Gay Marraige will be legal in 50 years

[Beet]

The Harmer study may not be conclusive, and right now the scientific research simply is not conclusive. However, there have been more studies that just the Harmer study indicating similarities between homosexuals. And there have been twin studies of twins that were actually separated at birth and raised in completely different areas. As I said, I do not think it is entirely genetic, nor do I think it is entirely environmental. Your theory about imbalanced family life may have something to do with it.

To distinguish from alcohol, which is broadly condemned because it deprives the individual of his or her free will, and the individual is powerless to free himself from it, homosexuality is voluntary and not always harmful for the actor. Of course, this does not proscribe the state's ability to legislate it as immoral.

But homosexuality carries with it much less moral harm than the other forms of sexual deviance which are broadly condemned. Sexual liason with a minor may be taking advantage of the minor, who at a young age we assume is not fully mature in his or her decisions. Polygamy changes the structure of the family and blows apart the exclusive, loving relationship of the married couple. Incest similarly destroys or at least hugely impacts the the family within which the incest is occuring. Homosexual marriage is a loving, mutually exclusive, sexual relationship between two consenting adults, for the purpose of establishing a family. The only difference is in the nature of the sexual attraction.

Furthermore, to distinguish from all the above cases, sexual attraction is the most difficult to change. The others are all bans that we have on types of heterosexual relationships. The heterosexual is still free to engage in relationships satisfying his or her fundamental sexual desire. To ban gay marriage would be to ban gays from satisfying their fundamental desire.

You say that gays can be "cured". How can this be done? How do you teach somebody to change their sexual desire?

[migrendel]

With all the horribile discrimination we see against minorities, he should know better.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though there is discrimination, I'm going to be very honest- it's extremely infalliable. I lived in El Paso for a year in my life. Although I am Mexican, my skin color is whiter than most Mexicans. In El Paso I suffered from more racial slurs from my own people, then from whites anywhere i've been. I don't believe racism is a major threat to hispanics. I'm sure it's a bigger issue among blacks, but even then I think it's been exaggerated. However, to compare either people to homosexuals is disgustingly racism in itself. I can't change the fact that I'm hispanic. Alan Keyes can't change the fact that he's black. Both are completely natural. However, homosexuality is not. It's a disorder that can be treated, like alcoholism, pedophilia, et cetera.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are quite a few studies, CTguy. Further, they are very important studies, and even further you, nor anyone in opposion, have failed to provide any counter studies that prove these studies are incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it is actually true that these organizations are liberal, and not merely because I disagree with them on this one issue. The APA is most definately liberal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CTguy, once again, you can't change the fact that we're mexican. However, alcoholics can. Pedophilers can. People who are depressed can. If we look at these latter three groups, would we be generalizing and discriminatory if we believed they have problems? Of course not.

I want you both to answer this specific point:

It's interesting that you consider pedophilia a mental disorder because it harms little boys, but you don't consider homosexuality a mental disorder because it doesn't unwillfully harm anyone directly. Either both pedophilia and homosexuality are normal, or they are both abnormal. What will the answer be?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Homosexual is a sexual minority, not a racial minority. I don't want to have to repeat myself, so just read what I said to CTguy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can I see any of these studies you speak of? As far as I know, Harmer's Study and the other twin study are the only two that have been accreddited. I may be wrong, so please- bring light to my ignorance!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm glad you acknowledge that. Yes, alcoholism deprives the person from free will, but they did make one decision to begin the binge in the first place. Do you think that accounts for anything? Perhaps homosexuality is more unjust than alcoholism, because alcoholics don't have free will on the matter while homosexuals do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You prove that homosexual makes sense legally, but how does this prove that homosexuality is not a mental disorder? Simply because pedophilia and polygamy cause problems doesn't mean they are mental disorders. Additionally, what about 15-year-olds marrying 40-year-olds? A 15-year-old is quite mature in their decision, certainly no more mature than an 18-year-old. What about a 17-year-old and a 40-year-old. There is no difference between an 18-year-old and 17-year-old. The only thing restricting the two is their age, and I certainly know many 30-year-olds who are less comptent and responsiable than 15-year-olds.

