The objections I see are mainly rooted in religion. And the Constitution protects us from religion. Give a valid non-religious reason why gay people should be denied the same rights the rest of us have.
There is zero legal reason. Does that make you feel better? Fairytales can be used to justify anything and everything.
Yes I had experience, I didn't really grow up until I turned 40. I also have a grandson who is 21, still living with his mother and will not even get a driver's license. He barely even steps away from his Xbox one. I can't blame him totally because my daughter won't push him out except for pushing him to go to college which he has quit once and will do so again. He has no friends aside from Xbox friends, probably in their mom's basement as well. I do consider myself lucky because out of 6 grandkids he is the only one not appearing to grow up.
Feel better? LOL, I never felt badly. But you can't divorce law from local tradition and politics. If a society has a 5,000 year "prejudice", it is deserving of a certain amount of respect. I don't believe, after all, that the elders of old got together one day and impulsively said, "Hey guys, what say we start hating gays just for the lulz?"
Thanks for the link, Max. I probably 'mashed-up' Calhoun with Skinner, and others. Hell, I even draw on material as abstruse as the analyses of Abraham Maslow and his "needs-hierarchy" writings in examining human overpopulation. I'm an old guy, Max, but even during my lifetime I've seen what I'm convinced are enormous differences in the way that people act, and interact with each other. Sure, there are lots of contributing factors -- technology, comparative wealth and poverty, environment, etc. But, the most influential overall I feel is the surge in human population. Example: In 1950, the population of the world was estimated to be 2.5 billion. In mid-2018, the population of the world is estimated to be 7.6 billion. If there is some sort of "hive-mind" factor in human perception and reasoning it may be screaming at us that, at this time, the LAST thing we need are more offspring! Hence, the acceptance of conventions that were once considered loathsome and detestable, like homosexuality. And "homosexual marriage"...? Absolutely unthinkable! But all that has changed, and just since about 1950....
Marriage AS a legal contract.... Marriage has more.forms than just legal. If we try to encompass it as only a legal institution then we are no better than those trying to encompass it as only a religious institution. I understand that the only form that matters as far as legal matters go is the legal form, but unless we keep acknowledging the multiple forms of marriage, we fall into the same mental trap as the extremely religious.
Does that include the multi-millennial tradition of slavery? That crosses almost all socities. Should there have been respect of that too?
I’m over 60 myself and have a Psych BA focusing on behaviorism, hence my interest in the subject area and, particularly, how people react to changes in their political environment. Crowding does present problems, but, IMO, it’s mostly “want”, or the lack of assets that drive crime. Someone who is poor who lives next door to a rich person who leaves their $1000 bicycle on the porch unlocked all night may find the situation far to tempting. Locks are for honest people; to prevent them from being tempted. Crooked people will break locks, windows and doors to get what they want. That said, there’s still a lot of unused land in our nation...but people want the convenience of making good money in the big city.
The constitution doesn't "protect us from religion". It just means it's a right. But yes I agree with your comment otherwise
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It's not a protection. It's just saying that religions are free, and that the government isn't a theocracy.
That's a good point, and no, slavery was and is wrong. I can only say that there is a difference between legalized slavery and a refusal to change the definition of a word, unless by popular assent Rule making by 9 old men in robes? Or a mere majority of the 9, i.e., 5? Not very democratic.
Support Gay Civil Union legally the same as marriage. Respect others enough to keep the word marriage, to refer to the union of the opposite sex. Moi End the tyranny of monogamy. Support Group Marriage in all combinations. Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
With your educational background, you may be well aware of many theories that have persisted among researchers of human behavior that homosexuality is actually due to malfunctioning olfactory bulbs at birth! ( a defective sense of smell, to those who are unfamiliar with this). Thus, the wrong sexual attractant becomes 'imprinted' in the brain so that males are sexually attracted to males, females to females, etc. Variations of the defect also cause an individual to become "bi-sexual", and, perhaps, asexual.... But, because this mental association-aberration does not seem to affect a person in any other way other than sexual preference, there's not legal reason, per se, why the State should forbid individuals with this condition to form legal contracts between themselves. I still can't accept the idea of it being "marriage", but, in the United States today, we've got much larger problems to deal with -- plus, there is presently no "cure" for homosexuality, regardless of the exact cause(s). Other interesting physiological differences between homosexuals and straight people: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/06/...-have-different-brain-structure-in-new-study/
Everyone is screwed up. That is pretty much the first line in the first paragraph in Psychology 101. If we start legislating based on nature or nurture issues, there would be no end to it. And human sexuality is extremely complex - perhaps one of the most complex aspects of human nature. I wouldn't for a moment want to judge what is or is not normal. There is no such a thing as normal. One of the most bizarre fetishes I read about is that some men get aroused if the woman's third toe is longer than her second toe; or maybe it was that her second toe is longer than her first toe, one of the two. That isn't even sexual! But for some reason, for a few men, it triggers a sexual response. The point being, we all have strange little quirks, some stranger than others. And human sexuality does not fit in a nice little box. We could take anyone and find things deep in their psyche that other people think are strange or abnormal. The brain is fantastically complex both in hardware and software. It is a fool's errand to define what is normal. There are almost exactly as many neurons in the brain as there are stars in the sky - about 100 Billion. You are going to get millions of variations on normal, or more, just because the brain is so complex. I read that sexuality is thought to be determined by the way the mother interacts with the baby. I have read about many other ideas. The fact is, we don't know what determines sexuality. We only have hypotheses and conjecture. Despite loose language, non rise to the level of a theory; not as a hard science. Let me know when they explain the Furry phenomenon.
I certainly won't argue with you. Actually, I'm reminded of a stunning line in Clarke's under-appreciated book, "Childhood's End" -- "The stars are not for man." At the rate we're going, overall, I'm not optimistic that human kind will survive on this planet another hundred years....
Agreed. In addition, the Equal Protection clause says the law applies to everyone equally. Giving benefits and privileges to some but not others is a violation of that clause.
Great book. As you know from the end of the book, the meaning of that line is "man" as is; too selfish, too narrow in point of view, too primitive, too individual. The meaning was that man has to evolve in order to take the stars, not that we'll all become extinct --- Transcendent Evolution, a theme that was also in "2001: A Space Odyssey".
What about the argument that a gay man can marry anyone who wants, just so long as it's a female? We'd be treating him the same as we treat straight males.
Flawed argument. Feel free to quote the Constitutional amendment stating the US Government is empowered to dictate which adult citizens can marry whom. Hint: it doesn't exist. Boys and girls, we really need to stop trying to give the Feds more power than they have now.
No, no, it would be the individual states deciding what constitutes a marriage, not the federal government. There is no constitutional provision empowering states to prohibit sex between adults and children, or establishing the minimum age to marry at 17 or 18. But they can, as part of their police power.
Similarly, there is no provision empowering the state's to limit the number or the ages of spouses you can have. But no serious person doubts that states can do this.
