Grex Glb Conference

Item 4: Same-sex marriages-- the legal battle

   This is a topic that has been making the news lately.  Same-sex 
marriages.  Currently there is a bill pending in congress that would 
define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and would deny 
federal recognition (and thus the ability to apply for benefits) to  gay 
couples.  President Clinton has said that although he wishes this bill 
hadnt been introduced and that this isnt something congress should be 
dealing with, he will sign the bill for political reasons if it hits his 
desk.  Since he got fried early in his term for trying to lift 
restrictions on gays in the military, his advisors have told him he cant 
risk vetoing this bill during an election year.  Also, Clinton is a 
baptist lay minister and admits that he personally believes based on his 
religious views, that "marriage" as an institution traditionally should 
be between a man and a woman.

I dont agree.  I know a gay couple, two guys, who just celebrated their 
fifteenth anniversary and are as married as two people could possibly 
be.  Although I am not married, it seems to me that most of what goes 
into making a marriage has little to do with sex.  It is a bonding of two 
people and their lives, into a shared experience that itself is even more 
wonderful than its parts.  

Being basically an athiest, maybe my lack of religious convictions plays 
into this view.  I understand that if one is a christian and believes the 
bible condemns homosexuality, that you couldnt support legalizing gay 
marriages.  But maybe the answer is to not have any legal definition at all

This item is being linked to Newsline, the politics/world affairs conf

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  It's the first thing
that the foounding fathers thought to add to the Constitution,
more important to them even then the freedom to speak your mind.
Therefore, let's talk all the sentences relating toreligion, all of the
anti-same sex marriage arguments based on religion, out of #0.
Let us now construct a complete argument based on all of the points
one can make against same sex marriage that are not based on religion.
Point #1:  Uh=oh, erp, uhhhhhh.... no religion at all?  Shit, this
is going to be tough.  Hold on, I think I have something, um, wait,
no nevermind, that was something else.  I've got it!  All religions 
ban homosexuality!  That's it!  So this isn't restricting religious
practice!  
Farrar and Farrar, Wolrld Famous Wiccans, wander through 
with the Charge of the Goddess:  "All act s of love and
pleasure are my rituals."  *All*.  So much for point #1.

Anyway, this is such a blatant violation of separation of church
and state, and such a blatant violation of powers reserved to the
state by default, that it'll fall upon first judicial review.  Clinton
knows it, and he's doing the same here as he did with the CDA... doing
the politcally sound thing and letting the checks-and-balances of the
court system fix it.  It's an expensive game for the taxpayers to be
letting him play, and a dangerous one.

Legalize same sex marriage.
Legalize polygamy.
In all 50 states.
NOW.

Moses may have written the Ten Commandments, but he did not sign the
Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.  'Nuff said.

This item has been linked from Sexuality 167 to Synthesis 94.

As for my own opinion - legalize it.  Now.

I consider marriage a bond of love between two people.  Marriage, according
to the Bible, sounds like it's simply for reproduction.  As I said earlier,
even though I'm not married, my systems work fine.  Legalize it...NOW.

marrage is just a tax break.

I support any & all legislation to restrict/ban/etc. same-sex "marriages" at
the federal, state, local levels.  Governor Engler is expected to sign a bill
that will have Michigan not recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.
I say "Right On!" it's about time to make a statement about the creeping
advancement of this garbage.  If two people of any combination of sexes want
to live together, fornicate if they want to, then I don't think the
government should try to prevent it.  But said people wanting to live that
way, and yet have it called marriage, that's where I draw the line.

Re 5 - Not a very effective one, actually.  When both people
have a decent income, marriage is actually a disadvantage
come tax time.

Kevin, on what grounds do you consider it "garbage" for two people to have
their life-long commitment legally validated?  Who is harmed by it? In what
way are you or yours affected?  I'm curious what experience has led you to
this opinion.  I'm glad that, at least, you support people's personal freedom
to live as they see fit.

Yeah LGEALIZE it NOW. Marriage is culturally defined.
You can fine plenty of places in the world where what
is defined as marriage is VERY different than your standard
christian definition, and it pisses me off that people can
be so self centered in thinking that their way is the
only way and is PERFECT and needs no UPDATNG or changing.
(maybe they should still be using slide rules because they
were prfect too)

i think albaugh needs a nice lobotomy..but that's just my opinion
now, engler's little bill is unconstitutionall BTW since sates
are FORCED to recognize marrages from each other, since it is a 
FEDRAL tax situation...so one state can't actually recognize other people..

Sigh, a lot of good stuff is being said here, but in some pretty intemperate
language.  I know this is an issue which provokes passionate opinions, but
I've seldom met anyone here on Grex who was not worthy of courtesy and 
respect.  If we all are cautious and polite in the tone we choose, the 
conversation will go a lot farther without degenerating into name-calling.
OK?

(kami, do recall this is cross-linked among three conferences, and the
standard voice tone in one conference may vary from that in another...
impoliteness is never a good thing, but it's more standard in some places
then others)

I seem to recall Kevin and I having this little dispute elsewhere,
or was it on a similar topic?  The upshoot being, Kevin, can you 
provide an argument that does not rely on religion?  If not, then
the signing of the bills, regardless of how moral or immoral, is
an unconstitutional act.

I've been puzzling over the topic since yesterday, and apart
from religious arguments, I honestly can't think of a reason
why there should be a problem with same-gender marriages.
(And my religion doesn't have a problem with them.)  (And even
if it did, I most certainly would not.)

I admit it, I know nothing about marriage.  I'm not married.
I'm unlikely to be getting married any time soon.  Maybe there's
some horrible secret that only married people know about...
(brighn, you're twice as married as most folks, comment?)

I'd genuinely like to hear what it is about marriage that
homosexuals cannot be allowed to have.

If the government recognized homosexual marriages, it would make it
easier for same sex couples to adopt children, buy homes and establish 
communal property.  The non-religious argument that opponents make is 
that same sex couples should not be parents, because like it or not their 
children will grow up ina hetero society and could end up dysfunctional 
based on the lifestyles they learn from their parents.  But surveys have 
shown that children of gay parents do not necessarily become gay 
themselves but generally are quite "normal" (as some would put it)

Without government recognition of same sex marriages, the gay couple I 
mentioned in #0 who have been married 15 years can/will be denied many 
things most married folks take for granted:

1.  If one dies, the other cannot legally get his spouse's social 
security benefits and cannot legally be defined as the next of kin.  
These guys sharea life together, yet if one is in a car crash and 
hospitalized, the hospital would call his parents and not his spouse.

2. They cant get loans from the bank to buy a house jointly, since the 
government doesnt view them as related


 

<nods in agreement>  Just because a child's parents are gay or bi, that does
not necessarily mean that the child will be.  My parents are Catholic,
conservative, close-minded to new ideas, and listen to John Denver
religiously.  ;-)  Am *I* anything like them?  A child is going to go their
own way, regardless of what their parents are like.  Kahlil Gibran wrote an
excellent poem about children in his book _The Prophet_, but I can't seem to
find it (the book)...  =(

   re #14: as far as the next-of-kin definition goes, gay couples (and even
unmarried hetero couples) can obtain and fill out durable powers of attorney
for health care, naming each other as their primary patient advocates. my
ex-wife and i filled these out for each other in the event of dire
circumstances. now, a power of attorney won't get you social security or other
financial benefits, but it does ensure two things: you'll be able to visit
your loved one in the hospital, and you'll be able to carry out your loved
one's final wishes even over the objections of family, since the forms also
include living wills. forms for durable powers of attorney for health care
are available free or for very little cost at most hospitals and doctors'
offices. i would strongly recommend that every gay and unmarried hetero couple
fill them out before they truly need them.

Selena and I are planning children eventually.  While that would
not necessarily increase the legal bond between Selena and I (we
also plan on getting powers of attorney for the Triad), it would
allow a bond between me and my children through her... and, possibly
by extension, between Valerie (my "legal" wife) and said children,
although that would be more tenuous.  =P
Kerouac raises a good point, the "community standards" issue which,
stated that way, is in fact independent of religion.  It's also
circular, since it comes down to, we can't allow lifestyles which 
go against the mainstream until such lifestyles are commonplace,
the immortal Catch 22.

Because of separation of church and state, I would not want to see any
religiously motivated arguments used to determine whether the government
should recognize such unions.

I can certainly see why there is going to be immense resistance to the idea
of permitting same sex marriages. It is a redefinition of marriage, even 
secular marriage, as we have always known it.

Perhaps it would be more accepted if the economic benefits were tied to a
different word than marriage. A secular condition which accrued with marriage
but could be obtained separately. This may sound like wordplay, and maybe
that's all it is, but I wouldn't call same sex union a marriage.

        re 11 Why shouldn't we use "intemperate" language against bigots like
albaugh.  Sometimes I think the progressive community is too polite for it's
own good.  Unless progressives rally and fight narrow minded cretins like
albaugh we aren't going to win these battles, they will win them by name
calling and using circular religious arguments.  Backbone is a good thing
see Clinton's policy on gays in the military for an example of lack of
backbone.
                <set rant=off>

Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you raven is a "bigot" or a "cretin" or
"narrow minded".  I think you quite impressively demonstrated that *you*
are all of those things.

So, raven, instead we should win these battles by name-calling
and circular non-religious argumetns?  Kevin's response says it all... 
if we act as bad as he does, we *are* as bad as he is.

And, brighn, how have I "acted bad"?  Merely by having an opinion on 
something and expressing it?  Or having an opinion that isn't particularly
popular with a certain group of conferencers?  Instead of "acting bad" I
thought that was called "conferencing"...

the phrase "creeping advance of this garbage" is name-calling, IMHO

I think same-sex marriages are not likely to be accepted any time soon.
Maybe never. Most people just don't think of it as marriage.
I know a lot of people in this item find this very distressing, and I would
encourage you to work against it, but don't expect much. 

Believe me, srw, you're saying that isn't oing to stop us.  >8)
I think most of the people here already know what a struggle it's
going to be.

        re # 20 no it isn't you disagreeing with me that makes you a bigot 
and a cretin it's the fact that you would my potential freedom if I would
want to engage in a same sex marriage.  If you try to limit peoples
freedom you can expect a fight just like what happened in the 60s with
sergeation.  Albaugh you are on the anti-civil rights side of the line
so don't expect me to pretend to have one iota of respect for you.
Furthurmore I would like to see one substantive reason from you why you
oppose same sex marriages other than christian bigotry, or "I don't like
it,' subjectivity.  The ball is in your court...

(Raven, the ball has been in Kevin's court since before your comment,
and he's failed to comment, indicating he doesn't have a comment,
so further ad hominems on your -- or my -- part probably won't be
constructive.  =} )

Social acceptance of a situation shouldn't be related to legal 
acceptance of it.

        Legal acceptance of something that isn't socially accepted is a dicey
proposition ... as is it's reverse.

Raven, more time and energy is saved for constructive activism, for making
good arguments until we find those the powers-that-be will respond to, if
we don't waste it on invective and on reacting to non-productive rhetoric.
And those that might be convinceable are less likely to turn off in disgust.
The "higher moral ground" of reasoned and measured speech is worth a few
brownie points, at least.  And it saves indigestion. <g>

Within Beth Israel Synagogue (Conservative) there is great deal of difference
of opinion on gay lifestyles. There has been serious Halachic (Jewish Law) 
debate within the Rabbinical Assembly on the issue of homosexual behavior.
There are many within the Rabbinical Assembly who, basing themselves upon the
book of Leviticus view homosexual behavior as an abomination. However, there
are many other Rabbis who believe that homosexual relationships can have a
great potential for holiness if they are long term and exclusive and based
on shared values of compassion and sensitivity.

At Beth Israel, we passed a resolution several years ago in which we welcomed
all Jews to membership, involvement as individuals and families, and
employment in the Synagogue regardless of sexual orientation. We are proud
of this resolution, but realize that we must continue to work for the day when
all will be completely welcome.

The Ufruf ceremony (a celebration of marriage, but not a marriage) was
conducted recently for a lesbian couple. Many of us are not sure that this
wasn't going too far. In any congregation, it is the Jewish way that not all
agree.  I'd be less than honest to  say I was comfortable with it.

Things that are (generally) socially acceptable that are illegal:
underage smoking
underage drinking (about 17 and up)
most forms of consentual sex between mixed-sex adults

Things that are legal but (generally) socially unacceptable:
adult purchase of pornographic magazines
adus going to strip clubs <-- adults, back there
Paganism

Both lists could go on, John, but I don't quite see the point of your comment.
There are examples of both things, and yes, that's unfortunate. but the law 
is *not* society, nor vice versa.

And neither one is necessarily right or wrong.

Believe me, raven, I couldn't care less what you think of me.  But just look
at your own words:  "christian bigotry".  So you have set yourself up as the
supreme determiner of bigotry.  And apparently anyone who would express an
opinion on a subject based on Christian beliefs is a de facto bigot, unless
of course said opinion happened to agree with yours.  Great, get worked up
all you want to.  Attack people with labels if it suits your needs.  It 
doesn't make your opinions any better or more correct by doing so.  And it's
certainly not likely to give anyone food for thought about changing views on
a particular topic.  That's the problem when someone enters an item such as
this and expects that the entire grex community will rally to the flag of
whatever opinion is sure to be unanimous grex-think:  Some SOB like me comes
along and voices a dissenting opinion, and spoils the fun...

        re #33 Again (for apparently you are comprehension impared) it's
not your *opinion* that bothers me. believe me I am a free speech advocate.
It's the actions you advocate taking against gays who want to affirm a
lifelong comitment.  When you advocate taking unfair actions against an 
entiregroup of people you should expect a *hostile* reaction from that 
group of people and their friends.
        You advocate limiting the freedom of an entire group of people
who are doing no harm to you, and then you seem offended when I react to
that with some spleen. Try to imagine how you would feel if the 
government tried to ban christian wedings like the communists did for 60 
years.  How is it your business to define whether gays can be married 
anymore than it was the communists business to try to ban chrisitianity?  If 
you want people to be more tolerant of your opinions be more tolerant 
yourself.

        P.S. I still have yet to see a substantive comment from you about the
same sex marriage issue, just some pot shots and labeling like you accuse
me of doing.  As I said before the ball is in your court...

Personally, I am against Special Rights.  Not just for homosexuals, but
for heterosexuals.  Presently marriage is a special right reserved for
heterosexual couples.  That is wrong.

Furthermore, marriage is the domain of the States, not the Federal government.
Clinton should veto (or at least "pocket veto") this bill on the basis of
being against big government (that should give Republicans some pause).

Steve: Reform Judaism officially recognizes homosexual marriages.  I'd have
to reread the Ketubah (Jewish marriage license) carefully, but I don't see
why it can't apply to a same sex couple -- which can even raise children.

Brighn: As other denominations (Episcopalians, Quakers, Unitarians) continue
to recognize same-sex marriages (not to mention that the early Church did,
too), the "catch-22" should be diminish.  Perhaps I'm the eternal optimist,
but I think that in 25 years children in this country will view same-sex
couples as naturally as today's children view inter-racial couples.

Albaugh: could you expound upon your "garbage"?  Given our tradition of the
separation of Church and State, why shouldn't the states recognize same-sex
unions?

I think 25 years is optimistic, but I certainly hope to see
that happen within my lifetime.

"Ball is in your court" presupposes some sort of contest is going on.
I am not personally into conferencing for a form of debate where there will
be some adjudged winner and loser.  I'm into it to share opinions, possibly
help out someone else  where I might have knowledge, and hopefully learn
something where I lack knowledge.  If I don't happen to supply background
info on how I have come to form an opinion on something, and that bothers
you, feel free to dismiss me, feel free to feel you have "won" the argument.
That doesn't change anything...

You've stated your view, Kevin.  The ad hominems are getting annoying
(same for Raven, but at least he's interspersing it with content).

Re #38: Kevin, if you make condescending remarks about a whole group of people
and then fail -- or outright refuse -- to stand behind your comments, don't
be too surprised if many people dismiss what you say.

As you are silent, I will assume that this is an instance where you are
learning as opposed to one where you have something to teach others.

OK, some fuel for the flaming:  Interesting how people perceive things...
 > make condescending remarks about a whole group of people
I haven't made any kind of remarks about any individuals or groups of people,
grexers or real world.  I *have* stated that I don't agree with same-sex
marriages, and that I think recent  allowances for them in certain 
"legislation"  at various governmental levels is dead wrong.  This is not
strictly based on religious views.  A society implictly endorses or approves
certain kinds of behavior or practices by its laws and regulations.
The vast majority of U.S. society is not in favor of endorsing  or approving
by law or regulation a life style that it feels is not in the best interest
of the continued/long-term welfare of the society.  The mommy/daddy/kiddies
model continues to be the only model that ensures the continued/long-term
welfare of the society.  And this model is encouraged/preserved by 
reserving the condition/sanctity/status/whatever of marriage to it 
exclusively.  Other models do not merit this.

There is no (and can be no) evidence that other core families are
either helpful or detrimental to society, at this point in time.
And unless they are allowed to try it at least, there never will be
any evidence eitherway.
Society has for centuries allowed and disallowed behaviors that
were later called immoral. Sexism and slavery were and still are
legal in different forms. Society encourages certain forms of sexism
to no end. What gives society the right to do that? Nothing.
There is & can be no evidence that anything not currently
accepted is wrong until it is allowed.
Albaugh - why do you say that that is the only successful
model for society? the others have yet to see widespread trial.
& if you think it won;t work because of something loghical
you've forseen, please state that. Note, that this whole post has been
an effort in diplomacy and I'd apprecitae if it was recognized as such.
So, in the interest of discussion, please elaborate on why
you think the "mommy-daddy-kiddies" model is the only one that
works, and why you think the same-sex model shouldn;t 't  given
a chance, & what gives society the right to deide this without 
evidence when society has historically been so bad at making
kind, moral dicisions.

As for me, I think that it's not society;s buisness to meddle
into the private lives of harmless people and as long as the only people
something affects are consentual and not harming themselves or
anyone else, there is nothing wrong with it. But I have open
ears for evidence, facts (not statistics, please, too manupulable)
that support other hypothesis and believes.

Re 41 - "Only the mommy/daddy/kiddies model allows for long term
survival of the society."  (paraphrased, no an exact quote.)

So how in Hecate's name did society survive before the 1950's,
when the nuclear family became the norm?  Before then, most
folks lived with an extended family - mommy, daddy, kiddies, some aunts
and uncles, some grandparents, live-in help - all under one roof.
And generally folks stayed within a small area of the place they
grew up, so the rest of the relatives were within walking distance.

<robh idly wonders whether the U.S. should have enacted laws in
1946 to prevent people from living in the brand new "nuclear
family" mode, to prevent the downfall of our country's morals...>

<robh also notes that the television family which best exemplifies
the traditional American family isn't Ozzie and Harriet, it's
the Addams Family  >8)  >

<jenna laughs> yup... it *IS* the Addams family!

There *are* models for other family structures, now and historically.  Look
at the Israeli Kibbutz; while a nuclear family might have a cabin of it's
own (er, its), for the most part all the kids are raised in common and the
adults function as a commune.  Look at the Longhouse society of the Northern
Woodlands Indians; again, kids were raised in common, calling all people of
a certain age-bracket "grandmother" or "aunt" or whatever.  What's more, I
believe women in that society practiced co-nursing; not even breastfeeding
was exclusive to the biological mother.  I don't know whether the young
women lived together, my vague recollection is not, but I believe the young
men did.  There are plenty of other examples of non-nuclear families, and
even some in which same-sex relationships were taken for granted.  I'm 
afraid I can't bring to mind any cases in which same-sex unions were the
same as mixed ones, with kids and all, but that *may* in part be a matter of
the limitations of my knowledge.

Berdaches and eunuchs appear as specific non-heterosexual roles within 
society.  The Greeks, generally considered the intellectual foundation
of Western societies, condoned homosexuality as long as the men went home
now and then and knocked their women up.  The Celts, at various times,
practiced a form of polyandry -- women would choose their partners
for non-permanent times, and have multiple children with different
fathers.  The nuclear family model is hardly the only successful one.

(wanders around muttering, the word "garbage" is not condescending?)

Brighn, I wanted to use the Greeks and the Celts as examples, but I couldn't
find evidence of exclusive same-sex *marriages*; they did "go home now and
then and knock their women up".  Oh well.

no, i don't know of any cultures with recognized same-sex marriages...
that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, that just means
there aren't any recorded cultures with that trait (that i know of)
As Rob points out, the nuclear family concept is also very recent
in human history; that doesn't mean it's inherently wrong, either.

Even within "extended" family environments, you still had/have the foundation
of one or more husband-wife[-kids] marriages, e.g. a young couple living with
the husband's parents or the parents and/or grandma moves in with the [young]
couple etc.  This arrangement of convenience or [economic] necessity doesn't
alter the basic precepts of marriage.

Kevin, what do you consider the basic precepts of marriage? I get the sneaky
feeling we're all starting with different definitions of terms...

We've been down this road before.  The purpose of marriage, in Kevin's
view (historically, at least), is to allow for legitimate children.
Mate, spawn, and die (to quote Jello Biafra).  I responded last time
by saying that there should therefore be fertility tests in order to
get a marriage license.  Kevin's understanding of the historic relevance
of marriage is flawed, but is at any rate more accurate than most peoplep's.
The purpose of marriage historically was economic and political 
facility, not love.  This economic and political facility MAY include
children, but often it was motivated by other things (during war and 
quasiwartimes, for instance, forming alliances -- not in 2 years or so
when Baby pops along but *now*, and so it was the act of marriage, *not*
the act of procreation, that was relevant).  Another motivation for marriage,
as someone may have already mentioned, was to maintain a female's place 
in society, since the female only existed as an appendage to a male (either
a father, an older brother, or a husband).
-- BUT --
So what?  The computer was invented as a calculation device for aiding
in the war effort, and the InterNet was designed in part as a communication
system for the Government ... does that mean that we all should turn off our 
computers?  I don't think so.  Why something was invented is moot.
The simple fact remains that for many many Americans, is not the majority,
marriage is an act of love between two consenting adults.  ^-- if not the...
For others, marriage legitimizes sex and monogamy (and, in its way, could
do its part for curbing the AIDS epidemic... gays would have a reason to
wait for sex until marriage if they *could* get married, eh?).

