Latest gay marriage flareup
 

CNN

A judge in Iowa declared the state's ban on gay marriage unconsitutional. He stayed it later that day, but not before a dozen couples tied the knot. The initial indications are that those dozen marriages will remain valid.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
The initial indications are that those dozen marriages will remain valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so threatening to the sanctity of my heterosexual marriage that my wife and I are now considering getting a divorce.

At least Iowa stopped it before even more couples could get married, lest we see the complete disintegration of Western society.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

I don't see any reason why someone would have objections to a gay couple getting married. However, I do think the church should announce that it will NEVER allow gay marriages in the church. Homosexuality is clearly denounced in the Bible e.g. "Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." (this is not open to intepretation IMO). I really think people should be true to themselves and not kid themselves that their almost 2000 year old man-made philosophy is accepting of gay relationships.

Banning gay marriage is unconstitional. Allowing gay marrigaes in churches is unChristian. Both should be treated accordingly.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

i was considering getting married later in my life, but now marriage as a a whole is ruined and i'll never consider it. It's no longer pure or special, so i'm just never getting married now. Thanks Iowa, you ruined everyone else's marriages, and soon the entire world will be a giant sin-city.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

Deleted

[ QUOTE ]
Banning gay marriage is unconstitional

[/ QUOTE ]
Should Iron be allowed to marry his mother or sister? How about his dog? Why can't corporations marry, they're legal entities?

Whether the term marriage can even apply to a man and a man is open for debate IMO.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

Are we allowed to call homosexuality a "perversion" here? I don't think people who hold opposite beliefs to myself (or society in general) should be censored but perhaps a little self-censorship could go a long way there Phil.

If 2 humans love each other I have no objection to them becoming married (does it affect us?). Why is it a perversion?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whether the term marriage can even apply to a man and a man is open for debate IMO.



[/ QUOTE ]

"the legal or religious union of two people," Canadian Oxford Dictionary

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should Iron be allowed to marry his mother or sister?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and yes.

[ QUOTE ]
How about his dog?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals can't consent to marriage and are not given the same rights under the law as humans. If dogs start paying taxes, collecting Soc Sec income, and using public schools equally, then yes, let them marry then too.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't corporations marry, they're legal entities?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, because corporations aren't people so the term has no real meaning when applied to them. But since you bring up corporations... they are evidence that the law has no problem recognizing voluntary partnerships as legal entities, so why not two men?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

I don't know what's allowed here, I'm usually debate this stuff in SMP. But I don't think you can have a proper debate without putting your cards on the table, and what I said is at the core of the debate IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
If 2 humans love each other I have no objection to them becoming married (does it affect us?). Why is it a peversion?

[/ QUOTE ]
If society was composed entirely of consenting adults, then it would be a different matter. But there are many who believe that society shouldn't recognize abnormal acts as valid.

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

Pretty much a done deal in Iowa unless they change the state and/or federal constitution.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions ...

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) is clearly NOT a perversion.

(2) is not a perversion, unless you also think that mankind for most of its history was mostly perverts, in which case the term no longer has the same meaning.

(3) is a misnomer as the sex isn't voluntary both ways.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

Re: OP, I am pretty sure only one couple got hitched.

[ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]
When you say "perversion" do you mean "not the norm" or "morally wrong"? Would letting homosexuals have a legally binding relationship somehow encourage straight people to become gay?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Banning gay marriage is unconstitional

[/ QUOTE ]
Should Iron be allowed to marry his mother or sister? How about his dog? Why can't corporations marry, they're legal entities?

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like this could easily be rectified by defining marriage as between two non-familial humans. Or leaving marriage alone and giving them a comparable institution.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what's allowed here, I'm usually debate this stuff in SMP. But I don't think you can have a proper debate without putting your cards on the table, and what I said is at the core of the debate IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
If 2 humans love each other I have no objection to them becoming married (does it affect us?). Why is it a peversion?

[/ QUOTE ]
If society was composed entirely of consenting adults, then it would be a different matter. But there are many who believe that society shouldn't recognize abnormal acts as valid.

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your examples suck. I do not see the legal binding between the relationship of two consenting and loving adults as being a perversion or as being deprimental to society(in fact quite the opposite). Thus legal 'secular' marriage between 2 men/women is in my oppinion a non-issue.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties).

