Next: shrimp-eaters!

www.godhatesshrimp.com

Politically I think this is likely to help the Republicans. I think only a minority of voters want to extend health benefits to same-sex partners in public employment.

I think many voters would also be happy to cut benefits to hetero couples in public employment. Voters pay taxes. Many voters believe that government benefits are too generous. Anything that reduces government costs will appeal to a lot of voters.

I'm sorry to say that I don't think this will affect more than 1 in 100 heterosexuals...and that includes the nice, well-meaning ones. They will note the development, think "golly, what a shame" and turn to the sports pages.

Does this end all domestic benefits, even for heterosexual couples?

Wasn't this the sort of overreach that killed the Arizona defense of marriage amendment this past fall?

Is this an example of conservative overreach that will come back to haunt Republicans?

Is there an example of conservative overreach that doesn't come back to haunt Republicans?

Gay people can't get married, so it would be illogical to extend marriage benefits to gays. It doesn't get much more simple than that.

Gay people can't get married, so it would be illogical to extend marriage benefits to gays.

Dumber than dog shit.

100 years ago this goof would be arguing along the same "logical" lines for denying voting rights for black people and woman.

What a jerk-off.
What a waste of a seed.

Anyone with an ounce of education knows that the human condition of freedom is EVOLVING to include EVERYONE.

But not this turd sucker.

Go back to the first grade...
And do not collect $200.

It may come back to haunt Republicans, but likely not for decades. I favor gay marriage and would vote against anything like the measure that passed in Michigan, but I think the "haunting" we're seeing is from gay activists' aggressive efforts to get the courts to force recognition of gay marriage. Again, I sympathize with their goals, I just think that politically their tactics are backfiring.

I’m from Michigan and the campaign for our marriage amendment was like many around the country at that time. People knew it was both a definitional amendment and prevented civil unions.
Their was not much talk of existing benefits (plus people did not even know that same-sex couples were receiving marriage benefits with state money- That was all on the QT to begin with and recently enacted)

But the problem is soon evident when without a way to distinguish between what benefits are to be removed and which are not, he winds up complaining when any benefits are taken. And he winds up thinking that no benefits were meant to be removed, which is ludicrous.

just what benefits do you mean explicitely when you use such vague language such as "benefits".

This article makes the distinction based not on the benefits offered, but the program offering the benefits. The judicial decision makes a distinction not on the benefits offered, but the program instituted to give the benefits through. A phrase like "benefits" can mean both, so I'm asking what you mean. Do you mean the benefits themselves or the program used to present the benefits?

I watched the campaign in Michigan quite intensley.No whole sale calims were made about benifits on the pro-marriage side. If asked the question one would useually aver to "private companies" rather than "state benifits under rubrics similar to marriage"

People in Michigan knew what they were voting for. There was no whole sale or grand scheme to decieve the public.. (who would not have been against this anyway, regardless, just like Wisconsin!)

People want to protect marriage from imitations..they want to keep it between a man & a women...
They dont see any reason same-sex couples should get health benifits with their tax money when their Brother or Mother cannot.

God-- It does include everyone. But gays aren't entitled to special rights. I'm straight, and I can't get married to another person of the same sex either.

Your theory of inclusion would logically implicate that we can't deny somebody who wants to marry a willing 12 year old boy. After all, society is evolving to include 'everybody'. I think that's wrong, and we should uphold certain standards.

No, this doesn't help gays. It's a step back. Formerly, the issue was whether gays could marry, with the assumption that spousal benefits for same-sex couples was okay. Now, the issue is whether the latter is okay, with gay marriage off the table.

So now gays have to fight to keep benefits that were theirs up to now.

I don't think this is the way you want to win greater rights for gays.

This is the sort of thing that will work its way out over time. Interested parties need only keep up the pressure. Right now, the Republican Party sees some advantage to gay bashing just as it does in encouraging racists in the South and rural Midwest, among other places. Taken as a whole, the Republican Party and Republicans themselves can be considered very nasty indeed and that sense eventually will catch up with them.