And they just might be less likely to be promiscuous if they
could express their sexuality within the context of a marriage.

<robh sings "Monogamy in the UK, it's coming sometime, and maybe...">

Hey, don't put words in my mouth:  I have *never* said that a marriage is
only valid if the couple has kids.  To me marriage is the santified and 
permanent (and official/legal/whatever) union between a man and a woman.
It very likely will result in the couple having kids - either through
reproduction and/or adoption - and is in fact the proper family environment.
I cannot see how this view of marriage is historically flawed...

So if marriage isn't primarily a vehicle for procreation, what compelling
state interest is served in denying marriage to homosexuals?

If marriage is to provide a stable environment for children, how do
homosexual marriages cause a decrease in such stability?  Certainly it
wouldn't detract from heterosexual marriages, would it?

Keep in mind that some 25% of children grow up in single-parent homes.
What evidence do you have that the presence of another adult, even if
the same sex as the existing parent, would be detrimental to a child's
development?  (Evidence to the contrary has already been provided.)

I once heard that 1 in 4 homosexuals is a parent.  Why shouldn't these
children have parents who are legally married?

Kevin, you can believe what you want regarding the nuclear family, but I
don't think that anything you have stated supports your conclusion that
homosexual marriages constitute "creeping garbage".  Your juxtapositioning
of "homosexual marriage" against "perfect nuclear families" is a false
dichotomy.  The real question is whether homosexual marriage would be an
improvement upon our existing circumstances.

I think that many here have made that case.  Your comments that it is a
deviation from your idea of perfection aren't relevant.

Are you sure your thoughts aren't biased by your personal animus and that
you don't consider homosexuals themselves to be "creeping garbage"?

The original phrase was "creeping advancement of this garbage", as in 
"the gradual passing of legislation here & there allowing for something I
totally disagree with".  My comments have obviously been not in favor of
a *concept*, a legal status.  I have never made derogatory comments about
*people*.  Your snide baiting and "we have won the argument" tone are not
the reason that I participate in conferencing.

wow  I hope that you two don't know where each other live!  A lot of would-be
same sex marrige couples are saying that they don't need thier love to be
legally defined.  Bravo to them!  By the time this issue get sorted out ( if
it ever does ) these people may be old and gray.  As for any tax breaks
couples may derive from filing jointly, many ciites are allowing for joint
partnership filing already.  Maybe the Federal Government should follow this
lead and start integrating same sex couples that way so the conservatives
don't get too riled too fast...

Re: 53+55:  There's that work again: Sanctified.  This is a word which cannot
and should not be used concerning the US government; the US does not and
cannot recognise such concepts.   Yes, these kinds of religions have been
"creeping" back, but I'd hardly stick the bill of rights in he garbage.

We are talking about the legal definition of marriage, not the religious one.
They are different, and "Separation of Church and State" is a guiding
principle in this country. I concur with mneme.

Kevin, you are avoiding the tough issues and questions.  I'm willing to
forget about your "garbage" comment, which you seem to think was largely
misunderstood.  Fair enough.  What you typed and what many others read
wasn't the same.  I'm over it.  But do you have any reasonable reply to
the first 6 paragraphs of #54 rather than just the last one?

In other words, can you make the case against homosexual marriages?  Can
you counter the arguments that have been made in favor?

I apologize if you think that my tone is one of "we have won the argument",
but maybe it is time that you present an argument rather than merely talking
around one?

You consider homosexual marriage bad.  Why?  Because you think marriage
should be limited to a man and a woman.  Why?  Can you justify this without
leaning on religion?  And even if we do indulge in such santification, why
should your religious views outweigh those of religions that do sanctify
homosexual marriages?

Kevin, it seems to me, that the one question you *are* avoiding is
why shouldn;t homosexual marriages be allowed in your opinion?
we know (I think) why you think heterosexual marriages should be.
So please clarify why you think homosexual ones
shouldn't be?

(If I were really up to it, Kevin, I could find a quote from you
less than a year old in which you state that the purpose of marriage
is to start a family, and the purpose of a family is to have children.
I don't really feel like it, and if you're changing your stance now,
good for you, you've matured, but if you're changing your stance, say
as much, don't deny your previous stance.)

I really have nothing more to say than I said in #41.  I don't believe
the [U.S.] constitution has anything to say on this item in particular,
any more than it says which drugs are legal (but maybe subject to regulation)
and which are illegal/controlled substances.  So "societal norms" may be a
valid basis for drafting legislation where the constitution is slient.
You'd have to take your argument up with a constitutional lawyer; 
undoubtedly, it will come to that as this issue moves forward...

Oh, brighn, you love to needle, don't you?  Whatever floats your boat...

the constituion was not written around "societal norms"
it was really radical for the time, just a bunch fo bguys writing
down what they thought was right for everybody, not
just themselves. It's been updatd thorought history always
(usualy) in a somewhat progrssive weaway as farr as
giving more rights to more people. IT would quite in the spirit
of the original constituion to protect & legalize same
sex marriages.

Kevin, you're still not really dealing with the issues, other than hiding
behind what you think the vast majority of Americans believe, regardless of
whether these beliefs are correct.  You write (#41):

>A society implictly endorses or approves certain kinds of behavior or
>practices by its laws and regulations.  The vast majority of U.S. society is
>not in favor of endorsing  or approving by law or regulation a life style
>that it feels is not in the best interest of the continued/long-term welfare
>of the society.

So if the vast majority was against freeing the slaves... that was ok?
And when are you going to make any case at all showing that the state has a
compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriages?  How does it hurt or
deter from "the continued/long-term welfar of the society?"

>The mommy/daddy/kiddies model continues to be the only model that ensures the
>continued/long-term welfare of the society.  And this model is encouraged/
>preserved by reserving the condition/sanctity/status/whatever of marriage to
>it exclusively.  Other models do not merit this.

Oh, because you say so?  As I've asked: is society at large -- or the children
in particular -- better or worse off with two parents (even if of the same
sex) or just one single parent?

You might also want to review the first 6 paragraphs of #54 and see if you
can still justify your views once you stop playing ostrich.

As for the Constitution, here's what it has to say:

        The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
        not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
        people.  [9th Amendment]

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
        nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States,
        respectively, or to the people.  [10th Amendment]

As Kevin correctly notes, marriage is not delegated to the Federal government.
Anyone want to explain to me why the U.S. Congress is passing legislation
regarding same-sex marriages?  Election year bashing/animus?  Ah.

election year bashing, however, according to common law, which is universal,
well, almost...marrage has to be recognized...since marrage is bascially
a tax system, the feds have jurisdiction...who they're going to recognize
as married...
the trouble is is that if hawii's suprime court recognizes same sex marrages,
then the IRS has to listen, and if the IRS says you're married.
you're married.
and ALL the states have to listen...
isn't the IRS great for some things?

Yeah, we finally find a use for the IRS, and the government
is trying to stop it.  >8(

<chuckle> NO ONE can stop the IRS...they'd like to see gay couples
married...more tax money for them.

The beauty of the constitution is that is was writ by men who knew as they
wrote it that it was imperfect and they left it open to change...I tried to
type in a quote last night and my power failed I no longer have the book but
I think it is stored in a buffer...the quote has a lot to do with this
conversation I hope I can find it.

"And you know, While I'm at it. I don't care what arcane passage you pull out
of the Old Testament and run through your Jeremiah-begat-Jebediah Decoder
Ring, one of the definitive tenets of Christianity is tolerance. Trust me,
there's no version of theBible that says Love thy neighbor unless he's a peter
allen fan. Any supposedly Christian doctrine must have at the core a belief
in the concept of unqualified love for your fellow man. Unless of course he
proves himself to be a total asshole. Then you can ditch him. Sure, GOD
understandsthat, who do you think booked satan's flight? What he can't
understand isturning against someone becuase you don't happen to agree with
there sexual preferance. Forget you linear, biblical interpretation that tells
you to ostracize gays, and follow your heart. It's like when your driving
instructer would tell you to run a stop sign. aAnd you would and then he would
flunk you. And you'd say, " but you told me to." And he'd say, "Sorry, but
you never run a stop sign." And you never carpet bomb a group of poeple with
hate. Of course thats my opinion, I could be wrong." ---"The Rant" by 
Dennis Miller

You know, to me, I think marriage and sex are often two different things. 
There are a lot of people in this world who I would sleep with who I *would
not* marry, and there are people who I would not mind being married to who
I wouldn't really want to sleep with.  Marrige, particularly in society today,
involves sex. (btw, marrige=marriage)  That isn't the most important part of
it, though, I don't think.  I think the most important part of a marriage is
the care between teh partners.  If sex was the most important part of the
marriage, then there would be some restriction like "must show proof of
consumation within ten days of wedding" on the license.  So why can't people
who really do care about each other have at least some recognition for that?
If people are going to share a life, tehn I think they should all, regardless
of their sexual orientation get teh same treatment across the board, at least
by teh government.  

        To me, same_sex relaionships are fine.  There is No descrace in it and
there should be no shame, there's no reason for it, shame.  All around nature
you have 'same_sex' things happening.  It's really not that big a deal.  The
only ones makeing it so are the asses that can't relate to the security of
them selfs.  I think love is love, beutiful all in the same.  
        Just you wait untill Miss. Mark and I get together down town.

PS No, I'm not gay. (Like it matters)

Two male soldiers kill each other in battle and they are honored by their
countries as heroes. Two male soldiers make love to each other and they
are a viewed as a disgrace.  Where is the morality in that?

"i do it at home and they hang me,
 here they give me a fuckn' medal!"
war is a funny thing...

A nuclear scientist uses a research grant to make dramatic advances in
nuclear fission technology, and is respected.  A nuclear scientist uses
that grant to hire prostitutes, and he is viewed as a disgrace.  Where's
the morality in that?

#75...Aaron, I dont see the analogy.  How can you compare same sex 
marriages with a nuclear physicist using grant money to hire prostitutes?
Those involved in same sex marriages dont know or believe they are doing 
anything wrong.  They physicist clearly does.

come up with a better analogy

I believe Aaron is saying that the army people are being hired to
fight wars, not to have sex with each other (or anyone... codes of conduct
for the Armed Forces do have at least some prohibitions for mixed-
gender sexual contact), so therefore to say it's immoral to let them
fight wars but not have sex is silly.  I'm in clined to agree.
The army example is a bad example.  If people don't want to fight,
they shouldn't join the army.

        I truly agree with Chelsea...


 -= C =-

Mary's response has its origins in the statement of Ron(?) Matlovich, who
quipped that he was given a medal of honor for killing two men and a
[initially] dishonerable discharge [he won in court] for loving one.

Yes, people join the military to "fight", but that doesn't preclude them
from loving people while they are not on duty.  But let's leave gays in
the military to a different item.

The Hawaiian Supreme Court should provide a ruling on the same-sex marriage
case at the end of September.

September?  Four months ago, it was supposed to be June.
*stall stall stall stall*

[Correction: Matlovich didn't win in court.  Rather he settled out of court.]

As the analogy given me by a lawyer here, the situation in Hawaii is akin to
a basketball game with the score 90-5 and 5 minutes left.  The losing team
isn't about to walk off the court and will utilize all its time-outs to
delay the inevitable.

We don't know what the exact final score will be, nor just when the last
appeal will be exhausted (I've heard June 97).  But it's pretty certain
who is going to prevail.

Actually, most teams who are down by that many points will
lose gracefully.  It's only when the margin is 10 or 15 that
the time-out ploy is used.  (But this is the government, since
when do they give up easily?  >8)

Unfortunately, with how long Hawaii's court systems have sat on
this, there's no way that the decision -- whichever way it goes --
will be taken gracefully, and most likely will result in violence.
Especially on the slim chance that Hawaii actually decides
against the gays:  I know how unlikely it is, but I fear the
result if that's what happens.  Too many queers have been waiting 
too long for this.

        I don't think that anyone really takes the argument that legalizing
gay marriage is going to destroy the crumbling edifice of the nuclear family
in America; it's an argument used to justify stands based on far less noble
impulses than the protection of the family - a stance so noble it is difficult
to argue with.  If you're seriously concerned about the issue, you need to
address the underlying reasons that people are against homosexual marriage
- which I believe to have more to do with making an outward statement that
homosexuality, to them, is not as legitimate of a lifestyle as
heterosexuality, or should not be.  It' is, from what I can tell, an "if you
can't eliminate it from your sight, hurt it" phenomenon.

(and some of them are plain old homophobic, but i gotta agree
wiht you  jazz except I suppose some people actually think
that allowing gay marriages would cause the family structure
to crumble do to miseducation/prejudice about and against
gays. <shruge> it is a hollow arguement because of this:
what about two gay men or women and children would cause
any negative thing to happen to the children (the point
of the family streucture is for raising kiddies)?
Anything you can say to that is probably 
(in my expeirence) based on prejudice and misinformation.
truth : children of gay couples may get some flack for it.
but who's fault is that?

Jenna- there's another elephant turd in the middle of that room.  It looks
like this; "gee, if we let a gay/lesbian couple raise kids, they might
grow up just like their parents, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?"
In other words, the same people who attempt to say they find nothing wrong
with individual lifestyle choices--*but*... Will find nothing wrong with
also saying it's bad for kids to be exposed to non heterosexuality as a
reasonable option.  They really don't get it.  Of course, there's an even
BIGGER pile under that one.  The one that goes; "gee, if a same-sex couple
ends up raising kids who are less screwed up than ours by dint of being
loved unconditionally and accepted, then we're going to have to rethink our
notions of love, family, sexuality, etc. and we REALLY don't want to give
up our deep-rooted beliefs and prejudices.  Mouthing tolerance is a whole
lot easier than living it."  Sure, it's a hollow argument.  So are many people
/

Is is my observation that those folks who have a hard time with the
concept of gay sex also have a problem with heterosexual sex.  Sex is
simply not easy for them.  Or natural.  Homophobics tend to present on the
far edges of normal sexual behavior, either very sexually aggressive or
very timid and wary of intimate contact.  Maybe these folks are so
uncomfortable with their own sexuality that pointing scornful fingers at
gays and lesbians is a transference technique. 

Chelsea, that's a very good insight.  Thanks.  I think you're probably right.

There may be some truth in #87 for some people but I think it is extremely
overgeneral, and a generally inaccurate statement. 

I think it is perfectly common for someone to be completely at ease with one's
own heterosexual sexuality, and at the same time to be quite uncomfortable
with the concept of homosexual behavior. 

So I don't really buy #87 at all. 

ditto to #88

I can't help but think that so many maladjusted people come from "perfectly
normal" homes... maybe we should try soemthing different for a change?  Okay,
so I am half joking.. but really, I don't think it is teh little neet "normal"
unit that makes a family, I think it is the care and the love in teh family.
(gods but I wish I could type)

I agree partially with #87... I wouldn't say that all
anti-gay people are convinced that heterosexuality is unnatural, too,
but most of the anti-gay folks I've met are uncomfortable with their
own sexuality to a degree.  Then again, most people I've met
in general (gay, straight bi, whatever) are uncomfortable with
their sexuality, so...

This is really about stereotypes and overcoming them.  Because society 
stereotypes and defines them unfortunately largely by their sexuality, many 
homosexuals simply give in and accept that their sexuality is their primary 
definition.  So they oversell their sexuality.  Some women do the same thing 
because in a male dominated society, particularly in the past, they've been 
forced into roles where they are primarily defined by their sexuality.

In fact, most gay people, you would not know and could not tell they are gay. 
To  most it is a private issue and they have no desire to sell their lifestyle
to  others.  If everyone acted this way, people would be less threatened or
feel less  threatened and perhaps concepts like gay marriage would not be so
controversial.

If one talks about family values, I cant think of stronger aspects of such than
 monogamy (sorry Brighn) and committment.  Being against gay marriage is 
essentially being against those ideals.  Gay people arent going to become 
straight because society wont allow them to marry.  But legal restrictions
coulc  complicate attempts at monogamous relationships and encourage these
folks to  sleep around and be promiscuous.  Is that what SRW and other
opponents of gay  marriages want the government to be promoting?

   not necessarily, kerouac. there are plenty of gay folks in committed,
long term relationships. there are ways to work around some of the legal
benefits which come automatically with marriage (powers of attorney for health
care, establishing legal guardianship of children, etc), but even so those
people can't file joint tax returns, nor in many cases can they buy health
insurance for each other, et cetera.

   as far as promiscuity goes, the AIDS epidemic has done much to curtail that
behavior in the gay community. lack of legal marriage benefits is hardly going
to encourage people to become promiscuous with the spectre of HIV hanging
around. in fact, the gay community has educated itself and alteres its
behavior so well that currently the demographic groups with the
fastest-growing rate of new HIV infection are teenagers and heterosexual
women. i'm not saying that there are *no* promiscuous gays; you're going to
find promiscuous people among any sexual orientation. what i am saying is that
denying gays the right to legal marriage is unlikely to promote promiscuity.

I do think it is a good point about letting sexuality define one's
personality, though.

Monogamy does not equal commitment.
You can be sleeping with one person in you r life and spending absolutely
no time outside of bed with that person, and you could be sleeping with
every person in the universe and still have one (or two or three) people that
you commit your emotional life to.
Monogamy also implies that family = two adults plus possibly children.
The minority of families has that structure.
(RIchard, you have implied that I personally do not have any 
commitment, or at least not enough commitment, to my loves
to qualify as a family.  Make that prostitute crack you made in party
again, we'll see how committed I am.  Oh, Jenna says you made a
prostitue crack about her, too...)  Personal attack = OFF

        If that's all marriage and commitwent were about, sure ...

Pardon, John, I'm not sure who you were responding to or what you meant.

Re 92 - It would not be accurate to say I am against gay marriage. I fully
understand opposition to it however. I am a bit of a fence sitter. I'd like
to find a way to avoid calling it marriage, but I'd like to see the government
recognize the commitment so that gays are not denied tax benefits, etc.

I don't think it is fair to see homosexuals who are not in a committed
relationship similar to marriage gain advantages by claiming they are, while 
heterosexuals must marry to obtain them. Government recognition would help
eliminate this inequity.

so eseentially you opt for a different name to the same asic result,
steve? why bother? why not jus call it marriage (albeit secular
marriage for a lot of people who's original religion or current religion
does entirely upport it) ? afterall reliigious marriage and government
marriage are seperate... there are already ministersand priests
of all kinds of sects of all (oh let me not forget rabis) who will
perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. I guess to me
relgious mariage is between you, your intended and your
religion; whereas government marriage is between you and some people with
paperwork.
so to me, what you're saying sounds sorta silly

I still think of Marriage as between a man and a woman.
When two gays live together in commitment to each other, I find it very
jarring to think of that as "marriage". I am not interested in withholding
any government recognition, or depriving them of benefits unfairly, but
somehow the name "marriage" doesn't work for me. 

I do not personally approve of the gay lifestyle. 

I feel I have every much a right to disapprove as the gays have to live that
way. I make no demands on them, and I don't discriminate against them in any
way. I am not a gay basher, and not afraid of them or their lifestyle. I just
would never choose it.

You can go ahead and call it marriage if you want to, but I think it stretches
the term marriage beyond recognition. I don't think I am being silly.

You are not being silly.  You are being provincial.   I just found my
dictionary and looked up marriage, and while it does specifically say "man
and woman" and "husband and wife", it seems to cover mostly things like
festivities, commitment, etc. with no mention of childbearing.  So the root
of marriage would appear to be a ceremony of a decision to have a committed
relationship.

The bigger question comes in, what is the "gay lifestyle"?  And the really
big question is "what causes homosexuality?".  Is it voluntary or involuntary?
I'd guess, and be sure to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth here,
that not approving of the gay lifestyle means that you believe homosexuality
is a personal choice rather than a preset attribute.

Gay lifestyle?  Gee, my neighbors, a middle aged gay couple, have the best
garden!  One is an artist and the other a therapist.  They've got 3 kids
(I've met the mother of one, don't know if she's also mother to the others,
they get on fine.), and their truck is for sale.  Lifestyle?  I know another
lesbian who has a wonderful daughter and shares custody of her with the
dad, a gay man.  They were married, and in some ways their divorce is sadlyt
typical.  She has a wonderful house with home-made covers on the futon
couch, a nice woodsy bit in the yard and a graveled dog-yard in the back.
She's looking for other compatible (magical) lesbians to hang out with, but
not in any particularly desperate way.  She's got a job that takes too much
of her time, and a few hobbies that eat the rest.  Sound like anyone you
know?  Another lesbian friend of mine is getting a masters in environmental
studies and probably going to teach in that area, she works at a computer
store, she has a small coven with a real environemental focus, and has a
few students, at least one of whom is either just initiated or about to be.
She doesn't have a partner, and with all the work she's doing, I suspect
she's not looking, but she's *definitely* an exclusive and monogamous
lesbian.  Oh yeah- she's into industrial music.  Lifestyle?  I just don't
know anyone who lives a "gay lifestyle", and I do know a lot of gays who'd
be happiest to live the rest of their lives in a committed relationship.
Then, too, there's another lesbian couple I know, very committed and too
cute for words, who are exploring polyamoury for the first time, and one
of them is considering whether she might be bi, although cautiously so it
doesn't upset the primary relationship.  Lifestyle?  Don't see it.

Durn it, I finally hear about an unmarried woman who likes
industrial music, and she's a lesbian.  >8)

So solly.  Exclusive and monogamous, too, so we're both SOL.  Oh well, she's
still a sweetheart.  I'll introduce you if I can, next time she makes it
down this side of the border.

You're right, Scott. I see it as a personal choice. 
I see homosexuality  as leading to either childlessness (which is tolerable) 
or raising children with step parents (which works, but is not the ideal).