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the way you're using the word "discourage" instead of "forcably prevented against their will" to soften it.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 15yo a moral agent?

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns the animal?

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. The fact that people like to be busybodies and tell other people what to do when it comes to activity X doesn't mean that behavior is legitimate, and doesn't justify extending it to activity Y.

The state shoudln't have any business condining or prohibiting marriage at all. But as long as it does, and as long as that state guaratees equal protection under the law (as the US does in the Constitution), restriction on gay marriage is a violation of that equal protection.

Alice is allowed to contract with Bob, but Charlie is restricted from contracting with Bob. Charlie does not have equal protection.

This particular examination kills the "polygamy" and "bestiality" slippery slope objections to allowing gay marriage, since in those cases *everyone* is *equally* limited to one simultaneous contract at a time, and everyone is equally prohibited from contracting with dogs.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality causes direct or indirect harm to society. Seems that outlawing homosexuality would have the more harmful effect. (Assuming you believe that dudes pop chubs at other dudes involuntarily. If you think they are all making a choice I have no idea what to say.)

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your examples suck. I do not see the legal binding between the relationship of two consenting and loving adults as being a perversion or as being deprimental to society(in fact quite the opposite).

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't, obviously. Others do. The examples (which you didn't answer) are relevant to what is and isn't a perversion/detrimental and how we decide it. I don't see how you can be against any of the things listed if you're for gay marriage. Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities. Many 15yos are as capable of giving consent as an 18yo "adult". Who are you to restrict their freedom? And prostitution is the very definition of a willing adult transaction.

@ mosdef:
[ QUOTE ]
I like the way you're using the word "discourage" instead of "forcably prevented against their will" to soften it.

[/ QUOTE ]
prevented? They can do whatever they like. It's up to society whether or not they recognize the union of man and man. No is being forcibly prevented from anything - in fact gays pushing marriage is an attempt to force social validity for their abnormal preferences, by hijacking a traditional means of recognizing the union of a man and woman.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality causes direct or indirect harm to society. Seems that outlawing homosexuality would have the more harmful effect. (Assuming you believe that dudes pop chubs at other dudes involuntarily. If you think they are all making a choice I have no idea what to say.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your first point. And no one is outlawing homosexuality - merely refusing to anoint a man-man love fest as marriage.

There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

afaik gays can get married in any church that will do it.

main issue is they want government/corporate/contractual benefits.

I don't see the difference to be honest between this issue and say, income tax regulation reform where everyone knows there are loopholes and crazy unjust crap that makes no sense and benefits special (corporate) interests and the like. or similiar issues.

personally I think that if GLAD would just lobby for official recognition of "homosexual unions" and claim it has nothing to do with "marriage", when the effects would be identical, it would get passed no problem.

I mean think about it, when man/woman get married in a church, they still have to get the piece of paper from the government. gays can get married today everywhere, they just can't get the government paper.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because there is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality causes direct or indirect harm to society. Seems that outlawing homosexuality would have the more harmful effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about diseases like AIDS and stuff?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

With humans? Do you have any evidence of this or are you pulling it out of your ass? And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh Phil, I think you've gone off the deep end here. Do you really think teenage kids sit in high school going "My god, what am I going to do to get my ass kicked more. I know! I'll start taking it up the ass."

Cody

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your first point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am open to evidence that homosexuality causes harm. Do you have any?


[ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, should bisexuality and experimentation be discouraged too? Where do you draw the line for what is a perversion and what isn't? Are men allowed to have anal sex with their wives? Given how our anatomy works that seems like a perversion as well.

Not sure what you mean by choice. Do you have a choice when you get aroused by naked women? Are you implying that people somehow force themselves to get homosexually aroused even though their brain thinks it is revolting? Seems like you are trying too hard to pin human sexuality in [0, 1]

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality causes direct or indirect harm to society. Seems that outlawing homosexuality would have the more harmful effect. (Assuming you believe that dudes pop chubs at other dudes involuntarily. If you think they are all making a choice I have no idea what to say.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your first point. And no one is outlawing homosexuality - merely refusing to anoint a man-man love fest as marriage.

