Still Not Getting It
April 30th, 2003 - 11:22 am
Stanley Kurtz on gay marriage:
Gay marriage would set in motion a series of threats to the ethos of monogamy from which the institution of marriage may never recover. Yet up to now, our society has been unable to face the real costs and consequences of the proposed change. That is partly because of an understandable sympathy for the gay-rights movement. But it also reflects the sheer inability of modern folk to grasp the operation, necessity
Not to mention random and unfair enforcement of laws. Kurtz can harp about how laws are just moral standards, but you still see homosexual men prosecuted under them, even though the same acts between consenting married monogamous heterosexuals virtually never get prosecuted. Also note that adultery basically holds no current legal penalties even among non-consenting partners (though in the divorce precedings it factors pretty heavily).
It boils down to sexual freedom among consenting adults. Either you respect it or not.
While I support gay marriage, largely for the reasons Seth lays out, I don’t have a major problem with Kurtz’ argument. It’s one thing for society to say that homosexuals have a right to, well, be homosexual. It’s another for it to place its imprimatur on the relationship and say, “We endorse this and put it on par with heterosexual marriage.”
Marriage, especially with the current easy divorce laws, is really nothing more than a social stamp on a union. It also conveys certain advantages in terms of taxation (although not always), property rights, and the like. But we grant those priviledges because we as a society have decided that we want to promote the institution. The main rational basis for which is the protection of children. Given that the vast majority–although a shrinking one–of society believes homosexual relations are repugnant, I don’t think they have to give it a ringing endorsement.
So, why do I support it? While I’m not enthusiastic about the idea, I think the argument for homosexual marriage is ultimately the same as for heterosexual marriage: monogamy is better than promiscuity. Not that monogamy isn’t possible without marriage or guaranteed by it. But it does seem more likely. While homosexuals, presumably, aren’t going to have a spate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies from their promiscuity, they are spreading disease. (Also true of promiscuous heterosexuals, although not at the same rate–and heterosexuals can get married under current law.)
(Cross-posted on OTB)
OK, I’ll play devil’s advocate. Should we allow brothers and sisters to marry? After all, if it really just boils down to sexual freedom among consenting adults…
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Marriage Anyone?
Actually, my take on this is that marriage is not something the state has control over. It WANTS to have control over it, but from a religious perspective, people were getting ‘married’ before there was a ‘state’ to try to control it.
Marriage, from a religious perspective, is between men and women and God, whatever their god may be. The state wishes to usurp this….all in the name of ‘good intentions’. But for all they want it, it shall never be. Pass all the laws they wish, God does not care about them. He only cares for the people involved.
And where does this impact on homosexuals getting married?
As much as they would like to, they cannot. In the eyes of the state, perhaps. But not where it really counts.
For the state to say that God’s will does not matter is to alienate those who believe, thus distancing a good number of the most trustworthy and stable people inside the population in order to accomodate a vocal minority. All for ‘good intentions’.
My suggestion….
…forget the marriage. Go for the civil union, giving it the same privileges with respect to insurance, health care, etc. Let the state play at ‘God’, if it wishes. I counsel against it. It’s the state violating the separation between it and religion.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The road to hell is paved with ---- ----------.]
Yeah, and the Bible has been around a lot longer than the Constitution as a guideline for human behavior.
Does that mean we have to drop the Bill of Rights for the Deuteronomy? After all, the 1st Amendment is in direct conflict with many Biblibcal precepts — a clear case of the separation between church and state being violated by the state.
Steve,
For me to be logically consistent, yes we would then have to allow marriage between consenting siblings. To head off polygamy questions now, I would agree that those fall under my idea of sexual freedom as well.
Sex between siblings gives me the willies, but then, so does anal sex, it’s not my thing. Oral sex with whip cream and chocolate on the other hand …
Seriously though, if they are willing to accept the reproductive consequences and risk being socially outcast, I see no reason to pile on legal persecution.