Kami, I am sorry if I confused you by using the cliche "lifestyle" but 
there are some lifestyle issues in those examples you brought up. 
If the lesbians you describe were really monogamous, they would not have 
children by other people than the ones they are living with. Thus they
would not have any children at all. I have similar problems with heterosexuals
who get divorced because they can't maintain a relationship. Their kids
often never learn what it takes to make a marriage really work. If they're
lucky, they wind up with a loving step parent. I don't like relying on luck.

Whether a kid is living with loving, natural parents or not is a lifestyle 
issue. Kids learn commitment, like they learn almost everything else, 
by emulating their parents.

Those kids are living in partially adopted families. Now that's surely better
than living in disfunctional families, admittedly. The only way to avoid 
the instability that comes from changing parents is to have a child born 
into a stable heterosexual monogamous marriage.

Steve, you've obviously forgotten about both adoption and artifiical
insemination.  It *is* possible to have a lifelong same sex partner
and still have children.  

Marriage is used in a broad sense to bring any two things which belong 
together or work well together, together.  "Chef Gouinnard beautifully
marries the beauchamel with the garlic, providing an exquisite sauce."
sounds not in the slightest bit odd to my ear.

And apparently a stable bisexual polygamous marriage with a non-changing
set of parents would be unstable?  Selena and Valerie and I are planning
children at some point (there may be a fourth parent in that mix yet,
the future is not resolved yet, but time will tell)... I mean, I could
see your criticism of a group marriage situation with an ever-changing 
array of parents, but what of three or four or five adults who
remain in the relationship for the course of the child's upbrining?
Outside social forces aside, love is love, and stability is stability, IMHJO.
(oops, drop the J)

Steve, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

From my own personal experience, I know that I had no more choice over
my sexuality than over being right-handed.  I think that anyone who feels
they chose their sexuality obviously had an option in the matter, which
would mean that they are truly bisexual, even if they choose to limit
themselve to members of the opposite [or same] sex.

I was just reading on the net about an ancient Egyptian same-sex couple,
burried in the same sarcophagus in loving embrace.  Readers of Boswell's
scholarly works are familiar with homosexual marriages performed in the
early Church.  So in my humble opinion, saying that homosexuals aren't
good enough (my words) for "marriage" is no different than saying that
blacks should have a different ceremony so as not to defile white
marriage (not to mention them inter-racial couples).

Separate is not equal.

I don't think Wiccans, Jews, or Muslims should be allowed to get 
married, or at least to use the term "marriage" because marriage
is a Christian concept.  If Wiccans, JEws, and Muslims want to have
committed relationships, that's fun, that's wonderful, but all the
same, for me, "marriage" = "union of a man and a woman in Christ's
love"...

So how far do you think the argument in the above paragraph would get?
In some parts of the country, it would go far, I'm sure, but it's
such a blatant violation of the First Amendment it's not even funny
(as an argument from a politician as a basis for a law, that is...
people who aren't legislators can't violate the First Amendment (anybody
ever notice that, BTW?  The First Amendment only restricts the actions
of the lawmakers, and nobody else, even though it's been applied to others)).
ANYway, STeve, is your problem just one of terminology, then?
Let's just change the name of what it is when two people get together,
regardless of the genders of the people.  It's just a word, after all.
Queers, at least *this* queer, isn't interested in the word, he's interested in
the concept... (considering I'll be old and gray before I get the type
of marriage *I* want legalized, legalized *sigh*)

In fact I know of one female grexer, who doesnt use the system much these days 
but used to be a regular on party, whose father is gay and married.  She said
her  dad was in many ways more normal than her heterosexual mom, who had
problems with  commitment.  It was her father and his gay boyfriend who raised
her an gave her  the stability she needed growing up.  she's even talked of
transferring to a  school near whey they live now so she can see them more
often I think.  And no  she didnt turn out gay because she had gay parents. In
fact she's now engaged.

There's a decent number of gay parents, who felt obligated to marry the
opposite sex and raise kids, just due to "that is how you live". 

And there's a number of decent gay parents, too, Scott.  =}  *giggle*

New topic!  What word should we use to refer to gay marriage?
Garriage?  Carriage?  (Because the care about each other?)

srw, I know of a temple in virginia that has a gay rabbi...would you object
to that if you were in his temple?

 Errrrr........ I think I'm in the wrong place. Hi everyone! I'm back again!!!

 
      :*


I forgot how to get out of here :)
H
q

there's a gay rabbi at a temple in detroit tri-country area...
he married my parents. i think 2 or however many gay/bisexual
parents do eter with kids than (NORMAl committed or what notgay/bi people)

than warring heterosexual couples who hate each other.
i think i might concede that having an open relationship
in any context might be bad for the kids if you mishandled it
or anyone had any problems with it... but as for polyamory
or/and gaybi stuff welp as long as it's stable <shrug>

Open relationships are harder for kids to understand, if only
because not all families work that way, but *any* loving relationship
is better than a hateful one, IMHO.

Jenna- Michael's folks used to go to the Birmingham temple, too, and his
sister was married by Rabbi Wine.  I don't mind that he's gay, and I don't
really mind that he has rewritten the entire liturgy, but I do sort of mind
that he professes to be an athiest.  How?  I suppose that, if not believing
in God doesn't keep him from celebrating a religious tradition, being gay is
unlikely to keep him from celebrating loving unions.
re: 116- I agree with the last bit, and I've seen no sign of confusion from
my boys- they might find us cuddling up with friends downstairs some mornings,
but cuddles is cuddles and love is love, and they're always welcome to join
the pile if they don't shove, and SEX IS PRIVATE no matter who's engaging in
it.  They don't seem to have a problem with this.

rabbi wine, kami, started a movement in judiasm (or furthered it greatly)
involving tradition without religion. so they celebrate the holidays for
ancestrial meaning
and cutlturaal, but not becaus of God. <shrug> he married my parents.
eventually though when i was forced to go the get bat mitzvhed it wasn't with
him, it was
with an even more liberal instution. (or ... well the ceremonies
were weird <smile) anyway... if you're willing to reject
all of what the bible says on God, why not reject it on gayness too?
<shrug>

I agree with Brighn.  
I think a marriage is basically whatever teh partners define it as, an dpeople
should be given all options in difining that relationship.  One of teh
healthiest relationships of marriage type that I know of is a gay friend of
mine and his husband of a year and a hlf who has been his partner for almost
twelve years.  They both say it isn't the same, being in a "commited
relationship" as being married is.  There is something between going infront
of your god or gods, friends, familyfamily, and gov't to say "I want to spend
the rest of my life with this individual and tehy want to spend teh rest of
their life with me."  right now, gays can't go infront of their gov't and do
that.  No matter what it is called, why not let tehm?  And why squabble of
linguistics before it is reality?  Words are just that, words, and nomatter
what words tehy are, they mean the same thing in the end, and if that thing
is marriage, tehn it means something absolutely different in every case, even
amoungst heterosexual "normal" couples.  

Jenna, I don't believe the torah actually says anything about gayness, although
I do remember a passage that says a man shouldn't wear a woman's clothing.

More liberal? I suppose this needs a different item, but I'm curious how
the ceremony was weird and what organization it was and all.

Some have interpreted the Sodom and Gemorrah tale as including
prohibitions on homosexuality (with other sexual deviances),
and there are one or two other spots where men are advised against
laying with other men (although LEsbianism is not only implicitl
but logically o.k. ... some rabbinical sources say that woman was made
for the sexual gratification of man by God specifically so taht man would 
not defile other men with sex.  by this argument, women are already
defiled, and therefore it won't cause any more problems if they 
defile each other... I've heard other interpretations though).

The strongest prohibiton in the christian bible against homosexuality
is probably in the New Testament, though, in Romans 1, where the PAgans 
are punished for their idolatry by having unnatural urges for same-sex
couplings, but even here the emphasis of the story is on "unnatural"...
the PAgans are apparently not desirous of these couplings, and do so 
against their own wills because of a strong punitive urge from God
(read the story carefully, and recall that it's Paul writing, twit that he
is...)

So now the Christian Bible is coming into this discussion?  I mean,
we're going to follow the lead on matters of sexual morality
from a "god" who raped an unmarried virgin in order to produce
a son?  There is nothing particularly "moral" about the Bible.

Oops.  Okay, we won't talk about the Christian Bible anymore, Mary.

Nice show, Michael.  Mary, I like you.  But take a bleeding chill pill.
Kami and JEnna were discussing whether the Torah had anything to say
about homosexuality, and I answered the question as best I could.
I'm sorry if you have a chip on your shoulder against Christians, 
but that gives you about as much right to your intolerant close-minded
skewed attitude as it does to theirs.  Wandering around Grex and 
putting down blanket generalizations about "Why Mary Remmers Hates
Christianity" every time some says "Jehovah" ("Who threw that?  I
didn't say Jehovah!  Aigh!") does nobody any good.  And Michael,
kowtowing to one particularly loud-mouthed person
is bull caca.

I may not be a Christian now, but Christianity is my heritage,
and I will not be silent about my heritage just because MARY 
doesn';t like the topic.  IT's called "forget"., Mary.

You're saying the "Nice show, Michael" was sarcastic?  

Seriously, the effect I wanted to produce on Mary was an 
amused little moue, of the sort you make when someone you 
disagree with but like gets you with a well-aimed zinger.  

A moue is a little grimace or pout, btw.  Also, an aurochs 
is an extinct bison-like creature that used to roam in what 
is now Germany.

I thought my comments followed the train of discussion quite
well, brighn.  The Bible is a poor place to find clues to
moral behavior.  I'm sorry you find this concept unworthy
of discussion.  But no matter how angry you get with me for making
the point I'll not be offended or hold your attitude against
all Christians.

 

Thanks, Brighn.

> Monogamy also implies that family = two adults plus possibly children.
> The minority of families has that structure.

Assuming I'm clearly understanding & linking your words here, I don't know
where you've been living or what reality you've been perceiving...

>kami - to put it this way (this is off subject sorry)
>if I hadn't picked up some desire to be involved with druids/wiccans
>on my own, i certainly could have picked it up from them. every
>ceremony
>every party of every ceremony at least 1/2 had to be spent on the pagan
>holiday it was taken from. though i imagine the ancient jews weren't
>taking from celtic p
eople becayce that woul make little geographic sense. But still
many of the same basic themese and holidays apply to all
nature-based religions. well anyway that's what I meant.
brighn - i'm pretty sure there is an old testament taboo as wellu

(Actually, Michael, I realized afterwards that you were being
sarcastic, in which case my "Nice show" could be taken as a compliment
for your sarcasm, which is why I left it.  =} )

Kevin, what precisely are you debating?  I'm not sure what you're 
contesting.  About 40% of households in America, at most, have a
parent + parent (+ possibly children) structure... the rest are 
single adults, with or without children, and extended families.
I would equate "family" with "(deliberate) household", but maybe we're
defining terms differently (no maybe about it, I *know* we are,
unless you've changed your definitions).

Mary, I didn't see anyone before you 
suggesting that what the Old or New Testament had
to say about the issue was relevant, the question was merely
what the Testaments *did* have to say... I summarized, and your
response was to rip down the content... that wasn't following any flow
I saw, that was you leaping on the opportunity to tell us (yet again) 
that you hate the Christian God.
But that's just my view.

Mary, I also disagree with you when you say that the Bible is not a good
place to find clues about moral behavior.  It's just not always right.
A lot has changed in the last 3000 years.

Oh, yeah.  If it wasn't rape, then the Virgin Mary was an adulteress....  (:

Back to Gay Marriage?  A recent poll shows that women and those under 35
are about equally divided on the issue.  Men and those over 35 are more
likely to be against gay marriage.  I suspect, but it wasn't in the poll,
that those under 25 are more likely to favor gay marriage.

Iceland just enacted gay marriage, and within a year it will be legal in
Hawaii.  Within a generation, I expect that it will be legal across the
country and most of Europe.  It's called progress....

I have a close relative who is a lesbian and has been in the
same committed relationship for about 13 years now.  As both
women are in their mid-thirties they feel it's now time to have a 
family and within the next two months one of them will be pregnant
if all goes well.  Then, a year or two later, the other will 
also have a child.  I find it tragic they can be a family in so
many ways and yet be refused legal marital status.  Society needs
to get over its sexual hangups and end this discrimination.

Again, I suggest people not just whine about it but get out and
vote for politicians who support gay and lesbian marriages.

But how do we find such politicians?  No one even wants to say anything about
the issue- Republicans because teh fear sounding too liberal or too ultra
conservitive, and democrats because tey don't wnat to sound too conservitive
or radical.  In the end it is all the same thing, teh same fears, oon both
sides.  I agree that we have to vote for politicians who support gay and
lesbian marriages, but we also have to start making an e3ffort to change
things our selves.  We have to convince politicans that the public feels that
this is a good thing, and we have to then have to vote for the good guys. 
(Or the better guys... the best we can get???)

Were our politicians leaders, rather than followers of the public in an
effort to obtain votes, then it would make sense to influence them.  As
it is, we must influence public opinion and hope that the courts have
the courage to uphold equal protection, as well as liberty and justice,
for all.

(It was about 10 years ago that Lana Pollack, otherwise a liberal Democrat,
stated she would not support gay rights because it was political suicide.
Today, the vast majority of Americans believe it is wrong to discriminate
against homosexuals in the workplace.  Will the Employment Non-Discrimination
Act (ENDA) finally pass in Congress?)

        That fact merely introduces a simple question: is it easier to talk
to a few strong-willed leaders, or to the masses?  I'm not convinced the
former is true.

The masses are *much* easier to influence.  That's what makes them the
masses.  The masses serve on juries; strong-willed people don't.  The
best way to avoid jury duty, in fact, is to be intelligent.  The fact
that there are people on juries indicates that there are plenty of
not-so-intelligent people out there, i.e., the masses.

132:
It is unfortunate when well meaning, but misguided people, intentionally
decide to satisfy their own selfish desires by bringing innocent children into
homes that do not have a both a father and a mother.
>
/.

        Absolutely.  We should strive to have children placed in homes with
at least two parents ... but let's not stop there ... let's give bonuses to
extra-large nuclear families.  Got a tensome going?  

Re 137 - It won't surprise you to learn that many people in
this item don't agree with you on that point.  >8)

I am going to have to agree with Rob on that one... let me tell you, if I had
been reaised with both of my parents around all the time...... <jess shudders
to think what kind of perfectly normal raving sociopath she would have become>
(er... raised)  Weekends with myt father were bad enough.  
This is not to say that neclear familys are nessicarily bad- this is just to
say that they are not the only answer.  

It is unfortuante when well-meaning people stay married for ten years
after their children have started praying -- speaking to God Upon High --
that they get divorced, and their reason for staying married is for the sake
of the children.
A child needs love.  If mommy and daddy can provide love, groovy.  If the
child can get love through a different set-up, that's groovy too.  If mommy
and daddy aren't giving the love that the child needs, not so groovy.
"And father never gave attention to the fact that mother never cared.": 
There's a reason why "Jeremy" is the only Pearl Jam song I like.

(And yes, I was praying to God when I was seven, about two years after my
brother started doing the same.  There are some families that just aren't
meant to be, social expectations be damned.)

Re: 137  Children born into this family will be very lucky 
indeed to have *two* excellent parents.  Once a child
has been conceived and born I really don't see where either
having or not having a penis or a uterus is important in
raising a healthy and loved child.

   it is easier to raise a child(ren) when you have someone with whom to share
the work. it does not *necessarily* follow that both (or all) the adults in
the family have to be male and female.

Male and female parents are quite different from each other and each 
fulfills a distinct role.  A child needs to have both & ought to
be brought into the world with that in mind.  (Interesting question:
We often hear about the relatively high probability that a boy
from a female-headed family will wind up in prison, but I have never
heard the same about boys from male-headed families.  Why?)

Probably because female-headed families tend to be poorer
(since women make less money than men in equivalent jobs)
and men from poor families are more likely to turn to crime?
Could that be it?  Huh huh huh?

female headed families are also primarily single-parent
and single-parent families tend to be poorer than dual-parent
families (and at any rate, child care tends to be harder).
Next point, klg?

bugger yourself klg..i was raised by just my mom and i turned out fine..

it's rather hard to bugger oneself... painful if you're a male,
durn near impossible if you're female =}

I don't think klg deserved that response. He wasn't talking about you
individually.

Yup, children should have a father who works outside of the home and a
mother who is a homemaker (or "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen").
Any deviation from this model will confuse the children and is evil.
Oh, yeah, and mothers shouldn't vote let that confuse the children
who will grow up thinking that women can/should play an important
role in society.  Next thing you know, little Suzie might want to be
a mathematician when she grows up, maybe even have a career....

[set sarcasm=off]

At a time that many children have only 1 parent, what is so bad about
having 2 parents that are the same sex other than your feeling, klg,
that this is not optimal?  Should single parents not be allowed to live
with a sibling of the same-sex lest the children be confused by such
improper household role models?

As a society, don't we -- and our children -- have more important issues,
some even truly threatening, with which to deal?

Since i'm currently on the fast train for having children with four parents,
I say, the more the merrier.
I agree with Leeron, and broaden it.  don't we *as a society*
have more important issues to deal with?

I am curious, klg.  What are these different roles that men and
women bring to parenting?  And is it central to these roles that
the each parent be wearing a specific set of genitals?  Could you
expand upon your opening comment in response #144?

I would say that couples in general often consist of one assertive
or dominant person and one passive person.  The dominant person is
the primary moneymaker, and tneds to be more extroverted.  The passive
person is the homemaker, and tends to be introverted.  Before everyone
gets all liberal on me, let me say:
(1) These are traditional sex role stereotypes, and more often than
not do NOT map cleanly onto father = dominant, mother = passive.
(2) There is no earthly reason why the dominant role has to be filled
by a male, or the passive by a female.  The majority of same-sex 
relationships do tend to have one dominant partner and one passive
partner, at least the ones *I've* seen (in Lesbian terms, for instance,
I've seen an awful lot of butch/femme relationships).
Furthermore, in mixed-gender relationship, I've seen quite a few
dominant-female, passive-male couples (including Val and I).
(3) This is a gross generalization.
(4) This scenario is certainly not necessary to the development of
healthy children.  A child, I think, definitely needs to learn when 
to assert and when to accept, but doesn't need to learn one role from
one parent and one role from the other... more healthy, I should think,
would be learning both roles from integrated adults who can do both.

My dad quit his job when i as 7 to "raise" me and my 2 brothers.
It's only been as a teenager that I've had any fallings out with him.
(I've had fallings out with the entire family). My mother makes
the decisions, works, pays the bills, etc et... if my dad were another woman
things wouldn't be much different... (or vice versa)

I've seen a report of a study that tends to back up what brighn was
saying in #153 - the basic gist of it is that a well-adjusted child needs
both nurturing (the traditional role of the mother) and discipline (the
traditional role of the father), but the plumbing attached to the person
providing each is irrelevant in the grand overall scheme of things, and
although it's difficult, it's not impossible for one parent to do both.
(Please don't ask me for a citation; it was two years ago or so, in a
magazine, and I remember only glancing through it and thinking 'that makes
a lot of sense'.) 

(While I can't cite them either, there have been several studies with
similar finding.  I recall that one was done in England.)

145: (Recent studies are showing that when you adjust for relevant
education/training, job experience, and amount of work performed, the pay
difference between men and women on equivalent jobs is negligible.  In fact,
considering these factors, not so long ago men were paid _less_ than women.)

        Poverty causes crime??  Then please explain why is it that earlier in
this century - when people lived in tenements worked in sweatshops and there
were no welfare programs - large numbers used to flock at night to large city
parks to sleep.  Today, when even the poor have much more, people, fearing
for their lives, avoid those parks even during the daytime and sleep behind
iron bars on their windows.

        Until I see some statistics, I'll put my money on the discipline
provided by fathers.  Care to prove me wrong?

I was raised by a male and a female adult who were heterosexual,
monogamous, and all that.  My father provided no discipline, or little.
The reason?  My mother is a sociopath who discouraged him from coming home
at all.  He slept in his office the better part of the timeduring my early
teen years.

Having the situation you describe, Kerry -- dad, mom, kids, puppy -- doesn't
guarantee the upbringing you describe.  If other situations -- where, for
instance, the adults involved are actually happy enough with each other to
spend mutual QT with the kids -- provide at least a better situation than what
I wen tthrough, what's the problem?
  
(Oh, and before you chastise me for insulting the woman who gave birth to me,
the US Government agrees with me that she's a sociopath and is paying for her
subsistence.)

Poverty doesn't lead to crime.  Ukraine -- where I visited, at least -- is
so poor it's abominable.  But everyone is equally poor.  Crime comes from
classism.  If *no-one* has any money, there's nothing to steal.  Greed and
monetary inequality are major contributors to crime.  (The safest parts of
the city include those parts of the ghetto not frequently exposed to middle
and upper class visitors, though if an area gets too poor, it gets hopeless,
and that leads to drugs, and that leads to a different sort of crime.)

I heard on CBS Radio today that 4 out of 10 children grow up in households
without a father present.

So before we go out too far on the poverty/crime and other tangents, let's
try to avoid the false dichotomies.  The relevant question isn't "Are same
sex parents worse than a pair of the opposite sex" but rather "Are same sex
parents better than one parent".

The truth is that these questions are too general.  There are many other
factors that are much more important.  Are these loving parents?  Can they
provide adequate food/shelter?  Are they involved with the children or are
the kids relegated to daycare/babysitter and later streets and gangs?

Frankly, this entire discussion is a sham.  Perhaps there is some truth to
what some say, that same-sex parents isn't an "optimal" situation.  But it
is certainly better than at least 40% of cases, even more when one includes
statistics for single fathers.

So what are we trying to say?  That homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to wed
because it is not an "optimal" situation for children?  In that case, we
probably shouldn't allow heterosexuals to marry, either!

        Speculation on the role of father-figures and crime is a pretty weak
justification for infringing on anyone's civil rights, anyways ...

