9th Circus Court to rule on Calif prop 8 - change fundamental definition of marriage

[Missileman]

True, gay people do have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. The state I live in, I do not have the right to marry another man, so a gay man does have the identical right as my self. It would take a special right for me to marry another man.

If gay marriage is made legal, you and gays will still have identical rights and it won't be a special right for anyone.

[jimnyc]

There have been several links posted...remember the one about pheremones? I didn't say "absolute proof", and IMO, reasonable doubt has been established against it being "choice".

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

[ConHog]

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

^ Red herring alert.

It doesn't matter if it's choice or not. Can you show me in my DNA where there is a head over heels hot for Latina woman gene? No , of course not. And you certainly can't tell me with any certainty that attraction is in our genes. That is your OPINION, and you don't get to make law based on OPINION.

[logroller]

As to the bold: there was also a time when society thought marriage was meant only for a man and a woman. This is exactly why MtnBiker asked for a definition. Where does it get limited? Why can one argue that 2 people who love one another, who aren't harming others, should be free to get married so long as it doesn't infringe on others - but someone who loves multiple people doesn't deserve the same level of "freedom"? Quite frankly, your post didn't convince me that one group of people deserve inclusion, but another group remains excluded. It's simply a matter of the definition at this point. If the original definition is gone, and it's already been altered, then altering it a bit more to include others shouldn't be a reach. The root of the word marriage is to join/merger, in the literal sense, and that's exactly what polygamists would be doing.

Obviously I don't go for either gay marriage or polygamy, but I think the reasoning behind allowing gays to marry then makes a solid argument for polygamy. In the end, it boils down to benefits and rights from the state. And if the state can alter it to include one group, don't think another group can't ask and someday achieve the same.

MtnBiker asked for definition so he could shoot holes in it as being based on my opinion. How I define my marriage is different than what another may, this much is certain.

There was also a time when a husband could rape his wife, and a belief that women were purely for procreation and, even today, genital mutilation is practiced under the auspices that women shouldn't enjoy sex because it distracts from the maternal interests. There was also a time when society practiced polygamy, its even in the Bible for goodness sake.

You say you aren't persuaded by my argument, so I now defer to the courts' reckoning, that the term marriage is used to describe the most esteemed relationship into which two adults may endear themselves; which includes the aspect of "bilateral loyalty". Griswold v Connecticut. Absent a dissolution of that loyalty, aka divorce, upon remarriage, one would engage in a multilateral loyalty; which undermines the social institution of marriage. If the social understanding of marriage changes in this respect, then yes, polygamist could be granted multiple marriages. Times change, societies evolve; for better or for worse, we're committed to a social contract that believes all are entitled to equal protection of the law.

[Missileman]

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

It's not just mice, they've documented a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain's response to male pheremones.

[jimnyc]

^ Red herring alert.

It doesn't matter if it's choice or not. Can you show me in my DNA where there is a head over heels hot for Latina woman gene? No , of course not. And you certainly can't tell me with any certainty that attraction is in our genes. That is your OPINION, and you don't get to make law based on OPINION.

WTF does that have to do with mice and proof?

[logroller]

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

I hear that, I love me some sweet and low in my tea...then again i smoke, maybe I just don't give an F* about cancer.

[jimnyc]

It's not just mice, they've documented a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain's response to male pheremones.

Is that in the same link?

[Missileman]

Is that in the same link?

To be honest I'm not sure which of the links I went to lately had the story, but I googled and found one.

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-203.htm

[ConHog]

Jim , did I miss where you showed how gays being allowed to marry affects your life at all?

[jimnyc]

Jim , did I miss where you showed how gays being allowed to marry affects your life at all?

Yes

[ConHog]

Yes

Care to point me in the right direction?

[jimnyc]

To be honest I'm not sure which of the links I went to lately had the story, but I googled and found one.

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-203.htm

I figured that would be the study, but wanted to make sure something new hasn't come out further. That study is based on a selection of men and women basically smelling armpits and urine. Has it yet been peer reviewed and through further clinical testing? I'm willing to see it as proof that brains are in fact responding differently to scents, but we'll need more than this to go on. Let me peek around for a bit on this subject and see where this study went and if its been expanded on.

[jimnyc]

Care to point me in the right direction?

Didn't you imply you asked this question already? Then you should know where to look. Does it matter though? Is there any answer that you would deem acceptable? I don't need to be personally affected either to speak out against something.

[ConHog]

Didn't you imply you asked this question already? Then you should know where to look. Does it matter though? Is there any answer that you would deem acceptable? I don't need to be personally affected either to speak out against something.

I agree, you don't need to be personally affected to speak out against something. You DO however need to be personally affected , or be able to show that others are without wanting to be, in order to declare something needs to be made illegal.

So go ahead and tell us how much it disgusts you, but that doesn't give you the right to make it illegal.