In regards to Chuck, I agree the state can stay plenty good and away from the religious stuff. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the state currently defines marriage as a religious union but as a legal union, since a justice of the peace can marry you in a bathroom stall if that is the way you want it. Broadening the term marriage from “legal union of a man and a woman” to “legal union of consenting adults” doesn’t directly have any religious connotations aside. What gets sticky is the religious idea that marriage is a religious bond, which the state already does not recognize or care about.
It seems it is more an argument about terms, since the religious sanctity of marriage was already violated by atheist marriages in greater numbers than homosexual marriages will.
I could be missing something though.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Strawmen Anyone?
“Does that mean we have to drop the Bill of Rights for the Deuteronomy?” — Stephen Green
And what does this have to do with the discussion? Or are we just being a teensy bit antagonistic due to some particular ‘religious’ belief?
RE: Biblical Precepts vs. the First Amendment
“After all, the 1st Amendment is in direct conflict with many Biblibcal precepts…” — Stephen Green
Could you please cite some specific examples?
Remember…God and the ‘State’ are not one in the same.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. “Biblibcal”? How many drinks?
P.P.S. Our offer for a property in Pueblo has been accepted. If the inspections and other hurdles go well, we’ll be living in a grand old lady (built 1901) by the end of Summer. I’ll have time to start my own blog. Three guesses as to what it’s ‘focus’ will be.
Look at it this way – If the State outlawed marriage tomorrow, I’d still be married. This is because marriage is a sacrament of my religion, not a civil right of my State. The State chooses to recognize and grant legal favor to marriage for a variety of sound public policy reasons. Fine. Wonderful. Terrific. But it is only a recognition of a bond, not the creation of one.
Look, I’m an old fashioned Tory conservative. However, despite the fact that I find homosexual activity extremely distateful, I have no interest in the State policing other people’s bedrooms. Nor do I really have any problem with the creation of some kind of civil union – a broad legal category that could include marriage AND same-sex couples for purposes of legal protection. But I am deeply, deeply opposed to the idea that the Massachusetts Supreme Court or any other government body can roll in and redefine the religious bond itself. (BTW, I think you mean Leviticus, not Deuteronomy). Cheers!
Hmm, Bible is kind of torn on the subject of prayer in public:
Mt.6:5-6
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.”
In other words, you shouldn’t pray in public, but I guess it doesn’t directly say NO praying.
But then:
1 Tim.2:8
“I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands.”
I’m calling this in favor of Chuck since the passage from Matthew isn’t clear about public prayer legality, it is more of a divine reccomendation.
I know public praying isn’t exactly the same as free speech, but I doubt there will be many definite passages about it in the Bible since one of the main Christian complaints during Roman times was a fun day at the Colliseum for publicly admitting your religion.
Seth:
Well, I definitely give you full credit for being logically consistent. But I suspect a vast majority of our country would not agree with you. In other words, most people accept that the state, serving in essence as the legal representation of the society, does in fact have the right to regulate the “sexual freedom” of its participants, as evidenced by the fact that they would not condone making incestuous or polygamous marriages legal. People may disagree on where the line between legal and illegal behavior should fall (e.g., some feel homosexual marriage is OK, others don’t), but most people still seem to accept the view that the line can and should in fact be drawn somewhere. In which case, I think it’s wrong to treat the issue of gay marriage as a “no-brainer” because it’s somehow a black and white issue of “sexual freedom.” There is no entitlement to unfettered sexual freeedom. Society has always restricted some sexual activity, even between consenting heterosexual adults.
So what about gay marriage? I have gay friends and relatives, and I sympathize with their desire to have some sort of social sanction on their unions. But at the same time, I am wary of cavalierly dispensing with a social institution (i.e., marriage is, by definition, a heterosexual pairing) that has stood human society in pretty good stead for a few thousand years. We dispensed with the stigma on unmarried motherhood in a fairly short period of time, and to me, the results — in terms of the impact on society of a huge cohort of children raised without fathers — have been pretty negative.