Aside:  I get such a kick out of how it's mostly male parents
who abandon their parental responsibilities and it's mostly the
male children who gravitate toward criminal behavior yet it's
that damned single-parent mother who is to blame for society's
evils.  My gut feeling is that a child raised by two women would
have an unfair advantage - on average.  

And while I'm venting I'll share another thought.  All through
this thread you can see a tendency to compare how children are
raised today to how we were raised.  But ya know what?  Kids 
today can't be compared to us - they are being raised in a whole
different world.  And even if the worlds were the same do we
really want our kids to come out like us?  Are we so incredibly
wise, adaptable, loving and emotionally healthy that we'd wish
them to grow up just like us?    

I'm done now. ;-)

150: (I was truly disappointed in your sarcastic remarks.  Nowhere have I made
the slightest suggestion that women ought to be kept "barefoot and pregnant"
or denied opportunities by society.  Elsewhere _you_ expect your opinions to
be treated with respect and coduct discussions on the basis of facts.  I would
expect the same from you.)

        Where did I say that children should not be allowed to live with a
single parent?  If, after the child is born, it becomes impossible for the
child to live in a household with both a female and a male parent, that is
unfortunate because it will deprive the child of a key factor/influence in
its socialization and development as a human being (but it would be worse to
dislodge the child from the home of one of the parents).   If you would
re-read my response, it states that adults should recognize that children have
a need to live with both a male and a female parent and that to ignore that
need prior to conception is to put their personal desires above the child's
(an innocent party) well-being.  And a mature, responsible parent ought not
be so selfish.

        Actually, if the argument is raised that a child's needs are better
met by one type of family-organization than another, then let's carry it to
it's logical conclusion.  Many of the instincts, and, indeed, morals and
social customs, that we hold today are rooted in a family structure that is
either extended in Western terms or cooperative in a tribal sense.  Wouldn't
it make sense that since the majority of our biological beginnings-of-
personality evolved in an extended or tribal family, that these environments
might be best?

        By this argument, I'm just attempting to point out that the
"traditional nuclear family" isn't all that old of a concept - in fact, it's
largely a product of the industrial revolution - and that if we're not going
to go with the assumption that a family structure should change in accordance
with the social climate, that it should not be to a relatively new model we're
looking.

(That point's been made, John.  The anti-same-sex voices here told us that
we're nuts and that the nuclear family model is centuries old.  Facts are only
pleasent and sought after when they suit your needs; when they don't, they're
distortions and attacks.  ((Yes, KErry, that last part was meant for you.)))

Chelsea, I could do without the male-bashing, personally.  While there are
plenty of males who abandon their children, there are plenty more -- more,
I would say, than abandon their children -- who lose their children in divorce
settlements where they could provide a better home than the mother, they are
willing to provide a bettter home, and the only reason why the mother gets
custody is because, well, she's the MOM-my.  (Kramer v. Kramer, while a work
of fiction, is not terribly far off the mark of reality.)  Truth is, mothers
are identified more strongly as the "parent" figure.. fathers, more often than
not, are the backslap when the child's been bad and the food when the child's
been good (and even then, they just pay for the food, MOM-my brings it).
I'm not justifying the behavior of men who just up and leave in the middle
of the night, but men *might* take better care of their children if they were
given more recognition that they're just as much a parent as the mother, and
an equal... custody settlements are the biggest indicator that they're not
seen this way.

of the 4 in 10 kids without fathers some of the fathers re dead;
some of them the mothers didn't want around anymore one way or another
some of them left for whatever... <shrug>
as for me... well hell *i* went to daycare and I'm not in any ganags last I
cheked. I'm also 15, so i'm growing up now so i'm not comparing
anything to any "back thens" more than 12 or so years ago.
i could also do without the male-bashing...
for me, my mother has worked and my father always took care of us
and i think sometimes he threatens to oops She threatens to leave
and he never does. and he's a pot-smoking bum. but a sweet one
and i've know lots and lots of sweet guys, my age
and older.
now in some ways NOT being froma "typical" family can
(if done right) give someone a head start in life. because
it makes them tolerant, if nothing else..

Try this sometime, when you're sitting around in a group ask 
folks to come up with three things they remember most about
their mother.  Then three things they remember about their
father.  Mother comes easily.  Father is often a struggle.
Why is that?

Male bashing is what I do when I run out of Christians. ;-)

I hate to say it, but coming up with three things about each
parent was no problem, and looking over my list, my dad comes
off looking a lot better than my mother...

I'm glad to hear that, Rob.  I'd suspect there will be differences
from person to person.  Ask around, see how it goes.  You're
findings may prove quite the opposite.

Father>  Strong.  Vulnerable.  Caring.
Mother>  Um....
Mary, have you actually done this?
And with men?
And had men do it with each other and report back to you?
If so, all right.
If not, it seems like you're being just as biased as Rob (if not moreso).

   the three things i remember most about my mother are all complimentary.
the three things i remember most about my father are all derogatory. 
thinking of the three things i remember best was not a struggle in either 
case. and it's not too hard for anyone to have a parent whose parenting 
skills were lacking, no matter what the parent's gender.

Re #169: Brighn, just what is it that you want Mary to have "men do it
with each other", let alone "report back"?  Are you trying to recruit
or is Mary a pervert?    (:

klg, you sure have the nerve to complain.  You responded to the top half
of my #150, the half above my admitted "[set sarcasm=off]" divider.  That
half, in the spirit that the institution of marriage as is must be
perfect because it is a tradition dating for thousands of year, pointed
out that many of the traditions associated with marriage were not ideal
and have been changed -- such as its treatment of women (well, at least
in some households in some countries).  I didn't say that you advocated
that women should be "barefoot and pregnant" in the kitchen.  But the
same thought-patterns and arguments you use against homosexual marriage
could have been used to keep women the property of their husbands.

Now, do you care to respond to the relevant thread, outlined in the
bottom half of #150 and repeated several times since then?  Even if
two parents of the same-sex aren't "optimal" (in your opinion), why
should this be illegal given that it is better than the situation
faced by roughly half of our nation's children who live in single
parent homes?

Just wishful thinking, ... I think I want a man to do it with.  =}
(Not that I'm complaing about what I d o have, mind you...)

My experience has been that, an overwhelming amount of the time, men have
better (adult) relationships or memories with their fathers, while women have
better (adult) relationships or memories with their mothers.  I think Rob,
Mary, and Void have expanded the data pool in the predicted way.

The background for my observation is rooted in discussions with
psychologists and psychologists.  When a psych person says "Tell
me about your mother" folks prattle on and on.  But when asked about
father the response is often more guarded, or memories are described
as vague, or the recollections are more related to tasks (he took me
fishing) and less discriptive of the personality (kind, caring, etc.).

Anyhow, I don't mean to sidetrack the primary discussion.  

Now, where did I leave that dog collar and whip?

What's the precise differnce between psychologists and psychologists, Mary?
=}  I think that tells you more about the type of people who go to
psychologists than anything else.  (Les t that be taken wrong, I don't mean
to slight such people -- I saw a therapist myself for a few months -- but
rather to suggest that that's a limited demographic, in the main, and that
people go to see therapists for socially constrained reasons, often.  But
that's just my experience.  These are all untested hypotheses...)

Depending on the gender of the psychologists and whether they were freudian's
they may well have given people more time and /or more prompting when asking
about their mothers because Freud mad a big deal aout the relationship a
person had with their mother ans ASSUMED that the father was a cold distant
figure or a hostile abuser.  That's not to say that the majority of fathers
are caring and nurturing but that those attributes which people use to
describe mother weren't even an option for men until the 1970-80's . 
Similarly male sex roles and social pressures and expectations kept men from
expressing any kind of nurturing and caring resulting in some pretty one
sideed and warped fathers.

The difference between psychologists and psychiatrists is mostly
educational background.  And about $50 dollars an hour.

Regarding the points made in #174 and #175 - I agree.  There are
many factors, having to do with a self-selected group and method
of questioning, which could skew the answer.  Just like when I
am within a group of friends and we're sipping wine - that is
a self-selected group under a specific set of circumstances.

So that's why I thought it might be a nice idea for you to ask
your frieds and listen carefully to what's *not* said as well as
to what is.  See what your set of conditions come up with.

(Mary, I know the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists.  I was
poking fun at your typo.  =} )
  
O.k., that's fair.  I implied that "See what your friends say" was rhetorical
and you were already convinced as to what they'd say.  Something in your tone
carried that message.

Ack, missed the typo completely (and your sly correction).  I
really should take a slow-reading course.

Mother - cries when upset; tells dad what to do; bitches about money
oh.. translation = protective, assertive/authroitative, 
and that word for people who know how to get the most out of their
resources.
Dad = accepting, temper-mental, convulted (helpful in weird ways)
my dad always seems lite a teddy bear asnd my om always seems like
a 47 year old woman who's romance novel ended 27 years ago
and still hasn't recovere dfrom it

171:  lk, when did I ever say that a single-sex parent household
ought to be "illegal?"  That's preposterous.  After a child has been
born, perhapst a single-sex parent household is the best that's
available.  Planning in advance of conception for such an
arrangement may be incredibly selfish  & self-centered, but
if selfishness were illegal, I suppose we'd all be criminals.

why would it be selfish?

klg, where did I ever say that you said that single-parent households
ought to be illegal?  I asked why it should not be legal for members
of the same sex to marry given that this would provide a better home
than enjoyed by nearly half this country's children who live in single
parent homes.

Or am I confused and you're not against homosexual marriages?

lk:  1. Reread #171, which is, perhaps, ambiguous.

     2.  I am not expressing an opinion on homosexual marriages here.

"single-sex parent househoulds"?
Are folks advocating hermaphroditic parents only?

With all the deep philosophical discussion going on, the passage of the
Defense of Marriage act by the House of Representatives last week seems
to have been missed - the vote was 342-67. (Lynn Rivers, who represents
Ann Arbor, voted 'nay'.) The bill would do two things: a) create an
exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, 
permitting states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states,
and b) define marriage for purposes of federal law as a union of one man
and one woman. Debate got a little nasty; the most memorable arguments
in favor boiled down to 'we cannot allow homosexuality the same moral
standing as heterosexuality by giving it the sanction of the state',
and those against to 'this bill is just another example of mean-spirited
bigotry, and it's only being discussed at all for political purposes.'
The Justice Department thinks it's constitutional, but then they  thought
the Communications Decency Act was constitutional too. (The question boils
down to, "Congress can specify the kinds of public documents states must
give full faith and credit to. But can they create a specific exception?)

Anyways, it's in the Senate now, and should be debated soon, and President
Clinton has already stated he would sign it if the language origianally
introduced is what ends up on on his desk.

Any thoughts?

It is not Congress' role to legislate morality.
Thoughts are redundant and obvious, at least mine are.

   anybody know what riders are attached to doma?

<sigh>

It passed without any amendments, basically as I described above - although
someone tried to amend the bill to add a big section forbidding discrimination
in employment based on sexual orientation (ruled out of order) and someone
else tried to add an exception to the exception to the Faith and Credit clause
for same-sex marriages specifically legalized by a state legislature instead
of imposed by judicial review of an existing marriage law, and I think to
any same-sex marriage more than X years old (this was voted down). (My
memory is just a wee bit sketchy - the Congressional REcord went on and on
and on and on and said basically the same things over and over.)

In reviewing #171, klg, I do note that the "this" in the 3rd line from
the bottom is ambiguous -- it was meant to refer to homosexual marriage
and not single-parent households.  My apologies.

It's 4am and I'm too tired to review, but if you're not discussing
homosexual marriage in this, the "same-sex marriage" item, just what
are you talking about and where are we disagreeing...?  (:

My only real opinion:  If you love someone, you should have the right to live
your life with them in the bond of marriage if you chjoose.  If that person
happens to be of your sex, does that make the love less?  No.  The gov. is
silly to think that they caqn control ppl's lives and loves with a law.  'Tis
like trying to thread a needle by aiming the eye at the thread instead of just
putting the thread through the eye.  (To use a Huck Finn analogy.  (; )

        IMHO, *I*  don't think a piece of paper is nessisary to proove that
you love someone.  *shrug*  The legal complications are there, of course, w/io
that piece of paper.... *sigh*

In my opinion marriage can make a big psychological difference.  It doesn't
prove anything about love per se, but it is a statement before your chosen
community that you are committed to one another for the rest of your lives
and that you intend to work through those (inevitable, I think) times when
you're not so sure you *do* love one another.  Love and passion can be pretty
transient things.  Genuine love, too.  Oh, it's stiull there -- but it can
hide pretty good during really hard times.  A marriage commitment says you
plan to stick it out through those periods and see it through to the good
times and passion again.

That promise has absolutely no bearing on the genders of the lovers.  I think
that theis silly ban on same sex partners being married is doomed in the long
run.  I sure hope so.

Here here.

Misti! We agree!
WOW..

Hey there. I'm linking some stuff from Sex II to GLB.
This item, among others, has been chosen.

Once again, Misti makes sense.  =)  As I said earlier, a person loses my vote
if they support banning gay marriages.  Why shouldn't someone who has loved
his or her partner receive the same benefits, legal recognition, and support
as my parents?  If you are lovingly committed to someone for one day or one
hundred years, you still feel the same emotions and bonds of love as anyone
else.  I am amazed, simply *AMAZED* that som epeople can't see that the only
difference between a gay marriage and a hetero marriage is the fact the parts
don't quite fit the same way.  Hmmph.

<birdy goes and stomps on her local congressman's head>

sorry to interject... but how many times do I have to forget this item?

(Really random comment:  Brighn-- 'Alban?')

Really random response: "Alba" is the Scottish word for "Scotland".
I've no idea if that's the meaning, in this context.

ditto to 198

        As I understand it, the current MM & conservative Christian stance is
that homosexuality is morally wrong, and that the legitimization of gay
marriages is tantamount to saying that homosexuality isn't morally wrong and
is a valid lifestyle.  It makes a certain amount of sense if you think of
homosexuality as some hoogidie-boogidie that you never see.

        It does amaze me that they're so willing to interfere, legally, in
other people's lives where no one is actually harmed in any concievable
fashion, because of *their* moralities.

Alban is the fem half of the couple in La Cage aux Folles 
(I believe his name is Albert in The Birdcage)

how many confs is this in?..........simple, live and let live....do what you
will and harm none...marry who you want and as many as you want..........

The Birdcage...I love that movie...

Gee, John, if I think conservative Christianity is morrally wrong, will they
ban it? =}

here here! *val toast Brighn's suggestion*  Maybe we should just ban excessive
conservatism;} Just kidding!

Gee!  I am all for banning conservatives! :-)  Hi Sis!  HI Bro!  I have a
boyfriend! And Keman and I are getting handfasted in August! wheee!
Re: Same-sex marriages. Gosh, I am all for it...go figure!

Congrats on the upcoming nuptials! *hugs Arwyntightly*  I've been real sick
lately  email you more later .  Will catch up wioth you on email since you
seem to have access again!yeah!:)

Thanks Sis!  We are getting excited about it.  Do mail me!  I have a
boyfriend!  heehee

I just mailed you :) Glad to hear you are having fun with the new boyfriend!:)

hope it works out for you !:)

you're getting married and you don't even send mail to your borther about it
={

But, but, but!@!!! I told my sis in law....didn't she tell you? :-)
hug Brighn!

Anyone going to Hawaii...?

Not unless it gets passed.  As it stands....it is still in court. Just a
higher one. :-(

   this is true. same-sex marriages in hawaii have been banned until the
hawaii supreme court makes a decision. after that, i may well be looking for
a woman who wants to go to hawaii and get married and a lawyer willing to
fight DOMA pro bono. ;)

It's unlikely the Hawaiian Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's
decision.
I'm skeptical, from wht I know, that DOMA will be so easily attacked full-on.
It seems easier to attack it in one state, get a state court to say that a
particular state has to abide by full faith and credit, and THEN tear DOMA
down with that decision in hand.

Isn't it true, though, that even though the marriage would be legal in 
Hawaii, each individual state has the say as to whether they'll 
recognize it?  Something like, if I'm married to a woman in Hawaii and 
we try to move to Michigan, Michigan won't recognize the marriage and 
the license would be void here.

Before the DOMA, it was federal law that any legal marriage that
took place in one state had to be recognized in all other states.
After the DOMA - we'll have to let the Supreme Court figure that
one out.  >8)

        Any contract agreed to in one state is recognized by all others. And
DOMA is an end run around that. Time for separation of Church and State. I
have a hard time understanding this as a debate in our society. "Do what you
will and harm none." Simple. But hey, they don't ask the Mad Owl....I'm just
a cabbie...

   and it's exactly because DOMA is an "end run" around the full faith and
credit clause that it needs to be fought. personally, i'm getting pretty tired
of watching congress trample all over the constitution and bill of rights (but
that might be an entirely different discussion).

Have you bothered to read the ENTIRE clause?

   yes i have, but since i just awoke my brain is a bit sluggish right now
and i'm unable to quote the clause.

That would be Article IV of the Constitution:

        The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and
        intercourse among the people of the different states in
        this union....

        [Discussion of travel, trade and duties skipped.]
        [Discussion of extradition skipped.]

        Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states
        to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts
        and magistrates of every other state.

Which part of the clause don't you understand...?   (:

Also consider the following:

        9th Amendment.  Unenumerated Rights
        The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
        be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        10th Amendment.  Powers Reserved to the States
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
        nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
        respectively, or to the people.

Just where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right
to legislate any marriage laws?

Same place it gives them the right to take away our guns and tax our income.
It doesn't, but then again the consitution is dying... unless the people
revolt against the futher erosion of the rights given us.

223:  Why did you omit the SECOND sentence of Art IV Sec. 1 which
empowers congress to modify the full faith & credit provision?

re #223: You believe that gay marriage was a right at common law?

re #225: You mean, "And the Congress may be general laws prescribe
         the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall
         be proved, and the effect thereof"?  What's your definition
         of "general"?

   gay marriage may not have been a right at common law, but does the
government have a demonstrable compelling interest in continuing to disallow
it?

What's the relevance of common law, Aaron?
Article 9 speaks of retention, sure, by article ten makes no such comment.
Article ten, presumably, includes rulings and powers not thought of in 1787/9.

The clause you quote, Aaron, doesn't empower Congress to proscribe anything,
which it has. It has given Hawaii no opportunity whatsoever to define the
parameters or effect. 

        Perhaps it's time to look into my heart on this issue. There are over
three million laws in the state of Michigan alone, so to be concerned with
the letter of the law is no concern to me. The law of the heart is the only
law that I listen to. I can carry it with me whereever I go and I can ask a
question of it and get an honest answer. So I ask my heart this question:
Should I do any thing to stop two people who love eachother from getting
married? Do I have the right to invoke the Power of Judgement on others in
this regard? And finally, is it any concern of mine what sexual organs other
married people have? The answer to #1 is: I would never stop two people who
loved eachother from getting married, I cn not be the judge of that. Some of
my friends that I thought would stay married are divorced and some that I
thought would get divorced are still married. To #2 I don't have the right
to invoke Power-Over other people based on my beliefs. Do what you will, and
harm none. Gay marriages harm none. If fact, I think they are very healing
to those involved. #3. I really don't see what differance it makes if there
is one penis and one vagina, two penises or two vaginas. Sounds crude and it
is but this is what people are arguing about. If harm none is the reality,
I really don't care what others do with their genitals. And this is where the
mistake takes place in our society. It isn't about sex, it's about love. And
as a christian, how can we condemn that?

Why stop at two?
What about group marriage?
Or, put another way, you say that nothing should stop two people who love each
other from getting married (or imply as much)... would hte fact taht one or
both of these people are already married to someone else be a factor?

<lee wonders where people draw the line between  being romantically involved
with someone to wanting to marry a second person...>

Just a question, I'm new here.
<lee wanders to a corner and hopes people around here don't bite>

Well, it is a free country(?) if three are ten people want a polyanderous
marriage, why not? Live and let live.

   lee, i only bite if asked politely. ;)

   thing is, polyandrous/polygamous marriages and homosexual marriages are
different subjects. certainly legalizing one may pave the way for the other,
though. personally, i have no objections to any of them as long as everyone
involved has reached the age of consent.

<gives lee a welcoming hug>

Well, I think that we are confusing the issue when we bring in more than two
people.  It is difficult enough for society as a whole to reconcile themselves
to gays and lesbians marrying....I don't think they are ready for the concept
of group marriages, Brighn. :-)  But, I do think that same-sex marriages will
open that particular door just a bit wider.

Fascinating, Void. You bring in age of consent. Why? The age of consent varies
from state to state, and hence has no basis in objective reality. 
I would vote for a biologically or emotionally determined age of consent (the
former of which is easier to define... say, two years after first menses for
girls, two years after first facial hair for boys, or something like that./
(and even THAT ifind fault with
erp
(and even THAT i'd find fault with, but it's better than this arbitrariness)

Then again, on this subject, i'm quite radical. Anyone who has passed an
emotional point of maturity, regardless of marital status, physical age, or
gender of themselves or their intended partner(s) should be allowed to enter
a marriage-like agreement.

   yes, i do bring in age of consent. and it's true that the legal age of
consent varies from state to state; it's also true that individual maturity
levels vary from person to person. it varies so much that i've met some
fourteen-year-old women and some forty-year-old boys. my point is that there
is a maturity level under which *no* *one* is capable of making competent
decisions regarding sexual relations and marriage. for the vast majority of
people, that level is reached sometime during adolescence. in the interests
of making sexual abuse of children a punishable crime (as it ought to be, but
my opinion of child molesters is another subject entirely), and because it's
impossible to determine exactly when each individual reaches that level of
maturity, most states set a specific chronological age as the age of sexual
consent. therefore, in order to get married or participate in any sexual
activity, one should be a consenting adult...legally. that way, not only is
one presumably mature enough to make competent decisons regarding sexual and
marital relations, one is also old enough to keep one's partner from getting
into legal trouble.