You also bring up an important point that I find extremely important, and I put it in bold. If three women who, by their own will, and no children involved, wanted to marry one man, would it be just to allow them to marry, with no children involved? What about two siblings who decided not to have children wanted to marry, would it be just? I mean, you speak of tearing families apart and causing mental struggle in relationships, and that is exactly what homosexual relationships do!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Howard Stern, suprisingly as it may seem, wrote a book about overcoming homosexuality. It really is not as difficult as everyone makes it seem. But at any rate, by banning poligamy, you are banning poligamists from satisfying their desires. Same thing with two siblings. What if the two siblings really love eachother and want to make love? You're restricting them of their love!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's called Reparative Therapy. Yes, I know, this is a scary word for a lot of people and the APA has condemned it, but only because the APA disagrees with the issue altogether. As a said, even the liberal Howard Stern wrote a book on how to overcome homosexual attraction. I believe the man who came up with Reparative Treatment is Doctor Joseph Nicholsi, PhD. Read his introduction in the link I provided.

[migrendel]

Racism in and of itself?

As someone who has done more for the rights of racial minorities in my career of social activism, from my work on capital punishment, to my lobbying for affirmative action, I am fully aware of the discrimination faced by minorities. However, I am also fully aware that there is just as much hatred against homosexuals as there is against minorities. The only difference is that there isn't the near universal condemnation of that kind of discrimination as there is against racism.

Go ahead and label your opponents racists and deviants. All it shows is that you have run out of material, and that the truth shall be brought to light.

[Brambila]

I'm not labling you as a racist, I'm saying that your comments are considerably racist. I'm sure there is racism among minorities, and I'm sure there's racism among white people too (in El PAso, for instance).

[CTguy]

No because I don't believe homosexuals can change the fact that they are homosexual.  We have said what the APA says and you label them liberals because they disagree with you.

The fact that you are calling people racists because they don't buy into your idiotic philosophy just goes to show that your argument has no credibility.  

The fact is that you have used religion and psychology to justify your homophobia.  Yet I have used arguments made by groups of psychologists and preachers and you have no argument against them.

The fact is that 30 years ago most religious leaders opposed integration... some still do.  It is a reasonable comparison.  When you settle down and stop calling people racists you might realize that.  I believe you can "cure" yourself from being hispanic by pulling a Michael Jackson as much as homosexuals can "cure" themselves by finding Jesus and becoming straight.  In other words, it ain't going to happen so just live with them as I live with them and you.

[Brambila]

Okay, I'm hungry, tired, and I'm a bit spoiled in discussing this matter. I'll respond to this either later tonight or tommorrow.

(along with the abortion posts)

[CTguy]

None of any of our posts were even remotely racist.  It's funny how you spout off homophobic posts day after day and then as soon as someone says something you don't like about Mexicans you label posts racist.  What goes around comes around.

[CTguy]

By the way, here is another poll on gay marriage that is broken down by age group Brambilla.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/213490.asp

Clearly after providing 4 polls on the subject, it's obvious that for your age-group you are far far outside of the mainstream.  

Of course, I fully expect you to claim a journalistic or polling liberal bias as you do to any research that runs contrary to your opinion.  Or better yet just refute it in an emotional spat by saying I am a New England liberal or a racist, I mean after all I'm white and from Connecticut.

[Brambila]

That study was only done in Wisconsin, perhaps only in Madison.

[CTguy]

All of the polls I have shown, though woven into local stories are NATIONAL POLLS.  It is indisputable that nationally people aged 18-30 support gay marriage.  Even if it was done in Wisconsin, which it wasn't, that is a swing state that is similar to the national electorate as a whole.  The fact is the only place you could take a poll where people agree with your idiocy on gay people is in the most redneck of areas like Rhea county...  and even then you would have to only use a sample pool of people with IQ's under 70.

[Gustaf]

All of the polls I have shown, though woven into local stories are NATIONAL POLLS.  It is indisputable that nationally people aged 18-30 support gay marriage.  Even if it was done in Wisconsin, which it wasn't, that is a swing state that is similar to the national electorate as a whole.  The fact is the only place you could take a poll where people agree with your idiocy on gay people is in the most redneck of areas like Rhea county...  and even then you would have to only use a sample pool of people with IQ's under 70.

The link between IQ and political judgement is actually pretty weak, imo.

[Brambila]

All of the polls I have shown, though woven into local stories are NATIONAL POLLS.  It is indisputable that nationally people aged 18-30 support gay marriage.  Even if it was done in Wisconsin, which it wasn't, that is a swing state that is similar to the national electorate as a whole.  The fact is the only place you could take a poll where people agree with your idiocy on gay people is in the most redneck of areas like Rhea county...  and even then you would have to only use a sample pool of people with IQ's under 70.

SHOW ME. Don't just talk. I'm not stupid, these polls were done in WISCONSIN. I didn't see ANYTHING in EITHER polls that said they were nationwide.

