Sad day in USA for both Parties (Page 3)

Hollis, putting aside for a moment whether or not opposition to gay marriage is Biblically based, and what "Biblically based" means in the first place, I still haven't heard a compelling argument about why the current definition of marriage ought to be changed.

It seems that the burden of proof lays with proponents of gay marriage to argue why the definition of marriage ought to be changed.

For example, why should heterosexual couples not be able to be protected as a distinct class, given the fact that they constitute a two-in-one flesh union of persons, something that lesbian and gay couples, as well as unions of more than two persons, are not capable of?

Be it New Jersey or Wisconsin, I believe the states have the right to determine marriage laws. But if the gay marriage issue eventually makes it to the Supreme Court somehow, I don't see how it can be argued using the 14th amendment.

What is the argument beyond empathy and emotion?

But when pressed, the Christian MUST admit that homosexuality is a sin, and that no unconfessed sin is tolerated; therefore all homosexuals go to hell.  That is specifically what the bible claims.  I would interpret that as categorizing one as a "second class" citizen.  I interpret that as them saying, "Sure, you are free to choose your lifestyle, but we believe you are going to hell and we are not".  Religion is ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS a divisive "us vs. them" doctrine.  Not one religious scholar can look at the facts of human history and in sound mind disagree.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not mean "the pursuit of happiness as is defined in the bible or in religious doctrine".  It means the pursuit of what you choose to be happiness.

And to Hollis' point, marriage rights is about so much more than a ceremony. As she so poingniantly expressed, it's about te denial of basic rights to citizens. And a freaking constitutional ammendmant at that.

Show me anywhere that the framers of the constitution thought that some American citizens should have less rights than others.

I thought of one potential case: felons that are denied the right to vote. But unless you're equating felons to homosexuals, you're going to have to find another instance.

Don, dude- we proponents of gay marriage had NOTHING to do with this bill. It is already illegal here. (illegal because it's not legal!) It was the anti gay people who wrote the bill to specifically rewrite into the state constitution what the legal defineition of marriage should be as a way to preemptively control what could happen if a gay, legally married couple, were to move here....

So yeah, the burden of proof would be on us if we were actually asking fro anything here! 

Now now, Mac, neither the Hindus nor the Buddhists are into teh us and them.  Religion is absolutely not, by definition, "us and them". I know your background, I know you feel burned by Christianity, but Religion is not divisive, the fanatics are divisive.

what do you need protection from? Why do you need to be distinct? Do you seriuosly believe that your children are more deserving of legally bonded parents than are mine? Of course I don;t bhnave kids yet. Maybe you don't think I should be able to have kids or adopt them?

and not get too technical, but the whole union in one flesh thing is odd to me. What if a straight man has been castrated? And do you need me to explain how gay couples can in fact be one flesh if they choose? We go through this natural law thing all th etime, you bring up the "intent" of a male body to female body union, and I bring up infertile couples, blah blah blah.  Yet we still do this! Why arent we bored yet?

That just needed to be said again.

But gay people aren't being denied the right to marry, only the right to marry someone of their own gender.

I know that may sound bizzare, but it's an important point to understand when you later consider whether heterosexual couples can be protected as a seperate class. If heterosexual couples can be protected as a seperate class, then the 14th ammendment can't be used as an argument for gay marriage.

Point taken.

I don't know, maybe because you're someone with the integrity and self confidence to debate someone who disagrees with you, and yet remain friends?

Don, expound because this sounds waaay out there.  It's analagous to saying, "You have the freedom of speech, but only the speech that we dictate is appropriate"

Because it's a choice between two consenting adults whose consequence would cause no harm to any other human being.

OK, here's the short version.

According to Wisconsin law, Hollis (pardon me for using you as an example, sis) has the right to marry. Just not to marry Katherine.

States have always held the right to regulate marriage. For example, I can't marry my sister, yet the state recognizes my right to marry Cornelia.

Why is that?

Because of genetic considerations regarding offspring between a brother and sister.

Why should the state care?

Because the state has a stake in procreation.

What does that have to do with marriage?

Marriage has been seen by the state as a good because it results in a stable society, and because of the unique nature of the two-in-one flesh union of male and female persons, which may result in the procreation of society's future.

The conjugal act within this two-in-one flesh union is an integral part of what defines the union itself, a definition that has come to be called marriage. Marriage is not just a contract, it is a covenant of persons.