As an aside, I read yesterday that the age of consent in Japan is 12.
And Japan isn't the most liberal country I can think of...  >8)

237:  By definition, "adolescence" is pre-maturity.

Two years after menarch?  Lady help me, I'd have been "legal" at 10.  Beieve
me, my heart and mind were not as precocious as my body.  

(Also, since "first facial hair" is a very gradual process, I wonder how you'd
define it.)  

I've always thought it was odd that ages were different for different things
in the United States.  What makes 18 the legal age to vote and 21 the legal
age to drink and anywhere between 12 and 18 the legal age to have sex?  Is
something supposed to magically happen to you at those ages?  If so, someone
forgot about me, because nothing magical happened when I turned those ages.

What, you mean your Social Studies teacher never explained the
Age Fairy to you?  The little magical creature that flies around
the country at midnight in each time zone, granting wisdom to
all who turn the appropriate age?  Gods, what do they teach in
schools these days?  >8)

        Pragmatism, mostly.  Raising the drinking age to 21 reduces traffic
deaths.

        I do find it ironic that society figures you're mature enough to die
for your country at 18, but not mature enough to go out drinking to celebrate
life.  Uhm ...

<kara giggles>  I guess the Age Fairy missed me.

I haven't had Social Studies in over eight years... boy that makes me feel old
<kara remembers the good old days...>

Oops, #243 slipped in.  #244 was in response to #242.

As for #243, the reason they had to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was
for that reason.  During Vietnam, people protested that they were old enough
to die for their country but couldn't vote what the country should do, which
is why the voting age got moved down to 18.

I'm not sure why the same thing didn't happen with the drinking age though.

no Jazz it reduces traffic deaths for those under 18 BUT the traffic
fatalities rise between 20 and 25 ...the numbers are in fact the same its just
a shift to a higher age group...

So we're just giving them a few more years until they die
a stupid death and maybe take someone with them, okay, it all makes
sense now.  >8)

The age of consent for drinking seems off-topic to me.

Void> I'd agree with most of that. I guess my point was that the current age
of consent laws are obviously too high (by "obviously", I mean that historic
and religious indicators consistently show lower ages (i.e., between 13 and
16)).

Misti> I rescind my comment a la two years after some biological watershed.
Jenna pointed out that of her (mostly teen) acquiantances, sexual maturity
and age of menarch aren't necessarily related (in both directions).

In sum> IMHO, the age of consent should be 14 or 15. Hard to tell which. Make
it 14 and six months. =}
OR if we're talking about ALL ages of consent, make it15. For everything.
Drinking. Voting. Sex. Driving. Marriage. Dirty movies. Playing canasta. Oh
wait, you should be able to play canasta as a child. =} Got carried away.

Age of consent should be 14 or 15?  Ye gods! Br, the majority of children that
age brighn That is...the majority of children (and I use that word
intentionally) at that age are far too busy just trying to begin to be
adults....musch less damn...I can't tell if I am doing this right.  I am going
to ? ? Sorry about this.....I can't see what the screen is doing and I keep
gettting ahead of myself.

Starting over.  Ye Gods Brighn...age of consent at 14 or 15?  The majority
of children are just starting down the path TO adulthood.  Being an adult is
not a not an age...it is a process made up of knowledge and wisdome that can
only be learned by experience.  Why make it easy for children to make major m
mistakes that early in their life?  18 yr olds are often not prepared to be
parents.....why would you lay that on a child? Obviously , I very much disagree
with you on this issue.  Kids need to be allowe allowed to be kids.

Eng;and's age of consent is 16. France's age of consent is less than that.
Most countries of Europe have ages of consent that range from 14 to 18, with
18 being the highest, not the lowest, number. And Europe has less crime, and
less social problems which relate to the shift from childhood to adulthood
than the US does. JEws are adults at 12 or 13; Methodist confirmation thakes
place at 12. It is fairly well acknowledged within child psychology that a
major stressor among adolescents is that youths are generally capable of
making their own decisions by 14 or 15, and are forced to live with their
parents (and their parents' rules) until they're 18. 

Yes, adulthood is a road, not a location. Keeping kids who want to start on
that road -- and are READY to start on that road -- off of it for three or
four years is ridiculous and damagin. It's a major force that keeps some many
people (like me) stuck at some level in childhood.

If those three years were spent where the adults accepted the child as an
adult-in-training, where parents were allowed to weaken the rules the same
way parents take off training wheels but still watch the child on the bike,
then I could see the reason to it. What I see, instead, is teens trying to
take their own training wheels off and parents welding them on. In many cases,
this is less because of parental desire to do so and more out of parental fear
of DSS -- it's not an issue of parents not necessarily WANTING to impose
strict guidelines, it's an issue of parents being FORCED to impose strict
guidelines.

I have yet to meet at 15 year old who was less prepared for adult
responsibility than a 25 year old. 

What about kids thinking they are ready for adulthood responsiblities,
when its only that society (the media) has force grown them to 
believe that they're ready. Kids need to be kids for a lot 
longer than contemporary society allows them. I have two teenage
brothers that believe that they should be living on their own.
I love my brothers and because of that I know that they would never
survive on their own. give them adult responsibilities and they
do stupid things like burglary, drugs, drop out of school,
or even worse - eat Captan Crunch cereal all day and night.

But seriously, kids need to be given more time - not less - to
be kids. Childhood is short enough as it is - even when its
as long as it needs to be.

Oart iof this hearkens to Rite of PAssages. We Americans not only don't have
a clear rite of passage to adulthood, we stretch our various ages of cnsent
over 5 years (9 if you include renting/leasing cars). Without a clear
transition from childhood to adulthood, you have children trying to act like
adults and adults who act like children. Robbery, etc., are childish things
to do. Adults do it because, in part, they've never grown up enough to stop
doing it. Teens who do it are modelling from the adults around them.

If there were a single age of majority/consent, there would at least be a
clearer transition into adulthood. The problem is that kids don't have enough
time to be kids -- look at history, and look at what tenagers have
accomplished in other eras. (Er The problem ISN'T that...(
The problem is that NOBODY in this society ever clearly grows up.
(nobody is strong here, of course, but in general people still act like
children well into their 30s and sometimes later)

        The idea of an age of consent of fourteen or fifteen bothers me.  The
current fornication and statutory rape laws that seem to be common throughout
the states and counties bother me.

        A good number of the ages of consent and adulthood that I've heard on
are based on the onset of puberty ... but also coincide with the ability of
an individual to either function as an adult in their culture, or, in more
specialized cultures, to make the decision as to what
adult-specialization-role they will be entering.  In hunter-gatherer
societies, a person  an adult who can perform the basic necessities and
responsibilities of adulthood, i.e. hunting for food, protecting the society,
gathering, maintaining the home camp, et cetera.  In later, more specialized
societies, an adult is someone whoi is ready to either begin work,
apprenticeship outside of the family, or to leave equireship and begin
specialized schooling.  The obvious parallel in American culture is high
school grauation - high school graduates are ready to either begin work in
an unskilled trade or to begin specialization in a skilled trade, and able
to perform theasic necessities of and meet the badic requirements of
adulthood, i.e. being able to earn enough money  and use it responsibly enough
to survive.  It's a rough estimate, and culturally biased, but it does
definitely mark a changing point in social and cultural maturity.

        At the same time, we're faced with the fact that sexual maturity can
and often does aoccur well before social and cultural maturity and that people
in the fourteen-fifteen year old range are capable of adult relationships.
I don't think this is the point  when it comes to age-of-consent law, though,
but it should allow us to be much more lenient for those who do experiment
- especially with those of like maturity and age.  But there is a definite
disparity when someone who is socially and cultrally mature is in a
relationship with someone who is not, whether both of them are sexually mature
or not.


        And of course it's all very general - as any social observation is wont
to be when applied to individuals, or any natural physcial law when applied
to a subatomic particle, but there is some sense to it at the social level.

You say that the laws are common through states and counties. Elucidate,
please. The ages of sexual consent vary widely across the country, and
therefore seem random.

Social and cultural maturity is tied to when the society is willing to accept
the child as an adult, and little else. IF a society is unwilling to accept
a child as an adult until th age of 25, for example, then as much as the child
might *wish* to be treated as an adult before that, that's that. Laws don't
generally change society.

The current age for most consent is 17 or 18 (except for alcohol and car
rentals!), depedning on the area. But how amny 18 year olds *really* leave
home and start their adult lives? Very few. Most, even those who get jobs
rather than going to college, stay at home. Marriage, not reaching the age
of 18, is the major indicator of when someone is likely to leave home (and
even, then, these days, that's not a sure bet).

You say the current system bothers you, but you don't offer a comprehensive
alternate plan.

As for people who are sexually mature but not culturally mature having sex
with people who are sexually and culturally mature, that's too complicated
an issue to call.

Were the age of consent 15, that would not mean that *all* 15 year olds would
be made to get jobs, buy liquor, and get screwed. Actually, from my experience
in high school, there were a good deal of 15 year olds buying booze and
getting screwed, and in the main it was the culturally and sexually IMMATURE
ones doing this (immature on a relative scale, of course), since the
culturally mature ones were too busy following the social rules
(generalization generalization generalization). Age of consent is the youngest
age at which the legal system is willing to admit that the majority of people
that age can start handling responsibility. Given that's a mere year before
some of the American ages of consent kick in (16 for sex and labor laws in
many areas), I don't understand the fuss.

But then, I'm a radical anyway.

re #227:  If there is no common law right at issue, the 9th Amendment
          does not come into play.

re #228:  If the 10th Amendment comes into play at all, it grants states
          the power to make their own decisions on this issue.  If it does
          not come into play, this is essentially a federal constitutional
          question.

          You miss my point on full faith and credit -- the law passed
          by Congress is *not* general, thus Leeron's omission of that
          phrase is not fatal to the argument that the statute does not
          pass constitutional muster under the full faith and credit clause.

re #229:  There are over three million laws in the State of Michigan?
          Pray tell, where are the bulk of them hiding?

          I would reiterate the typical response to your statements... that
          marriage is about having kids, etc., except it isn't very 
          convincing in a society that has rejected fertility as a
          prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license.  I haven't heard any
          opponents of gay marriage call for a return of that requirement.

re #236:  What makes your arbitrariness superior?  Do you know the age of
          the youngest mother on record?  (Five.)

re #241:  Yes, something magical is supposed to happen to you between those
          ages.  Both are based upon psychological models of development.
          One proposed four stages of life, 0-6, 7-12, 13-18, and 19-24,
          while the other saw three, 0-7, 8-14, and 15-21.

          Social engineers latched onto these "stages," which found
          "adulthood" either at 18 or 21.  These ages were also used for
          other arbitrary age staandards, such as the age of criminal
          responsibility or (in some states) the age of consent.

          The driving age, 16, is most likely some sort of a carryover
          from common law, or perhaps a matter of convenience.

re #243:  Ironic, nothing.  It is the *immaturity* that makes younger
          soldiers "brave" enough to fight our wars.  Once you lose your
          sense of immortality, you aren't much good as a foot soldier.

re #248:  Off topic?  You're discussing the age of consent in an item about
          gay marriage, and you're worried about staying "on topic"?

re #250:  Try hanging out in juvenile court -- you'll meet some.

re #253:  The age of consent is 14 or 15 in many U.S. states.

          It's 14 in states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and
          Massachusetts, for example.

re #254:  You seem to be arguing for setting the age based upon the lowest
          common denominator....

          Why give a seal of approval to the conduct of the kids you deem
          subaverage.

I'm confused by your comments, Aaron. You mention juvenile court, for
instance. I could come up with as many 25 year olds who are every bit as
immature as your 15 year olds. I wrote "I have yet to meet a 15 year old who
was less prepared for adult responsibility THAN A 25 YEAR OLD".

And what about the LCD? I didn't get that point at all.

And re 248> The issue is marriage and sexual conduct laws, specifically gay
marriage. It seems obvious to me that other sexual conduct laws are on-topic,
if somewhat drifting. Alcohol ages of consent seem off-topic, and since you're
the first to disagree with that assessment, I'd say most agreed with my
assessment.

But ages of consent in general might make a good topic for another item.

re #256:  Obviously, the average 15-year-old is less mature than the average
          25-year-old.  I think the real problem is that you haven't though
          your assertion through.  (Or, for that matter, the concept of drift)

I don't think that's obvious at all.

re 259:  I agree-- I don't think it is obvious who is mature and who isn't;
not thinking to mention the question "how does one measure maturity?"  I'm
18, and I still color in coloring books, am I immature?  But really, personal
maturity  is a personal thing (redunant, no?)-- what we consider to be
maturity is simply the set of reactions and patterns of behavior that we adapt
relitive to teh experience we have gained in life.  If one learns from
experience quickly, then one may be considered more mature than someone who
needs several lessons to get teh point.  
My father, for a random example will be immature for teh rest of his life.
(Sorry about that...forget I said anything about my dumb father. grrr.  I
don't like holidays.)

this item is linked to the LEs-Bi-Gay conf (j gay) unless Kerouac blows a
gasket, in which case I'll unlink it. =}

this topic has been entered in sexuality as 187 (or something thereabouts)
(the age of consent drift, that is)

        I was referring to too many discrete ideas in #253.  The "common" part
about fornication and statutory rape laws is that the majority of them can
be (and some are) interpreted to punish sexual relations between two people
who are both under the age of consent.  I haven't researched inter-state CSC
laws enough to really comment on the differences between various states, but
isn't there a move to mandade a Federal CSC age-of-consent?  Has it met with
any success?

        I'd have to disagree with the sentiment that the age you choose to call
someone an adult is the sole delimiter of adult behaviour; our society is an
intricate one.  Calling an eight-year-old an adult, to make a gross example,
does not allow them to perform, think, and make decisions as an adult.  Why
should it hold true for any other age range?  I will give on the point that
people tend to assume responsibility when they are told they should assume
it, but this is not what makes for adult decisions.

The age of consent is the age at which a person is ALLOWED to make such
decisions. Whether or not they are capable of making such decisions as an
individual can only be determined on an individual basis. But when the
drinking age, for instance, is 21, that says that NO 20 year old MAY drink,
not that every 21 year old SHOULD drink. *Shrug* Same with sex laws, or
anything else... I guess I'm still not getting your point(s), John.

Jessi, I think with every passing moment I like you more.  (;

In this society, deliniation in age seems like a way of preventing those that
aren't ready for adulthood from being screwed over.  In classrooms, you can
only move as fast as the slowest child -- paralleled to this, if the slowest
maturing person ranges around 25, and the fastest around 12 (or 5 as someone
pointed out in the physical sense), where is the happy medium?.....  It's
confusing for me I guess, being more emeshed in this than some people in this
discussion...  If you take Jessi and I as examples of reference here, being
both the same age (I think, right Rar?), you'll find interesting things.  She
still colors in coloring books, and I don't.  But thenb again, she can balance
a checkbook, which I can't do because I don't have one.  She's in colleghe
and I'm not yet, but I'd venture to say that I know more about voice than she,
and she knows more about bass tham I -- and our musical skills are still on
the same level of theory and practice.  It's all so....difficult to judge,
I guess.  (NOt to state the obvious.  {: )

(Um, why is this item in this cf twice?...)

RE #266 I scanned the conference, and Arianna is right.  Talk about deja vu
all over again.

   they're both linked, as well. if we kill one in this conference, will it
affect the other .cf?

You can kill an item in one conference without the other conf's
item being affected at all.

which conf is this item in twice?  I'm reading it in politics, and
ilt is or was linked to gay and synthesis, or maybe sexuality.,
This item is six month old so I've even fvorgotten which conf I entered
it in! hehe.

This conference was listed twice in the glb conference, kerouac.

Yep -- it's items 4 and 11 in GLB.

Whoa, freaky... and I forgot both instances of it there, which is why I didn't
notice... what a fw I am. I'll kill one of them.

There. Fixed. Now everybody shush about my (and Void's) housekeeping skills
and get back to the topic. =}

        Arianna, that's an excellent analogy .. it really does come down to
where you want to draw the line, and what your priorities are.

(Grr...here's the second time I'm attempting to make response here; last time
the computer locked up....)

I think it's probably safe to say that my priorities don't lie in sex
(hm...'lie' is sort of a pun... (: )....though I have had it said to me that
if it weren't for the fact that I'm insecure about my body, I'd probably
be a nympho.

        Marriage I can understand, for what it represents, but if you're older
and in a relationship with someone who's under sixteen, what's so goldarned
important about being able to boff them?

Well what if you're 16 and in a relationship with somebody who is 15?  
What is the big difference between that a year later when you are 17 and 
said person is 16?

<lee doesn't get the magic numbers>

Well, John, if you're 25 and your SO is 23, what's so goldarned important
about being able to boff them? That's an idiotic question. Sex is never
necessary, and at one point not too long ago it was illegal to have sex with
anyone you weren't married to.

Sex between responsible people should be between those responsible people,
and nobody else's business (except, maybe, the SOs of those responsible
people). If a 30-year-old is having sex with a 14-year-old, then either the
14-year-old is responsible enough to be having sex, or the 30-year-old is a
rapist and should be punished. Unfortunately, since some 14-yea-olds (or
younger) ARE responsible enough to be having sex, and others aren't but think
they are, the only way to figure out what's what is case-by-case. And some
30 year olds are responsible enough to figure out whether that 14 year old
who's hitting on them is mature enough to make that decision or not. I did
have a 13 year old hitting on me, to the point of bouncing on my groin, a year
or so ago. Age laws aside, I didn't feel she was anywhere near mature enough
to handle that decision (she's near 15 now, and still hardly mature enough
to be having sex). I made sure there was exactly one incident where she hit
on me to the point of bouncing on me... I wish there hadn't been that one.


I don't get the magic numbers either, Lee. There are 30 year olds who can't
make mature sexual decisions. There are 12 year olds who can. *shrug*

The decision to have sex is so much less serious than the decision to get
married, too, since the decision to get married INCLUDES the decision to have
sex (as well asother decisions).

        That's just it, I don't believe either question *is* idotic.  If we're
going to address this issue seriously, then we need to know what it is that
we're really addressing, and if we can't answer the question of why it is or
is not imporant for someone twenty-five years of age to be able to have sex
with someone who is twenty-three, then we can't really address the issue at
all!

The root question, then, seems to be:
Why is it important for any two (or more) people to have sex?

My answer: It isn't. Not at all. Relationships aren't based on sex, they're
based on so much more and so much less. Our society is obsessed with sex. MTV
has a one-hour daily program called LoveLine where 80% of the questions (or
more) are about sex, and many radio stations have similar programs. We blind
crazy with who's boffing who and when and why. 

The old equation (ca. 1930-1960, U.S.): love=sex=marriage (love and marriage,
love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage, let me tell you
brother, you can't have one without the other -- Sinatra?). Though the
marriage part seems to have dropped out for many people, love=sex is still
active.

But reverse the question:
Why is it important for any two people to NOT have sex?
That is, what is the government's compelling reason to prevent two people who
wish to have sex from having sex? Having a national statutory law of, say,
15, and dropping all sodomy laws from the books (sodomy laws, not rape
laws)... how would that hurt society? How would that hurt the government? It
doesn't force anyone to have sex, it allows people to have sex IF THEY SO
CHOOSE.

In Michigan, for instance, fellatio is illegal. Cunnilingus is illegal. Mutual
masturbation is illegal. Anal-oral and anal-genital and anal-digital contact
for sexual reasons? Illegal. So why is it important that I should be able to
give my lover a blowjob? If I love them, then it should be enough to be with
them. Sucking them off should be an NTH.

The point is, it IS an NTH (nice-to-have, luxury). So is going out to the
movies with them. So is walking in the woods with them. So is writing silly
poetry to them. We can trim this down and down and down until it stops being
a legal question and starts being a nice wholesome traditional philisophical
question. But the point is, the gov't doesn't make walking in the woods with
your lover illegal. It does make licking and sucking you r lover's genitals
illegal. Luxury or not. The only thing necessary in this world is food and
water and a place to sleep.

*shrug* But hey, it's 3 am and i' probably babbling.

BTW, isn't "Love And Marriage" the theme song of "Married..with Children?"

Yes, although the song of course is significantly older than the show.

I think that government  mustn't dictate over our sexual relationships and
behaviors. It's stupid todeclare some sexual activity like fellation  as
illegal, government can't forbid a such a private activity. The problem is
when these activities bother others. Michigan law needs then a camcorder
inside all the bedrooms of the state.

Bother others?!  Why should it be anyone's business anyway if I want to give
oral or anal pleasure to someone who I love? 
        Bah.  Phooey.

        Okay, now that you've examined why it's not a good idea for the 
government to intervene in people's sexual expression when there isn't a
compelling reason to do so (to which I would add our basic right to 
reproduce, which the government should have no say-so in), look at one of the
things that the law is intended to prevent: the sexual abuse of children.

        In those relationships where the participants are of the same age and
below the age of consent, we're not generally talking about sexual abuse ...
but where one person is not and another is ... I'd imagine the figures could
be quite different.

        Where do we need to draw the line, and how, in order to make it illegal
for a pedophile to molest a child, even if the child *thinks* that it's okay
or gives their consent, out of inexperience, implied threat, or a childhood
crush?

        Should this line even be drawn?

        I believe that it should.

So do I, and I believe I've said so. The line should be drawn at the 15th
anniversary of the child's birth. Either you're agreeing with me and we're
having an odd debate that doesn't involve an actual disagreement, or you're
throwing up smoke and mirrors. I was of the impression, John that the point
of contention between your stance and mine is the numeric placement of the
line, not whether there should be a line at all.

Or are you intending to adress another user's points?

Again, Paul, why is your arbitrary line superior?

It's historically and socially more realistic. Having multiple ages is absurd,
for one thing. The average of them is 18, and most 18 year olds have already
done everything they weren't supposed to have done. 

Having multiple ages is silly.  It's like somkeone is only a
partial adult and can only do a few things.

18 is probably an average because it's the age that you are
legally an adult.  Of course you still can't do quite a few things 
then.

