what percentage of the gay vote will Santorum get?

[J. J.]

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

Alcon, traditionally, many denominations have taken this view of marriage, and, in all fairness to be a type of property contract.  Many people see the sole reason for marriage to be procreation.  It is biologically impossible for same sex couples to naturally procreate.

[J. J.]

Many people find some heterosexual practices, even within a marriage, "disgustingly unnatural."

[J. J.]

Much like beastiality, homosexuality is disgustingly unnatural.

'Disgusting' is a purely subjective term, refering to personal taste, so I won't argue with that.  I find religious disgusting - to each his own, eh?

But why would you say 'unnatural'?  What do you mean by that?  What're your arguments?  Just your socialized disgust reaction?  In fact it isn't unnatural, and even if it were, why is that a criticism?  Is your argument that sperm should only go into a vagina for producing offspring?  In that case is homosexuality any more unnatural than masturbation?  What're your views on masturbation and wives giving husbands BJs?

I would describe those things as foreplay, within a marital relationship.  Even outside of marriage, these are part of the mating ritual and lead to procreation.

You can claim that, as part of biology, that reproduction is "natural," an evolutionary imperative, in fact.  A sizable part of the reasons, historically, for marriage, is to promote procreation, to encourage a "natural" act. 

A same sex relationship will not produce that result, as a natural act.  Artificial, perhaps, but not natural.

[J. J.]

Homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. The same way homosexuality happens to come naturally to some animals. BTW, only the most advanced species seem to have homosexuals.

Would you care to back up your statement with, oh, what are they called, oh, yes, facts.

A subgroup within a species, either through choice or by an inherited trait, is an evolutionary dead end.  In the human species, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally reproduce. 

Now that is a factual statement and is not is not a moral judgment.

[J. J.]

Homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. The same way homosexuality happens to come naturally to some animals. BTW, only the most advanced species seem to have homosexuals.

Would you care to back up your statement with, oh, what are they called, oh, yes, facts.

A subgroup within a species, either through choice or by an inherited trait, is an evolutionary dead end.  In the human species, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally reproduce. 

Now that is a factual statement and is not is not a moral judgment.

An article was posted just a few days ago about homosexuality being observed in animals. It is especially known to occur among Zebras and even Dolphins. That I learned from the Discovery Channel, as a matter of fact I thought that was actually common knowledge. I also remember reading a few articles online about it.

But again, I stand by my statement that homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. Just as heterosexuality comes naturally to heterosexuals.

And those animals that practice it exclusively will not reproduce; I am aware that it can occur in nature, but that isn't evidence that it's not a learned trait.  I will again ask you to show some factual information that sexual preference "comes naturally?"  I'll include heterosexuality in that.

You "statement" is not suffient proof.

[J. J.]

I really could care less who is an evolutionary dead end and frankly can't see what it has to do with gay marriage.

Any species has an interest in continuing its existence as a species.  We really must include humans in that.

The state, an organization of humans, on that basic level, has an interest in promoting this continuation.  Sorry, but that the basic part of it.

[J. J.]

Did you learn that you were attracted to the opposite sex, or did it just come to you?

I, frankly, have never been able to answer that question; I actually have posted that before.  I would note that if I feel a need to pass my genetics on, my options are limited.

[J. J.]

There's plenty of heterosexual humans.


I've actually heard the theory that homosexuality is an evolutionary reaction to overpopulation.

Possibly, but it does occur in environments that are not overcrowded.

You can make the argument in populations which are overcrowded, a crowded, closed environment, that homosexuality is a reaction to it.  You can also make the argument that, in a society where there limited access to the opposite sex, it might be a reaction to that.

Those things don't explain the situation, nationally, in the United States.

[J. J.]

Homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. The same way homosexuality happens to come naturally to some animals. BTW, only the most advanced species seem to have homosexuals.

Penguins are advanced species?

------

Sat Dec 25, 1:31 AM ET

TOKYO (AFP) - Researchers have found a number of same-sex pairs of penguins at aquariums in Japan, with an imbalance between the numbers of male and female birds suspected to be the cause, a report said.

A research group led by Keisuke Ueda, professor of behavioral ecology at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found about 20 same-sex pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos, Kyodo news agency said.

Penguins in captivity "may be more likely to form same-sex pairs" due to the difficulty of finding partners of the opposite sex because breeding facilities in Japan only have an average of 20 birds, the agency quoted Ueda as saying.

It is not known if the frequency of homosexuality is higher than in the wild, where telling the sexes apart is tough, he said.

Many of the gay male pairs and two of the female pairs were seen performing mounting behavior, it said.

