender. Arguably, they have more rights than straights because they are protected by PC and hate crime laws.
And before you paint me with the broad homophobic brush, you should know that I am a volunteer to the AIDS community, bringing home services to final stage patients who are no longer able to leave their homes. I've seen them deteriorate and die and it is not a pretty sight. It is also not a sight for the faint at heart.
And, as final disclaimer, I have studied all aspects of evolutionary theory for 20+ years. I do not believe evolution is a viable explantion for origins.

[invest07]

I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:
1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.
2. Because gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights, the "gay" gene would diminish in numbers with each successive generation and would soon virtually disappear. Example: assume generation 1 contains 10% homosexual individuals and 90% straights. If the homosexuals reporduce at half the rate of straights (and the actual rate is probably much lower than this) the compostion of generation 2 would be 5% homosexual and 95% straight. Generation 3= 2.5% homo and 97.5% straight. Do the math for 6 or 8 generations. The percentage of people professing homosexuality in our society is not declining, so there can not be a "gay" gene. It is a choice.
I know the next argument: why do we have any recessive traits at all? Shouldn't all recessive traits disappear in a few geberations? My father had wavy hair which is a recessive trait for an Anglo male. But wavy hair does not result in a lower birth rate. So wavy hair is passed on to each successive generation at the same rate as non-wavy hair.
I know my belief is not PC but it is based on dispassionate scientific assessment.
Homosexuality is a choice and not genetic.
And gays now have exactly the same marital rights as any straight: to marry a member of the opposite gender. Arguably, they have more rights than straights because they are protected by PC and hate crime laws.
And before you paint me with the broad homophobic brush, you should know that I am a volunteer to the AIDS community, bringing home services to final stage patients who are no longer able to leave their homes. I've seen them deteriorate and die and it is not a pretty sight. It is also not a sight for the faint at heart.
And, as final disclaimer, I have studied all aspects of evolutionary theory for 20+ years. I do not believe evolution is a viable explantion for origins.

[9sublime]

Interesting. I would say that its a combination of both genetics, but mostly the environment you live in. Life experience forms who you are, and its the only thing that makes you who you are.

As for do I believe gay marriage is OK, yes I do. If someone is not Christian, then the Christian ideal of marriage doesn't apply to them and they should be able to do whatever they like, just like they don't have to go to church.

[vyo476]

I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:



1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.

Two problems with this. One is the presence of recessive genes. The other is the fact that for many centuries homosexuality was considered taboo and many homosexuals did their best to pretend heterosexuality. What better way than to get married and have kids?

That said I'm not sure it's "genetic." One thing I'm almost sure of is that isn't a conscious choice because many of the homosexual people I've known spent a long, long, tough time trying to deny what they were, without success. Personally, I think a lot of things contribute to the emergence of homosexuality in an individual - genetics may play a part but I highly doubt there's any one "gay gene." That'd be too simple.

I usually reserve the term homophobe for people who openly dislike homosexuals but then again, I myself am heterosexual and not as qualified to comment on the term as someone who is more directly affected by it.

[ArmChair General]

Two problems with this. One is the presence of recessive genes. The other is the fact that for many centuries homosexuality was considered taboo and many homosexuals did their best to pretend heterosexuality. What better way than to get married and have kids?

That said I'm not sure it's "genetic." One thing I'm almost sure of is that isn't a conscious choice because many of the homosexual people I've known spent a long, long, tough time trying to deny what they were, without success. Personally, I think a lot of things contribute to the emergence of homosexuality in an individual - genetics may play a part but I highly doubt there's any one "gay gene." That'd be too simple.

I usually reserve the term homophobe for people who openly dislike homosexuals but then again, I myself am heterosexual and not as qualified to comment on the term as someone who is more directly affected by it.



An answer to this question is offered HERE (http://www.tiem.utk.edu/%7Egavrila/PAPS/h.pdf) by Gavrilets and Rice in a paper that appeared in Proceedings of the Royal Society. They provide a population genetic analysis that explains why, in theory, a gene predisposing an individual to homosexual behaviour would spread in a population, and that predicts its widespread occurrence in humans and other sexually reproducing species.