But how can you set an age for anything?  Nobody gains wisdom
overnight from passing another birthday.

        It doesn't makesense on an individual level, no, but it does work
behaviouristically with large groups of people.  You can't say that any one
individual is more mature and safe with their alcohol at 21 than theya re at
18, but you can say that society at large is, and that drunk-driving traffic
deaths drop significantly.

        The reason I'm feeling out the issue is because I'm interested in
seeing where people are coming from - it's possible to reach similar
conclusions through wildly divergent lines of reasoning.  It seems that most
people agree that children do need to be protected from molesters, and that
the sexual rights of adults need to be preserved, but there is a disagreement
about the point at which someone becomes sexually and socially mature enough
to handle a sexual relationship.

        Does anyone here have justification for the age at which they feel
someone is sexually and socially adult?  (I had a posting back a few  where
I argued eighteen for the reason that it, in this society, was comparable with
the level of experience in life, autonomy, and ability to support one's self
, that we find in cultures where people are declared sexually adult at 13,
and argued that experience autonomy and self-sufficiency are necessary to be
socially mature).

It varies.

Most men and women are sexually mature adults when develop
the disciplline to engage in only mutually consensual and
protected sex.

Right to Lifers are sexually mature adults when they only have
sex when they are trying to have a baby.

        If a thirteen-year old can engage in mutually consensual and protected
sex, are they sexually mature?

re #289:  What does that argument have to do with your proposal?

re #290:  No driving until age 18?

The average anthropologist will tell you that American society is not
significantly more complicated to live in than any other society, John. The
view that it takes five years more for us to attain the necessary
enculturation would be taken by most of the anthropological community as
ethnocentrically elitest. Even my two year stretch is just that, a stretch.
My 15 (as opposed to 13) suggestion is based on the view in most of Europe
that the age is somewhere between 14 and 16. While you might get away with
a claim that it's more difficult to learn to be an American than it is, say,
to be a tribal Ethiopian, you certainly won't get away with a claim that it's
harder to learn to be an American than it is to be French.

And what is the teenage pregnancy rate in France, as compared to the U.S.?

Re: #293  I very much doubt this would happen very often but
if it did, yes, I'd consider that person to be a sexually mature
adult.

        
        Taken in isolation, it might be possible to argue that the statement
that people become socially and cultutally mature at different ages in
different societies is ethnocentrist;  but by the definitions I've offered,
that argument doesn't hold water.  In a hunter-gatherer tribal society someone
shortly after the age of puberty might well be able to support a child and
a family; in our society it is painfully clear that this isn't true.

        I wonder how many people would argue that someone who's fifteen or
sixteen is emotionally mature enough, on the average (there always being
exceptions) to deal with a relationship with someone ten or twenty years their
senior.

So what you're saying, John, is that an American is sexually mature later
than, say, a Kung bushman because society says so?
I  wouldn't hesitate to agree with that. If you're going to go wandering
amongst social relativism and definitions, you'll find you're making circular
arguments. 
  
I doubt very much that the average individual of any age (15 or 35 or 55) is
in a maturational position to carry on a long term relationship with someone
more than 10 years older (or younger) than them, if only for cultural reasons.

Intersting I keep trying to make the point that a 15 year old is
maturationally positioned to have a sexual realtionship *at all* and your
responses (to my posts) continue to bring up 15 year olds being mature enough
to carry on relationships with someone 10 or 20 years their senior. Could you
be letting personal feelings and judgments of a certain relationship color
your allegedly objective viewpoint?

   it's not whether someone in our society is *sexually* mature at a later
time than a !kung, but whether someone in our society is capable of supporting
a family at the same age as a !kung. since !kung society is far less
technological and has a simpler economy, someone at the age of thirteen or
fourteen is more likely able to hunt/gather/whatever else to support a spouse
and children. since most people in our society are unable, for a variety of
reasons, to support themselves until they reach the age of eighteen, it makes
sense for the age of sexual consent to be a little more compatible with the
age of economic capability. 

        Aha!  I haven't been talking to the wind!  Thanks, V.

In this country back in the 18th and 19th centuries. it was common for girls
to be married at 15 or 16.  Out on the plains and in the west as it was
settled, men outnumbered women so oftenthe only way for older bachelor men
to find wives was to marry girls as they reached sexual maturity.  The older
women were already married so theyhad no choice.

It is still common in some places, mostly rural areas.  The country singer
Loretta Lynn was from the west virginia mountains and married when she was
14 and is now or has now been married fifty years.

Jerry Lee Lewis married one of his wives when she was 13.

   in the 18th and 19th centuries women were also less capable of supporting
themselves in a respectable manner...laws about property ownership, social
attitudes, and so forth. these days it's no big deal if a woman remains
unmarried.

RE #302 BTW, Loretta Lynn's husband died last year.

RE #302 Again - Also, Jerry Lee Lewis was expelled from England and his songs
banned from the radio after he married his 13 year old cousin.

(1) Why does it make sense for sexual consent to be compatible with economic
consent (age of)?  It makes sense for *marital* age to be compatible with
economic viability.  At any rate, that argumentation would suggest a sexual
age of consent of 22, since that's the age people have either graduated with
BA/BS's, or have established themselves enough int heir non-college degree
field. I'd be willing to go against my earlier statements and say that
MARRIAGE shouldn't be legal until, say, 18.
  
(2) It isn't the technological complexity that makes it impossible for a 15
year old to be self-sufficient. Does anyone here wish to claim superior
computer knolwledge (at least in his field) to 14-year-old (or is he 15 now?)
Ryan Antkowiak? It's the labor laws. Children are children until 18 because
we say they are, not because they can't handle being adults. People are adults
any time after 13 or so, depending on what the culture says. Much below 14
or much above 25 is extreme, but if we (as a culture) said that 15 year olds
could take care of themselves, many of them would. Many others wouldn't. Maybe
we shouldn't allow anyone to have sex until they've moved out of their
childhood home?
  
(3) There is a thing called a condom.  People use them when they don't want
to have children. People responsible enough to be having sex are responsible
enough to know whether or not they're in a financial situation(or emotional)
to be having children. No, condoms aren't foolproof. There are other means
available. The point is, if someone's responsible enough to be willing to take
the responsibilities for accidents, and responsible enough to use birth
control, why does it matter whether they can raise the child they're never
going to have?
  
(4) Just because people are disagreeing with you, John, doesn't mean you're
"talking into the wind". It means people are disagreeing with you. This is
a country in which disagreement is legal and encouraged.

   condoms must be the reason the u.s. has such a high teen birth rate. one
of the problems with people having sex at too young an age is that they *do*
have children and are utterly incapable of caring for those children properly.

And few of them are the result of condom failure. It's much more likely
(psychologically, socially, culturally) that the high birth rate is the result
of reprssed sexual values, incomplete sexual education, and a prolonged
adolescence/lack of early adult identity. According to an article in Rites
of Passage (if you want the source, ask me, I'll look it up) the majority of
teen pregnancies come from traditional-value background and belief systems,
not this sex-sex-sex hedonism: most of the sex-sex-sex hedonist liberals are
using birth control and/or getting abortions.
  
The reason for the high birth rate among teens, or the major one, is teens
*deliberately* trying to get pregnant. Why? It's an automatic social role.
Mommy. Easy, right? None of those years of education, none of the struggle,
just plain old Mommy.

Allowing people to get started on life earlier would allow them to develop
OTHER social roles and identities so they wouldn't have to go for the first
one that came along.

Right.  The struggle and education come AFTER they become parents.  >8)

Seriously, I remember seeing that exact source cited elsewhere.
It's terrifying to me that teen pregnancy is a result of that, and
more terrifying that sex-ed classes and free condoms are the ones
being blamed.

In addition to Brighn's post is that for a long time in inner city ghettos
where jobs were few and welfare relatively easy to get a cycle of poverty
emerged where the only way to survive without jobs became welfre and the best
way to get it is to have a child .  Also the hopelessness and despair of
living in a jobless area without sufficient means to go to where the jobs
*are*  fueled a cycle of poverty and welfare.  Also daughters of mothers who
had children as teens are more likely to find it socially acceptable to have
children that age and you  get a subculture whaere it is the norm.  Thse are
some of the older sociological pardigms on the subject of teen pregnancy in
this country.

The book ison Open Court press, and though most of the works in it are
armchair philosopher fluff, the article I mention is scientific (i.e., they
went to a bunch of teenage mothers and asked, "Why? Would you do it again?"
etc. and compiled their answers).

And you can't forget the fathers, who, seeing themselves excluded from the
usual adult male rites of passage of career and marriage, get stupid.

        I think the popular conception that people on welfare have children
in order to get better payments from ADC and welfare is a mis-conception ...
it's just a personal take.  I've known a few welfare mothers and fathers, and
neither I nor they knew of anyone who was doing this deliberately.  I'm sure
that someone out there's doing it (for every resource there is a parasite,
after all), but ...

        The optimal mark for self-sufficiency is probably about twenty-two to
twenty-five, depending on education and opportunity, but the viable mark is
around eighteen.  It's possible to support yourself and a child at that age,
even possible to advance one's self to a better-paying job, or start a career,
though difficult.

        Whatever the root causes of teen pregancy are, I don't think that
they've changed all that much over the years - teen pregnancy has actually
gone down from the 1940's, partially thanks to Roe vs. Wade.  

What's the comparison in terms of _unwed_ teen pregnancy?
I would guesss that 50 yrs ago a lot more teen girls were getting
married than these days.

Jazz, you mean to say that teen pregnancy has gone down in the same time
period that enforcement of statutory sex laws has gone down? You mean that
the less visibly teenagers are told "no, you can't fuck", the more responsible
they are when they do it?
  
Did you mean to weaken your own argument?

        It takes a little more work than saying that because (x) has happened
over (y) years, and (z) has also happened, that (x) is the cause of it,
when there are countless other factors also affecting (z) which have also 
changed.  It'd be the same as gas prices have lowered pregnancy.

        (I am *sick* of this item.  I keep passing through it every day, but
it always comes back at some ridiculously low number.)
        I have not commented bacause I felt I had nothing to say.  THe argument
comes from two different lines of moral thought, the first, the standard
Chrisstian morals which most people are familar with, and the secont the
Pagan philosophy.  (Particularly the Wiccans.)
        While the Chrisitan is carried to etremes that I am sure the prophets
or even Jesus Christ himself never intended (look at the KKK who justifies
there existence through scripture.)  The Wiccan viewpoint "Do what you will
provided you harm none" offers a serious drawback.  THe books on this old
religion do not specify what actually harms people.  (WHat if someone threw
spitballs at someone on the street without the victims knowledge? 
Technically, you're not harming him unless  you're doing it with great force.)
        (I am aware of the flaws of this argument.)
        The debate rages over whether or not we should be legislating morality.
Quite frankly, most politicians cannot do this without engagin in severe
hypocrisy.  (Clinton falls short  of many religions and he came on the
Replubican side of this issue.  "the moral standars was unintentionally
omitted.)
        The government simply  has no business in the private lives of others.
WHether or not two people of the same gender want to spend their lfe together
is none of my business.  They need not be married, but if they feel a ceremony
is necessary than they can arrange it without approval of a legislative or
executive body (although it is not "legeal".)  Two unmarried people of
opposite genders can do the same if they wish.
        Also, abstinence, undenibably is the best method of birth control. 
Most unplanned pregnancies are not due to the failure of methods that require
some device, but *some* are.  I will be twenty soon (tomorrow), and chooese
this method when I am in a relationship.  (WHich admittedly is rare.  I have
date a girl only twice>)
        (WHy do I feel as if I'm equivocating?)  Everyone is willing to tell
someone that something another person is doing is worong?  BUt how many of
us are really willing to look at what we are doing ourselves?

John, it's clear how enforcement of sex laws and sexual behavior might be
related. One might disagree about the ramifications or nature of the
relationship, or the direction of the causality, and so on, but a relationship
could clearly exist. It's not clear how gasoline prices and sexual behavior
might be related. I've made posts similar to #316 in the past (defensive and
abstracted); I've made them when I've realized that I was losing an argument
and was attempting to throw up a desperate smokescreen. Unless you can give
me a valid defense, I'll assume you're doing the same thing here.
  
Shawn, first of all, last I checked, John and I were both Pagan, so I don't
see how this is a Christians-v-Pagans argument. Second of all, conservative
Christians aren't the ones who came up with the statutory laws, it was the
liberal feminists. Many many conservative Christians continue to encourage
and support the low (comparatively speaking) marital laws. Finally, the
command is "forget". It does wonders when you're sick of seeing an item. From
th primarily two-voiced discussion occurring here, I'd wager quite a few folks
have forgotten this item. You'd hardly be alone.

I agree that the rise in teen pregnancy rises from the desire for childen --
when I was in tenth grade I had a friend who was already a godmother to a one
year old who's parents were 17.  Frankly I can't understand why they wanted
kids.... I know that *I* am not ready, but I suppose they felt that they were,
because it wasn't a *mistake* that they had that child......

I think the rise in teen pregnancy rates is due to lack of proper counseling
andeducation.  Teaching abstinence isnt cutting it, it sounds like preaching
and hypocritical when kids can see how important sex is in the lives of the
grownups around them.  And telling kids they should be afraid to be intimate,
that following one's impluses is somehow evil, is wrong too.  Kids have to
be taught to follow their own instincts and act in whatever way they think
is right.  Some girls get pregnant as a way of rebellion, to get back at those
grownups (parents and others) who ac t hypocritically by preaching lifestyles
they themselves never led.  

I wouldnt encourage promiscuity anymore than I would encourage abstinence.
I would encourage kids to do what is in their heart and and to trust
themselves.  I would also put condom dispensing machines in every high school.
Too many kids are too embarrased to buycondoms at a store or get them from
a guidance conselor.  

SAdly, it is also true particularly in inner cities where there are more
dysfunctional families, that kids will get pregnant some times on purpose so
they can fill a void in their lives.  They had such lousy parents that the
only way they feel they can make the world right is to have kids, so they can
be the parents they neverhad.

AGreed, Richard. The real problem isn't laws, it's social values and attitudes
and education.

Rely on kids to think with their gonads instead of their brains???

Not a good idea.

        LUt me just aplogize for #317 and bow out...

Ok.  For one: I don't think I would need marage if I found the girl of my
dreams.  On the other hand, I don't know, as I am not currently in a
relationship.  To be frank, the institution of marage is one that I am
uncomfortable with.  <shrug> Jus me, and it's not because I am particularly
"promiscuous".  
For two:  It amuses me that people think that prohibiting gay
marage=prohibiting homosexual activity.  Whether it is legal or not, it still
happens, it's still out there, and it will continue to happen, regardless.
I mean, it *is* illegal, as well as much of heterosexuality.  
So if anyone wants to set up a sexuality item about the legal/psycho-social
merits of the misionary position, and why the government thinks it's more
sanctomonius, I will at least get a good chuckle out of it.  NO ascii art,
please.  :-) x zillions.
And about the first paragraph of my statement.  Just because I find that
marrage is uncomfortable, and generally over-used and abused, I do not think
that marrage should be illegalised.  After all, there may be those who see
differently than I do, and I don't think I have the right to think for others.

>And telling kids ... that following one's impluses is somehow evil, is wrong

Kids following their impulses is the number one problem in the inner cities
of America today.  They're driving around with their friends, and they get
an impulse to mug someone, or shoot someone, or get some drugs, and no one
has taught them to exercise self control, so they follow their impulse, and
the night gets a little bit scarier for everyone else.

richard also said that kids should have access to condom dispensers, b/c
they are often embarrassed to get them from their guidance counselor, or even
to buy them in a store.  Do you think that might be b/c they *know*, in their
hearts, that what they are doing is wrong?

babozita would have us believe that those who are having sex anre necessarily
responsible.  This could not be farther from the truth.  Teens having sex,
are, by and large, not taking control of their lives, but losing it.  They
are surrendering to their hormones, and hoping that nothing bad results.  If
something does, (a possibility such "indestructible" adolescents barely
donsider), they try to run away or cover it up:  the father denies
responsibility, and the mother either drops out and gets on welfare, or has
an abortion.  I know someone will come back with a story of responsible teen
parents, but exceptions do not disprove generalizations.

And, btw, Roe v. Wade might contribute to a decrease in teen births, but
abortion does not erase the existence of a pregnancy, it just ends it
prematurely.  On a related note, teen pregnancies have actually skyrocketed,
not decreased.

If you don't aprove of gay relationships/marrage:  don't have one!

lilmo - concerning your point about condoms:  Guilt does not have a very well
documented contraceptive effect, nor does it prevent STDs.
I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not teen sex is 'wrong',
because that's not really the issue.  Assuming for the sake of argument that
teen sex is inherently wrong, I still think condoms should be availible.  The
fact is, there are going to be some people who find their conscience against
doing something _and do it ayway_.  Are you really saying that a person who
ignores their conscience deserves to get pregnant or catch AIDS rather than
be protected?

Agreed, #327!

Re #327:  Certainly not!!!  However, I don't hink we need to be *encouraging*
that behavior.  

I'm sure we've all read the occasional "miracle" story about a former teen
mom who turned her life around, went to school, and now is a major player in
the business world, but the reason such stories are remarkable is that it is
so rare.  Laying aside moral arguments, I think we need to face up to the fact
that widespread teen sex is a societal *nightmare*.  Condoms are not perfect:
even with condom use, roughly 9-12% of couples using condoms as their sole
means of contraception have a pregnancy each year.  And remember, women are
fertile only a few days each month:  men AND women can get STD's *any* day
of *any* month, and many germs (like the AIDS virus) are much, *much* smaller
than a sperm.

On a purely self-interested basis, having sex outside of marriage is just
*asking* for trouble, and the more frequent the sex, the more trouble one will
be likely to find.

        It's fairly easy to see who's responding to something they don't want
to see with an emotional knee-jerk response, and who's thought it out - few
and far between is the anti-crime legislator who argues for cradle-to-grave
welfare.

        Forgot a paragraph there. :)  

        A lot of the legislation these days does seem to be of the knee-jerk
sort, where a group of people is offended by some act, person, or concept,
and seeks to destroy it outright.  

Perhaps handing out condoms does cause the 'wrong message', whatever that is.
But, more than widespread teen sex, it is widespread disease and teen
pregnancy that are societal nightmares.  
In my eyes, preventing someone from getting condoms, or the pill, or whatever,
because then they might have sex is like refusing to install airbags in cars
because then people might drive recklessly.  Yes, I suppose there are those
who would speed in a car with an airbag but drive under the limit in a car
without one - but that's no reason to make cars less safe..

Seeing as how the number of deaths since the advent of airbags is lower bu
the problems of teen pregnancy have increased under the practice
of "handing out condoms" I have to say your argument doesn't hold
much water.

Difference:
People don't go out of their way to remove airbags from their cars, for the
most part.
People *have to* go out of their way to put on a condom.
So the analogy is bad.

The *real* analogy would be to compare the number of people who used "presence
of air bag" as a major factor in car buying... and even that would be flawed.

I thik the social factors regarding what it is and why it is that teen
pregnancy  is allegedly "on the rise" are too complicated to broadstroke with
"it's the fault of condom distribution programs!" #332's point, I believe,
is that there *are* responsible teens who would use condoms if they were
available, and wouldn't significantly modify their sexual behavior as a
result, and that it's unfair to deny *them* condoms just because of some teens
who would get pregnant *regardless of * condom distribution programs.

Last I heard, the increase in teen pregnancies was due to
(a) an increase in teen marriages (the sluts!)
(b) an increase in the number of unmarried women who *want*
       to have babies, knowing that parents and/or welfare
       will support them

And condom distribution has next to no effect on those two groups.

Robh is back!  Robh is back! <harrah!>  (when did this item become a place
to discuss teen sex habits, and condoms?  
I wish to reinerate my point that no matter what rightist hacks  try to
legislate between the sheets it will just take up space on the law books and
more people will be in jail that don't belong there.  (why not save that space
for criminals? ya know, the murders, stealers, rapists, etc?)
Btw, sodomy has been outlawed in very state, and it still happens .

Actually, it isn't just the parents and/or welfare system that's a problem.
A case study of teenage girls who were pregnant found that a major motivator
is a lack of clear social positioning outside of motherhood: faced with an
overwhelming range of possible futures, even younger teens feel compelled to
"tried and true" social roles: boys head for gangs, girls head for motherhood.
(Don't have the reference handy, but I'll provide it for anyone interested.)

Paul has it.  Okay, so my analogy, as usual, was flawed.  He did a better job
of explaining my point than I did. :)

About this 'social roles' bit...until recently, I hadn't thought that this
sort of thing was true - it sounded more like a cobbled-together excuse for
the existence of gangs and teen mothers.  I have, though, noticed it as a more
general trend of late, in watching what graduating friends decide to do with
themselves.  In general, they do follow the patterns of what's 'expected' of
them.  I suppose if I lived in a setting where gangs and motherhood were the
established social roles, I'd find it obvious that I was headed for life in
a gang.

Robh - for that matter, I'd guess that there's been a decrease in the scandal
value of a teen pregnancy.  People may well be taking fewer precautions if
they aren't as afraid of what the rest of the world might think.

(Oh, and heck, Vanessa, murder was illegal last I checked and people are still
being killed. :)

I know.  <Just seeing if this conf was still being read>

        You have to admit that, no matter how hokey the argument about
a gang fulfilling the roles of a family is, it is also true - most of the
roles of an extended family can be provided by an organized crime group.

Re #332 & #336:  There is a big difference between legislating bedroom
activity, and giving government imprimateur (sp?) to such behavior.  I do not
propose to outlaw condoms, or put a minimum age on their purchase.  I,
however, *do* oppose schools, or other government institutions, giving them
away, thereby saying, "It's okay, and approved."

Re #335(a):  I certainly have no moral objection to such situations, although
it's generally advisable to wait a few more years before marrying (ppl are
still changing a great deal in their late teens and early 20's).

Re (b):  That's also a problem which deserves attention.