Meanwhile, add this to your increasingly long list of corrupt Rebublican officeholders who fool weak-minded folks into voting for them by such sundry tactics as gay bashing and racism and then personally profit from it:

"NEW YORK (AP) -- The FBI is investigating whether Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons failed to properly report gifts or payments from a software company that was awarded secret military contracts when he was in Congress, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday."

Jim, as you might expect, is a Republican. Whether or not he's a gay basher or incipient racist, I don't know, but since the Republican Party is I say if the shoe fits, wear it. Chances are good that it will fit very nicely.

They dont see any reason same-sex couples should get health benifits with their tax money

Benefits, not marriage, behind Prop. 107 defeat
ASU pollster: Election didn't signal change in Arizonans' values
by Matt Stone
published on Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Arizona's not going blue, even though it was the first state to shoot down a proposed constitutional amendment that would have strengthened the ban on same-sex marriage.

Proposition 107 was on the ballot Nov. 7 and would have required the state and political subdivisions to recognize marriage only between one man and one woman. This proposition would have strengthened the same-sex ban already in the Arizona Constitution.

Another clause in the proposition would have denied benefits to domestic partners.

The proposition failed, 52 percent to 48 percent, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office.

A Cronkite-Eight poll released Nov. 21 showed that the wording doomed the proposition, said Bruce Merrill, director of media research in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

"[Proposition 107 failing] has nothing to do with any change in conservative values in Arizona," Merrill said. "The reason it failed in Arizona was the way the proposition was written."

...

The poll asked voters why they voted against the proposition with three possible responses.

Sixty percent of those surveyed said the proposition was unfair, violated individual rights and was too invasive by the government.

Another 30 percent said the provision denying benefits to domestic partners was wrong.

Receiving the least amount of votes, 8 percent, was the answer that those surveyed supported same-sex marriage.

Last year's failed gay marriage/partner benefits ballot measure was opposed by labor unions, gay rights groups, the Arizona Democratic Party, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and Gov. Janet Napolitano.

The Scottsdale Area and Tucson Metropolitan chambers of commerce also opposed 107, citing the domestic benefits provisions.

Yes Jerry, but thats Arizona Not Michigan?

Shame on you, "ex-liberal." Just, shame on you.

“GAY BASHING IN MICHIGAN....Back in 2004, when Michigan approved a referendum to ban gay marriage, supporters insisted that marriage itself was the only thing they were concerned about. Benefits for gay partners wouldn't be affected�

#1. What “gay bashing� is it Kevin’s position (seems to be) that marriage amendments are “gay bashing�??? What hyperbole.

#2. No marriage supporters never insisted that “benefits� would never be taken away. Private companies can offer benefits all they want. The amendments purpose was clear and the appeal on this ground to void the amendment failed.

The main programs that this is aimed at are the benefits received by partners at the state Universities and similar institutions. The U's have historically been very good about providing support for the families of their employees and this has made Michigan attractive to academics and researchers.

This has had no small part in making Michigan's universities some of the best in the country despite the absence of so many other factors that usually attract top researchers. We don't have the cosmopolitanism of east coast cities, we don't have beautiful weather and scenic vistas, we certainly don't have a strong economy outside the universities. But until recently, Michigan's universities have been able to provide a welcoming environment for the world's smartest scientists, artists, and researchers regardless of what kind of family they have.

The health sciences have already experienced a brain drain as researchers leave for California where it is possible to take part in stem-cell research. As I enter the job market, I watch gay and lesbian friends avoid certain universities because their families won't be accepted or supported. Now I'm afraid that UM and our sister institutions will fall into that category of undesirable jobs and it can only diminish our status in the long run. Too sad.

Fitz,
To these people, anything short of full recognition of homosexual marriage is "gay bashing".

Oh and that's a really powerful argument Gregory.

"But until recently, Michigan's universities have been able to provide a welcoming environment for the world's smartest scientists, artists, and researchers regardless of what kind of family they have."

Oh-god, what self aggrandizing preening pap for our academic class. This “welcoming environment� is supposed to compare to the redefinition of an foundational social institution?

