Sad day for WI

[wpw721]

brendanrfoley

“First, people don't "choose" to be gay. It's like having black skin, brown hair, or blue eyes. It's just not something people choose. So, "penalizing" them for it is discriminatory.”

I didn’t realize this was a known scientific fact, could you point me to the unquestioned data that backs your claim.

In my humble opinion, the only thing that can or should work at this point is civil unions. It’s a middle ground approach that both sides could live with.

Some of you guys are hilarious when it comes to discussions like this. My personal favorite is the hypocrite who claims he is calling for tolerance, but shows no tolerance to those who have opposing views.

[kevinpars]

Your statement is made as if there is undeniable, scientific proof that what you state is true. I have yet to see anything published publicly that confirms what you are saying. Did I miss this important discovery or is this your personal opinion?

Lack of scientific proof hasn't stopped the religious right from trying to shove the teaching of "Intelligent Design" into our classrooms.

And these days it is pretty hard to decide what "scientific proof" is anyway. Both sides of the global warming issue have what they call "scientific proof." The tobacco companies have long held to their own version of what happens to be "scientific proof."

[Brando70]

There have been a number of studies hinting that sexual preference is genetic. It hasn't been proven, but I think it's logical. Why would someone choose to be gay in this society? And when did any of us choose to like girls? One day Mary Jane's cooties become Mary Jane's boobies -- there's nothing we really do to choose that.

The problem I have with Matt's arguments is that, as a straight person, he's entitled to a distinct economic benefit if he gets married, a right a gay person cannot have unless he or she enters a sham marriage. If you believe, as I do, that homosexuality is an inborn trait, it's essentially like discriminating against someone because of their race, gender, or biological disability.

With Leebo's comments, the issue is that any two people of the opposite sex can get married for almost any reason and have it recognized. You have a good night at the blackjack table, you meet that special somone, and a minister in an Elvis costume has the legal authority from the state of Nevada to marry you. The ONLY requirement is that one person has an outie and one has an innie.

In my mind, you have to either let gay couples marry or remove the state-sponsored benefits to married couples (as Fatpicther suggested). I'd much rather see the former happen because I believe marriage should be encouraged.

I would like to see the legal side of it not labeled marriage at all. Make it a civil union. I don't think it would be abused any more than marriage is now, because the legal ramifications of divorce would still be in effect, and you'd have to take legal steps to dissolve the union. This would change nothing for people marrying in the church. You'd have your ceremony, then get your civil union certificate from the state. Churches would still be free to set parameters for their private ceremonies.

Consent would still be required for these unions, so this would preclude people from "marrying" their pets, minors under the age of consent, or their XBox 360s You can make a biological argument against close relatives marrying, too. The one issue that would be tough would be polygamy. I could see that being challenged. But then again, if someone volunteers to have another spouse, you could have them committed

[Airdog]

Don't get me wrong, I love debating issues such as this (as pk says, if it's not debated we get apathetic) but I find that message boards aren't conducive to such a discussion. Maybe if there were ground rules laid down like a debate or something like that, but all too often it ends up a mess.

[bdunn13]

"You can make a biological argument against close relatives marrying, too. "

You could make the same argument for gay marriage.

[dbdynsty25]

What's to stop a hetero man and woman from committing the same fraud? If you're talking about legislating against outright fraud, then I'm with you. Aren't there plenty of fraudulent hetero marriages that happen for citizenship purposes? Why not ban those marriages too?

Who said it's fraud? I just used health insurance as an example of a benefit of marriage they couldn't get while single. Why shouldn't two lifelong best friends who have lived together for years be forbidden to get married? Why should they have to be straight or gay?

Except the only problem with your analogy is that there is a thing called "Domestic Partner" which allows people of the same or opposite sex, who have lived together for a certain amount of time, to be added to the other person's health insurance. It doesn't matter if you're married or not. At least that's how it is in California...but then again, it's Cali, so that might speak for itself.

[FatPitcher]

Homosexuality isn't analogous to physical attributes. It's a behavior, regardless of whether it's by choice or not. Now, whether you can discriminate against people who exhibit this behavior is another question. My rule of thumb is, as long as the behavior doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it should be allowed.