Heterosexual marriage evolved to protect the well-being of women and minor children from the faithlessness of men. I dispute that the State should ever have become involved with it, except as one more contract to be enforced in a fair and impartial manner. Still, the whole thrust of the thing was to offer a form of protection to persons who were, for most of recorded history, adjudged to be vulnerable — essentially helpless — before the decisions of a stronger and more independent partner.
What is the point of gay marriage?
For a hint, check out http://palaceofreason.com/CurrentEvents/a_taxing_question.html
Yeah, Chuck — my evidence is the Old Testament in damn near its entirety. The OT calls for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth — but I prefer the 4th and 5th Amendments, myself. “‘Justice [or "vengeance," I've seen both] is mine,’ sayeth the Lord.” Sorry, Charlie, but You’ll have to take that one up with the DA’s office.
Sure, there’s this New Testament calling for rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but why, by your own logic, does that count? Just as marriage predates the state (your argument for leaving the state out of it), the OT predates the NT. And let’s not forget there are religions predating Christianity, practiced right here in this country, that don’t consider marriage to be a contract with any god.
If you don’t want marriage to have any legal standing, that’s a fine, consistent position. But I’d argue that’s a much more radical change than simply expanding the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
Furthermore, if religion “owns” marriage as you seem to desire, what’s wrong with me declaring myself the new Prophet of the Church of Steve, and performing wedding ceremonies for leather boys and their playthings, in groups of two or nine or seventeen? Under your version of the (non?) law, that would carry all weight (none) of a ceremony performed at a Catholic High Mass.
In many, many spheres of human life, the law has come to take the place of many matters that used to be the province of religion — and where that process is firmly ensconced, man generally lives longer, freerer, richer, and better. And with more religious freedom, to boot.
“Marriage” is a legal concept, like it or not, and one that can and should include gays.
Francis,
If marriage is a private, contractural matter, then what’s the point in proscribing it?
“For me to be logically consistent, yes we would then have to allow marriage between consenting siblings. To head off polygamy questions now, I would agree that those fall under my idea of sexual freedom as well.”
So Kurtz is right?
Actually, I do think he is in this way: before we revise the definition of marriage, we need to know what the revised definition is.
Mr. Green lists four characteristics of marriage, “stability, love, monogamy, and family,” but those don’t provide a good working definition.
Stability: We all know plenty of people in marriages which are not stable and plenty of people who go into marriage without the belief that it will last. We consider them married anyway (until the divorce).
Love: In human history, love (whether the romantic variety or a more compassion variety) is a very recent component of marriage, and not universally subscribed to (and not one which I would want to impose on people who may prefer arranged marriages or wish to stay married after the love has gone).
Monogamy: as said before, you can be monogamous without marriage or have multiple sexual partners while married. And already polygamy proponents are asking for “equal treatment.” Frankly, I can’t come up with any reasons why not other than (1) the same reasons used against gay marriage, like tradition and the Bible or (2) reasons of economic benefit that could be adjusted.
Family: most Americans are pretty well convinced that family can include people (and even pets) to whom one does not have a blood or marriage relationship. This leaves out inheritance rights, but a will can take care of that (even Fido).
By the way, I don’t think marriage laws and sexual freedom are quite the same topic. I definitely agree that sodomy and adultery laws (as to activity between consenting adults) should go the way of Jim Crow. You don’t have to legalize gay marriage (or any other relationship people may want to call marriage) to get there.
Steve,
Hmm, I’ll concede if you are defining marriage as strictly a heterosexual coupling. My feeling though is that you define marriage as a sacred institution that cannot be stripped of certain values. Well, to lay it out what marriage used to be less than 100 years ago and for most of civilized human existence:
1. Religious bond under a god
2. The only acceptable arrangement in which to engage in sexual activity of any type.
3. Exclusively heterosexual.
4. Monogamous.
5. Legal basis for disbursement of possesions when one of the parties became deceased.
There may be a few more.