As a class, married heterosexual couples are unique. They are different than any other form of societal relationship, be it sexual or non-sexual. As such, they and the institution they constitute can be protected as a special class.

Gay people are not barred from entering into this class. But the class has certain requirements that need to be met. One requirement being that it needs to be a one man, one woman couple.

Don,

Is it your position that homosexual couples detract from the stability of our society?

Do you stand against the ability for single folks or homosexual couples from adopt?

If the state is only concerned with procreation, why are the rights of marriage conferred to couples with a declared intention not to procreate or a biological inability to procreate?  Shouldn't it be more fair to confer such right only upon the completion of successful procreation, if the state's interest is in procreation?

Don, I just totally disagree. If that were true, why do people who have no intention of having children get legally married? Why does the gov't bother even filing all that paperwork?

And why is it not a service to our country for children to be adopted by 2 loving parents instead of rotting in an orphanage?

And as far as health care issues, studies show that both men and women benefit from being married (from a health standpoint) 

And since we are getting personal, tell me about your divorce, and how divorce falls in with this idea? 

Don, I love ya but you're playing antics with semantics. Hollis and Katherine are denied rights that you and Cornelia enjoy and will never have to defend against losing.

NO, Triing for Sept, I can't have health benefits from my "company" We both work at UW-Madison at the moment, so we are both OK with our own benefits. But if my grant runs out, (which it will July 1) and I am decreased to 1/2 time, I will not get health care through her. UW happens to be the only school in the Big 10 that does not offer health care to domestic benefits, gay or otherwise. Oh right, you suggest we just go work somewhere else then. I sure hope you never need any lab work done here at UW Hospital, because it is my kathryn, the second class citizen, who will be performing the analysis. Oh, and I am a librarian here, I hope you or your children never need my help with research. Because we won;t be here actually, we need to go somewhere else according to you.  that's how Hitler started out.

And yes, we have all the paper work for power of attorney etc. Do you know what that all has cost us? (in time and money)We have to carry this paperwork with us all the time, when we travel, etc. Why do we have to do this? I don;t care at ALL if you accept me. You can even hate me. you mean nothing to me. But financial security is very importnat. You must be very wealthy to not understand that.

and as far as 2 guys who are friends. Do they share a mrtgage? have they had somekind of ceremony, do they share debt etc?  How long is there evidenve of them knowing and being commited? 

I sure think my marriage is more valid/respectable than Britney Spears, for example, but what do I know, I am just gay. 

When gay marriage is argued to be the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, yes.

Haven't decided yet.

The conjugal act of an infertile couple is the same in type as that of a fertile couple, even if not in effect. Human couples are infertile most of the time, there is only a small window each month in which they are fertile, so the fertility question doesn't apply.

See, Don, now I do not see marriage this way -- legal marriage, that is, marriage recognized and sanctioned by the state, is not done so because of a two-in-one flesh thing, but rather the state recognizing that two people have chosen to function as a family unit.  And I see no compelling argument for why two women or two men can't decide to function as a family unit, or why, if they do decide to do that, they should be afforded less rights than a woman and a man deciding the same thing.

And on a related yet slightly different note: I am terrified that we are now in the business of amending constitutions in order to take rights away from people. Lets hope the good people WI who voted in favor of this amendment never have anything that personally effects them up for vote -- might be a touch late, y'know?

I believe divorce is evil.

My eldest son is growing up in the midst of a broken home because of no-fault divorce.  If not for that, he would probably be living with both his parents.

If there was something I could have done to prevent that from happening, I would have.

I recognize the need for divorce to happen in certain circumstances.  My own divorce did not fall into those circumstances. 

I wished at the time that it hadn't happend, and I continue to wish that it hadn't happend.  I hold this wish despite the fact that I'm head over heels in love with Cornelia and with the two children we've had together.  I'd give that all up if it could somehow turn back the clock and put me back into a very difficult marriage. 

Wow.  I guess we'll really have to disagree here.  I'm kind of saddened by your position on this.  You seem to be a very tolerant and understanding person, and this just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of your views. 

Let's use the term SEX instead of trying to dress it up with fancy words.  My grandfather remarried several years ago.  He's rather old.  I sincerely doubt that he and my step-grandmother qualify as a fertile couple at *any* time of the month.

If marriage comes down to sex, where does LOVE fit into your view of marriage?  Which is the more important compenent, LOVE or SEX?