I don't see any reason for laws to differentiate between polygamous marriage and homosexual marriage, either. If you want to marry 8 wives, good for you. The government shouldn't concern itself with trying to prevent situations it thinks are immoral or that could lead to non-ideal conditions (prostitution, drugs, etc. also fall into that category). If some guy has 8 wives and 30 kids and can take care of them all, good for him. If he doesn't support half of them or mistreats them, then prosecute for that, not for polygamy.

[Jared]

Your statement is made as if there is undeniable, scientific proof that what you state is true. I have yet to see anything published publicly that confirms what you are saying. Did I miss this important discovery or is this your personal opinion?

It's difficult to prove that it is completely genetic...but there are plenty of studies that provide strong evidence that there is a large genetic component to homosexuality. Here are a few examples, from here.

Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University studied the sexual orientation of male siblings raised together since birth. 9 He found that if one was homosexual then the chance of their sibling being homosexual was:

- Fifty two percent for their identical twin, who shared 100% of the same genes. This result was essentially identical to the separated identical twin studies described below. It shows that if one identical male twin is gay, then the other twin will probably also be gay -- whether raised in the same family or raised by different families.

- Twenty-two percent for their non-identical twin; they share half of the same genes

- About 10% for adopted or non-twin brothers; they share none to half of the same genes.

----

In the mid 1990s, researcher Ray Blanchard studied families in which there is a male child with a homosexual orientation. He found that a gay man is more likely to have older brothers than older sisters. He found that the probability that a male child will grow up as a homosexual increases by about 33% for each brother born before he was. Blanchard suggests that this effect may be caused by an immune response within the mother during pregnancy. 11,12,13 According to the program 60 minutes, recent studies have shown that this effect only happens among right-handed brothers.

---

Also, studies with monozygotic twins that were separated at birth found that if one twin was a homosexual, that there was a greater than 50% chance that the second twin was also homosexual. If there was no genetic component, then the rate should be around the rate of the general population.

[Leebo33]

recent studies have shown that this effect only happens among right-handed brothers.

Which explains why Jeff and Jered Weaver love Barbara Streisand!

[pk500]

Homosexuality isn't analogous to physical attributes. It's a behavior, regardless of whether it's by choice or not. Now, whether you can discriminate against people who exhibit this behavior is another question. My rule of thumb is, as long as the behavior doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it should be allowed.

I don't see any reason for laws to differentiate between polygamous marriage and homosexual marriage, either. If you want to marry 8 wives, good for you. The government shouldn't concern itself with trying to prevent situations it thinks are immoral or that could lead to non-ideal conditions (prostitution, drugs, etc. also fall into that category). If some guy has 8 wives and 30 kids and can take care of them all, good for him. If he doesn't support half of them or mistreats them, then prosecute for that, not for polygamy.

Agree 100 percent. Very well said.

Take care,
PK

[DivotMaker]

It's difficult to prove that it is completely genetic...but there are plenty of studies that provide strong evidence that there is a large genetic component to homosexuality.

Thanks for the links. Looks like there is alot of study ongoing, but until they can prove definitively that there is a genetic predispostion, I am more inclined to believe that a person chooses to be a homosexual due to the experiences and environments they have been exposed to since birth. Until science ever proves otherwise, I have a hard time believing that a genetic trait is more of the root cause than the environment and personal experiences of that individual since birth. If/when it is proven, then I will change my beliefs accordingly.

This topic has the potential to go really deep and tax a number of people's belief systems. I hope we all stay calm and try to discuss this topic rationally and logically which will be difficult as there is evidence that it is a very emotional topic already....

[ScoopBrady]

Yes I live in WI, and yes I voted for the amendment. I have nothing against gays. If that is the life they choose, so be it. It's their business to be a couple. I have friends that are gay, and I have no problem with them.

Let me get this straight (no pun intended), you have friends that are gay and you no problem with them yet you don't think they should be able to get married? Did you tell these friends that are gay that you oppose gay marriage and voted against it? Or are these gay friends more like acquaintances that you tell yourself are your friends to make you feel more politically correct? Do you make plans with these gay friends? You obviously have a problem with them or else you would have voted yes to the amendment.

