Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Three's the charm for the Supreme Court

I think I'll start with the American English language and the fact that language is not fixed. Words and usages change constantly. Go to grandma's house and look at her dictionary (I know mine has one from the 1940's or 1950's, and the differences are notable). Look at Chaucer and Shakespeare, and you'll find them very different than our modern language.

However, words do mean things. If two men or two women want to make a lifetime commitment, they are entitled to the same status as a man and a woman making that same commitment, including having the same word used to describe it. I agree it's a total case of semantics, and to use a different term denies equal treatment, even if everything is coded identically. Brown vs. Board of Education stated it with segregation of schools, and I believe the premise holds with the institution of marriage as well. Separate is not equal.

I do not know the Canadian Constitution, so I am limited in what I can say about it. However, both of governments are essentially Republican forms, not Democracies, and the Constitutions were put in place to protect the rights of the minority no matter what any majority may wish. However, I do agree that the Catholic school should have a right to enforce its doctrines, as part of a religious entity. I am assuming the Canadian constitution has a similar separation of church and state built into it in that statement. I agree with free exercise of religion, and that government should stay out of it. However, I also believe they should stay out of regulating marriage by the gender of the participants.

I do believe that it should be marriage or nothing as a legal status, which also means to eliminate common-law marriages still in the books in some states. You make a full commitment and give it the proper name of marriage, or you're not given a committed legal status. Playing the semantics game with "Union" or "Partner" or whatever separates out classes, which again, is not equal.

I agree, Tony, you're not bigoted for not agreeing with the way others live their lives (though "lifestyle choice" = , as being gay is not a choice, and there is not a single "gay lifestyle"). You're only bigoted if that extends to saying that others don't have the right or believe they cannot live/be that way.

Prostitution is enforced without waiting for the actual sexual act to occur. The illegal act is really the solicitation of money promising a sexual act in return. You're not in the bedroom yet, and can be considered business/commerce regulation, not sexual regulation.

That said, government was never given the Constitutional authority to govern morality (which is relative in any case). There is nothing wrong with marketing a community to a particular demographic, but there it against the freedoms of this country to legislate the community to do so. People have the right to believe and feel as they wish, but they do not have a right to create legislation to exclude based on those feelings and beliefs. Eliminate vaginal sex, and you'd be putting straight and gay couples on equal terms (though I do not advocate any sort of chastity policing or believe it is constitutional to create such standards of conduct as a residential requirement.)

I truly hope that you are not teaching your children that homosexuality is not normal. That would be teaching bigotry. I believe that being sexually attracted to, and engaging in sex with women is normal for a heterosexual male or lesbian female. It is normal for a gay male or heterosexual female to be sexually attracted to, and engage in sex with men. It is normal for a bisexual person to be sexually attracted to, and enagage in sex with people of both genders. You can still apply whatever standards of love and commitment as being morally correct to you to any of those scenarios.

Let's get artificial government restriction out of our society once and for all.

There is a reason that I focused on the acts, instead of the sexual orientation.

I do agree that if the law simply bans certain acts by homosexuals, then yes, that discriminates.

If the law bans the same act by all, then it is harder to say that it discriminates.

I do think you can make an effective argument for stating the homosexuality is not normal. Certainly biologically it is the exception, rather than the rule. I don't see how that is bigoted. I recall in college where the gay and lesbian student groups put pink triangles on 1 in 10 seats in most of the large lecture halls.

That still is a minority position. However, I cannot begin to understand the feelings a gay man might have for another. I have close male friends, but don't have any romantic or sexual interests in them. Likewise, I have a wife, for whom I have a great deal of desire, but I don't desire other women in the same fashion.

Which transitions me into some final thoughts. First, let me recall that I focused primarily on choices. I never said that a person chooses or doesn't choose to be homosexual. So if what I said seemed to imply that you choose to be gay or straight is an absolute, I don't. (As an aside, I do think some choose to act gay because they think it is cool, hip, fills an immediate need, and others truly are, perhaps even genetically disposed to an attraction to the same sex.) However, all people, gay or straight choose how they are going to respond to their sexual urges or how to deal with them.

So the matter is really about how you deal with those choices. Even as a straight man, I could choose to cross certain social boundaries by having sex outside my marriage. Some would argue that it is ok, my wife probably has a different view she shares with others. Some choose to have sex before marriage and others believe that is immoral.

So, I don't think you can really paint a gay or straight label on the issue. So I do agree with the court that you cannot specifically deny a type of sex act to a particular "orientation" However, I do diverge with the court as I think a community can say certain sex acts are not legal, again citing the current illegality of prostitution as precident(SIC?)

My thoughts are probably not well assembled as I just got off work. (I typed the first two messages while waiting for a service window to begin.) So I'll probably have to come back an visit these thoughts again.