My point is that from a societal standpoint of how they value marriage, numbers 1 and 2 have already been pretty much done away with very recently. Giving up 3 and 4 may further detract from the concept of “marriage”, but it has already eroded significantly from what people less than 100 years ago would call “marriage”, so bringing up the “it’s been this way for thousands of years” argument is hard to agree with. To be consistent, I’d have to say that all athiests are not “married”, but engaged in a “civil union”. I could be wrong, but I think most of our country views marriage as a legal heterosexual union and doesn’t think about past sexual activity or religion. To me, it is hard to logically keep the heterosexual part when the term “marriage” has been malleable before.
Seth,
I hate to take your thoughtful post so personally, but — you’ve just told me I might not be married to my wife.
I am an atheist. My wife’s beliefs are fairly typical for a post-modern American: religion is nice and there’s probably some higher power. You know, generic Third Millenium “spiritualism.” And we were married by a judge.
So are we or are we not married?
We got married because we love each other, want to spend our lives together, to share comfort and joy and tragedy and sickness and sex, we want to make our own family (something a couple can do without procreating, I have to add), and to pass along our worldly goods to whichever person survives the other.
And let’s be honest: Even if marriage is made in Heaven, most marriages are made somewhere much closer to Earth. People get married for money, because they “have” to, to spite their parents, to spite each other — and they do so often in churches, with the full blessing of a God who must hate them to allow them to be so callous towards themselves and each other.
I repeat the question: Am I married to my bride or not?
If Melissa and I can be married for fine reasons, but without a Christian faith or a Christian ceremony, why can’t two men or two women with the same desires we have?
Stephen,
Heh. I completely agree with the idea that it is ludricous to not call you married, but that is my (and I think most American’s) standard of what marriage is. My point to the “marriage is sacred” crowd was that the term marriage has been most definitely changed already for most people, and that tossing heterosexual from it is not the first time the term “marriage” has been expanded.
In my ideal world, you don’t even need the love and respect stuff (I’m not trivializing it, just allowing for people who, for example, give up and just want a partner to help pay the bills), just make it a legal binding to sort out the eventual seperation of posessions/work benefits due to divorce/death.
No hating on atheists intended.
What’s love got to do with it?
Stephen, my husband and I got married the month before you and Melissa for all the same reasons (plus the Christianity stuff), so I’m all for love, but a lot of times in these debates, people argue that love should be the only requirement for 2 (or more) adults who want to marry. (I remember a Den Beste piece to that effect, for example.)
I think it’s interesting that people who give little weight to tradition are hung up on love, which is a societal convention, and a relatively recent one.
Why love?
TO: Stephen Green
RE: OT [Not meaning "Off Topic", albeit we are...here]
“…my evidence is the Old Testament in damn near its entirety. The OT calls for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth –” Stephen Green
Please don’t get like Rachal on me.
I pointed out her failure to understand the difference between OT and NT and asked her “Why”?
Consequently she ‘killed’ me for my temerity.
Besides….
…what does ‘an eye for an eye’ have to do with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? Freedom of Speech?
RE: Atheist
“I am an atheist.” — Stephen Green
As if I couldn’t guess? Besides. I think you stated as much earlier.
I’m not. I’ve heard Him enough. Even to saving my life on at least two occassions. [Note: (1) Screaming out of a night sky with a malfunctioning parachute on a night jump; "Prepare to land". (2) In a tangle on I25 with an 18-wheeler at O-dark hundred hours one winter night; "Don't do that", step on the brake after losing control.]
Have you heard the phrase ‘Seeing is believing’? It applies equally as well with other senses.
RE: Difficulties
Is your atheism becoming more like anti-Christian?
More later….
…time for dinner.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Denise –
“Why love?” you asked.
Because we live in a country rich enough that it can be for love. Because we’re free enough that it can be for love. Because we’re equal enough that it can be for love.
Frankly, I enjoyed the hell out of my single days. I was good at being single, enjoyed being single, and was having a blast being single.
