| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 05:59:02 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:T6HWe.62$zG1.51@trnddc05...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1126886921.617530.50450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1126885913.094242.151990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How is society denying the institution of marriage
to
two
men any
different than denying the institution of marriage
to a
black man and a
white woman.
Hmmmm. Let's see here. Let's scratch our
heads a while over this vexing question.
O.K., time's up. Not allowing two men
to "marry" has something to do with what
the institution of marriage is about, i.e.,
the union of a man and a woman. Not
allowing a black man and a white woman
to get married is about...race!
You're telling two consenting adults they can't enter
into a voluntary
legal arrangement - marriage. The institution of
marriage
is "about" a
legally binding contract.
Yeah, between a man and a woman.
That's what marriage *is.*
Sorry, but no. A marriage can be *EITHER* between a
man
and a woman or a same-sex coupling like that of an
opposite-sex marriage.
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
They can, however, much like in the wonderful
Land of Oz, create ersatz "marriages" based
on wishes and self-deception.
Governments have long engaged in such
obvious distortions of reality.
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelo Disaster" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 10:26:49 AM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126911542.848552.145130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:T6HWe.62$zG1.51@trnddc05...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1126886921.617530.50450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1126885913.094242.151990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How is society denying the institution of marriage
to
two
men any
different than denying the institution of marriage
to a
black man and a
white woman.
Hmmmm. Let's see here. Let's scratch our
heads a while over this vexing question.
O.K., time's up. Not allowing two men
to "marry" has something to do with what
the institution of marriage is about, i.e.,
the union of a man and a woman. Not
allowing a black man and a white woman
to get married is about...race!
You're telling two consenting adults they can't enter
into a voluntary
legal arrangement - marriage. The institution of
marriage
is "about" a
legally binding contract.
Yeah, between a man and a woman.
That's what marriage *is.*
Sorry, but no. A marriage can be *EITHER* between a
man
and a woman or a same-sex coupling like that of an
opposite-sex marriage.
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
They can, however, much like in the wonderful
Land of Oz, create ersatz "marriages" based
on wishes and self-deception.
Governments have long engaged in such
obvious distortions of reality.
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
That is *not* "Martin McPhillips definition of marriage." It's just the
definition he knows to be true.
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I would say, that and all of civilized history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:03:09 AM |
|
|
Kelo Disaster wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126911542.848552.145130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126909985.430693.3630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:T6HWe.62$zG1.51@trnddc05...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1126886921.617530.50450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1126885913.094242.151990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How is society denying the institution of marriage
to
two
men any
different than denying the institution of marriage
to a
black man and a
white woman.
Hmmmm. Let's see here. Let's scratch our
heads a while over this vexing question.
O.K., time's up. Not allowing two men
to "marry" has something to do with what
the institution of marriage is about, i.e.,
the union of a man and a woman. Not
allowing a black man and a white woman
to get married is about...race!
You're telling two consenting adults they can't enter
into a voluntary
legal arrangement - marriage. The institution of
marriage
is "about" a
legally binding contract.
Yeah, between a man and a woman.
That's what marriage *is.*
Sorry, but no. A marriage can be *EITHER* between a
man
and a woman or a same-sex coupling like that of an
opposite-sex marriage.
There's no such thing as a "same-sex marriage."
It's an oxymoron.
Tell that to people in Spain, Canada, and the Netherlands.
Are the
same-sex couples there not really married? Their
governments would
disagree with you.
Governments are not omnipotent; they can't
change a turtle into a duck, especially not
just because they call the turtle a duck.
They can, however, much like in the wonderful
Land of Oz, create ersatz "marriages" based
on wishes and self-deception.
Governments have long engaged in such
obvious distortions of reality.
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
That is *not* "Martin McPhillips definition of marriage." It's just the
definition he knows to be true.
It is the definition he *believes* to be true, a definition he is
either unwilling or unable to substantiate (and no, saying "it's
self-evident" does not constitute substantiation). He also appears to
be ignoring the many same-sex couples who are marrying right now,
today, in several countries, including ours.
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I would say, that and all of civilized history.
The civilized world *today* isn't backing him up, either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 10:55:11 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Kelo Disaster"
<goingoing@gone.net> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
10:26:49 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I would say, that and all of civilized history.
So, all those societies that practised group marriages, those that
allowed same sex unions, and anyone who did anything other than
mongamous marriages were not civilized?