I must be tired, I see Antennalope (Antelope with Antennas for horns) on the TV, so it's time to put on the PJ's and turn in

TB

Gay people only want attention. Hence the gay pride parades.

I agree that homosexuality only occurs in a minority of the population. However, there is a big difference between saying it is "rare," or stating it "only occurs in about 10% of the population," and saying homosexuality is "not normal."

You are placing a stigma on homosexuality and homosexuals when labeling them and their relationships as not normal. It indicates inferiority. It is a statement loaded with prejudice and teaches prejudice, even if that is not the intent.

I just ask that you try a less loaded term when teaching your kids about this.

You speak of extramarital affairs. I agree with your statement, though I will add a point. You don't mention any right of government to legislate whether that is right or wrong. That is the whole point of this. Individuals can believe what they wish, but there is no place for government to be involved.

The reason I included vaginal sex in my argument is that in denying anal sex alone, you are denying a level to a male homosexual relationship while allowing it to a heterosexual relationship. That is not equal treatment under the law.

Again, prostitution is not illegalizing any sex act. It is illegalizing the purchase transaction for the purposes of sex. You don't see police sting operations require the cop to actually engage in sexual acts with the prostitute before the arrest, the solicitation and exchange of money is all that is needed.

I fully agree that same-sex partners should have equal rights under law that married couples have, but again, I not comfortable with this "union" being called marriage, as THAT is one definition that has stayed static in it's basic meaning, both religiously and secularly over thousands of years, and for good reason. Again, I don't see the benefit of changing a religious and secular tradition (one that is held in the highest regard among even the most different segments of this planet's population, I might add) that at it's very base meaning is understood to be between a man and a woman...

In short, some definitions should never change, given the very meaning and reason behind them.

I'm well used to the fact that the human race will always place a "label" on common concepts, ideas, etc. to easily identify them to other people in terms of making communication easier with each other. Just as gays would wonder about the sanity of being identified as straight by a person, the same goes for a straight person being identified as gay. I sould carry that a step further; the same goes for a union between same-sex couples. I can see where this could easily be seen as a form of "segragation" by way of labels; in my mind, nothing is farther from the truth, though. I simply don't fall for such base idiocy as I know enough about people and myself to not judge them in that extraordinary simplistic fashion.

The term "marriage" is immediately understood as something between a man and a woman. What's so wrong about having the term "union" being used for a same-sex partnership? It would immediately identify that partnership as what it is. Different. Not something to be ashamed of or riddiculed at all. Just different in the fundamental makeup of that partnership. Being different in of itself doesn't identify with inferiority at all.

I feel something like this would serve to cool the flames of religious organizations that are so vehemently against establishing "marriages" between same-sex couples, for whatever reason. I think it could also pave the way for gays to have equal standing in terms of benefits and rights under law that much faster. By simply calling something of a somewhat similar concept and nature by a similar (but NOT the same) name, gains in equality could be made.

Perhaps I'm being naieve and too simplistic here, in that something like this would only further serve aggrivate the situation and scism things wider apart.

Tangent time:

As it is, I think WAY too much attention has been paid to the homosexual vs. straight issue by legal and religious institutions. I've often found the religious argument against homosexuality is extraordinarily weak and has been brought about and espoused by those that have done VERY little research and reading on known norms and the biblical/secular history of the times. Perhaps the most misunderstood section on this is the Chapter of Genesis when referring to Sodom and Gomorrah. The Hebrew text has some VERY ambiguous meanings behind the makeup of the crowd outside Lot's house; NIV says one thing, while the King James Version says another. I won't even get into the moralistic quagmire when Lot offered the crowd outside his house his own daughters to be raped instead of his guests; an offering that went unpunished by God, apparently. If you take an unblinded and unbiased view of this action, the desire of RAPE IN GENERAL was the sin of Sodom; not homosexuality. Point in case: If Sodom was full of homosexual men as certain biblical manuscripts and scholars suggest, why in the HELL would Lot offer his daughters up? I don't know too many homosexual men that are all about raping women...

Again, the makeup of the crowd is in doubt as well. The Hebrew text could mean a mixed crowd or all men; if it was a mixed crowd, you certainly don't bring your women and children along for ringside sets to a gang-rape.

IMHO, this is yet another area where a literal HUMAN translation of the Bible has led to bigotry and hatred towards a group that is different. Interesting thought, no?

There's a LOT (no pun intended) more to this, but I'd have to go to the basement and start pulling out books.

Well, after that HUGE tangent, I think I'll shut it down for the night. Just something to ponder...

For once I can sum up my feelings in a few short sentences:

1) I'm sick of mass media and the government now trying to force me to believe that being homosexual is "O.K."

2) If homosexuality was "O.K." and intended by nature 2 men having sex or 2 women having sex would result in reproduction of the species.

And no I'm not homophobic or a religious fanatic.