Well, I don’t know about the green lawns of Ann Arbor. I do know about the inner city of Detroit, where 90% illegitimacy rates are common in many areas.

Get some humanity and a clue…

The yuppie couples of whatever configuration will survive.

ex-liberal,

This is an excellent point. I frequently find that state employees live in homes that I feel are too nice and see them eating at restaurants and educating their children at schools which I resent them for attending. If we cut back on the generous benefits they receive from their jobs, this would make me happier, because I loathe the idea that any government employee might in some way have a good, well-paying job.

In all seriousness, the public tends to be pretty horrified when a domestic partner of a working person is denied health or death benefits. A few tear-jerker news stories will end up costing a few Republican politicians their jobs, and that's not a bad thing.

I'm not sure I get the connection between domestic partner benefits and the number of illegitimate children in Detroit? Maybe I'm too busy preening over the power and money one acquires as a member of the 'academic class.'

I don't really think it's self-aggrandizing pap to talk about the non-monetary benefits available to a university researcher. For most of us, the hours suck, the pay is low, there is no tangible power benefit to working at a state U. We make the choice to do so because we enjoy our research, we enjoy sharing our work and educating, and we feel comfortable in university environments. If UM can't provide a supportive environment, why wouldn't the best researchers go to places where they do? Or places that have other benefits?

Allowing universities to continue offering health care benefits that they are already providing is NOT the same thing as 'redefining a foundational social institution.'

But then what would I know, apparently I lack humanity because I believe that a woman I work with should be able to share her health coverage with her partner of 25 years even though that partner is also a woman. That's the kind of evil that puts kids on the street in Detroit without parents.

Nothing brings out the protofascists faster than discussions on the gays and healthcare. I wonder why that is?

Just to follow up on what Tyro said ('cos he's right)...we're going to get ONE tear-jerker story hitting the national press, showing why gay marriage isn't just a simple moral issue, and causing a huge backlash against the right-wing on this issue, who've been beyond pettty on this issue.

It's not gay bashing to say every child deserves a mother and a father, nor is it gay bashing to say the state should not actively encourage social experimentation in which children will be guinea pigs. If a parent has a child and adopts an alternative lifestyle, the child deserves the presence of their biological parent, but the whole idea that we should actively encourage a society where gay marriage, polygamy, and all sorts of alternative lifestyles exist is nothing more than the propaganda of the radical, elitist Left. If gays want a private ceremony, the church should have the freedom to that as protected in the First Amendment, but when it comes to benefits offered by the state, it should only go to a man and a woman, as in the Bible and our heritage that is the basis of family. This is not to say that children who grow up in other families, such as a divorced family, which I grew up in, are doomed, but it is to say that having a father and mother is best. And while we should not use government to control gays' personal lives, we also should not use government to force the gay agenda on others, especially by taking from the public Treasury to give gays benefits, which is exactly what the unelected judicial tyrants in Michigan intend to do.

Can someone explain why private companies don't have to follow the law? Aren't Ford and GM illegally recognizing a 'similar union' when they provide same-sex benefits?

You mean that conservatives actually lied to get something past the American people?!

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Never has such an insidious thing happened since, well, since conservatives lied about the prescription drug bill . . . uh . . . social security reform . . . WMDs . . . uh . . . Al Queda-Iraq connections . . . Iraq being the central front of terrorism . . . Afganistan being under control . . . uh . . . etc, etc, etc.

Fitz (the fine legal mind out of East Lansing): #1. What “gay bashing� is it Kevin’s position (seems to be) that marriage amendments are “gay bashing�??? What hyperbole.

And Homer (Simpson?): To these people, anything short of full recognition of homosexual marriage is "gay bashing".

Well, guys, once I hear a legitimate reason to oppose same-sex marriage (or even same-sex spousal benefits) that doesn't essentially boil down to "Well, I just don't like fags," I may reconsider. But, yes, it is gay-bashing. I'd love to hear your reasons why it isn't. Please.

Conservatives have never cared much for the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, except when they could corrupt it's original intent, as they did in Bush v. Gore, following the presidential election in 2000.