I personally believe all people should be able to get married to one another regardless of sex. All people are equal and should be treated as such. I could understand opposing a marriage between a person and an animal but a lot of you guys need to get off your high horses and look at all people as equals rather than them not being good enough to get married to one another.

And I totally agree with Seminole, mixing politics and/or religion with friends is not a good idea at all. That's why you rarely see me post in any political thread but when I see someone say they have gay friends that they have no problem with yet they don't support these friends' right to get married you'll get my 2 cents.

[matthewk]

Let me get this straight (no pun intended), you have friends that are gay and you no problem with them yet you don't think they should be able to get married? Did you tell these friends that are gay that you oppose gay marriage and voted against it? Or are these gay friends more like acquaintances that you tell yourself are your friends to make you feel more politically correct? Do you make plans with these gay friends? You obviously have a problem with them or else you would have voted yes to the amendment.

How dare you. I mean really, so now the only reason I talk to them is because I have some other motive? Give me a f'ing break. I try and disucss this rationally and you come out here with s*&t like this?

They are my friends for the exact same reasons I call anyone else a friend.

This s*&t from someone coming from the supposed tolerant and understanding side.

[dbdynsty25]

How dare you. I mean really, so now the only reason I talk to them is because I have some other motive? Give me a f'ing break. I try and disucss this rationally and you come out here with s*&t like this?

It seems to me that it was a perfectly good question. I mean, he probably shouldn't have said the whole politically correct thing, but I'm curious if you talk to your homosexual friends about the ammendment and do they know you disagree with how they are living their lives? That was a perfectly legitimate question.

[matthewk]

It seems to me that it was a perfectly good question. I mean, he probably shouldn't have said the whole politically correct thing, but I'm curious if you talk to your homosexual friends about the ammendment and do they know you disagree with how they are living their lives? That was a perfectly legitimate question.

Did I say I disagreed with how they were living their lives? No, I did not. In fact, I thought I made it clear in my original post that I do not have a problem with how they live their lives.

That does not mean that I think marriage should include anything other than 1 man and 1 woman. This does not stop them from adopting children, getting benefits from employers (that is the emploeyers choice, not the governments), etc... The governemnt is still able to create laws for gay couple to get the same tax benefits straight couples get. I would have no problem with that. Just do not call it marriage. Come up with some form of common law/living couples law and I'll be fine with that.

This is not an anti-gay amendment, although enough people are sure trying to turn it into one.

[Jared]

Hey guys...before things start getting really heated, just take a breath and calm down. Just trying some preventative medicine before the thread starts to escalate...

[Dave]

Here's an interesting look at how Virginia's gay marriage ban affects much more than just gay marriage:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152799/

But, before you vote "yes" on this marriage amendment, ask yourself if you're so afraid of imaginary liberal-activist judges striking down all those laws someday that you want our custody, contracts, medical directives, and domestic-violence laws re-evaluated by the judiciary today.

And another quote from the article sums up my feelings about amending constitutions pretty well

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an esteemed Republican from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and beloved shortlister for the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote an almost unprecedented op-ed for the Washington Post,* urging Virginians to vote against Ballot Question 1. Nobody could accuse Wilkinson of being either a liberal activist or a reflexive supporter of gay marriage. His principal concern with the amendment is that, by constitutionalizing that which should merely be legislated, we enshrine in an ageless, timeless document, the passions of a fleeting legal moment. "The more passionate an issue, the less justification there often is for constitutionalizing it," he wrote. "Constitutions tempt those who are way too sure they are right."

[dbdynsty25]

Did I say I disagreed with how they were living their lives? No, I did not. In fact, I thought I made it clear in my original post that I do not have a problem with how they live their lives.

I didn't mean to say that you disagreed with their lives, I'm just asking you if you discuss this type of stuff with them. That's all I was talking about. I mean, if you have these feelings about the ammendment, I would think that they at least deserve to hear how you really feel about them and how their lives might be controlled by government. Maybe it's just me, but that's only fair. Obviously I don't know your relationship with these people, so it's not really for me to say, but just in general, that's how I think it should be handled.

[matthewk]

Did I say I disagreed with how they were living their lives? No, I did not. In fact, I thought I made it clear in my original post that I do not have a problem with how they live their lives.