But I wanted more. I found it. It’s called love.
And I think you would have gotten the idea from my original post and (all too many) comments here, that I really don’t give a damn about why marriage started or how it’s been traditionally observed (if mostly observed in the breach).
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Marriage vastly predates the Bible and Christianity. Marriage is an institution that is found in every society in recorded history. It really has nothing to do about religion, protecting females, etc.
And, yes, it is thousands of years old, and with minor variations, has been pretty much the same every place for all time. Do we really think that we are so smart that we know better than thousands of generations of our ancestors? (Yes, I know, some do think that. But then, many thought that Communism was a good idea, too.)
It’s the more-or-less lifetime pairing of a man and a woman. And it’s rooted in a fundamental facts of human propogation. The fact of the matter is that the whole reason for marriage is because baby humans require 10-15 years of nurturing before they become a self-sufficient adult. Marriage is the institution in human societies that has evolved to satisfy this aspect of human nature.
Marriage is not really about sex. The sex is a bonus, but not the basic reason for marriage.
Wouldn’t gays marriying be followed (eventually) by gays divorceing? Would adultery be grounds? How would that work?
Chuck,
A further example, just because I think you’re being willfully (and amusingly) ignorant.
“Thou shalt have no god before me.” Well, since death is the punishment for breaking this little commandment, I’d don’t see how it can be construed as being compatible with religious freedom. Congress can’t pass any laws establishing a religion, but it’s OK for the local parish priest to have me stoned to death for my views?
And I DO understand the different between the OT and NT. However, I’m not the one arguing that when it comes to beliefs, older is better. That was the crux of your original comment here.
Am I becoming anti-Christian? I don’t think so. With the exception of fundamentalists nuts (no matter what faith), I find myself at peace (and not even an armed peace) with religion, and often envious of those with faith. There’s a lot to admire in Christianity, especially its groundbreaking philosophical revolution in concern for the individual, rather than for the tribe.
Without that advance, this nation would not be possible. (Not that I think it makes this a “Christian nation.”)
A similar philosophical revolution occured on this continent in 1776. We first took issue with King George II over his denial of our “rights as Englishmen.” But by the time of the Delcaration of Independence, the Founders made the great leap of claiming that individual rights belonged to all men, not just Englishmen.
They didn’t complete that revolution, and we still need to finish up on the follow through.
The point of all this is that human philosophies (whether primarily religious or not) have the ability to change, advance, and improve. In many ways, Christianity was as advance in human organization over the primarily tribal religions which proceeded it. Our Constitution is another such advance.
So the sphere of God has shrunk a bit. The sphere of laws has increased — giving people more opporunitues to praise their gods as they see fit.
I think that’s a pretty good thing.
Oops, that should have read “King George III.” Typo. No biggie. But then I read this:
“Wouldn’t gays marriying be followed eventually) by gays divorceing? Would adultery be grounds? How would that work?”
No offense, but that has got to be the silliest question I’ve ever read.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: God Talk
“A further example, just because I think you’re being willfully (and amusingly) ignorant.” — Stephen Green
We’ll need to wait until I can set up my own blog to address all of this in greater detail. That, God willing, by the coming of Fall.
In the mean time, I’ll leave you with this to consider…
RE: Ignorance
Who is more ‘ignorant’?
One who sees and hears or one who does not?
Vaya con Dios, compadre….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ve captured the discussion to date. Hopefully, I can come up with an essay equal to the task at hand.
Stephen, I understand love was your reason for marrying (mine too), but it is the only basis a lot of people (maybe not you; that’s why I’m asking) accept for marriage generally, and that is just imposing a different belief system on the institution.
The question is shouldn’t two people (or more if we decide that marriage isn’t necessarily a pairing) who do not love each other have the right to marry for other reasons?
Denise, I think you’ve forgotten that I’m the one here trying to expand marriage rights, not restrict them.