[vyo476]

An answer to this question is offered HERE (http://www.tiem.utk.edu/%7Egavrila/PAPS/h.pdf) by Gavrilets and Rice in a paper that appeared in Proceedings of the Royal Society. They provide a population genetic analysis that explains why, in theory, a gene predisposing an individual to homosexual behaviour would spread in a population, and that predicts its widespread occurrence in humans and other sexually reproducing species.

That's some good stuff. I don't understand a lot of the mumbo-jumbo but the message is clear enough. Thank you.

[Coyote]

I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:
1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.

Not necessarily - survival of the fittest - particularly in a social species where all members might not need to reproduce in order for the family group as a whole to be sucessful - is rarely so linear or black and white. It might benifit the group as a whole to have come non-reproducing members in the group as "aunts" and "uncles" to care for the young while the parents and other adults are foraging.

Or, as another example - take social species where only one male/female mate...selective homosexuality or bisexuality could be a social relief valve that keeps the group together and limits fighting.



2. Because gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights, the "gay" gene would diminish in numbers with each successive generation and would soon virtually disappear. Example: assume generation 1 contains 10% homosexual individuals and 90% straights. If the homosexuals reporduce at half the rate of straights (and the actual rate is probably much lower than this) the compostion of generation 2 would be 5% homosexual and 95% straight. Generation 3= 2.5% homo and 97.5% straight. Do the math for 6 or 8 generations. The percentage of people professing homosexuality in our society is not declining, so there can not be a "gay" gene. It is a choice.
I know the next argument: why do we have any recessive traits at all? Shouldn't all recessive traits disappear in a few geberations? My father had wavy hair which is a recessive trait for an Anglo male. But wavy hair does not result in a lower birth rate. So wavy hair is passed on to each successive generation at the same rate as non-wavy hair.
I know my belief is not PC but it is based on dispassionate scientific assessment.


Actually - I don't give a fig about PC. It's stupid. But just because something is "PC" doesn't make it bad science. Genetics is complicated and very often not a case of simple reseccisives and dominants.

A good quote is: Genetics loads the gun, and environment pulls the trigger. This is particularly true for polygenetic traits.

It's quite possible that any or all of the following genetic factors could be involved:

A simple recessives (unlikely) that would indicate silent carriers.
Multiple genes influencing trait that only show up when a certain threshold is breached.
A common mutation(s) - that easily occurs (such as that for Cystic Fibrosis)
Any of the above in conjunction with certain environmental factors that set it off - such as prenatal environments.

One thing is clear though - many people are bisexual at some point in our lives (as are many other social animals) and then go on to become heterosexual. To me this says homosexual tendancies are normal.

A very tiny number become strictly homosexual - and so much so that even though they go through "ex-gay" types of programs, they admit they still long for same sex relations, and they are aroused by the same sex biochemically and in brain studies. The only thing that changes is the outward appearance of the behavior. To me that says this is not a "choice".


Homosexuality is a choice and not genetic.


See what I said above.


And gays now have exactly the same marital rights as any straight: to marry a member of the opposite gender.


That is disengenius and the same sort of logic could be used to argue against interacial marriage.


Arguably, they have more rights than straights because they are protected by PC and hate crime laws.
And before you paint me with the broad homophobic brush, you should know that I am a volunteer to the AIDS community, bringing home services to final stage patients who are no longer able to leave their homes. I've seen them deteriorate and die and it is not a pretty sight. It is also not a sight for the faint at heart.
And, as final disclaimer, I have studied all aspects of evolutionary theory for 20+ years. I do not believe evolution is a viable explantion for origins.

As I said - I don't give a fig for PC and no, I'm not going to paint you homophobe. But let me add my own disclaimer - I am no youngster and evolution and genetics and animal behavior have been a long standing area of study for me.

As for gay marriage - my thought is why not? But I think it is wiser to push for civil unions and give them all the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples. I believe in equality. Society as a whole may not be ready for gay marriage beyond that yet. Give them time.

It hurts no one - ever thought of that?