Re #339:  It's been a long while, for me, at least.

Good grief-- whatta lotta spam-- but I read it all..taking a while to absorb
it

I think the more restrictions you put on something the more certian teens will
want to try it.  Look at how effective prohibition was at stopping the alcohol
consumtion among americans.

Assuming one is opposed to minors having sex, the root question is:
which is worse, sacrificing your moral outrage to potentially save some lives
that have really just begun, or keeping your morality intact and allowing
young people to destroy their lives -- either through pregnancy, or AIDS?
  
I really don't see how this is a difficult question. 

I suppose it is a valid point that distributing condoms in _schools_ sends
a different message than distributing them in more neutral public places.

Yeah. They ARE distributed free in more neutral public places... clinics,
mostly. The kids aren't getting them. If they were distributed in even more
public places -- street corners, say -- it would cause even *more* outrage,
and drive the condom companies (or the government) to ruin.
  
Distributing condoms in _schools_ sends the message that sex with a condom
is better than sex without a condom. They could easily be distributed with
pamphlets that say, "Sex isn't ok, but if you HAVE to, use a condom." That's
the message my father used, and his attitudes on sex were clear to me. Just
because he told me where the condoms were, and that I better as Hell use one,
I never got the sense that it was all right with him if I did the cheerleading
team in the front room.

How many of the don't-distribute-comdoms crowd believe that one shouldn't
let a little kid know about looking both ways for traffic before crossing
the road until the kid's old enough to be officially "allowed" to cross 
all by himself?

All I have to say is that there are statistical average ages that kids
understand certain concepts, including teens/young adults having sex in
responsible relationships.  We can't preach 'sex only after marriage/serious
committment brings the least amount of problems' all the time, but we can talk
about it, and talk about prevention, too.  I do agree that the focus should
be to wait for sex until a relationship is secure and stable, but that we
should mention that precautions can be taken if that option is not chosen.
(Then again, condoms and birth control *are* used in secure relationships--
so why should it be any different for those that aren't?)

Who am I to tell *anyone* else how to live their lives?  And why are younger
sexually minded people more likely to get AIDS than us older ones?  Don't use
scare tactics: use sense.  I also agree with 347.  All you can do is inform
the younger generations of the risks they take, and ultimately they will do
what they please.  Yelling "NO" in someone's face, who's determined to do
xyz may or may not listen to you.  If you say...ok if you *have* to...this
is a bit safer"  Then it may sink in.  
However, I can say what gets distributed in schools, public clinics, etc.
I say that the easier they are to get a hold of, the more likely people
will use them.

To claim that homosexual marriages have never existed in any culture, is
simply not true. Prior to the Christianization of Rome, and subsequently
Europe, homosexual unions were somewhat common, depending on the culture.
Several Roman Emperors had male concubines, and a few of them, namely Nero,
had married a male. John Boswell wrote an excellent historical account of this
subject. Greek and Roman soldiers regularly married male slaves. 
Unfortunately, when Christianity was adopted as the state religion of Rome,
homosexuality became outlawed. However, even today, some native cultures still
honor same-sex unions, such as the Native American Berdache tradition (note:
I use the term Berdache, even though it has sometimes considered a derogative
term, as a generic term because each Native tradition has a different word
for it). Even in Europe, there has been a tremendous push to legalize same-sex
marriages. It may happen shortly in Holland. In order to join the European
The US, after so recently passing DOMA, in addition to the remaining 28 states
that still have anti-sodomy laws (not to mention Michigan's own Gross
Indecenty Law) would fail to meet the requirements of joining the European
Union. In my opinion, that is truly pathetic. We need to get with the program.

Michigan has *both* a sodomy and a gross indecency law.

re #349-- that was my point, font-- thanks for clarifying :)

Re #247:  When I learned to look both ways, I was taught both in words, and
by example, and encouraged to practice when crossing the street with my
parents, other responsible adults, etc.  I don't think any of you are saying
that we should encourage teens to practice so-called "safe sex" in the
presence of their parents, etc  *grin*

of course, that's absurd, but I think that demonstrates the absurdity of your
analogy.  all anaologies fail at some point, but I think that one fails too
soon to be useful here.

        My guess is that even if all advantages and disadvantages (economic,
health insurance, visiting in hospitals, keeping apartments in NYC) of
marriage were eliminated, gays would still like to be afforded the same legal
status as nongays.  It is a matter of social recognition.  IF the federal
government recognizes you, everyone else probably will.
        What do other grexers think about banning all marriage (other than
religious) and allowing people to specify in writing who they would like to
inherit (without inheritance taxes), to visit them in the hospital, to pay
taxes with (what size maximum group should we allow here, and must they all
have the same mailing address?), to get extra privileges at work for (health
insurance - why should unmarried people get paid less?), to adopt children
with, etc.  What other things does the blank contract of marriage regulate?
        I see marriage as an artifact of property-owning society, in particular
land-owning, where the land had to have a legal heir, which in many cases
could only be the genetic heir.  Perhaps it is an outdated concept now.

Well yes-- and children are much more of an economic liability now in the
Information Age, when in agricultural times and even part of the Industrial
Era they were very much a commodity.  They were extra hands to help with the
farm, or they could be sent to the factories (in the days before child labor
laws).  That's assuming marriage is an institution (at least in part) to raise
children.

Even today, however, parents can claim a tax deduction if instead of giving
their kids an allowance, they set up a small business and pay them a wage.

My point is that there is a common belief in society that the institution of
marriage is to produce children that will contribute in kind.  Or at least
that's the standard definition.  Of course, one might ask, do childless
couples contribute to society?  Married couples of the opposite sex seem to
be counted by a grandfather clause, if you will.  Then one might ask, do
same-sex couples contribute more as a couple than they would separately? 
Well, you can certainly say yes if they adopt children.  But what if they
don't?  Are their efforts to society synergistic?

I would guess that your answers would be yes, but, your thoughts, please?

"If the federal government recognizes you, everyone else probably will"?
Just look at the efforts to end racial seggregation, or to give women the
vote.  In some places, public opinion changed ages before the laws did; in
other places, it lagged behind enormously.  The law is most definitely not
what determines how people think.

Marriage as a legal institution - that contract joining the two people - may
well be outdated.  Marriage as a social institution - the ceremony, the rings,
the family structure and way of life that tend to go with it - may vary an
awful lot, but there are enough people who are still attatched to it that I
don't think it will go away any time soon.  Baptisms and bris ceremonies still
exist, even though births are legally recognized without them.  Confirmations
and bar/bat mitzvas still exist, even though the legal age of majority has
nothing to do with them anymore.  I don't see why marriage should work any
differently.

Marriage vaguely resembles the institution it used to be. None of the old
arguments really work anymore; for instance, marriage is for the purpose of
property distribution, raising children, economic stability, political
alliances, blah, blah, blah, ectect...I couldn't begin to count how many poor,
childless, politically unimportant people out there who get married for no
other reason than for love. If they have the right to get married for no other
reason than love, then so should gays. WE ARE NOT 2nd CLASS CITIZENS. We pay
taxes, we full a function and purpose at every level in our society. We want
the same rights that every other citizen freely enjoy. 

Marriage will not fade awy, or become religious arcana.  Marriage exists
primarily for the purpose of raising children in a safe and loving
environment.  Of course, there are marriages in which that is not the case,
by choice or by chance, but that does not alter the primary purpose.  I,
personally, believe that it also exists to point us towards God.  The
institution of marriage exists in every single culture in the world.  Is it
possible that this is b/c the very first man and woman were married, and
passed that on to their children, and they to theirs, and so on?

in short, just a vehicle for propagating the species-- it is a structured part
of civilization-- more structured than the animals.

i dunno, i smell another debate coming

I *really* doubt that marriage exists in every culture in the world.  And
in many cultures it takes a form unacceptable to those intent on prohibiting
gay marriage here.  Certainly few of those anti-gay folk would go for any
system that voided hetero marriages for failing to produce kids within say,
5 years, or allowed homo parents to marry.

Keeping homos out of wedlock is an emotional issue just like keeping black
kids out of white schools was a few decades ago (and still is, in a lot of
places).  

There was, or perhaps still is, some law to the effect that first cousins are
not permitted to marry unless the woman is over 57 or sterilized.  This would
hardly be a marriage for the purpose of creating children.  Nor would that
of my grandfather, who remarried when 72 and his first wife died, and was
happily remarried for 20 more years.  (Religiously only, his wife would have
lost her social security from her first husband in a legal marriage).
My point was that the current legal marriage institution serves a variety of
purposes which could possibly be better served by several separate contracts,
such as perhaps a contract to raise children together, to pay taxes together,
etc.  Why should two siblings living together not be allowed to pay taxes
together, as was the case with my two great aunts, who became an economic unit
after one was widowed?  Why should one of them not inherit from the other when
one of them died, without paying inheritance taxes,w hen they ran a business
together, or be permitted to have a joint lease in NYC?  Is it possible to
two sisters to adopt a child together?  They were not a gay couple.  There
are many cases like this, where people have no intention or possibility of
producing children together and are being denied economic and legal
privileges that are reserved only for married couples.  As usual, the laws
are far behind social changes.  I think the institution of marriage
discriminates in many ways not only against gays but against other people who
cannot gain these privileges.  I disagree that making gay marriages legal
would not make them more socially acceptable.  People tend to approve more
of things that are legal, assuming that other people approve of them.

Again, it doesn't matter what the primary purpose is. THE FACT IS THAT PEOPLE
ARE MARRYING FOR REASONS OTHER THAN HAVING CHILDREN. BY LAW, THEY ARE ALLOWED
TO DO THIS, WHICH EFFECTIVELY TOSSES THAT ARGUMENT DOWN THE TOILET.

Robot lilmo repeat party line with nor evidence nor logic nor sense.  Shut up,
lilmo.  

1.  This country does not recognise the existence of God.  People in it do, but
the country does not.  Please stop trying to convince it to; for one thing, 
to do so is rather evil.

2.  Marriage has little, these days, to deal with children.

3.  Everyone who is considered a person should be able to marry anyone else
who is considered a person, or nobody should.  Regardless of quantity, type,
or any other irellevant issue.

Problems might arise if all of Ann Arbor were married, come tax time.  You
might want to restrict things in some way, such as choosing one (or at most
three) persons to share each privilege with, with more allowed if you submit
a special request and get it approved.   (There are probably economic units
of more than four adults, for instance).  And maybe have some sort of age
limit so that people do not choose to pay taxes in partnership with babies
so that they can get into a lower bracket.
        It might possibly discourage people from responding in this item if
they are told to shut up.  No matter how much I disagree with someone else's
opinion, I consider it valuable to hear that opinion.  How can you possibly
change someone's opinion if you don't know their reasons for it?
        Can anyone list exactly what privileges married people are given in
this country?  (Other than the privilege of suing for divorce).

marriage benefits are (to name a few) tax breaks, social security for a
deceased partner, bereavement leave, easier access to medical insurance
provided by the spouse's HMO, funeral rights, property rights, and alimony
just to name a few off the top of my head. Just to name a mild example. I once
applied for an apartment once at well known apartment complex. In order to
be accepted, the applicants must meet certain income requirements. Although
I did not make the requirement on my own, my income combined with the income
of my partner easily surpassed the requirement. However, in order to combine
incomes, you had to be legally married. Therefore, our application was denied.
Of course, this standard applies to hetero couples as well, but the difference
is, I will never have the ability to get married in order to meet the
requirements.

We may have done this to death, but how does one consider supplying children
to the future a benefit if the world is overpopulated anyways?
And why is it straight people's problem about what gay people do in their '
own lives and in private?  To my knowledge it doesn't affect straight people
at all.

It affects 50-year-old and 60-year-old homophobic politicians who have been
living their life in denial and now have to watch 20-year-old and 3o-year-old
couples living the lives the politicians would've lived if it had been legal;
30 years ago.
  
That's what these things are usually about: resentment.

From what I have read, homophobia is more prevalent during periods when, for
some reason, society thinks it needs more people to be produced, such as after
World War II, or during ancient times when constant warfare kept reducing the
population and the largest group would win wars (Judaeo-Christianity dates
from this era).  The ancient Greeks had already overpopulated to the point
where they were destroying their environment and I think were controlling the
population by infanticide, as were the Romans, so that there was no reason
to force people into molds that would lead to more population being created.

Can anyone provide any more facts that might support or disprove this?

In The Queer Question, Scott Tucker (new library book) p. 215:

In January 1997 the General Accounting Office responded to Rep. Henry Hyde's
request that they 'idenityf federal laws in which benefits, rights and
privileges are contingent on marital status" and "more generally all those
laws in teh US Code in which marital status is a factor".  The document they
produced (#)GC-97-16) runs to 60 pages, with headings such as "Public Healtha
nd Welfare", "HIV Health Care Services PRogram," "Programs for Older
Americans", Veterans' Benefits", "Prison and Prisoners", "Aliens and
Nationality", and 'Social Security".
        An American citizen can import another person to live here by marrying
them, but only if the two are opposite sexes and not too closely related. 
(You can import a second but not a first cousin, I think, or perhaps marriage
to a first cousin in another country is recognized as legal here?).
        It sounds as if prisoners may only be allowed visitors to whom they
are married or closely biologically related.  Why shouldn't a prisoner be
allowed to specify a list of a few people who can visit, without givin
unmarrried prisoners fewer visitors than married ones?  Same with hospital
visiting privileges.
        In my own case, marriage to my partner of 15 years would give some
economic advantages and some disadvantages.  I earn more money (my partner
helps with the business that I run and I pay my partner), so paying income
taxes together would probably reduce total taxes (except that we still don't
pay enough property or state taxes to itemize, so there is an extra thousand
or so to pay taxes on, which there is talk of chancing to eliminate the
marriage penalty).  My partner owns a house and is low income so pays reduced
property tax, and if we were to marry the property taxes would go up.  We each
pay for our own health insurance and could get about 5% off if we were married
and had policies with teh same company, but my partner has a much better
policy which is no longer offered so we would not switch.  Married people who
have auto insurance pay higher rates because they have dependents (don't ask
me why I would be a dependent if I am supporting us).  If we married, my
partner would no longer be eligible to receive, at retirement, half of the
amount which my partner's ex-spouse will be receiving.  (The ex-spouse is
earing a lot of money with a degree paid for by my partner, and completed just
before the ex-spouse decided to divorce.  Half of what I would receive is a
lot less.)  So there are actually also economic disadvantages.
        I don't think I would want to rent from an apartment management company
that was so idiotic that they did not accept people sharing apartments unless
they were married.  Marriage is hardly a guarantee that both tenants will
continue to live there longer than other couples.

You bring up some valid points. It's true that marriage isn't all that it's
cracked up to be. I've never really been a big fan of it. However, the still
remains that there is a privilidge-- marriage-- that is unilaterally denied
to millions of citizens. It is grossly unfair, not to mention
unconstitutional.

I agree, but how would you decide which couples were allowed to marry and
which were not?  How about siblings, can they marry?  That is why I propose
just banning marriage and then working out the details, rather than
discriminating against so many people by telling them they can have either
all the privileges or none of them.  I would think anyone with a job that
offered free health insurance to an extra person should be allowed to pick
any one person, so that people without uninsured spouses are not discriminated
against.

        Fortunately, most of our public representatives understand law is
about the effects of the law, not whether the law is "right" or "wrong".

370: this I agree with -- make marriage a religious/social institution, not
related to the government at all.  If people want to socially contract and 
have the contract notarized such as to have it be legally binding, so be it;
the government does have business enforcing contracts, even if it doesn't have 
business setting terms and privledges for "marriage".  Of course, with the 
current prostitution laws(which I don't support), a marriage contract, without
special status, would probably often be illegal unless it totally dealt with
financial matters.
.s

Could you elaborate on the 'what with the current prostitution laws' part of
that? I think I missed something.

What exactly are the laws?

Actually, having discussed it off line, I doubt prostitution laws
really have anything to do with even a decentralized a marriage
contract.  On the other hand, decoupling the concepts of the standard
marriage contract would require providing some of the rather thorny
(but not available presently in standard contract law) obligation webs
which marriage presently supplies. However, once the requisite baggage
was available, this would be a Very Good Thing.  
        Things which should be available seperate from, as well as
combined with a marriage contract:
        The ability to specify, in order, your next of kin independant
of who your actual kin are; this should take precidence over (but
should be able to include)your real kin, and is the biggest piece of
baggage that you have problems getting if you can't/won't marry.
        The ability to require exclusivity/disclosure (or not require
same).
        Economic/Effort merging, possibly largely coupled with child
raising.  
                
        And probably some things I'm forgetting.  Split it up enough
and you can set up a relatively short marriage contract which provides
the protection the current one does, or can mess with it, take out
some of the provisions (like, say, pulling the economic one entirely,
or leaving out exclusivity, or doing both and just setting up a group
marriage, or whatever) and end up with soemthing which provides no
more than it says it does.   Hell, since done right, the forms
wouldn't have anything to do with the word "marriage", except by
common nomenclature, you probably wouldn't even get much argument from
the Religious Right.

        

Are you kidding? It would mean the end of the Classic American Nuclear
Family's claim on one heck of a lot of priveliges, and I'd be willing to bet
there would be a huge hue and cry from conservatives. Even if you don't
_legally_ call it marriage, it still sounds enough like marriage, and it
serves the same purpose.

        One thing you have to remember whenever criticizing long-established
systems, in the workplace, in society, wherever, si that those long-establish-
ed systems are long-established because they work to some degree, and
because they answer human needs and requirements (which may not be obvious
at all) fairly well.  The minute you disrespect long-established
traditions, you lose sight of these facts, and you've lost any chance of
constructively criticizing those traditions, or offering new ones.

376: the trick would be to provide the bits and pieces that make 
up a marriage independantly, and seperately.  Do it subtlely enough
and conservatives won't be able to muster opposition because they won't
understand it.
        (downside -- neither will anyone else).

377: Disrespect is not a verb.
     Speaking in vauge genralities ammounting to "I don't think you have
the right to criticize because you don't like traditions" is not an argument;
it's an ad homenim attack.

        Sometimes, I GREX when I'm a little light in the sleep area, and it
tends to cause me to ramble.

        What I said isn't that you have no right to criticize because you don't
like traditions, I said that if a tradition exists, there's generally a reason
for it.  The longest-lasting traditions are there because they tend to work,
and sometimes to fulfil needs and wants that aren't all that obvious.  You
can guesstimate what a better tradition might be, but do not dismiss
traditions out of hand;  we've a lot to learn from them.

        Disrespect, in common English usage, *is* a verb.  We can switch to
the Queen's English if you *really* want, however.

I have never heard it used as a verb, we all speak different idiolects.
Lots of traditions have fossilized and are no longer appropriate to current
circumstances, even thought they may have had some function earlier.  Tell
me the function of wearing a tie, for instance.  (The earlier versions may
have kept your neck warm).

The function of a tie is to prevent excessive blood flow to brains that
are too small or under-used to need it.

:)

Actually, ties are just one of our culture's potlatch-equivalents - 
deliberate waste, done for the social status that it brings.

        It's derived from old sporting coats of the Victorian era.

And before that, from cravats, and those from scarves.

The origin of the tie is from a particular type of scarf worn by Croatians
when going into battle (Croat>cravat).

hrvat  (the Croatian word for Croatian).  That may be the origina of the word,
not of the tie.  People have tied things around their necks for a long time,
for both decorative and functional purposes.

*shrugs* it's the origin of the European fashion of putting a piece of fabric
around your neck.

i thot it was symbolic of the separation 
of the intellect from one's notty-bits...

I read that a tight tie is a symbol that the work you are doing does not use
up enough energy that you have to breathe deeply.  Same thing as wearing a
suit jacket that will not fit around muscles, or allow bending over.  Or high
heels that prevent much walking, or a tight skirt to hobble you.

   no, high heels are the result of men wanting to see women's butts
do the figure-eight thing that women's butts do when they're walking
around in high heels.  personally, i have no idea why *anyone* would
willingly wear high heels.  i've never found them anything but painful.

        It kind of mystifies me, too.  But the added height works out well.

There have been many periods when men also wore higher heels, including the
seventies of this century.  They may have liked the added height?  And periods
when women wore absolutely flat shoes (early nineteenth century, when they
wanted to look shorter, which was fashionable).  My mother was delighted that
she did not have to wear high heels after she met my father, who was 5'5".
Then there were earth shoes, with the heel lower than the sole - 60s?
Anyone out there every worn them?  Platform shoes in the forties, the late
sixties, and now again.  And on 16th Century (i think it was) Venetian
courtesans.  The fashions in body proportions are always changing.  But the
more extreme fashions are often only wearable by those who don't do manual
work, which used to be mainly the idle rich.

  I think it would be fun if I could find a pair in my size. Since life is
to be experienced, why not just try an old pair that someone has discarded.
Unfortunatly, I have a rather big, wide foot (10 1/2 EEE) and I doubt that
there are any high heels in my size. ;(

   try a drag catalog, omni.  another reason i have trouble with
women's shoes is that my feet are men's size ten-and-a-half.

        That's it!  Sexual orientation has nothing to do with imprinting ...
it's all *foot size*!

One of the sexy women's catalogs that somehow made its way into our house had
a lot of extremely high heeled shoes in women's sizes up to 14 or so, we
finally figured out they must be for men.  The more extreme models (4" heels
plus additional 1" from platforms) came in the largest sizes.  So void, you
too can wear spike heels!  (How would they work on the gas pedal?).
I have removed the heels from rubber boots to make them flatter and thus more
comfortable.