[CTguy]

The other poll was clearly nationwide and for some reason I cant load the wisconsin paper properly however I do remember it not being a Wisconsin poll.  Anyways, I see you have clearly ignored all of the posts having to do with banning Mexicans from my town.  I wonder why...  because your arguments don't hold up.  

And are you saying you believe most people 18-30 think that being gay is a mental disorder and that gay marriage shouldn't be legal?  Just say it if that's what you think.  So we can have that on the record instead of all these little snippets about this poll and that.

[WMS]

Just thought you might like to get this poll from New Mexico about this. I'll let Vorlon or Gustav or Al or someone like that tell me how valid it is.

In the Sunday, March 21, 2004 Albuquerque Journal
Done by local statewide polling (and redistricting) firm Research & Polling, Inc. Sample of 404 New Mexico adults interviewed by telephone March 10-15. Margin of error: plus or minus 5 percentage points. So make of it what you will...

"Would you favor or oppose a law in New Mexico that would allow a person to marry a partner of the same sex?" 61% OPPOSE, 29% FAVOR, 5% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS, 5% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY.

"Would you favor or oppose a state law that would allow civil unions among same-sex couples?" 48% OPPOSE, 43% FAVOR, 5% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS, 4% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY.

"Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages in every state?" 51% OPPOSE, 42% FAVOR, 4% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY, 3% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS.

And, in the Monday, March 22, 2004 Albuquerque Journal, a companion poll, done by Journal reporters who asked 93 of the 112 New Mexico LAWMAKERS (ergo, the State Representatives and State Senators) the same questions (OK, the civil question question IS different) that Research & Polling asked in their poll above. In this case the low sample number is, well, not really an issue, now is it?

"A civil union allows same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage. Would you support or oppose a state law that would allow civil unions among same-sex couples?" 48% OPPOSE/45 Legislators, 32% SUPPORT/30 Legislators, 6% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/5 Legislators, 14% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/13 Legislators.

"Would you support or oppose a law in New Mexico that would allow a person to marry a partner of the same sex?" 81% OPPOSE/75 Legislators, 5% SUPPORT/5 Legislators, 10% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/9 Legislators, 4% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/4 Legislators.

"Would you support or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages in every state?" 46% OPPOSE/43 Legislators, 43% SUPPORT/40 Legislators, 4% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/4 Legislators, 7% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/6 Legislators.

Even though I know some of the ones who couldn't be contacted or wouldn't given an answer, I can't say how they would vote. The individual answers, by the way, are ALL over the field. Almost every possible combination is chosen by someone, except three "Support" answers in a row, which would flatly contradict itself as an answer.

I'll just say that gay marriage is NOT going to pass in New Mexico, but gay civil unions MIGHT, and the constitutional amendment would PROBABLY NOT. But the fight over civil unions would be tooth and nail. Mind you, I think most of the NM Legislature *really* doesn't want to deal with this issue...

[Gustaf]

Just thought you might like to get this poll from New Mexico about this. I'll let Vorlon or Gustav or Al or someone like that tell me how valid it is.

In the Sunday, March 21, 2004 Albuquerque Journal
Done by local statewide polling (and redistricting) firm Research & Polling, Inc. Sample of 404 New Mexico adults interviewed by telephone March 10-15. Margin of error: plus or minus 5 percentage points. So make of it what you will...

"Would you favor or oppose a law in New Mexico that would allow a person to marry a partner of the same sex?" 61% OPPOSE, 29% FAVOR, 5% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS, 5% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY.

"Would you favor or oppose a state law that would allow civil unions among same-sex couples?" 48% OPPOSE, 43% FAVOR, 5% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS, 4% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY.

"Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages in every state?" 51% OPPOSE, 42% FAVOR, 4% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY, 3% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS.

And, in the Monday, March 22, 2004 Albuquerque Journal, a companion poll, done by Journal reporters who asked 93 of the 112 New Mexico LAWMAKERS (ergo, the State Representatives and State Senators) the same questions (OK, the civil question question IS different) that Research & Polling asked in their poll above. In this case the low sample number is, well, not really an issue, now is it?

"A civil union allows same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage. Would you support or oppose a state law that would allow civil unions among same-sex couples?" 48% OPPOSE/45 Legislators, 32% SUPPORT/30 Legislators, 6% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/5 Legislators, 14% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/13 Legislators.

"Would you support or oppose a law in New Mexico that would allow a person to marry a partner of the same sex?" 81% OPPOSE/75 Legislators, 5% SUPPORT/5 Legislators, 10% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/9 Legislators, 4% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/4 Legislators.