There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, what does that matter? If someone isn't born with some proclivity for a purely consensual activity, you feel that you are justified to prevent their partaking in that activity using violence or the threat of it? Were you born with a proclivity to post on 2+2 or is it nurtured? If it's nurtured, am I morally justified to throw you in jail or keep you from exercising the same rights and privileges as non-2+2 users in American society?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
personally I think that if GLAD would just lobby for official recognition of "homosexual unions" and claim it has nothing to do with "marriage", when the effects would be identical, it would get passed no problem.

I mean think about it, when man/woman get married in a church, they still have to get the piece of paper from the government. gays can get married today everywhere, they just can't get the government paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once we get to the point where we're giving homosexual couples EVERYTHING but the word and the license, then I'm not really sure why the state doesn't just give them the word and the license to boot, except to continue flaunting their status as second-class citizens. So yes, political expediency might say that gay-right proponents should call for strong civil unions, but supporting strong civil unions while opposing "gay marriages" just sounds like supporting a kinder, gentler form of discrimination.

If we're going to legitimize everything else about their relationship -- let them adopt children, receive partner benefits, etc. -- then why maintain the two classes of relationships *other* than to discriminate? As a tangential but related point, the US doesn't exactly have a long, proud history with "separate but equal" mandates.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)Aren't you refuting your own argument when you admit that a significant segment of the population is purely gay?

2)Why is bisexuality any more of a choice than pure homosexuality?

3)Have you heard of David Reimer? How about gay animals, or genetically modified gay fruit flies?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

With humans? Do you have any evidence of this or are you pulling it out of your ass? And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't; others do - some of the same people who support gay marriage. It is solely those people who I'm directing this at. And yes, it's a well known phenomena that animals can be trained to seek and enjoy sex with humans. It's also been said that creature like dolphins voluntarily submit to handlers.

@tanner:
[ QUOTE ]
Uhh Phil, I think you've gone off the deep end here. Do you really think teenage kids sit in high school going "My god, what am I going to do to get my ass kicked more. I know! I'll start taking it up the ass."

[/ QUOTE ]
Deleted You should talk to some younger bi people, and their reasons for doing it.

---

As for the other comments, people are confusing prohibition of gay activities with choosing not to socially recognize gay activities. Two very different things.

[ QUOTE ]
I am open to evidence that homosexuality causes harm. Do you have any?

[/ QUOTE ]
Google http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...arch&meta=
for example. That's without counting AIDS, which gays disproportionately spread due to the dangers of non vaginal sex.

But there are more subtle social effects as well, which are harder to provide evidence for.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)Aren't you refuting your own argument when you admit that a significant segment of the population is purely gay?

2)Why is bisexuality any more of a choice than pure homosexuality?

3)Have you heard of David Reimer? How about gay animals, or genetically modified gay fruit flies?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think non-sentient animal homosexuality can sort of be discounted since they could be plugging away at holes and not really have a clue [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

That being said, Occam's Razor seems to point to people being aroused by different things. Most guys like girls, most girls like guys, some guys like guys, some girls like girls, some people like it all. That Phil--an otherwise logical person based on his SMP posts--tries to confuse this and politicize it makes me think he has some strange bias.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)Aren't you refuting your own argument when you admit that a significant segment of the population is purely gay?

2)Why is bisexuality any more of a choice than pure homosexuality?

3)Have you heard of David Reimer? How about gay animals, or genetically modified gay fruit flies?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think non-sentient animal homosexuality can sort of be discounted since they could be plugging away at holes and not really have a clue [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you'd expect them to be aroused by opposite sex holes just as much as same sex ones, which isn't true in at least one other mammal.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
But there are more subtle social effects as well, which are harder to provide evidence for.

[/ QUOTE ]

if everybody was gay, no one would be able to understand each ogther because of all the lisping, it woudl be total chaos, anarchy. civilization as we know it would end, tower of babel style I guess.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
You should talk to some younger bi people, and their reasons for doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol. OK, now I know you are totally unreasonable about this topic for some unknown reason. Good luck with that.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Then you'd expect them to be aroused by opposite sex holes just as much as same sex ones, which isn't true in at least one other mammal.

[/ QUOTE ]
The winky face meant that I was kidding. (I had not read this exact thing before though!)

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there are more subtle social effects as well, which are harder to provide evidence for.

[/ QUOTE ]

if everybody was gay, no one would be able to understand each ogther because of all the lisping, it woudl be total chaos, anarchy. civilization as we know it would end, tower of babel style I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I always thought the "gays cause subtle social negative effects that are unmeasurable" was just a euphemism for "they'll molest little boys!" I would suspect that heterosexual males molest young girls at a far greater rate than homosexual males molest young boys, despite the rampant paranoia that exists about gay men teaching children or leading Boy Scout troops, etc.