I didn't mean to say that you disagreed with their lives, I'm just asking you if you discuss this type of stuff with them. That's all I was talking about. I mean, if you have these feelings about the ammendment, I would think that they at least deserve to hear how you really feel about them and how their lives might be controlled by government. Maybe it's just me, but that's only fair. Obviously I don't know your relationship with these people, so it's not really for me to say, but just in general, that's how I think it should be handled.

Maybe it was just some of the carryover from Scoop's accusations, but I took it as you questioning my view on their lifestyle.

To answer your question, I try to avoid stuff like this with friends. The forum is more of a gathering of people from all over, so it's easier to discuss topics like thie here. It's more of a town hall atmoshpere. Just look at how heated these debates get here. I'd rather not get into that with friends and risk alienating someone over a misunderstanding.

I don't want anyone's lives controlled by the government. I believe that this is a clarification of what the majority want the definition of marriage to be. I don't mind something else being set up to allow them the same rights, just not under the name of marriage.

[ScoopBrady]

Maybe it was just some of the carryover from Scoop's accusations, but I took it as you questioning my view on their lifestyle.

What accusations? Sorry you took them as accusations but they are clearly questions. Not once did I state my questions as fact. I though my questions were valid. I know I support my friends in anything they want to do that doesn't harm another person so when I saw you say you have friends that are gay yet you don't support their right to get married I asked you those questions.

I'm sorry if I offended you or others with my questions and comments but I have a very hard time wrapping my brain around the opposition of gay marriage. You say that you have no problem with gay couples having the same rights you just don't want it called marriage. Does that mean it's a religous belief and that's why you don't want it called a marriage? I really do want to understand this line of thinking as well. I'm not a religious man, in fact I think religion is evil and a big scam. I have moral beliefs and share many beliefs with many different religions but I find organized religion to be corrupt. I would never condemn a person for their religious beliefs and I'm very happy when people are in touch with their spiritual side whether they're worshipping Jesus Christ or a head of lettuce. Why, then, do people who are very religious look down upon me when I don't believe in organized religion? Isn't that against what religion is supposed to be about?

If your church believes that a marriage should strictly be a man and a woman committing their life together under the name of god does that mean a marriage between a man and a woman under the name of a different god doesn't count? I fail to see the difference between the two? Why tolerate a marriage under the name of a different god but not a gay marriage?

I'm really not trying to piss people off with my comments or accuse anybody of anything, I am just very curious about the questions I have asked.

Again, sorry if you thought I accused you of anything Matt, I was just asking questions that I thought were valid.

Edit: I can understand not wanting your religion to adopt gay marriages under their church if it's not in the belief system but don't understand why gay marriages should not be allowed in another church or through government.

[Teal]

Your statement is made as if there is undeniable, scientific proof that what you state is true. I have yet to see anything published publicly that confirms what you are saying. Did I miss this important discovery or is this your personal opinion?

Lack of scientific proof hasn't stopped the religious right from trying to shove the teaching of "Intelligent Design" into our classrooms.

And these days it is pretty hard to decide what "scientific proof" is anyway. Both sides of the global warming issue have what they call "scientific proof." The tobacco companies have long held to their own version of what happens to be "scientific proof."

Scientific proof is no longer necessary in anything that has a remote tie to politics-didn't you know that?!

[Sport73]

I have elected to stay out of the debate thus far, mainly because I can get pretty worked up about stuff like this.

I'd just like to say that I'm SO glad to see so many people taking up the rational, informed, and tolerant arguments against these types of amendments.

As a spiritual and religious, but unaffiliated person, I have a lot of opinions/beliefs that would take far too long to explain or debate herein. One thing I'm certain of is that I don't like anyone else's religious views being shoved down my throat or legislated into my llife.

As a married (to a woman) father of a daughter, I hope she grows up in a world where there is more tolerant thought. The 'certainty' some people have in their faith is positively frightening; another thing I'm sure of is that there is no human who can actually grasp the reality of things like infinity or god, so being so certain as to punish/abuse/kill/restrict/enslave others based upon 'beliefs' (the source of which would surprise many religious zealouts) is ignorant.