[ArmChair General]

That's some good stuff. I don't understand a lot of the mumbo-jumbo but the message is clear enough. Thank you.

heh, yah anyone thats spent time at college knows just how much fun girls pretending to be lesbians to attract male partners can be.

[vyo476]

heh, yah anyone thats spent time at college knows just how much fun girls pretending to be lesbians to attract male partners can be.

Hahaha, I'm in college. Well, art school. And let me tell you...most of our lesbians aren't "pretend lesbians."

[ArmChair General]

Hahaha, I'm in college. Well, art school. And let me tell you...most of our lesbians aren't "pretend lesbians."

well that sucks. theres nothing worse than when the girls steal all the girls for themselves.

[vyo476]

well that sucks. theres nothing worse than when the girls steal all the girls for themselves.

Ah, well, there are upsides to that, too.

[9sublime]

Its called porn without some fat bastad in it.

[heyjude]

I'm curious. Do you remember the day you decided to be straight? Thought it out, considered the options, the problems, etc. Did you decide to be straight because of your religious beliefs? You didn't want to upset your parents? Thought it would be best to go with the majority?
These are all stupid questions. And they are stupid when implied about gays and lesbians too.

[Mare Tranquillity]

You might mention the concept of brevity to your cut and paste bud as well to avoid sounding completely hypocritical.
I'm new to this site, Mr. Palerider, and I noted that you have invested a bit of time and energy in this thread. Would you mind telling me please, what is your interest in the subject? Do you object to gay marriage from basically a religious perspective or a libertarian one, or is it something else entirely? You seem to have well constructed--almost polished--arguments, like you've discussed this subject with others before. Would you mind giving me a little more perspective on "where you're coming from" (if you will forgive the cliche)?

[Dagoth]

I believe homosexuals have just as mutch rights as any straight man or woman to marry....
They are no more less of a human being as any one on this planet~

[9sublime]

What is marriage anyway to a non-religious person?

[Kelly]

I consider myself to be pretty religious (Catholic), but I don't think gay folks are sinners anymore than Christians and Jews that eat pork and shellfish. Ha ha ha! Also, I'd really like to know how two guys/gals getting married is supposed to hurt the sanctity of marriage. That's the biggest crock of s*** ever! If gays marry eachother, all of a sudden all of the religious-right couples will file for divorce? Yeah right! Why are we so obsessed with who each of us is 'laying the pipe' with? We have no business to stop two consenting people from being together and being married. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't marry your fiance because they personally thought the idea of sleeping with her is disgusting? Wouldn't go over well would it? None of their business, right? The State discriminates against gays when it does not recognize their love and union (i.e. marriage). Also, to Invest07: I don't know about there not being a gay gene. I'm a straight male (yes, Kelly is a guy's name too) and I love, I mean I ABSOLUTELY LOVE womens. I cannot help it and I couldn't possibly choose otherwise. Therefore, I would have to give gay folks the benefit of the doubt about whether they have a choice about being gay. I really don't think they choose their feelings. Plus, how would you know anyway...unless you're gay! Wooooooooooo. Just joking! Seriously though, if we're not gay, how can we possibly know whether a gay person chooses to be gay???

[Sgt Schultz]

What is marriage anyway to a non-religious person?

Marriage is not a religious matter anymore. To be legally married you need a license from the government. You can get married in a church but until you get that license from the government it (marriage) isn't legal. When the government took over that from the church they shouldn't be playing favourites with who can marry who based upon religious preferences.

[vyo476]

Marriage is what it is. It is a union between a man and a woman. I don't favor redefining words, or granting special rights based on such trivialities as sexual preference.

Redefining words happens all the time. Refer to r0beph's argument in the thread about using the word "gay" as a slur and you'll see what I mean.

So let's not make it a "special right." You say that homosexuals have the right o marry just like straight people right now, because they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. So let's give everyone the right to marry the same sex as well. That's not a special right; its a right everyone would have access to.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I had kind of hoped that my polite query to Mr. Palerider and my equally polite pm to him might have elicited a response, but since they did not, I guess I'll just have to move on without him.