Ueda was not available for comment on the report.

The nice thing about this, since the gay Penguins will not be able to reproduce, Darwin's theory will lead the way to the survival of the fittest . . . being straight Penguins . . . hence the term "natural."

I've also heard the same about Lesbianism and seagulls.

I have heard that rats, in overcrowding situations, will exibit homosexual activities, but I couldn't find the direct studies on the web.

[J. J.]

I didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hmmn, i'm going to be a homo".

Although, I did admit to myself that I was gay on the 3rd of December, 2002.

When I realised I was almost 15 and not sexually attracted to even the hottest of females, I spent about three months just staring at breasts trying to feel something, or at legs or hair or especially faces, and got nothing. Not to go into to much detail, but a male thumb gets me more excited then a naked woman, and I'm not dissapointed there is no 'cure'

I didn't wake up one morning and decide I was going to be heterosexual either, because I have no idea what triggers sexual preference. 

Of course maybe something in those 15 years triggered your turn down that path.  Or possibly it was a number of factors.  I realize it's not a willful choice, but it still may be a choice at a subconscious level.

[J. J.]

The problem is the word sanctity which is literally "saintliness or holiness". Their are no non-religious reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed, and therefore to disallow gay marriage would be to respect an establishment of religion, which as everyone knows is in violation of the first amendment. I understand that you are not comfortable around gays but did you ever stop to think that being hated and mocked by all makes them a bit uncomfortable. To amend the constitution to destroy marriage between them does not improve your quality of life, it only destroys theirs. Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

You'll note that I have not once raised a religious argument about this; I'll start there.

There are some non-religious reasons.

First, is the purely biological issue.  Procreation.  The nation state does have interest in increasing and maintaining population.  You won't have that happening, without technical support, in a same sex couple.  Sorry, I can't change that.

Second is the legal reason, which I'm surprised no one has raised.  We have an overburdened legal system.  We are effectively creating contracts.  Some of those contracts will terminate prior to the death of one of the parties.  That will create more court cases.  As a  corollary to that, we have substancial caselaw and statute on different sex marraige.  Those, because of biological difference, may not apply and we'll have to grow another system to habdle it.  Who gets the alimony, for example?

Third is the idea that families, in a traditional sense, do provide some stability for society.  A same sex couple in not going to look at the societal values, e.g. public education, in the same light as different sex couples.  The latter will have more of a stake is these societial values than the former.

Fourth is political.  I strongly oppose on a matter of principle that because MA permits it that PA should be forced to as well.

[J. J.]

First, is the purely biological issue.  Procreation.  The nation state does have interest in increasing and maintaining population.  You won't have that happening, without technical support, in a same sex couple.  Sorry, I can't change that.

sterile people can't reproduced either and they can get married. irrelevant.

Second is the legal reason, which I'm surprised no one has raised.  We have an overburdened legal system.  We are effectively creating contracts.  Some of those contracts will terminate prior to the death of one of the parties.  That will create more court cases.  As a  corollary to that, we have substancial caselaw and statute on different sex marraige.  Those, because of biological difference, may not apply and we'll have to grow another system to habdle it.  Who gets the alimony, for example?

so we cover this in the marriage laws. lots of things cause legal troubles. that's why we have a system. it's not worth removing rights from a portion of the population

Third is the idea that families, in a traditional sense, do provide some stability for society.  A same sex couple in not going to look at the societal values, e.g. public education, in the same light as different sex couples.  The latter will have more of a stake is these societial values than the former.

and what harm comes from this. List some actual problems that come from this "lack of stability in society" nonsense.

Fourth is political.  I strongly oppose on a matter of principle that because MA permits it that PA should be forced to as well.

And if MA wants to permit interracial marriages, MS shouldn't be forced to as well.

I'm suprised no Republican has answered the original question. Come on Phil, tell me how gays love Santorum too, just as there are supposedly loads of Kerry voters who worship at his feet.

1.  The vast majority of different sex couples can reproduce.  Are you claiming the same think about the vast majority of same sex couples?

2.  You are not removing rights; you are creating are contractural rights.  They did not exist prior to creating.  How those will work will be complex.

3.  There have been profound changes when the family unit changes.  One was transition from the old-style extended or "farm family" beginning the 1910's, to the "nuclear family."  This created a new society and, in some ways spawned the need for new programs, such as Social Security and Welfare.  I'm not saying that these are wrong; I am saying they were changes needed because society changed.

Here is a simple point, can a man "marry" his widowed grandfather to get Social Security survivors benefits?

