At the center of it all

[Gonz]

In order to withstand a Constitutional crisis, we've spoken of amendments. We've spoken of bias. We've spoken of hatred & bigotry.
We can dance all around the issue & never see it. Good, bad, natural, perversion, choice, what ever. The only question that really matters is;

Is homosexuality a valid minority?

I say no. One can't change their skin color or sex (without extraordinary measures) but many have abandoned or dismissed their sexual preferences in favor of dignity & civility, according to their local customs.

Even the fallen Roman Empire & the once-Great Greeks, while enjoying homosexual loving, knew marriage was over the line. Could there be tie-in between once-great & fallen to the destruction of the moral fiber of society? Yes, in my book. What people do in the privacy of thirr own home, within reason, is between them & their agent. Those actions do not define a political position however? That's where we want to go, is it, allowing someting so formidable & entrenched as sexual favors to create a dominant political splinter group. With that consideration, will the next great minority group be Men who love Poodles? Women without pubic hairs? Where is the minority status groups that protect those folks who live in swill with their 4000 cats? Cheeseheads? Where does it end?

 

[chcr]

In order to withstand a Constitutional crisis, we've spoken of amendments. We've spoken of bias. We've spoken of hatred & bigotry.
We can dance all around the issue & never see it. Good, bad, natural, perversion, choice, what ever. The only question that really matters is;

Is homosexuality a valid minority?

I say no. One can't change their skin color or sex (without extraordinary measures) but many have abandoned or dismissed their sexual preferences in favor of dignity & civility, according to their local customs.

Even the fallen Roman Empire & the once-Great Greeks, while enjoying homosexual loving, knew marriage was over the line. Could there be tie-in between once-great & fallen to the destruction of the moral fiber of society? Yes, in my book. What people do in the privacy of thirr own home, within reason, is between them & their agent. Those actions do not define a political position however? That's where we want to go, is it, allowing someting so formidable & entrenched as sexual favors to create a dominant political splinter group. With that consideration, will the next great minority group be Men who love Poodles? Women without pubic hairs? Where is the minority status groups that protect those folks who live in swill with their 4000 cats? Cheeseheads? Where does it end?

Did they?

Just because something has always been a certain way does not make it right. But, to answer the charge, we'd point out that history is filled with many same-sex marriages. Judaic scriptures, for example, shows that ancient Egypt recognized same-sex unions as marriages, as did imperial Rome. Same-sex unions were an important and recognized facet of life in classical Greece, Republican Rome, Imperial China, Africa, Australia and Central Asia. So there is virtually no continent in the world that has not recognized same-sex unions as a part of their civilization. Even in the United States of America, we DO have a history of legal same-sex marriages. At one time, same-sex citizens of the US who were married under their Indian tribal law, were also recognized as married under some state laws.

Link

 

[Gonz]

From the source for your source

Evidence that these societies recognized same-sex marriage is speculative

Information about Egyptian unions, whether partners were different or same sex, is indirect but suggestive.

Instead of speculating on one line, how about the entire thought.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

I can't imagine someone "choosing" homosexuality. Gay teens have horribly high suicide rates. Gay men and lesbians are subject to discrimination at best, and at worst, violence from hate groups. Why select a lifestyle that will make you a target of hate?

 

[Gonz]

This is not the lifestyle argument either.

 

[chcr]

From the source for your source





Instead of speculating on one line, how about the entire thought.

Just as you say, Gonz.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

Is homosexuality a valid minority?

I say no. One can't change their skin color or sex (without extraordinary measures) but many have abandoned or dismissed their sexual preferences in favor of dignity & civility, according to their local customs.

This made me think you were implying it was a choice.... guess I misunderstood.

I don't believe it's a choice any more than it was my choice to be a woman. In fact, if it had been up to me I would much rather have been a man.

 

[Gonz]

Politically.

We know they exist, why is another thread.

Since they would have to be a minority group to achieve legal protection, as a group, are they?

You can look at atperson of Negro blood & tell their minority group. The same can be said, in general, of sex. It cannot be said of preference.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

You can't tell by looking at someone if they are deaf. Are the hearing impaired a minority?

 

[Gonz]

Good question.

 

[freako104]

I see them as such. but not totally. Some have been "saved" or some bullshit. so some do change their lifestyle. as you said you cant change the colour of your skin. but i think it is because most people are straight and to be honest they are targeted for discrimination and hate

 

[MrBishop]

[/quote]

Politically.

We know they exist, why is another thread.

Since they would have to be a minority group to achieve legal protection, as a group, are they?

You can look at atperson of Negro blood & tell their minority group. The same can be said, in general, of sex. It cannot be said of preference.

It doesn't matter if they're considered a minority or part of a majority...THAT is the point. Equality under the law. It doesn't ask for people of a minority to be more equal than others... just "as equal" as the rest. No descrimination.

It shouldn't matter what gender, race, religion, age, physical characteristics, defects etc...that any one person might have...they should still be counted as 1 person. and one person wanting to live in a consentual monogamous relationship with 1 person and willing to get married to prove their devotion to each other through the institute of marriage, should be allowed to do so.