My hope was that I could find some common ground with him from which to start a dialogue and after reading all of his posts on this thread I realized that he and I agree about the fact that there should be no special rights. All consenting adults in the US should be covered equally under the law--it's called "equal protection".

Mr. PR (I hope that no one minds my abbreviation) has taken a very strong stand on the subject of NO ONE getting special rights, but then he has taken an equally strong stand that only people with his sexual orientation, or people willing to masquerade as people of his sexual orientation, should be legally allowed to marry and form a family. I'm pretty sure there is a word for a person who says one thing and then deliberately does the opposite, but I'm not sure what word that would be.

If Mr. PR is telling the truth about his stance on special rights, then his only defensible position is to have the law changed so that ANY consenting adult has the LEGAL right to a marriage contract with ANY other consenting adult and thereby receive all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as Mr. PR currently wishes to reserve, as special rights, for his particular group and pretenders thereto.

[palerider]

I'm new to this site, Mr. Palerider, and I noted that you have invested a bit of time and energy in this thread. Would you mind telling me please, what is your interest in the subject? Do you object to gay marriage from basically a religious perspective or a libertarian one, or is it something else entirely? You seem to have well constructed--almost polished--arguments, like you've discussed this subject with others before. Would you mind giving me a little more perspective on "where you're coming from" (if you will forgive the cliche)?

I am a fiscal, and social conservative. I have an historical interest in the fall of empires and nations and believe that I have learned a few things from history. Among them is that empires, nations, and states begin to deteriorate when long held pillars of their society are tossed aside in favor of "new" ideas.

That isn't to say that new ideas aren't fine, and needed to keep a society from stagnating (another lesson learned) but new ideas must be integrated slowly and disregarded if and when they begin showing signs of damaging the society in general.

Thanks for the critique on my style. I haven't really spent much time debating this subject but I try to present a coherent argument on any subject I engage.

[palerider]

I believe homosexuals have just as mutch rights as any straight man or woman to marry....
They are no more less of a human being as any one on this planet~

They do have exactly the same rights as anyone else. If you are arguing that you believe that men should be able to marry men and women should be able to marry women, you are not asking for equal rights, you are asking for special rights granted on no more than sexual preference.

[palerider]

What is marriage anyway to a non-religious person?

Marriage didn't begin as a religious arrangement. Religion didn't get into the marriage business until long after it (marriage) had become a solid pillar in most societies. Anthropologically speaking, marriage came about because it takes so long for our young to mature. There was a need to establish and foster a relationship between two people that could be reasonably expected to last long enough to see to the raising of children. To that end, society and government had to support the arrangement.

Religion got involved in marriage much later.

[palerider]

Redefining words happens all the time. Refer to r0beph's argument in the thread about using the word "gay" as a slur and you'll see what I mean.

So let's not make it a "special right." You say that homosexuals have the right o marry just like straight people right now, because they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. So let's give everyone the right to marry the same sex as well. That's not a special right; its a right everyone would have access to.

The fact is that it would be a special right. YOu are talking about changing one of the pillars of society based on the sexual prefrences of no more than 3% of the society. Can you tell me with any confidence what the long term ramifications of such a change would be? Examine some history and look at the effects of seemingly small changes made within a society for arguably "good" reasons. You might start with the idea of welfare.

[xavier30m]

I still don't get the big deal. Why does it matter to anyone if gays get married? Why is that such a big problem? Who are they hurting and how does it affect you? Special right or not, that is happiness for people that are American citizens. In my opinion, that should be the concern. The very idea of repeating what the marriage right is, is simply a stuck up way of saying "we don't want your kind getting married" and don't act like it isn't.
Certain religious people even use that stupid nonsense, "homosexuals would be undermining the sanctity of marriage" and blah blah blah. Ya, like the current divorce rates, adultery cases, incest cases, family child molestation cases and so forth really show how heterosexuals have done a great job of that one.
And to anyone that says that you cannot equate race with sexual orientation.....ya okay sure. The US once denied blacks several different rights simply because of color. The US continues to deny homosexual the right to marry the person that they choose simply because of their orientation, even though they may marry someone of the opposite sex and therefore be completely miserable all their lives. It's just a stupid mess. It is really sad that in this day in age, people still have such a hard time excepting change.