News to the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, and pretty much
everyone else.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 08:00:31 PM |
|
|
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
Problem solved.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:28:42 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PUJWe.76962$p_1.37269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
Are both societies mixed? Well, gays are physically capable of reproducing
too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:35:55 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PUJWe.76962$p_1.37269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
One island contains nobody but straight men. The other contains nobody but
gay men. Come back in 50 years - the straight population will have killed
each other off through sexual frustration. The gay community will be a group
of happy old men.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 10:42:09 AM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
One island contains nobody but straight men. The other contains nobody but
gay men. Come back in 50 years - the straight population will have killed
each other off through sexual frustration. The gay community will be a group
of happy old men.
Pretty good.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
16 Sep 2005 10:05:18 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PUJWe.76962$p_1.37269@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Michael Altarriba wrote:
In short, Martin McPhillips' definition of marriage trumps all other
definitions because... why, he's Martin McPhillips! What more reason do
we need?
Is that *all* you have to offer, your own personal conceptual
limitations as to what marriage is?
I've got it: Imagine two island societies. One normal, one homosexual.
Come back in 50 years.
Problem solved.
And you honestly don't think a lesbians wouldn't get together with the gay
men to propetuate the species?
"Life finds a way"
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 10:42:49 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
And you honestly don't think a lesbians wouldn't get together with the gay
men to propetuate the species?
"Life finds a way"
Now THAT's poetic justice!
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 01:54:10 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZPWWe.86076$xl6.36196@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
And you honestly don't think a lesbians wouldn't get together with the
gay men to propetuate the species?
"Life finds a way"
Now THAT's poetic justice!
No, actually it's from "Jurassic Park" :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 10:59:02 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Gary Eickmeier
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> posting the following on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
15:42:49 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Robibnikoff wrote:
And you honestly don't think a lesbians wouldn't get together with the gay
men to propetuate the species?
"Life finds a way"
Now THAT's poetic justice!
How? Sperm donations from gay men used for in-vitro fertlizations.
You could use a turkey baster, for Pete's sake. No need for sexual
relations at all.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 06:23:36 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
How? Sperm donations from gay men used for in-vitro fertlizations.
You could use a turkey baster, for Pete's sake. No need for sexual
relations at all.
My God you people are sick.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
17 Sep 2005 11:52:40 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Yz1Xe.84842$p_1.37369@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
How? Sperm donations from gay men used for in-vitro fertlizations.
You could use a turkey baster, for Pete's sake. No need for sexual
relations at all.
My God you people are sick.
How ironic, coming from someone who wants to deny equal rights to an entire
class of people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:48:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:52:40 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Yz1Xe.84842$p_1.37369@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
How? Sperm donations from gay men used for in-vitro fertlizations.
You could use a turkey baster, for Pete's sake. No need for sexual
relations at all.
My God you people are sick.
How ironic, coming from someone who wants to deny equal rights to an entire
class of people.
Your comment says it all...the desire for those that agree that homosexuals
should be recognized by society as "an entire class of people".
Notes:
1. For further information and not to replicate the entirety of the threads,
there is a great deal evidence showing the foolishness of implementing such a
"slippery slope" ideology, and is provided in the "Calif. can't ban gay
marriage" threads in this NG.
2. Some of the information below is reposted from my own in the "Calif. can't
ban gay marriage" threads. Some has been modified to (hopefully) correct
grammatical and/or spelling errors)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "bottom line" is that there are proponents of the gay lifestyle that have
been unable to convince the majority of society to accept their lifestyle.
By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay lifestyle have
opted to challenge society, not directly (they'd lose as shown by the now 18
states that have voted on a state constitutional ban against homosexuals
marrying), but by challenging the laws-on-the-books through the court system in
an attempt to have their beliefs adjudicated as a bonfide minority status at the
same level as blacks and/or women based on Article XIV.
In challenging society through the courts, homosexual proponents hope that the
justcie system will, by judical fiat, rule that homosexual marriages are legal
and must be recognized in all states (thereby ruling the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) as unconstitutional). This is evident from the major homosexual
organizations that are against Judge Roberts being confirmed for Chief Justice
of the USSC:
"Four homosexual groups -- the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Parents,
Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- issued a joint statement, saying
Roberts' confirmation would endanger homosexual causes."
(http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21470)
Opponents of same sex marriages may fall into the "trap" of debating the
homosexual lifestyle with the proponents of said lifestyle in these NGs. In
lieu of a direct challenge to the well-established societal norms (historical
US customs and traditions) the proponents instead attempt to steer away from the
gay lifestyle in general by narrowing (or limiting) the discussion to individual
topics such as re-defining "marriage" and "rights" and try to cite their various
"interpretations" of what one or two court cases have ruled.