Homosexuality is exhibitionism; The notion that as a group homosexual are entitled to the same protection or consideration other minorities are is ugly and it is wrong. Homosexuals are the only socialogical group which, if if stops engaging in same gender sex, would no longer be homosexual.
It is not just a slippery slope, it is an entirely offensive and wrong line of socialogical thinking.
TO: The Other Steve [the one well-met at RMBBII]
RE: Blogging R Us
You mentioned something about setting up a blog.
Are you still willing to help me get this going? I’m getting the ‘impression’ I need to act sooner rather than later.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Lord, make every path of duty straight and plain before my face.]
TO: Seth
RE: What It ‘Boils Down To’
“It boils down to sexual freedom among consenting adults. Either you respect it or not.” — Seth
Everyone has sexual freedom. Whether we recognize it or not.
What this particular issue boils down to is not ‘sexual’ freedom but rather money.
Homosexuals, as heterosexuals, can have sex anytime they wish. The Texas sodom law does not prohibit sexual activity. It merely punishes what little it can catch.
Sex is not the issue here. It never has been. It’s all about money. And, in the age of HIV/AIDS, medical insurance coverage.
The Texas sodomy laws long predate HIV/AIDS. They never became an issue until HIV/AIDS made the desire to prolong life, via life-extending drug-cocktails, ‘expensive’. Now, every place that can be pushed to support the idea that ‘marriage’ is the key, be it Texas or Massachusetts, is beset with litigation.
For the homosexuals….
…it’s all about ‘money’. It was never about ‘sex’ nor about ‘love’. Those are merely political ploys used to throw dust in the eyes of the unaware.
Or…did you…miss out on the 60s and their aftermath?
Regards.
Chuck(le)
“Homosexuals, as heterosexuals, can have sex anytime they wish. The Texas sodom law does not prohibit sexual activity. It merely punishes what little it can catch.”
doesn’t the same go for murder, or am i missing some clause in the law?
Chuck, two points:
…forget the marriage. Go for the civil union, giving it the same privileges with respect to insurance, health care, etc.
Um, no.
It never ceases to amaze me how heterosexual homophobes seem to assume that non-heterosexuals are trying to subvert society.
Face the facts: We* are part of society. We’re raised in society along with you, we absorb the same goals as you, and we naturally want to be able to achieve these goals. We want to be traditional in every sense of the word, with understandable differences. Has it occurred to you that the majority of non-heterosexuals aren’t conservative because they haven’t been allowed to?
* (I’m currently identifying as bisexual, incidentally; no experience yet, so I can’t be sure.)
I’ll go for civil unions only if marriage is destroyed for everyone, and civil unions are all that are left. That’s not the scenario that I want; I’d like to get married, very much. You’re not helping marriage; rather, you’re helping to destroy it.
Let the state play at ‘God’, if it wishes. I counsel against it. It’s the state violating the separation between it and religion.
No one’s saying that the Catholic Church has to marry same-sex couples, any more than it has to marry interracial couples, or interreligious couples. If the institution doesn’t want to change things, well, tough for its members; it seems like a good way to lose membership and become progressively more marginalized, but that’s up to it.
Marriage, however, in most societies nowadays, is a rite administered by the state. The minister (or whoever) can make a legally binding marriage recognized by the state only with the state’s consent. And it’s quite possible to have a secular marriage; justices of the peace, all that.
…it’s all about ‘money’. It was never about ‘sex’ nor about ‘love’. Those are merely political ploys used to throw dust in the eyes of the unaware.
Ah, yes, there is that; the Homintern’s subsidies have come in quite in handy in paying for my grad school.
Where do you get these ideas? Seriously; they bear no resemblance to what little experience I have.
Badanov:
Homosexuals are the only socialogical group which, if if stops engaging in same gender sex, would no longer be homosexual.
Um, no. Desires, fantasies, you know? Basically-though I’ve no personal experience–how heterosexuals know they’re heterosexual.
Nice how Ray’s comments got glossed over completely in this spit fest. (To which I’d point out that the purpose was primarily exogamous, with the exception of Judeo-Christian marriage).