[ArmChair General]

The fact is that it would be a special right. YOu are talking about changing one of the pillars of society based on the sexual prefrences of no more than 3% of the society. Can you tell me with any confidence what the long term ramifications of such a change would be? Examine some history and look at the effects of seemingly small changes made within a society for arguably "good" reasons. You might start with the idea of welfare.

Yah I can. Are any of these places having massive social upheavels because they let fags marry?

Just admit it PaleRider, your a bigot.



Nations that recognize gay marriage:

Canada
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Belgium
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Netherlands
The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

South Africa
South Africa became the fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.

Spain
Spain became the forth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005.


US states that recognize gay marriage:

New Jersey
On October 25, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey must allow same-sex couples to marry. However, the court left the decision up to lawmakers whether those rights would be extended in the form of full marriage or civil unions that allow gay couples all of the privileges of marriage. read more

Massachusetts
On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Read: Mass. Upholds Gay Marriage | How To Get Married in Massachusetts


Nations that allow same-sex partnerships:

Croatia
Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been granted since 2003.

Denmark
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

Finland
Has offered registered partnership benefits since September 2001.

France
Pacte Civil de Solidarité” (PACS), or “Civil Solidarity Pacts,” were instituted in France on November 9, 1999.

Germany
Gay couples can register as "Life Partnerships," granting lesser financial and pension benefits than marriage.

Great Britain
Domestic partners can register under the Civil Partnership Act. This legislation took affect in December 5, 2005 giving registered same-sex couples rights similar to marriage in areas such as pensions, property, social security, and housing.

Hungary
Gay couples have been protected under common-law marriages since 1995; however they are not eligible for legal marriage.

Iceland
Since 1996, gay Icelanders have been protected under registered partnerships.

Luxembourg
Civil partnership legislation modeled after France's PACS were introduced in Luxembourg in 2004.

New Zealand
In December, 2004, New Zealand enacted legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions.

Norway
Since 1996, gay Norwegians have been protected under registered partnerships.

Portugal
Same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex partners in common law marriage.

Scotland
Civil partnerships have been afforded to same-sex couples since 2004.

Sweden
Swedish same-sex couples have been able to register under domestic partnership laws since 1995.

Switzerland
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil recognition.


U.S. States that allow same-sex partnerships:


California
California provides domestic partnership benefits. The state legislature successfully voted in favor of legal gay marriage in California, only to be vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In March, 2005, a San Francisco judge ruled that the law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Connecticut
Although Connecticut defines marriage as between a man and woman, it became the second U.S. state to grant same-sex civil unions in April, 2005.

Vermont
The first U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions in 2000. Learn about Vermont civil unions.

Nations that ban same-sex unions:

Honduras
On March 29, 2005, the constitution of Honduras was amended banning same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

Latvia
December 21, 2005 marked the day Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga signed into law a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Uganda
On September 29, 2005, legislation banning same-sex unions was signed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Penalties for gay marriage will be set in 2006. Under current law, homosexual acts are punishable by imprisonment from five years to life.

[Kelly]

"The fact is that it would be a special right. YOu are talking about changing one of the pillars of society based on the sexual prefrences of no more than 3% of the society. Can you tell me with any confidence what the long term ramifications of such a change would be? Examine some history and look at the effects of seemingly small changes made within a society for arguably "good" reasons. You might start with the idea of welfare."
--Oh yeah Palerider...you really hit the nail on the head with that one. If they let the f**s marry one another, the sanctity of marriage would forever be gone. The very next day, all of the Evangelical, Baptist, and Catholic couples in America will file for divorce because marriage no longer matters. All of America's youth will CHOOSE to become gay. Then bin laden will come with the devil, 2pac, and Arafat to take over. Next, it'll be a huge sex fest and all resulting pregnancies will be forcefully aborted by Planned Parenthood while scientists finally debunk the 'myth' that excess CO2 in the atmosphere makes the temperature increase. Then Bill Clinton will spark up a fatty and tax everyone until the poor become rich and the rich become poor. Oh My God!!! It will be a total disaster!!!