When such this diversionary tactic fails, some same sex marriage proponents will
invariably attack their opponents through a variety of fallacies that include
religion, slavery, or interracial marriages. These diversions are to merely
avoid the most glaring legal issue that same sex marriage proponents wish to
ignore, and which I've previously pointed out:
'That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or stealth, to
attempt and change the very foundations that make up the majority of "society"
...,based on a "feeling" that this group should be placed on the same level in
society, not on genetic or physical differences, but on their "feelings", may
see a backlash against this (hypocrisy).'
When the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government
classifiy gays as a "minority" equal to others that fall under the "protected
class" status (Civil Rights Act of 1964) as ENDA attempted to do, the logical
extension of affirmative action programs will be afforded them either through
said law or a new law, targeting a "different" type of "minority" which would
have to be addressed to avoid *discrimination* of said these *other*
"minorities" under a "protected class" status. Claiming otherwise is irrational
and usually found by those that focus on short-term thinking, false assertions,
fallacious illogical rhetoric and/or ad hominem.
While the debate rages on, unlike the definitive genetic and physical
differences wrt race and gender, no differences are found to exist to justify
the "protected status" treament over heterosexuals. There is no "gay gene",
ergo, no separate "class" of beings known as homosexuals, male or female,
(that) exists to justify a "minority" status equating to those based on race or
gender.
However, despite the fact that evdience nulifys their claims doesn't deter their
desire to be afforded a "protected class" status and their continued attempts to
have the courts adjudicate these beliefs, with the same protections per the
Fourteenth Amendment (Article XIV). This will force (IMO of their beliefs)
"society" (business/goverment (all levels) etc.) to treat homosexuals as defined
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or equivalent legislation such as ENDA).
(other)
"On behalf of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
(NARTH), we wish to express our concern regarding your Complete Medical
Encyclopedia, which contains several substantial factual errors that we advise
you correct as soon as possible.
"...homosexual researchers themselves have admitted that they cannot find a "gay
gene," or any clear evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis. "The
Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science," [1] quotes numerous
homosexual researchers who have denied finding a determinative biological basis
for homosexual behaviors." (and) "... it would seem that the natural-law
worldview about gender and sexuality held by the world's traditional Jews,
Christians, and Muslims, for example, must be based in some sort of wisdom about
our human design--and should not be so cavalierly and disrespectfully dismissed
by your publication." (http://www.narth.com/docs/correctionletter1.html)
"The Importance of Twin Studies
N. E. Whitehead, Ph.D
"Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological
condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one
identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too.
But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother
homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average,
they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known
in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the
general public. Indeed, the PUBLIC INCREASINGLY BELIEVES THE OPPOSITE"
(emphasis mine - and such disinformation is supported by some of the media and
various national organizations...but that is for another thread)
(and) "In summary:
1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in
specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.
2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are
overwhelming.
3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.
4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.
5. Change is possible."
(http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html)
"There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain
dissections, and gene "linkage" studies.(6) Twin studies show that something
other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the
identical twin studied didn't have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality
were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay.
Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies
have produced completely different results.(7) Dr. Simon LeVay's famous study on
the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy.
He wasn't sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr.
LeVay even admits he doesn't know if the changes in the brain structures were
the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.(8) Finally, an early
study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X- chromosome has
yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of
the first.(9) Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically
related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born
with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn't make it a normal condition."
(http://www.probe.org/content/view/699/72/)
(Refs to 'Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans Act of 2003' (ENDA)
Based on the EEOC's duties, they may easily use they same methodology as applied
for violations of the Civil Rights Act, and what the *intent* is as defined by
Senator Jeffords own words wrt ENDA (where he was a primary sponsor):
"...EXTENDING to sexual orientation the same federal employment discrimination
protections already provided based on race, religion, gender, national origin,
age, and disability." (emphasis mine)
(http://jeffords.senate.gov/issue_enda.html)
"Executive Order 11478 (President Nixon)
Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government
Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United
States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as
follows:
Section 1. It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide
equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons, to prohibit
discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, handicap, or age, and to PROMOTE the full realization of equal
employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each
executive department and agency. ..." (emphasis mine)
(http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/eo11478/eo11478.html)
"Executive Order 13087 of May 28, 1998 (President Clinton)
Further Amendment to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the
Federal Government
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of
the United States, and in order to provide for a uniform policy for the Federal
Government to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, it is hereby
ordered that Executive Order 11478, as amended, is further amended as follows:
Section 1. The first sentence of section 1 is amended by substituting ‘‘age, or
sexual orientation’’ for ‘‘or age’’.