BTW...I particularly like this part of the link that chcr tossed up re: majority-opinion vs. good laws

[size=+1]But sixty percent of Americans oppose same-gender marriage![/size] In 1967, nearly 75% of all Americans were opposed to inter-racial marriages, yet they were ruled legal that same year. 1 NOTE: Despite that ruling, that archaic law prohibiting mixed-race marriages stayed on the books in South Carolina until November 1998! Believe it or not, in that 1998 election, 40% of voters in that State still voted to keep the law banning inter-racial marriages!2
As you can see, regardless of popular opinion, mob rules has never been a good precedent for making laws. Just like that change may have seemed 'huge' at the time, it was definitely the right thing to do. It's time - once again - to do the right thing.

 

[Gato_Solo]

It doesn't matter if they're considered a minority or part of a majority...THAT is the point. Equality under the law. It doesn't ask for people of a minority to be more equal than others... just "as equal" as the rest. No descrimination.

It shouldn't matter what gender, race, religion, age, physical characteristics, defects etc...that any one person might have...they should still be counted as 1 person. and one person wanting to live in a consentual monogamous relationship with 1 person and willing to get married to prove their devotion to each other through the institute of marriage, should be allowed to do so.

BTW...I particularly like this part of the link that chcr tossed up re: majority-opinion vs. good laws
[/font][/QUOTE]


Let's clear up these muddied waters, shall we?

1. A minority group is distinguished by their physical characteristics. Ideology and orientation must be determined after all other factors have been taken into account. A person who chooses to be homosexual (and I still say it's a choice, Ms Ann Thrope) is not a minority. You bring up the question of suicide and depression, but not all gay men commit suicide. In fact, most do not.

It shouldn't matter what gender, race, religion, age, physical characteristics, defects etc...that any one person might have...they should still be counted as 1 person. and one person wanting to live in a consentual monogamous relationship with 1 person and willing to get married to prove their devotion to each other through the institute of marriage, should be allowed to do so.

Why is this even an issue? If a person chooses to be homosexual (and I stress that this is a choice), then they've chosen a lifestyle that does not need marriage because the main reason for marriage is for procreation. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

 

[chcr]

Here's a question. Why in the world does anyone think that the constitution is the appropriate place to define marriage?

the main reason for marriage is for procreation.

Umm..., I don't think so. In other words, someone who is clinically sterile should not be allowed to wed? I certainly didn't get married to procreate. I know scores of others. It's a pretty generalization, and it was true even a century ago, but times change.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Here's a question. Why in the world does anyone think that the constitution is the appropriate place to define marriage?



Umm..., I don't think so. In other words, someone who is clinically sterile should not be allowed to wed? I certainly didn't get married to procreate. I know scores of others. It's a pretty generalization, and it was true even a century ago, but times change.

That, chcr is a bullshit statement, and you're clouding the issue with it. The main reason for marriage is procreation. Period. As for the clinically sterile, they usually don't know until after they try to conceive. By definition, gay couples, and lesbian couples, cannot conceive from the outset. Artificial insemination is not the reason, either, so don't add that to the list. Biological procreation is the main reason.

 

[Gonz]

Change procreation to legitimizing children. Creating legal heirs. Anybody can (does, has, will) fuck but only the legitimate heirs get the gold.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

oh my goodness what a credibility drop... Please provide for me all the scientific data showing that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals despite the massive taboo against it in our society? And then when you are done with that you can explain to me why I CANT choose to be a homosexual myself. According to your logic I should be able to magically transform myself into one and immidiatly start finding other men attractive and being repulsed by women. But no matter how hard I try it doesnt work. Why is that? And how do you explain that problem with your theory?

Now as far as you insistance that marriage is ONLY for procreation. Where is that written? What about all the millions of people who get married and never have kids. Should their marriages be declared null and void after a period of time in which no offspring is made? And should we write a constitutional ammendment to ban the elderly from marrying?

 

[chcr]

That, chcr is a bullshit statement, and you're clouding the issue with it. The main reason for marriage is procreation. Period. As for the clinically sterile, they usually don't know until after they try to conceive. By definition, gay couples, and lesbian couples, cannot conceive from the outset. Artificial insemination is not the reason, either, so don't add that to the list. Biological procreation is the main reason.

Sorry, Gato, but I disagree. Once it was true, but it hasn't been for years. Nobody feels anymore that they must be married to procreate (well, almost nobody). As for legitimizing children, I think it's harder today to illegitmize them. The worl has changed. You don't have to like it, you don't have to approve of it. Nor do I, but the fact remains.

Edit, I wasn't finished (but I am uncoordinated): The issue at hand is do homosexuals have equal protection under the law? It is the only issue, and obfuscating it with emotional side issues really does't make a difference. Do or don't they?

 

[Gonz]

provide for me all the scientific data showing that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals despite the massive taboo against it in our society?

I'll bet it's filed right next to the Murderers: Nature or Nurture.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

I'll bet it's filed right next to the Murderers: Nature or Nurture.

how is murdering relevent to homosexuality again?