For that matter, conservatives aren't that fond of the Bill of Rights, exept for the last 14 words of the Second Amendment.

brian tell it to Cheney's daughter.

What the post-election poll in Arizona shows is that this move is indeed going to hurt Republicans in the reasonably close future.

I don't know of any social issue on which most Americans have moved more rapidly than on their acceptance of homosexuality. While there's a long way to go, we've already moved so far from a decade or so ago that it seems literally almost unbelievable to me.

Michigan may not be Arizona yet, but it will be in short order, and it won't be long beyond that that it will be Massachusetts.

Think about it and weep, righties.

Conservatives have never cared much for the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- The Conservative Deflator

The 14th Amendment does not entitle gays to financial marriage benefits any more than it entitles rich people to Medicaid benefits. Marriage benefits are given to heterosexual couples because they have always been the basis of the traditional family, the most essential unit of American society. Not giving gay couples benefits does not mean discrimination against gays; it just means the government will remain neutral instead of actively promoting the Leftist agenda of cultural revolution. Gays should be allowed to do what they want, churches should be allowed to do what they want, but when it comes to the Public Treasury, we have bigger priorities than trying to reorganize society with widespread, government subsidized social experimentation, let alone subsidized experimentation that was brought about by unelected judges and not by a legislature elected by the people. This is not an anti-gay position; this is an anti-Big-Government-social-engineering position.

"No marriage supporters never insisted that “benefits� would never be taken away."

Well, I live in Michigan, and being a lawyer as well as a gay man, I paid rather close attention to the arguments with respect to the referendum.

You're lying. Supporters of the referendum explicitly argued that it would stop gays from marrying, but wouldn't take away their employment benefits.

It's not gay bashing to say every child deserves a mother and a father,

Not directly it isn't, but what is your reasoning to make such a claim?

nor is it gay bashing to say the state should not actively encourage social experimentation in which children will be guinea pigs.

By this I assume you mean the adopted children of gay parents? Are straight parents doing such a bang-up job of raising kids that this should be self-evident?

If a parent has a child and adopts an alternative lifestyle, the child deserves the presence of their biological parent, but the whole idea that we should actively encourage a society where gay marriage, polygamy, and all sorts of alternative lifestyles exist is nothing more than the propaganda of the radical, elitist Left.

"Permit" does not necessarily mean "actively encourage."

And in a free society, why should consenting adults not be permitted to participate in the marriage relationships of their choice? If harm is the result, please provide citations.

Oh, and please define the words "radical" and "elitist" as you use them above.

If gays want a private ceremony, the church should have the freedom to that as protected in the First Amendment, but when it comes to benefits offered by the state, it should only go to a man and a woman, as in the Bible and our heritage that is the basis of family.

The Bible is not the law. The Constitution is.

And I'd watch all this talk about our "heritage" and a "foundational social institution." If nothing else, the idea of America has been that such things are to be discarded if they detract from the foundational social notion that all men are created equal. And whaddya know, keeping gays from equal protection sure does that.

Also, slavery was a "foundational social institution" for thousands of years of human history, including the first eighty years of our own history. That didn't grant it some kind of mystical, inherent correctness that prevented it from being reassessed and then rejected. Same with marriage. It's whatever we say it is.

This is not to say that children who grow up in other families, such as a divorced family, which I grew up in, are doomed, but it is to say that having a father and mother is best.

Evidence?

And while we should not use government to control gays' personal lives, we also should not use government to force the gay agenda on others, especially by taking from the public Treasury to give gays benefits, which is exactly what the unelected judicial tyrants in Michigan intend to do.

Wow, a twofer of right-wing catch-phrases here. The gay agenda is to have the same benefits that straight people do? Holy cow, look out! Next they'll want to be a protected class just like blacks and Jews, too!

"Unelected judicial tyrant" = judge who interprets the law in a way I don't like. (I'd love to hear your thoughts on Bush v. Gore.)