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1998_register&docid=fr02jn98-135.pdf)
"Lawrence (Case No. 02-102) explicitly overturned Bowers, which it held viewed
the liberty at stake too narrowly. The Lawrence court held that intimate
consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Lawrence will have the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United
States insofar as they apply to consenting adults acting in private. "
(http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Lawrence_v._Texas)
(http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/413/yls_article.htm)
Note: Lawrence overruled Bowers and focused on "individual" rights of privacy,
not that homosexuals are a "class" that met the criteria as defined in the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. THIS is what several proponents of homosexuality wish to
change through the courts, as it's becoming more evident that the American
people do not want their definition of marriage as it pertains to society in
America to change.
"Administration (Re: The Employment Nondiscrimination Act)
The law is to be enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
and the procedures and remedies available under the Act are those available
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.(§10) Remedies are available
against the state to the same extent they are available in an action against any
public or private entity other than the state.(§10) "
(http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/450hdo4.htm)
My comment:
'That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or stealth, to
attempt and change the very foundations that make up the majority of "society"
..,based on a "feeling" that this group should be placed on the same level in
society, not on genetic or physical differences, but on their "feelings", may
see a backlash against this (hypocrisy).' remains unrefuted.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:09:12 PM |
|
|
"Info Junkie" <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote in message
news:432d5129.4823377@news.ifx.net...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:52:40 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Yz1Xe.84842$p_1.37369@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
How? Sperm donations from gay men used for in-vitro fertlizations.
You could use a turkey baster, for Pete's sake. No need for sexual
relations at all.
My God you people are sick.
How ironic, coming from someone who wants to deny equal rights to an
entire
class of people.
Your comment says it all...the desire for those that agree that
homosexuals
should be recognized by society as "an entire class of people".
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government. That
means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a class
of people and also discriminates against them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:14:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:09:12 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Info Junkie" <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote in message
news:432d5129.4823377@news.ifx.net...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:52:40 +0800, "Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Yz1Xe.84842$p_1.37369@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Douglas Berry wrote:
How? Sperm donations from gay men used for in-vitro fertlizations.
You could use a turkey baster, for Pete's sake. No need for sexual
relations at all.
My God you people are sick.
How ironic, coming from someone who wants to deny equal rights to an
entire
class of people.
Your comment says it all...the desire for those that agree that
homosexuals
should be recognized by society as "an entire class of people".
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
Since the NG I'm posting from is alt.politics.usa.constitution, my post reflects
the issue from a legal, not an emotional perspective.
So, your claim "Gays are a class of people" fails as homosexuals do not meet the
criteria of a "class" according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government. That
means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a class
of people and also discriminates against them.
The "problem", as I noted in my previous post is;
'Proponents of homosexual marriages have continued to try and make this
distinction through judical fiat, as the majority of "society" would not accept
homosexuals as a "class". This is evident by the rejection of the voters in (so
far) 18 states that voted for amendments against "gay marriages" to their
respective State Constituions.'
Your claim that " the government already recognizes them as a class" is flawed
as homosexual do not meet the criteria set down in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If they did, the previous attempts by proponents of homosexuality to have
Congress pass ENDA would be irrelevent.
As you tried to claim, proponents of homosexuality believe they are denied some
sort of "equal rights", not as people but as a "class". From the legal
perspective, this type of comment (and yours) is a flawed premise, for
homosexuals are not "denied...equal rights" at all...as people, not a "class.
This is because under the law, homosexuals do not fit the legal definition of a
"class" as recognized by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ergo, no
"discrimination" by the government exists...except in their own minds.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:15:15 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
As you tried to claim, proponents of homosexuality believe they are denied some
sort of "equal rights", not as people but as a "class". From the legal
perspective, this type of comment (and yours) is a flawed premise, for
homosexuals are not "denied...equal rights" at all...as people, not a "class.
This is because under the law, homosexuals do not fit the legal definition of a
"class" as recognized by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ergo, no
"discrimination" by the government exists...except in their own minds.
Firstly, a "suspect class" does not derive solely from the Civil Rights
Act. Women are a protected class, although they aren't covered by the Act.