[top gun]

Redefining words happens all the time. Refer to r0beph's argument in the thread about using the word "gay" as a slur and you'll see what I mean.

So let's not make it a "special right." You say that homosexuals have the right o marry just like straight people right now, because they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. So let's give everyone the right to marry the same sex as well. That's not a special right; its a right everyone would have access to.

Your observation seems reasonable to me.

Whenever I hear those so opposed to the use of a word it strikes me as bazaar. Straight=marriage... gay=civil union???
Here's one... Let's not let anyone who's gay get a drivers license. They can get a rectangular piece of plastic with their name and identification on it but it cannot be a "Drivers License"... it's must be called an "Operators Permit"... LoL!:D

[Kelly]

3% of society my a**! Ever go to S.F. or Houston (where I live)? The Gay community is only getting stronger and finally getting some of the equality that it has deserved for so long. The more society accepts the Gay community, the more you will see people feeling comfortable and confident enough to 'come out of the closet.' When you suddenly realize that Gay folks make up a significant part of the population, you're gonna feel pretty bad about your bigotry. Besides (and I'm being totally serious here), Gay folks can teach A LOT about fashion, culture, music, how to run a night club, how to cook, art, poetry, not to mention how to care about our society and EVERYONE who lives in it. You're totally missing out if you're not cool with gay people!

[maynuh]

This subject is getting very old and I am extremely tired of all of the "Jesus Freaks" quoting the bible about homosexuality being wrong.. Does the bible give priests special rights? Look at all of the furor of late concerning priests sexually abusing alter boys, etc. I am so damned tired of gay people being treated as second rate citizens simply because they arre "different". They are NOT different, they are the same as heterosexuals. They just have sex differently. They deserve the same rights and treatment as anyone else. I am not gay but I do have many friends and relatives who are and I think no differently about them than I do anyone else.

[vyo476]

The fact is that it would be a special right. YOu are talking about changing one of the pillars of society based on the sexual prefrences of no more than 3% of the society. Can you tell me with any confidence what the long term ramifications of such a change would be? Examine some history and look at the effects of seemingly small changes made within a society for arguably "good" reasons. You might start with the idea of welfare.

Marriage is a pillar of our society? Well...seems like that "pillar" is pretty well decayed already anyway, huh? What with quickie marriages, divorces, etc.

At one point slavery was a major pillar of the Southern economy and the Southern social structure. We went and changed that and yes, there were negative side effects. I guess it wasn't worth it then, huh? I mean, it benefited a minority of people and there were plenty of negative ramifications for the majority of the people of the United States.

[Justinian]

3% of society my a**! Ever go to S.F. or Houston (where I live)? The Gay community is only getting stronger and finally getting some of the equality that it has deserved for so long. The more society accepts the Gay community, the more you will see people feeling comfortable and confident enough to 'come out of the closet.' When you suddenly realize that Gay folks make up a significant part of the population, you're gonna feel pretty bad about your bigotry. Besides (and I'm being totally serious here), Gay folks can teach A LOT about fashion, culture, music, how to run a night club, how to cook, art, poetry, not to mention how to care about our society and EVERYONE who lives in it. You're totally missing out if you're not cool with gay people!

It's getting stronger because they're kicked out of everywhere else and can't make a living. No wonder why your posts are so stupid. You're from San Fran. Goes to show ya folks what happens to people who grow up with faggots and dykes.

[9sublime]

You're so full of hate and convinced you're right. Whats the point of you being here?

[Think for myself]

It's getting stronger because they're kicked out of everywhere else and can't make a living. No wonder why your posts are so stupid. You're from San Fran. Goes to show ya folks what happens to people who grow up with faggots and dykes.

I must say I was born in Kaiser hospital in San Francisco in 1968, grew up in the area, and have never found myself inclined to be gay. I must say that for as much complaining that people around the country do regarding the liberalism of the Bay Area we tend to champion everyones rights and freedoms. Around here, if you want to be a good church going Christian, that's your business. If you want to be a drag queen, that's your business.

[vyo476]

It's getting stronger because they're kicked out of everywhere else and can't make a living. No wonder why your posts are so stupid. You're from San Fran. Goes to show ya folks what happens to people who grow up with faggots and dykes.