Either way, that's usually what the "wink wink nod nod gay people will cause untold and unthinkable horrors on society nudge nudge" coded language means, hence why the O'Reilly crowd is 'aghast' at things like Gay Day at Disneyworld: "Are you sure you want teh gheys at Disneyworld around children?!?" It's nothing more than a subtle inference that gays will take your children and molest them on the Peter Pan ride if you don't keep a close watch.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

Hmmm. Comments calling gays perverts and such in this thread are accepted. But criticizing religious zealots and crackpot cults is furiously protected. For example, if i called Prophet Mohammed a pervert I don't think that would stand. Yet, there is far more evidence and reasoning to call him a pervert than homosexuals as a whole.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

With humans? Do you have any evidence of this or are you pulling it out of your ass? And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't; others do - some of the same people who support gay marriage. It is solely those people who I'm directing this at. And yes, it's a well known phenomena that animals can be trained to seek and enjoy sex with humans. It's also been said that creature like dolphins voluntarily submit to handlers.

@tanner:
[ QUOTE ]
Uhh Phil, I think you've gone off the deep end here. Do you really think teenage kids sit in high school going "My god, what am I going to do to get my ass kicked more. I know! I'll start taking it up the ass."

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. They think it's socially acceptable so they experiment with it. Confused sexual feelings (which are normal for many teenagers) get directed into perverted preferences. You should talk to some younger bi people, and their reasons for doing it.

---

As for the other comments, people are confusing prohibition of gay activities with choosing not to socially recognize gay activities. Two very different things.

[ QUOTE ]
I am open to evidence that homosexuality causes harm. Do you have any?

[/ QUOTE ]
Google http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...arch&meta=
for example. That's without counting AIDS, which gays disproportionately spread due to the dangers of non vaginal sex.

But there are more subtle social effects as well, which are harder to provide evidence for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please address this part that you avoided: And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it? And please expand to any form of consensual sex amongst moral agents in your reply, if you want.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 15yo a moral agent?

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns the animal?

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. The fact that people like to be busybodies and tell other people what to do when it comes to activity X doesn't mean that behavior is legitimate, and doesn't justify extending it to activity Y.

The state shoudln't have any business condining or prohibiting marriage at all. But as long as it does, and as long as that state guaratees equal protection under the law (as the US does in the Constitution), restriction on gay marriage is a violation of that equal protection.

Alice is allowed to contract with Bob, but Charlie is restricted from contracting with Bob. Charlie does not have equal protection.

This particular examination kills the "polygamy" and "bestiality" slippery slope objections to allowing gay marriage, since in those cases *everyone* is *equally* limited to one simultaneous contract at a time, and everyone is equally prohibited from contracting with dogs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bump for phil.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

Why does the state need to recognize marrage at all?

The solution to this is simple. No state sanctioning of marrage for anyone. Everyone should be happy with that.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...arch&meta=
for example.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some very reasonable and impartial sites that come up at the top of this search! I look forward to watching "America: Freedom to Fascism" and buying a copy of "The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo."


[ QUOTE ]
That's without counting AIDS, which gays disproportionately spread due to the dangers of non vaginal sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heterosexual sex spreads AIDS too. As does drug use. This is a specious premise.

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
Heterosexual sex spreads AIDS too. As does drug use. This is a specious premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, lesbian sex is, for obvious reasons, clearly less risky than heterosexual sex. Should we allow lesbians, but not gays, to marry?

Furthermore, shouldn't we be happy to grant gays a status that (through penalizing adultery via divorce laws) promotes commitment to one partner and thus reduces the spread of AIDS?

Re: Latest gay marriage flareup
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never understood why so much emphasis is placed on the question of whether or not being gay is a choice. How is it at all relevant to the question of equal protection? We regularly, and without question, provide equal protection for criteria that are purely inborn (race) and those that are purely a choice (religion). Why should it matter where on the continuum homosexuality is ultimately determined to be?

Also, earlier you said:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why someone would have objections to a gay couple getting married.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to how you differentiate yourself from those a few decades ago who used the same argument against interracial marriage (assuming you think they were wrong).