"Would you support or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages in every state?" 46% OPPOSE/43 Legislators, 43% SUPPORT/40 Legislators, 4% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/4 Legislators, 7% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/6 Legislators.

Even though I know some of the ones who couldn't be contacted or wouldn't given an answer, I can't say how they would vote. The individual answers, by the way, are ALL over the field. Almost every possible combination is chosen by someone, except three "Support" answers in a row, which would flatly contradict itself as an answer.

I'll just say that gay marriage is NOT going to pass in New Mexico, but gay civil unions MIGHT, and the constitutional amendment would PROBABLY NOT. But the fight over civil unions would be tooth and nail. Mind you, I think most of the NM Legislature *really* doesn't want to deal with this issue...

From what I can tell it seems reasonable...though I thought there some sort of difference between marriage and civil unions, other than just semantics? But I don't know much about American laws on this subject though.

[Ebowed]

Good thread.

[Beet]

Bump.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[King]

Go Big, Mr. Obama
by Thomas Friedman

An interesting thought occurred to me today—what if grassroots activists sat down with ordinary people like you and me and ironed out some real solutions to our same-sex marriage crisis?

With the election season over, maybe you’ve forgotten about same-sex marriage, but I certainly haven’t. It would be easy to forget that the problem even exists, when our headlines are constantly splashed with the violence in Guatemala, the authoritarian crackdown in Fiji and the still-unstable democratic transition in Tunisia. But the same-sex marriage problem is growing, and politicians are more divided than ever. Democrats seem to think that same-sex marriage can just be ignored. Republican politicians like Mitch McConnell, on the other hand, seem to think that unproductive rhetoric will substitute for a argument.

But the Republican party of Mitch McConnell is not the Republican party of Lincoln. Lincoln wouldn’t refuse to budge, he'd reach across the aisle because he'd understand that the fate of the country, and his own political career, depended on a lasting solution to the problem of same-sex marriage.

It's good to see the talks between the president and congress getting off to a solid start, but we know there will be plenty of partisan fireworks before any deal is cut. If I had fifteen minutes to pitch my idea to politicians, I'd tell them two things about same-sex marriage. First, there's no way around the issue unless we're prepared to spend more: and not just spend more, but spend smarter by investing in the kind of national infrastructure that makes countries succeed. That's going to require some tax increases as well, but as they say, "them's the breaks."

Second, I'd tell them to look at China, which all but solved its same-sex marriage crisis over the past decade. When I visited China in 2000, Bartho, the cabbie who drove me from the airport, couldn't stop telling me about how he had to take a second job because of the high cost of same-sex marriage. I caught up with Bartho in Shanghai last year. Thanks to China's reformed approach toward same-sex marriage, Bartho has enough money in his pocket to finally be able to afford winter coats for his kids.

That's all it takes. Don't expect to see any solutions as long as politicians insist on playing a high-stakes game of blackjack with one another. America has to become a first world country again.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Gay marriage will be legal in 50 years??

That's like someone from 1950 saying "segregation will be abolished in 50 years".

[politicus]

Gay marriage will be legal in 50 years??

That's like someone from 1950 saying "segregation will be abolished in 50 years".

Hyperbole. Segregation was a much more fundamental HR issue than gay marriage.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Gay marriage will be legal in 50 years??

That's like someone from 1950 saying "segregation will be abolished in 50 years".

Hyperbole. Segregation was a much more fundamental HR issue than gay marriage.

So?

[Adam Griffin]

The original post coincided with a time when Democrats were getting ready to be skewered nationwide by The Architect. Sentiment at the time didn't seem to be moving in favor of the cause from a policy standpoint. I remember thinking it would be perhaps 25 years, but no one really anticipated the monumental change in attitudes on the subject over the past decade or so.

Hmph. Maybe there is some merit to this idea.

[Reaganfan]

The poll I saw done by Washington Post and ABC shows that 41% of people believe that gay marraige should be legal, and 55% feelt hat it should not be legal.  But there is an encouraging sign in this poll.

This poll shows that 18-29 year olds favor gay marraige legalization, and 42% oppose.  But for those 65 and older, only 21% favor gay marraige and 75% oppose.

What this all means: the next generation is a generation whose majority is not a bunch of family values idiots.  In 50 years, when the family values idiots die out, say hello to gay marraige.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Ignorant youth"? The youth are always radical. They grow out of it though.

Exactly. The liberal counter-culture of the 60s and 70s became the biggest share of the Romney 2012 electorate.