Um...Kelly said, "Ever been to San Fran, or Houston (where I live)?" Kelly's from Houston. Not San Fransisco.

Anyway, I'm from Massachusetts, and right now I'm living down the road from a married gay couple. They're nice guys. They both work steady jobs in advertising, drive nice cars, and keep their house in good shape. They have a flower garden that's particularly nice - one of the best in town. Every now and then when the snow gets really bad (so glad winter's over) they go over and help one of their elderly neighbors get shoveled out. I've noticed them out on jogs all around town and they're always friendly, waving and saying hello. All in all, they're nice, productive members of our community.

I'm wondering...what is so bad or wrong about all that?

[Coyote]

Um...Kelly said, "Ever been to San Fran, or Houston (where I live)?" Kelly's from Houston. Not San Fransisco.

Anyway, I'm from Massachusetts, and right now I'm living down the road from a married gay couple. They're nice guys. They both work steady jobs in advertising, drive nice cars, and keep their house in good shape. They have a flower garden that's particularly nice - one of the best in town. Every now and then when the snow gets really bad (so glad winter's over) they go over and help one of their elderly neighbors get shoveled out. I've noticed them out on jogs all around town and they're always friendly, waving and saying hello. All in all, they're nice, productive members of our community.

I'm wondering...what is so bad or wrong about all that?

Sounds like the gay couples (two of them) that I know....


I never quite get it. What's the big deal with being gay? They're just people - as good and as bad as anyone else. Sexual orientation is just one of many many characteristics that identify us.

[MarkVI]

Some people, if not most, may see being gay as outside the norm that has been established by society.
They probably see it as an attack on what they've been taught in religious texts, if that's a factor in some people's perception of it. Maybe they feel we are turning into a sinful society by allowing things like that, but that's just what I think they think.
Also, that is just a possible perception from a religious viewpoint as I see it.

We don't like change, I'm guilty of that myself, but things will change nonetheless.

Perhaps we do not like people who are different from us, maybe because somehow we perceive them as a threat? I do not know.

[MarkVI]

oh, and calm down with your "offensive language" some of you. Please read the new forum rules. :-)

We do not want to censor what you say, please treat others as you would want to be treated.

[9sublime]

I think that phobias are often more of a potential threat to a forum than bad language.

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is a repost of my post #62 in which I addressed Mr. Palerider's diatribe about "special rights". I think that it is instructive that he has not bothered to respond to my (I think) thoughtful and cogent rebuttal of his basic premise. Perhaps it is that he simply didn't see my post, in which case I hope that he notes it now and sees fit to address my post to him.

I had kind of hoped that my polite query to Mr. Palerider and my equally polite pm to him might have elicited a response, but since they did not, I guess I'll just have to move on without him.

My hope was that I could find some common ground with him from which to start a dialogue and after reading all of his posts on this thread I realized that he and I agree about the fact that there should be no special rights. All consenting adults in the US should be covered equally under the law--it's called "equal protection".

Mr. PR (I hope that no one minds my abbreviation) has taken a very strong stand on the subject of NO ONE getting special rights, but then he has taken an equally strong stand that only people with his sexual orientation, or people willing to masquerade as people of his sexual orientation, should be legally allowed to marry and form a family. I'm pretty sure there is a word for a person who says one thing and then deliberately does the opposite, but I'm not sure what word that would be.

If Mr. PR is telling the truth about his stance on special rights, then his only defensible position is to have the law changed so that ANY consenting adult has the LEGAL right to a marriage contract with ANY other consenting adult and thereby receive all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as Mr. PR currently wishes to reserve, as special rights, for his particular group and pretenders thereto.

[Segep]

I'm not a big believer in "Gay Rights". I am, however, a big fan of human rights being applied equally to all human beings.

[9sublime]

I'm not a big believer in "Gay Rights". I am, however, a big fan of human rights being applied equally to all human beings.

Well then surely you support most of the gay rights agenda?