4.  Race is one of those "protected areas," rightly, by statute.  Sexual preference, and a few other things, are not.

Now, let's look at one that isn't, ago.  I went back to 1982, so the numbers might have changed, but the principle is still the same.  In liberal MA, someone below the age of 16 need both parental consent and court permission to marry.  In you neighboring state of KS, a 12 year old girl needed only parental consent.  Should a 12 year old girl, even if permitted to by her parents, been permitted to fly from Boston to Topeka, marry her boyfriend and then return to Boston?  My answer is that this would still violate the laws of MA.

Why should this be any different if it's a man and a boy and it it's legal in one state.  The states do have a role, established in caselaw (which the court addressed in the  "Loving Case," which overturned the VA ban interracial marriage).

[J. J.]

I've referred to most of this in my response to opebigot and correct your grossest error.  :-)

J. J. :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the death penalty? Should it be illegal because TX permits it and MA feels that it should be forced to permit it as well?

You have missed the point entirely.  TX has the death penalty; MA does not.  I have no problem with this.  I would have a problem, the same problem, if TX said, "Since we have a death penalty, MA, you have to have one, too."

It would not bother me in the least if MA legislature, or any other state's legislature chooses to allow same sex marriage.   I do have a problem when the courts say, okay, because another state does this, you have to as well.

That why I support a Constitutional Amendment that would take this out the Federal Court's realm.  Now, that is a lot different from what you thought I said.

[J. J.]

I've referred to most of this in my response to opebigot and correct your grossest error.  :-)

J. J. :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the death penalty? Should it be illegal because TX permits it and MA feels that it should be forced to permit it as well?

You have missed the point entirely.  TX has the death penalty; MA does not.  I have no problem with this.  I would have a problem, the same problem, if TX said, "Since we have a death penalty, MA, you have to have one, too."

It would not bother me in the least if MA legislature, or any other state's legislature chooses to allow same sex marriage.   I do have a problem when the courts say, okay, because another state does this, you have to as well.

That why I support a Constitutional Amendment that would take this out the Federal Court's realm.  Now, that is a lot different from what you thought I said.

not really. there is a constitutional amendment banning the death penalty (8th) and it is still not out of the federal courts realm

Wrong once again.  The 8th detemines if a pubishment for a crime is "cruel and unsual" and if fines or bails are "excessive."

The court has determined that, in some cases, death meets that requirement and in at least one case (with Justice Thomas in the majority) that a fine was excessive in a criminal case.  Here we are talking criminal cases, only about the role of a state legislature and indirectly the role of the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1.).

[J. J.]

alright so i am side-tracking the debate. I could argue about the legality of the death penalty but that it is for a different thread

If you want to argue w/ me about it go to the thread in the political debate forum. sorry for getting off topic.

The point is that it bothers you that PA is pressured into allowing gay marriage in the same way it bothers me that MA is forced to not allow gay marriage. Although i strongly support gay marriage I feel that each individual state should decide and that no state should be forced into either allowing or disallowing gay marriage. do you concur?

I would object to a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit state legislatures from permitting it.  As to my own state, I'll reserve judgment, though I would still have those other objections.  

If NJ (next door)wanted to do that, I wouldn't object, provided it wasn't forced on PA.  I feel the same way about common law marriages, in reverse.  If we want to do it, which they did for a number of years, fine, but we shouldn't force that on NJ.

[J. J.]

alright so i am side-tracking the debate. I could argue about the legality of the death penalty but that it is for a different thread

If you want to argue w/ me about it go to the thread in the political debate forum. sorry for getting off topic.

The point is that it bothers you that PA is pressured into allowing gay marriage in the same way it bothers me that MA is forced to not allow gay marriage. Although i strongly support gay marriage I feel that each individual state should decide and that no state should be forced into either allowing or disallowing gay marriage. do you concur?

I would object to a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit state legislatures from permitting it.  As to my own state, I'll reserve judgment, though I would still have those other objections. 

If NJ (next door)wanted to do that, I wouldn't object, provided it wasn't forced on PA.  I feel the same way about common law marriages, in reverse.  If we want to do it, which they did for a number of years, fine, but we shouldn't force that on NJ.

Alright I agree with you on that. I am confused though. Which constitutional amendment are you talking about when you say you support a Constitutional Amendment that would take this out the Federal Court's realm.

Basically, I would support an amedment to the US Constitution something like this.  "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to authorize marriages between people of the same sex."  I'm looking at the this as limitation on the Federal judiciary, not as a prohibition on same sex marriages. 

That does not prohibit a state constitutions from authorizing it nor would it prohibit statute from authorizing it.  It's more of a states rights position, though there are arguably good reasons why it might not be a good for a legislative enaction.