Secondly, there can be discrimination against a non-suspect class of
people, as was the case with gays in Romer v. Evans.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 09:11:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:15:15 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
As you tried to claim, proponents of homosexuality believe they are denied some
sort of "equal rights", not as people but as a "class". From the legal
perspective, this type of comment (and yours) is a flawed premise, for
homosexuals are not "denied...equal rights" at all...as people, not a "class.
This is because under the law, homosexuals do not fit the legal definition of a
"class" as recognized by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ergo, no
"discrimination" by the government exists...except in their own minds.
Firstly, a "suspect class" does not derive solely from the Civil Rights
Act. Women are a protected class, although they aren't covered by the Act.
No argument here wrt "suspect class" and women.
"Determining whether Congress properly exercised its powers under Section 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause with respect
to a non-suspect class requires a two-part test. First, we ask whether Congress
identified a history and pattern of unconstitutional discrimination by the
states against the non-suspect class. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 368; see also Kimmel,
528 U.S. at 88-89. Second, we ask whether the legislation under question passes
the "congruence and proportionality" test."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/017966.html)
Secondly, there can be discrimination against a non-suspect class of
people, as was the case with gays in Romer v. Evans.
We've previously discussed Romer v. Evans, Mr Rosenbluth, where the majority of
the court ruled:
"We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners
were free as adults to engage in the PRIVATE CONDUCT" in the exercise of their
liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution." (emphasis mine)
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html)
This issue is neither a "suspect" nor "non-suspect class", but refers to
individual conduct and the government intrusion upon the same.
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 09:13:15 PM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:15:15 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Secondly, there can be discrimination against a non-suspect class of
people, as was the case with gays in Romer v. Evans.
We've previously discussed Romer v. Evans, Mr Rosenbluth, where the majority of
the court ruled:
"We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners
were free as adults to engage in the PRIVATE CONDUCT" in the exercise of their
liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution." (emphasis mine)
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html)
That's Lawrence, not Romer.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Info Junkie" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
23 Sep 2005 06:30:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:13:15 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:15:15 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Secondly, there can be discrimination against a non-suspect class of
people, as was the case with gays in Romer v. Evans.
We've previously discussed Romer v. Evans, Mr Rosenbluth, where the majority of
the court ruled:
"We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners
were free as adults to engage in the PRIVATE CONDUCT" in the exercise of their
liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution." (emphasis mine)
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html)
That's Lawrence, not Romer.
When I posted the above, I must have been more tired than I thought Mr
Rosenbluth. No excuses as I gave the wrong URL, as I provided one from
Lawrence v. Texas, not Romer v.s Evans.
WRT Romer v. Evans, the USSC struck down Amendment 2 from Colorado's
Consitution, as it was:
"Not confined to the private sphere, Amendment 2 also operates to repeal and
forbid all laws or policies providing specific protection for gays or lesbians
from discrimination by every level of Colorado government....(and) Amendment 2's
reach may not be limited to specific laws passed for the benefit of gays and
lesbians. It is a fair...inference from the broad language of the amendment that
it deprives gays and lesbians even of the protection of general laws and
policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private
settings." Such denial of the protection of "general laws and polices" that are
afforded to all others is where the court objected.'
(regarding "class" per Colorado's Amendment 2, the court concluded):
"...is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the
Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "Class legislation . . . [is] obnoxious
to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ."
(http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html)
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
23 Sep 2005 08:59:13 AM |
|
|
Info Junkie wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:13:15 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Secondly, there can be discrimination against a non-suspect class of
people, as was the case with gays in Romer v. Evans.
WRT Romer v. Evans, the USSC struck down Amendment 2 from Colorado's
Consitution, as it was:
(regarding "class" per Colorado's Amendment 2, the court concluded):
"...is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the
Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "Class legislation . . . [is]
obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ."
(http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html)
The next sentence in the opinion is: "We must conclude that Amendment
2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to
make them unequal to everyone else." Which confirms my contention that
there can be unlawful discrimination against a non-suspect class of
people (in this case gays).
Moreover, Romer established a standard (bare desire to harm - animus)
when discrimination against a non-suspect class violates Equal
Protection:
"[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws'
means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire
to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate
governmental interest."
"the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the
class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate
state interests."
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:18:47 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government. That
means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a class
of people and also discriminates against them.