[rejs7]

Being bisexual and transsexual myself I personally feel that the whole aregument is moot - why bother with marriage in the first place? Why not institute a none religious commitment civil union for all couples regardless of sexual orientation which is covered by the same laws, and do away with the archaic praftice of marriage.

Gay people have the right to equal citizenship, and providing they do not bang a drum about it then let them be an equal part of society. Just as it is unacceptable for a straight guy to letch over a woman, so it is just that a gay guy has no right to letch over a man. We are all part of the human race under one sun, and no matter what who we are attracted to we still have to live to the family next door, work with the person across the floor, and share the elevator with the weird woman from floor 5 - we are all unique in our unbiquity, and we should celebrate this, not fear it.

[Think for myself]

If two women or two men want to sleep together, I could not possibly care any less as it does not have anything to do with me.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Being bisexual and transsexual myself I personally feel that the whole aregument is moot - why bother with marriage in the first place? Why not institute a none religious commitment civil union for all couples regardless of sexual orientation which is covered by the same laws, and do away with the archaic praftice of marriage.

Gay people have the right to equal citizenship, and providing they do not bang a drum about it then let them be an equal part of society. Just as it is unacceptable for a straight guy to letch over a woman, so it is just that a gay guy has no right to letch over a man. We are all part of the human race under one sun, and no matter what who we are attracted to we still have to live to the family next door, work with the person across the floor, and share the elevator with the weird woman from floor 5 - we are all unique in our unbiquity, and we should celebrate this, not fear it.

As another transgender person I agree with you about setting up a civil union law that applies equally to all consenting adults who wish to form a legal union. This civil union law should guarantee ALL consenting adults the same legal rights and privileges under the law. If couples wanted to get some religion troweled onto their union then after they get the legal part done they can go to the church of their choice and do what makes them happy--but the religion will not have any more legal validity than a baptism does today.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. The Bible-beaters are a hateful bunch and will go to great lengths to persecute those they deem to be "less than" they perceive themselves to be--they will justify their hatred and bigotry with references to ancient texts written by somebody somewhere, and translated, edited, revised, and updated by a whole panolply self-identified experts and self-righteous folks claiming to have a hotline to Heaven. My favorite is the Inspired Bible by Joseph Smith.

[rejs7]

In the UK the 'queer' minority have a lot of room to express themselves, which has allowed them to better intergrate into society, which has in turned made it easier for them to play an active in society without fear and prejudice.

[9sublime]

Definetly, its not confined itself to or taken over places in the UK, unlike parts of San Francisco etc. in America. (Maybe Brighton).

Marriage in a Christian way should be extended to gays in my opinion if it truely is a religion of tolerance, but I think a non-religious marriage should be given to gays.

Just like I want a wedding, but not a Christian one. However, I don't want to stand in some dingy reigster office with three people watching either. I want a secular version.

[DrWho]

for those of you who are religious.. what do you think about "gay rights" ... how do you incorporate your personal religious belief? do you think gay people are sinners?

Everybody should have the same rights. yes there will be differences, after all it makes no sense for a man to have a right to an abortion. (not saying that should be a right for a woman either - just making a comparison)

Gay and straight people should have the same protections under the law. And if we as a nation create laws one way or another by voting then so be it.

Everyone is a sinner and gay behavior is not any worse than any other - each person's first sin has condemmned him. Once a person is condemned then what difference does it make for his salvation if he has committed one sin or two. But sin is not exactly identical to wrong. A thing can be not wrong and still a sin, but everything that is wrong is a sin.

God wanted Moses to command that water should come forth from a spring in a stone as an example of a miracle. Moses hit the stone with his staff instead of speaking out loud for water to come forth. Hitting a rock with a staff is not wrong but it was a sin.

But whether or not they are sinners depends on whether or not they think its a sin and whether or not they are Jewish. God gave the laws to the jews not to the pagans.

[Segep]

Just like I want a wedding, but not a Christian one. However, I don't want to stand in some dingy reigster office with three people watching either. I want a secular version.

My partner and I live in a very rural area, and we recently notarized our Domestic Partnership (the best that we can hope for in CA) at a Mailboxes, Etc.-type business. We were their very first, in fact. Romantic it was not.