[ProvoAnC]

I hope that I can get an amendment regulating loud stereos, or maybe fence heights.

We already have laws for these things. Guess you never had to get a building permit before.

...I'm moving to Montana and starting my own country

You just opened yourself up to all kinds of Brokeback Mountain jokes with that one

1. Those are ordinances not constitutional amendments...HUGE difference

2. You got me on that one f***er

I think what you're trying to say my brother of cheese is that you think the same rights should be extended to gay couples, but you don't want the state to call it marriage due to your religious beliefs?

Fair enough, I agree. I view marriage as a religious issue and nothing to do with govt. My wife and I first lived in Milw before I got my current job in Madison. We go "civilly unioned" before we got married because she quit her job to move to Madison. She needed to be under my health insurance and that was the only way. We didn't exchange rings or any of that s***. A judge friend of ours did the deed and we went on our way. While in the eyes of the state that was our marriage date, we only recognize when we were married in the Church.

Long winded story to say that marriage is just a word. What if I were to marry my foot to someone's ass? Should that be amended? I'm sure a non religious man/woman civilly married still consider themselves married even though it wasn't at a church. Why should gay couples not be extended the same? The man/woman couple is married, but the gay couple is only civilly unioned?

The argument can obviously be made the other way, but what I'm getting at is good for the goose good for the gander. Either everyone gets civilly unioned or everyone gets married.

And this issue has no business whatsoever in a constitution

Paul-brother sometimes we'd love to come back, but sometimes its nice being out here...

[matthewk]

I'd just like to say that I'm SO glad to see so many people taking up the rational, informed, and tolerant arguments against these types of amendments.

So any other viewpoint is irrational and uninformed? You speak of tolerance, and yet you fail to be tolerant of others opinions.

As a married (to a woman) father of a daughter, I hope she grows up in a world where there is more tolerant thought. The 'certainty' some people have in their faith is positively frightening; another thing I'm sure of is that there is no human who can actually grasp the reality of things like infinity or god, so being so certain as to punish/abuse/kill/restrict/enslave others based upon 'beliefs' (the source of which would surprise many religious zealouts) is ignorant.

And yet you are just as 'certain' about your beliefs, whether they be religiously connected or not. Again, to preach tolerance you should pratice tolerance. Seems to me you are only tolerant of those you agree with.

Maybe this is taking your words in the wrong context (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong here), but your last statement seems to say that humans have no right to judge others. Is this based on the judges beliefs? We as a society punish crimals based on our beliefs. Maybe not religious ones, but moral ones. A lot of times morals and religion intermingle. People may follow a religion for what they get out of it, not for where it orginated. To paint those who have strong religious beliefs as ignorant and zealots is ignorant (and again, intolerant) itself.

Personally, I don't really have a religion, but I have faith. I cannot accept that if you are not a particular religion you are going to Hell. The older I get, the more I feel like the stories of the Bible are more fairy tales than actual events. Still, I agree with a lot of the moral aspects. Not all, but most.

My wife is Catholic, and wanted to get married in a Catholic church. She was part of the church, I was not. We had some marriage classes throught them, and even had to take a test. One of the items I asked them about was homosexuality. To the Catholic church, being gay is a sin, and means you are going to hell. This is strongly disagree with. At that time I came to the conclusion that if I was to follow a religion I would take out of it what I thought was right, and freely disagree with what I thought was wrong. Religion can do a lot of good for people, but you still have to weigh the teachings with what your own heart and mind tell you.

Ok, enough babbling. I just want to get across the points that I am not a religious "zealot", and religion is not the basis for my opinion on this matter. I also would like those who keep mentioning tolerance for others to pratice what they preach.

[pk500]

Fair enough, I agree. I view marriage as a religious issue and nothing to do with govt. My wife and I first lived in Milw before I got my current job in Madison. We go "civilly unioned" before we got married because she quit her job to move to Madison. She needed to be under my health insurance and that was the only way. We didn't exchange rings or any of that s***. A judge friend of ours did the deed and we went on our way. While in the eyes of the state that was our marriage date, we only recognize when we were married in the Church.

Good thing. That was a KILLER reception, cuz. Seeing our old men sh*tfaced in that bar the night before was mint, too.

Take care,
PK