Seth, monogamy is a very recent variation on marriage. In fact, OT marriage laws included levirate marriage in which a man married his brother’s widow.)
Stephen, to go back to your original point that gay marriages should be sanctioned by the state because you believe they are grounded in concepts of human liberty…
What a sham argument. “Human liberty,” in this context, amounts to saying that because it makes some people happier with their lives, we should alter the law to include it.
Reductio ad absurdum: Eliminating idiots from the gene pool makes me happier in life. May I?
Less absurd: Marriage is a social contract in which the parties eligible to enter into the contract are limited to certain classes defined by the law. (Currently: heterosexual adults or minors with adult permission.)
You’re arguing that the definition of who is eligible should have a wider scope.
Fine. Stick with your argument. But please, can’t you base it on something other than “it would make them happy.” To do less is intellectual laziness, which I’ve never thought you prone to.
Chuck,
Statute: 21.06, Homosexual Conduct
Penalty: $500
Classification: Misdemeanor
Restrictions: Same-sex only, Case law in conflict
Statute
Sec. 21.01. Definitions.
In this chapter:
(1) “Deviate sexual intercourse” means:
(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.
(2) “Sexual contact” means any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(3) “Sexual intercourse” means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 373, ch. 168, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 203, ch. 96, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 21.06. Homosexual Conduct.
(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Explain to me how “everyone” has equal sexual freedom in Texas when:
1) This particular law targets homosexuals exclusively AND
2) there is no parallel law and subsequent penalty for heterosexuals performing the same acts on the opposite gender.
But more to the point: I agree that gay marriage is more about money than sexual orientation. I don’t think most homosexuals need marriage to affirm that they care about each other or to complete their unity under a god. I think that they are generally looking for a way to pass along worldly posessions in death and receive occupational benefits for their significant other. There are probably still some social legitimacy issues at work (you have to accept us as a couple, we’re married!) but most reasonable non-homophobes already accept that legitmacy, Like it or not and for whatever reasons, homophobes are a dying breed.
As for the HIV/AIDS argument, I think we either allow it to be paid for or not. If you are bringing up the higher risk factor among homosexuals as a deterrent for marriage(and thus denying medical coverage to significant others), I’d like to point out that risk factor guidelines are already in place for things like smoking, obesity and other unhealthy choices for cardiovascular diseases that kill far more than AIDS does and costs society much more as a whole.
TO: jb
RE: Getting Away…
“doesn’t the same go for murder, or am i missing some clause in the law?”
Nope. Not missing a thing. People get away with ‘murder’ just as easily as they get away with sodomy. It’s just a matter of who gets ‘caught’.
However, allow me to caveat that point with one ‘small’ extra….
….you can’t get away with anything, in the final ‘court’.
It’s just a matter of whether or not you understand that last ‘clause’ that ultimate drives your behavior.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Randy McDonald
RE: ‘Homophobes’?
“It never ceases to amaze me how heterosexual homophobes seem to assume that non-heterosexuals are trying to subvert society.” — Randy McDonald
I fear nothing from homosexuals. Or tell me how I do, if you were addressing my comments. [Note: If I jump out of planes in flight. Scale shear cliffs with my bare hands. Take on someone a foot taller than I in a barroom 'brawl'. Why should I fear a homosexual? AIDS? My Father died of it. I'm a microbiologist by undergrad degree. I know what it is and it's limitations.]
No…
…I’m no ‘homophobe’. I’m a Jehovaphobe.
When you get a grip on reality, address me again. Until then, I’ll not address you further.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.]
TO: Seth
RE: The Difference Between Statute & Reality
“Explain to me how “everyone” has equal sexual freedom in Texas when:
1) This particular law targets homosexuals exclusively AND
2) there is no parallel law and subsequent penalty for heterosexuals performing the same acts on the opposite gender.” — Seth
You don’t understand?