"Class of people" has a very specific legal meaning in the context of
discrimination. Usually, the phrase is "suspect class". When the
government discriminates against a suspect class, the burden falls on
the government to justify the discrimination. But, when the government
discriminates against a non-suspect class, the burden falls on the
individual to prove every conceivable justification as false.
As of now, gays are not a suspect class, although their status is likely
not as low as the usual non-suspect class (e.g., green-eyed people or
chess players), thanks to Romer and Lawrence.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:25:36 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WrmdnSvRL8NmjLPeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government. That
means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a
class
of people and also discriminates against them.
"Class of people" has a very specific legal meaning in the context of
discrimination.
Fallacy of redefinition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
18 Sep 2005 08:38:28 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WrmdnSvRL8NmjLPeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government. That
means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a
class of people and also discriminates against them.
"Class of people" has a very specific legal meaning in the context of
discrimination.
Fallacy of redefinition.
What are you talking about?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 08:14:31 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qqadnZ9bH70Li7PeRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WrmdnSvRL8NmjLPeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government.
That
means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a
class of people and also discriminates against them.
"Class of people" has a very specific legal meaning in the context of
discrimination.
Fallacy of redefinition.
What are you talking about?
You're not very bright, are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 06:03:44 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qqadnZ9bH70Li7PeRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WrmdnSvRL8NmjLPeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government.
That means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a
class of people and also discriminates against them.
"Class of people" has a very specific legal meaning in the context of
discrimination.
Fallacy of redefinition.
What are you talking about?
You're not very bright, are you?
At first, you offered a common, non-legal definition of "class of
people" (category or group that share a characteristic), which is fine.
But then you used that definition to make a claim about the law (gays
are denied equal rights by the government, and thus are viewed as a
class of people by the government).
Claims about the law must use the legal definitions of "equal rights"
and "class of people". So yeah, I changed the definition back to the
one that is appropriate for this debate. You got a problem with that?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:00:10 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:946dnft4-uZN3rLeRVn-3w@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qqadnZ9bH70Li7PeRVn-ig@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WrmdnSvRL8NmjLPeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
Not that by "class" I mean "category" or "group" of people that share
a
certain common characteristic. Gays are a class of people, just as
"green-eyed people" is a class of people, "chess players" is a class
of
people, and "Presbyterians" is a class of people.
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government.
That means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them
as a
class of people and also discriminates against them.
"Class of people" has a very specific legal meaning in the context of
discrimination.
Fallacy of redefinition.
What are you talking about?
You're not very bright, are you?
At first, you offered a common, non-legal definition of "class of
people" (category or group that share a characteristic), which is fine.
But then you used that definition to make a claim about the law (gays
are denied equal rights by the government, and thus are viewed as a
class of people by the government).
Claims about the law must use the legal definitions of "equal rights"
and "class of people". So yeah, I changed the definition back to the
one that is appropriate for this debate. You got a problem with that?
Yes, when you are changing the meaning of something I stated in order to
twist it into something I did not say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:22:30 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:946dnft4-uZN3rLeRVn-3w@comcast.com...
Claims about the law must use the legal definitions of "equal rights"
and "class of people". So yeah, I changed the definition back to the
one that is appropriate for this debate. You got a problem with that?
Yes, when you are changing the meaning of something I stated in order to
twist it into something I did not say.
I didn't change the meaning in order to twist your words. I changed it
to point out that your analysis is wrong.
You said, "the problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the
government. That means that as it stands, the government already
recognizes them as a class of people ..." Your common-use definition of
"class of people" and "equal rights" do not apply because you have made
a claim about the law.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
19 Sep 2005 09:36:59 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:N9CdnT3qDbj177LeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
Peacenik wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:946dnft4-uZN3rLeRVn-3w@comcast.com...
Claims about the law must use the legal definitions of "equal rights"
and "class of people". So yeah, I changed the definition back to the
one that is appropriate for this debate. You got a problem with that?
Yes, when you are changing the meaning of something I stated in order to
twist it into something I did not say.
I didn't change the meaning in order to twist your words. I changed it
to point out that your analysis is wrong.
You said, "the problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the
government. That means that as it stands, the government already
recognizes them as a class of people ..." Your common-use definition of
"class of people" and "equal rights" do not apply because you have made
a claim about the law.
You are redefining my statement.
Now, since you are obviously incapable of looking at the meanings of
statements as the WRITER intended them, how about you address my statement,
revised as follows:
The problem is that gays are denied equal rights by the government. That
means that as it stands, the government already recognizes them as a
CATEGORY
of people and also discriminates against them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