The largest heel I've seen, actually, was 7 1/2" (with a 3" platform)
  
Not only catalogs, but many metropolitan areas (Detroit included) have TV
stores (and no, not for home electronics).

   indeed.  noir leather in royal oak comes to mind.  drag gear tends
to be rather expensive, though.

   keesan, i think i'm going to give the spikes a pass.  high heels
were painful even before i managed to screw up both my knees. 
afterward, wearing them more or less stopped being an option.  i simply
can't wear any shoes with heels higher than about two inches.

noir has drag gear? not that I've seen, but I don't tend to look at their
clothes... I'm drooling over the whips and crops =}

I can wear high heels, I suppose, if they are a few sizes too big so they
don't break my toes, but I cannot imagine standing in them.  THe first and
last time I ever wore them is when my little brother got me a pair to play
with on my birthday.  I had wanted a pogo stick and lost interest in the
stilts rather quickly.  I think my brother played with them instead.  He also
tried on a wig once.  Okay as toys.  (BUt I am certainly not going to object
if other people like them - no offense intended.)
        Jim has trouble taking people seriously when they are in high heels.

   hmmm.  birghn, it's been three or four years since i was last at
noir, but i seem to remember seeing some drag stuff, or at least some
fuck-me pumps in men's sizes.

It occurred to me they may have moved that stuff over to Vintage Noir, up the
street, which I don't go to

   vintage noir?  never heard of it.  maybe i should venture out to
royal joke more often.  :)

Re #359:  I didn't say that raising children was the only purpose of marriage;
such a position would be untenable.  What I said was that its primary purpose
was to provide a loving environment for raising children.  Having considered
it, however, I think that I have improperly elevated a secondary purpose, or,
perhaps, improperly focused upon a portion of the primary purpose.

I don't think that we mortals can possibly come to a full understanding of
all that God intended in instituting marriage, but I think that we can come
close, since He did give us our minds to use.

Marriage is supposed to be about commitment:  to God, to His purposes, to each
other.  He designed men and women to be complementary, not only physically,
but also emotionally.  He intended marriage to be something that would bring
two ppl together in a way that would honor Him, and be stronger together than
the two were when apart.  He created sex to be something that, when practiced
within the confines of marriage, would not only bring about physical union,
but would be a part of the process by which marriage partners gain a degree
of emotional and spiritual union.  This leads to an environment conducive to
proper bringing-up of children; physical, emotional, ad spiritual health of
all family members; and even resource preservation, so that the family is able
to offer assistance to persons outside the family.

Having said all that, I must confess that I feel I have only scratched the
surface in my understanding of the purposes of marriage.  It is a partnership,
with equal partners that have different roles.  Not being married myself, I
have an outsider's perspective, but I have seen good marriages, and bad, new
marriages, and old, predictable marriages and surprises.  I'm not expert on
Marriage, but I like to think that I know the One who made it pretty well,
and He made it for our good.  Adam didn't ask for it:  God said that he should
not be alone, and created the perfect marriage partner.  Would that we were
as clear-sighted in our life choices.


I may be spouting a line that happens to coincide with a "party line", but
that oesn't make me a robot.  Here's food for thought:  if there is no God,
surely there is no harm in trying to convince you that there is; but if there
IS a God, it would be unspeakably evil for me to knowingly withhold such
life-saving information from you.

That last paragraph has a major fallacy: It assumes that if there is a God
then the Christians are right about Him.

No, it just assumes that knowledge of God is very beneficial to those in
the know.  

From a logic point of view, it's equally arguable that ignorance of God
is very beneficial (compared to knowledge).

From a historical point of view, knowledge of God has been very beneficial
at times - especially when His followers were doing religious cleansing,
purges, etc. in His name - but only knowlege of the *right* God helped
(and there were many wrong ones). 


(Marriage is part of many cultures that utterly reject the entire Western 
concept of God.  Analyzing the religous basis of marriage there is bound
to be *really* different...self discovers the Self within and the illusion
of the world fades as one realizes that one *is* God....)

        It's useful to seperate the social contract of marriage, and the
individual contract that any two people may agree to, because of religious
beliefs or stock portfolios, when being married.

        The social contract of marriage should be completely seperated from
any religious views of marriage, if for no other reason than that most
religions don't agree on marriage states.  Since sexual taboos tend to be
fairly long-lasting and all-prevading, it's only natural that they come to
be associated with a religious context, and often taken very seriously.  BUT
we cannot allow one culture or one religion to influence the way the State
is run.

knowledge or ignorance of God is based on the premise that one believes in
the existance of god, which is certainly not always the case. The 1st
Amendment guarentees us religious freedom; therefore, any religious argument
used to support the idea that gays and lesbians should not marry is
automatically invalid. That is, at least, in theory, which as we all know is
not always the case in practice.

        It gets dicey because the practices of a society and the religion of
a society are seldom truly seperate;  the current marriage system is based
on the socio-religious practice of various groups of Christians - polygamy
being illegal and divorce a complicated matter.

As some of you surmised, I was not addressing, directly, the social contract
issues, but the personal, spiritiual, etc, as I see them.

Re #404:  You are correct; I was ambiguous.  What I almost said, and meant
to say, was "my God", meaning a God conforming to my basic beliefs, shared
by millions, as described in the Bible.

I think it would be interesting to see if the laws establishing states'
relationships to marriage (limiting authority to conduct legally binding
wedding ceremonies, issuance of marriage licenses, procedures for
divorce/annulment, etc) give any justification for state involvement in these
matters.  What is the legal backing for the existence of marriage?

Lots of people want marriage to be a legal institution and politicians 
want to be elected.

WOW it took over 2 hours to get to the end of this where do i start On the
first issure of same sex marriages Or extended marrigers TRIADSs of bigger
I am all for it. I feel it is not for the goverment to be in my bed room and
that I don;t want to let them make dissicisions for me of that sort. It should
be up to them ... I think the age of concent is up to the two people who are
in bed together if they dont coruseres each other then what is the problem
they should both be willing to accept any concquence that happens.. On the
issue of relgion and my bed room I only talk to god durring sex... j/k  There
is more then just the one god in this life and it is sad that some a so un
wiling to let poeple lie there lifes 
.e

I second that...what I could read of it, anyway   ;} j/k

Maybe it's time for a restart on this item?

        The legal issues would require some working out, but if 16 people
wanted to form a sexual collective known in legal terms as a Monglolian
Cluster-Fuck, then there's no really good reason why it should be illegal.
The Right might hem and haw about the state supporting Godlessness or
non-Christian values, and that's exactly the job of the state.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, some people would say the job of the
state is to support what it's citizens want...

Mongolian Cluster-F***??????

A bit spicier than your regular-style cluster-fuck.

        Right, you get to pick people up off the street, and mix them together
in a really hot room with lots of oil.  

now dont forget to add veggies and your favoriet flavored of spices and meats
and oils to this..... Get some really big guys with stickes to stir the whole
thing sounds like a fun time or a new bussiness idea to me .. The Mongolan
Cluster F*ck. Cumming soon to a neighborhood neer you.. Mabey even next store
hehehee who knows what goes one in the house next store unless you have
expensive survalance equipment
Christopher Ottolini

        Naw, those're average-sized guys.

okay, I am new to this conference, but i just wanna say that I am a 
lesbian, who plans to get married to a woman, and it pisses me off that people
who don't understand always say,"But you can't REALLY get married."  
Marriage is about commitment and love and growing old together.
Why must it be only two people involved, and why must they be hetero?

For the same reason that the Earth used to be flat and blacks couldn't
be taught how to read.

<birdy applauds wildly>

The earth isn't flat?!?!?!?
When did THAT happen?

Amen.  You should check out the gay marriage conference; it's a riot. It
really pisses me off as well, Anna. Even for people who claim to be supportive
of gbl rights, a lot of straight people are against gay marriages.  That's
what really turned me off about Clinton some five years ago, with the whole
gays in the military thing. After DOMA, I seriously considered voting for Dole
in 96. At least with Dole, I knew where I stood politically: nowhere.

I did vote for Dole.  Didn't help.  any word on Y2K pres. candidates?

Dems: Gore or Gephardt
Reps: Bush Jr. or Quayle
Those are the names I've heard the most, with Gore and Bush being the apparent
front-runners.
Unlike Clinton, Gore *does * stand behind the GLB rights.

        His wife just doesn't want you singing or writing about things.

Actually, she's really backed down about that these days.

My impression is that Bush Jr. was getting cold feet from the Clinton
witch trials.  (I suspect that many other prospectives are suffering
similar second thoughts.)  Gore is about as exciting as a Statistics
417 lecture, but i've heard that he's as clean as there is on the sex
side of things.

It would be much easier to get decent candidates for the oval office in '00
if there was a big Democratic landslide this November, but hope appears dim
on that front.  

The reason we can't get any decent people in the White House is because
decent, competent people learn from their mistakes, and in order to do that,
you have to have made mistakes, and that's where the media skewers you... so
the only people we can get are pristine sheltered people who have no
conception of the Real World and (much more commonly) people who are willing
to lie to protect their pasts from scrutiny, and these are usually the same
people who are willing to lie to protect their present wrongdoings.

Even if I were to join a Protestant church, become monogamous, and start
leading a "clean, moral life" now, because of things I've already done, the
media would never let me be President.

The reason Gore doesn't have any sexual escapades is exactly what
you said...he's about as exciting as a Statistics 417 lecture.  ;-)

i bet he gives some whacked toungebath to tipper.

Y'know, I'm curious why no one has discussed homosexuality in other cultures.
In my cultural anthropology class, I read about how it co-existed with
marriage, or was part of a transitional time.

Elders of one culture fed the boys sperm through oral sex to promote their
maturation and sexual growth.  I believed they raised families with women
later.

In other cultures, there is the concept of the third gender, which if it
involves marriage, may or may not involve homosexual sex-- depending on how
the role is defined and what expectations there are.

Personally, I think marriage involves a deep committment to the one you love,
and while physical attraction is a helpful element in this equation, it's not
absolutely necessary.  I also believe that nature is nature-- but human beings
have the ability to choose whatever they feel is best, which may not be
according to immediate physical desires.

In part, this means I don't believe in the statement, "that person is living
a lie" if that particular person can find happiness in their pursuits.

*sigh*  the flack I get..

You didn't happen to have Conrad Kattak as a prof, did you?

opps, typo.. Kottak.

I'm not from around Ann Arbor, so no.

        I've offered the argument that sexuality is a malleable thing in a few
conferences here.  It's certainly true that the ancient Greek attitude towards
male homosexuality was different than the modern American one, and that
therefore at least that sort of homophobia is not a necessary element of any
culture (though it seems a common one).

<Starwolf hands lumen a Flak vest and Kevlar helmet> Try these on for 
size.  I'm still working on the full-body armor.

<font hands lumen the sh*t kickin boots of protection>

oooh, I *could* use that kind of protection :)

:)  Who couldn't?

It sounds like an AD&D item, too.

This sounded interesting...
What are the thoughts on gay/bi/lesbian relationships in other cultures?

        Sexuality is inextricably linked with culture, but at a very
fundamental level.  It's difficult for me to explain my understanding of
sexuality because this fundamental level is something that most people
consider a part of their personality - there are those who'll take violently
to learning that sexuality can not only change, but it can emerge in different
forms if it is denied. 

        In certain contexts, people accept this - in prison, for instance, it's
accepted that otherwise heterosexual men will behave in markedly different
- but cases such as Erickson's "conversion" of a man who was deeply unhappy
with his own hypertophied homosexuality to a functioning adult (who was
heterosexual, but probably only of Erickson's directives) are extraordinarily
controversial.

        The only way that the information I accept to be true about human
sexuality makes sense is if I accept that humans are inherently sexual - not
necessarily straight or bisexual or gay - and that everything from that point
on is a matter of learned behavior.  It's certainly not as simple as waking
up one morning and decidign to pick a gender or another.  But it is learned
and malleable, and in most adults changes in subtle ways throughout their lif.

        For a good example of this, look at the widespread acceptance of
homosexuality and man-boy love in ancient Greece.  In particular, man-boy love
was viewed by certain city-state cultures as a particularly sublime form of
love, more abstract and pure than man-woman love.  Woman-woman love was not
as widely accepted, but there is a considerably body of woman-woman love
poetry (which incidentally is bisexual in nature rather than homosexuality)
from Sappho of the isle of Lesbos (from which the term Lesbian originates).

        You can also see it in the incidence of female bisexuality versus male
bisexuality in our culture.

I tend to agree, that humans are simply inherently sexual and it is not really
a I woke up gay, bi, lesbian, or straight.
Perhaps it is that humans love people and personalities, and not genders?
Perhaps society forces us, in a way, to become biased or descriminatory when
it comes to deciding who we 'love'....

Certainly some component of sexualorientation is physiological, for a very
complex standpoint (men with lower levels of testosterone, for instance, will
be markedly less aggressive; since aggression is a sign of masculinity in our
culture -- partially because of the presence of testosterone -- men who are
less aggressive are likely to be placed in environments where their sexuality
is questioned, and they will have greater freedom [or expectation] to explore
their nonheterosexuality).

Notice that while this example is nature-based at its foundation, the sexual
orientation still comes out of nurturing, rather than heredity. In fact, I
think it's a reasonable counterargument to the "twin studies" that, among
other things, allegedly demonstrated a correlation between sexual orientation
and genetics. My argument would be that, since the vast number (if not all)
of the twins in the "twins studies" are American, the correlation is not
between genetics and sexual orientation, but rather between genetics and
aggressiveness (for instance), and that there is a nurture-based correlation
between aggressiveness and sexual orientation (in both genders, actually).

Of course, this is not intended as a means to account for all cases of
homosexuality (or heterosexuality), but rather as an example of how even the
few "gene-based" arguments that *have* been made can be dismissed from a
nurture-based paradigm.

In other words, I agree with you, John. =}

        Whoa.

        But one of the signs of excessive testosterone is premature baldness,
and I know a fair amount of the sisters with little hair.  Go figure. :)

Having a head that's as bald as a penis tends to attract friends who are
attracted to penises, which puts the bald man with male friends in situations
where exposure to gayness is high, and we all know that homosexuality is
contagious.

Maybe? =}

        Not unless you have a real funny shaped skull with a dent in the
middle.

I know that I cant live without my friend I dont know what to do since i cant
marry her its illegal

        It depends.  You can honour your commitment in ways you and your kith
(neat word there, Paul) will recognize with a handfasting, or you can see if
the state you're in honours marraiges respected by other states.  A number
of states that don't honour gay marriage will honour *any* marraige held to
be legal in another state.

So, five yeras or so later, the disucssion of same-sex marriage is still
germain.  Wanna re-approach it?

Not sure there'd be a point.  The folks who favor GLBT marriage rights
still seem blind to the root of the problem - unlike every other notable
change in a person's religious or legal status (birth, confirmation,
confession, holy offices, conviction, death, communion, competence, etc.),
there's almost *no* chuch/state seperation when it comes to marriage.
There isn't any good reason for this.  

The misty-eyed fuzz-brains on the GLBT side all seem to want "traditional" 
church/state-Siamese-twin marriage that's recogized as "fully equal to het 
marriage" by every American.  That that's about as realistic full equality
for freed slaves in 1876 has seemingly started to register, but i haven't
seen any hints of an intelligent response to the situation. 

Wow. So much meat to chew on. It'd better be kosher...

The folks who favor GLBT marriage rights
 still seem blind to the root of the problem - ....  there's almost *no*
chuch/state seperation when it comes to marriage.
 There isn't any good reason for this.

There IS a good reason for it, which is that SCOTUS has ruled that the
prohibition against Church-State separation, as well as applying to the
federal government, also applies to the state governments. Whilst there are
those who will argue against its interpretation, and those who want the rule
abolished, it's not realistic. Allowing state governments to define the
religion of the majority of people in the state will just marginalize the
rest of the religious groups in the state - even assuming there IS a clear
majority of citizens belonging to a single church. That's exactly what the
Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, and, unlike in England, where the
Church-state link seems to have almost no effect on the free exercise of
religion by other groups, in America religion is so much a part of the
culture of the majority of the population who ARE religious, that the effect
will be as the Founding Father's predicted. Further, it would be possible to
"divorce" the link between church and state in this issue by requiring that
couples register their marriage with the state as well as with the church,
and leaving the investiture of priests/minister/rabbis with the power to
sanctify marriages to the religious organizations. This is already done in
France and Germany. Individual churches would also be free to sanctify (or
not) gay marriage on religious grounds, without that affecting the laws of
the state.

The misty-eyed fuzz-brains on the GLBT side all seem to want "traditional"
 church/state-Siamese-twin marriage that's recogized as "fully equal to het
 marriage" by every American.  That that's about as realistic full equality
 for freed slaves in 1876 has seemingly started to register, but i haven't
 seen any hints of an intelligent response to the situation.

Sorry, but the people who keep coming up with "arguments" on the homophobic
side against gay marriage seem to me to be the "misty-eyed fuzz brains". 
(Most of them also happen to strike me as the most sanctimonious, intolerant,
irreligious, impious bunch of ill-mannered, bigoted, cretinous fools I have 
ever had the misfortune to have to put up with). Yes, they have the Bible on 
their side on this issue, but for one, I've yet to hear a good argument
from these people against homophobia and gay marriage (despite the fact they
keep *trying* to come up with one that's a little less simplistic than "God
said so"); and for two, if we had grown up reading Homer in our Sunday 
schools then the GLBT bunch would have the gods on their side. Also, many of 
those who use their religion to justify their homophobia will find that God 
is NOT on their side when it comes to ignoring the sanctity of the Sabbath 
or not going to church on same. So why should anyone take any notice when 
they misuse the holy bible in such a disgusting fashion?

It may have been "unrealistic" to expect full equality for freed slaves in
1876, but the North won the war that stopped slavery in 1865. People in the
South, it seems, still haven't gotten over it, but that hasn't stopped
slavery being abolished in the whole of the US for over a century.

Hmm...i'm arguing that marriage (church) and domestic partnership (state)
should be completely seperated, just like baptism (church) and birth
certificate (state), communion (church) and citizenship (state), etc.
I'm not sure what you're arguing on that front.

You appear to prove my argument on the misty-eyed fuzzy-brained part.
The Bible's far less homophobic than you seem to think, but what the
Bible actually says is even less relevant to modern American homophobia
than your enlightened-sounding arguments.  While you're busy stirring
the air at your Enlightened Liberal Creatures Mutual Admiration And
Discussion Society meeting, the homophobes are busy filling the ballot
boxes and halls of power.

You probably think that closing your eyes and talking about how you're
in the right is a great strategy for dealing with a mugger, too.

Re: #456, OK, I misinterpreted your first paragraph. I'm arguing what you're
arguing there.

As to the second part; actually: No. The Bible is far less homophobic than
the *homophobes who use religion to justify their phobia* think. 

 While you're busy stirring
 the air at your Enlightened Liberal Creatures Mutual Admiration And
 Discussion Society meeting, the homophobes are busy filling the ballot
 boxes and halls of power.

 You probably think that closing your eyes and talking about how you're
 in the right is a great strategy for dealing with a mugger, too.

Now, I'm not saying that simply arguing that you're right is the answer; it
isn't, and it's the argument that the homophobes have been using. What I AM
saying, is that enlightened debate and reasoning won't get through to these
people. After all, phobias are not engendered in the rational parts of the
brain, and thrive best on ignorance and FUD.

I would find it a whole lot easier, and more interesting, to follow the sides
of this discussion, if we could have a bit less vitriol- a bit more light than
heat, perhaps?  I don't think there is so much urgency, in this forum, do
deserve such inflamatory language. Let's learn from one another, please.

Re: #458
Admitting that i had a chip on my shoulder when i entered the last
couple or so responses, i'm concerned that we don't have much more
than attempted cleverly-done "attitude" here - it looks like twenex
and i are in dull agreement on this subject.  Could you try to lure
in a bright social conservative for us to stir things up with?  :)

Agreement? How SHOCKING!

Not sure I know any, just off the bat. Suggestions?

Well, I can think of a few folks in Agora...

Oh, you said *bright*...

Never mind.

Miaow!

Yes?

Ah, a skeptic!  Perhaps mooncat could argue against our pompous and
porous pronouncements to protect posterity from having to read a dreary
head-nodding dialog in these grexious bytes!

Someone said Meow... I thought I was being called...

I'm, well, in agreement. Sorry.

So, any new thoughts on the issue of same-sex marriage? What about the various
legislative proposals to define marriage? Is it any of their business to
offer definitions? Is marriage a secular or a sacred agreement?

A friend of mine mentioned yesterday that one reason she is divorcing her
husband (not the primary one) is that she is interested in other women.  She
says Judaism does not support same-sex marriages but does not object strongly.
Which religions will perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?

The Unitarians will. I think the Anglican church has something as well
as some Quakers.

The United Church of Christ recently became the first entire denomination of 
American Christians to support equal marriage.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm

From the same story:  
"The Episcopal Church (the US branch of the Anglican Communion) and the
 Evangelical Lutheran Church permit same-sex unions, while the Presbyterian
 Church is seeking to resolve severe disagreements over the issue."

(Of course, the extreme radical religious should not be interfering in 
government, the legal system, or social policy.  We can't forget the 
separation of church and state.  After all, it's right there in the 
Constitution - somewhere, I guess.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Yep. Right there. In the First Amendment. The very first. So important it's
the first Right in the Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of Rightwingers To Do As
They Will With It. The Bill of Rights. It protects us, your enemies. And it
protects you. Deal. Learn to love it.

Wow! How wonderful to live in a world with such active debate! And how 
exciting to see these steps toward greater individual autonomy and
responsibility. the Lutherans and presbyterians are not exactly fly-by-night
sects!
To answer Keesan's question- the good news is that most pagan and wiccan
traditions strongly support all loving relationships, whatever the sex of
the participants. The bad news is that few have legally ordained clergy...
We often go to the Unitarians to meet that need.
<sigh>

Why do you need legally ordained clergy?

You don't, really, for a personal ceremony. But if you want a "legal" wedding,
then you get handfasted by your High Priest and Priestess, and have it
witnessed or completed or averred, or something, by an ordained and govt.
recognized clergy person. Or else (for hetero couples) you end up getting
your piece of paper at city hall, and making the ceremony strictly religious,
not "civil" at all. WHich makes sense to me...

• Read the next item
• Go to the menu of items for the Glb conference
• Go to the list of conferences
• Go to the opening screen