Maybe the comment by jb and my reply will help.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Seth
RE: Wish I Had That Data
“But more to the point: I agree that gay marriage is more about money than sexual orientation. I don’t think most homosexuals need marriage to affirm that they care about each other or to complete their unity under a god.” — Seth
Maybe you’ve got it. That data about numbers of sexual partners in a given period of time between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I asked that outfit in Seattle, Batteile or something like that, after they published the results of their 5-year, government-funded research published in the early 90s.
They wouldn’t release it. They released all the data about heteros. But damned little about homos. Very odd that. I suspect there is something to ‘hide’. You know. Something about a level of promiscuity that makes most people ‘blush’. [Note: How do you think HIV got spread so far so fast?]
We’ll need to see the exact data to be sure, but until they release it, in it’s unaltered form, we’re left with conjecture.
In the meantime, you do understand the influence of the ‘money’ angle.
RE: Where There’s a Will
” I think that they are generally looking for a way to pass along worldly posessions in death…” — Seth
Anyone can write and sign a valid will to pass along property.
RE: Speaking of Dying
“Like it or not and for whatever reasons, homophobes are a dying breed.” — Seth
Not as quickly as the HIV positives.
[Note: Remember. You're the one who brought up dying.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Since we’ve decided, Seth and Randy to stoop to the vernacular….
…can I start casting about the term “faggot lover”?
Or would that violate someone’s politically correct sensibilities?
Personally, I’d rather get away from the ad hom and stick to the facts of the matter.
What do you say, Stephen?
I fear nothing from homosexuals. Or tell me how I do, if you were addressing my comments.
You do know, right, what the word “homophobia” and its derivatives mean?
[...] Why should I fear a homosexual? AIDS? My Father died of it.
I’m sorry to hear that. Might I ask how he contracted it?
…I’m no ‘homophobe’. I’m a Jehovaphobe.
It’s unfortunate how the latter tend to become the former.
can I start casting about the term “faggot lover”?
Hey, your reputation to lose, not mine.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Oh…Officer
Are these ad homs going to persist? Or are we going to stick to the issues on this blog?
I can take the gloves off at any time. I’m just curious as to how far you’re willing to let things go before we start getting “interesting”.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. You can still qualify as a Rachel Lucas act alike.
P.P.S. If the P.S. comes true, you also qualify as a Philip Morris act alike, vis-a-vis Dotster.com vs. Boycot Hollywood.
P.P.P.S. The ‘ball’ is in YOUR court.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Differentiation
What’s the difference between calling someone a ‘faggot lover’ and a ‘homophobe’?
Is there any difference, from the brawl perspective? From the politically correct perspective?
If so, what?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. These are issues that will be addressed on my blog….God willing it comes to pass.
And Randy, you’ll be welcome there….go fig….
TO: All
RE: Is This Over?
Interesting….
…I have the ‘last word’ here?
Must be something to do with short attention span.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Calls to the sysop were not expecting results. Rather they were addresses to the ‘void’.
chuck:
not quite the last word. but close. and work on the blog. so far, so good. you’re certainly writing enough to justify your own forum. and, to beat all odds, it’s actually thoughtfull and intelligent.
more power to you.
TO: jb
RE: Blogging
“not quite the last word. but close. and work on the blog. so far, so good. you’re certainly writing enough to justify your own forum. and, to beat all odds, it’s actually thoughtfull and intelligent.” — jb
Yeah…
SG is rebuking me about bandwidth issues. AL and OW did the same, before they ‘killed’ me.
Thanks for the compliments.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
While you all make very nice, well thought out arguments, you are all missing one, primary, very simple point.
The argument of the administration is that allowing the gay and lesbian community the right to marry will “destroy the institution of marriage.”
However, not one of them has actually come out and told us how. How can a union between loving, consenting adults destroy “the institution”?
You may wonder why I leave this at this point.
Simply, because, that is where the argument ends. This is straight, right-wing homophobia. There are no social or political reasons to ban gay marriage, and an attempt to add an amendment to the US Constitution is simply draconian.