I'm a murderer, according to the Bible, because I've felt hatred toward people at times, and the Bible says if you feel hatred in your heart, you're a murderer. Now, if I'm a murderer, I'm in no position to criticize people for homosexuality, a sin that pales in comparison. For this reason, we shouldn't violate freedom of religion for the church in terms of marrying people, and we shouldn't give more power to Big Government in the name of regulating the private lives of gays. But I don't see, when we have so many other priorities we have to take care of, why we should use more public money to subsidize gay couples in the form of financial marriage benefits from the state.

I think it's clearly in the best interests of a child to live in an orphanage than to live with two mothers or two fathers in a social experiment.

This is not to say that children who grow up in other families, such as a divorced family, which I grew up in, are doomed, but it is to say that having a father and mother is best.

Posted by: brian

nope, brian, you are doomed, and if every american child does not have a mommy and daddy who sleep together more often than the clintons do, america is doomed as well.

your pal,
blake

And Alex, as for evidence of the benefits of a mother and father, if you look at the statistics of people who live in poverty or commit crimes, they come from broken homes where either a mother or father was missing.

Hawk:
It does not get much more simple than this: straight people get to marry each other, gay people don't. Does that mean that stright people have a "special right"?

And a big Amen to Alek Hidell and rea.

if you look at the statistics of people who live in poverty or commit crimes, they come from broken homes where either a mother or father was missing.

Why take this as evidence that both a mother and father are important? Why not take this as evidence perhaps that two parents, of any gender, are better than one?

Certainly one parent families are more easily overwhelmed, and have less love, attention, and money etc. to give to any given child. Isn't it pretty plausible that THAT is the core problem?

Wow, a twofer of right-wing catch-phrases here. The gay agenda is to have the same benefits that straight people do? Holy cow, look out! Next they'll want to be a protected class just like blacks and Jews, too! - Alek

And Alek, don't pull the whole white Protestant supremacist card on me, I am of Jewish heritage and Native American heritage, I have lesbian friends, and I'm not a fucking bigot just because I disagree with the hardcore Far Left.

But I don't see, when we have so many other priorities we have to take care of, why we should use more public money to subsidize gay couples in the form of financial marriage benefits from the state.

Because, to use your terms, the state already subsidizes straight marriage the same way. That's called equal protection, guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution.

The question is not why should the state allow such benefits, but why shouldn't it.

Imagine this, brian. Using your statement above, let's imagine it's 1957 and make the following small change:

"The 14th Amendment does not entitle [blacks] to financial marriage benefits any more than it entitles rich people to Medicaid benefits. Marriage benefits are given to [white] couples because they have always been the basis of the traditional family, the most essential unit of American society. Not giving [black] couples benefits does not mean discrimination against [blacks]; it just means the government will remain neutral instead of actively promoting the Leftist agenda of cultural revolution. [Blacks] should be allowed to do what they want, churches should be allowed to do what they want, but when it comes to the Public Treasury, we have bigger priorities than trying to reorganize society with widespread, government subsidized social experimentation, let alone subsidized experimentation that was brought about by unelected judges and not by a legislature elected by the people. This is not an anti-[black] position; this is an anti-Big-Government-social-engineering position."

Do you see the problem now, brian?

I am of Jewish heritage and Native American heritage.

That's so cool, are you a member of the Hekawi nation?

And Alex, as for evidence of the benefits of a mother and father, if you look at the statistics of people who live in poverty or commit crimes, they come from broken homes where either a mother or father was missing.

That's not terribly convincing. As frankly0 points out, that says nothing about having a mother and father present. It merely indicates that two breadwinners are better than one.

shorter brian: "Hey, some of my best friends are lesbians, but that doesn't mean they deserve equal rights."

I think many voters would also be happy to cut benefits to hetero couples in public employment. Voters pay taxes. Many voters believe that government benefits are too generous. Anything that reduces government costs will appeal to a lot of voters.

It also means that only morons and other dregs, such as yourself, will serve in government. Treat public servants like indentured servants, and the rest of the world will continue to pass us by.

I see where you're coming from, Alek, but at the same time I don't believe your analogy is completely accurate. Your analogy suggests that not giving benefits the gays is the same as not giving benefits to blacks. But it is very different because marriage has been defined throughout our country's history as being between a man and woman, white or black. It was never defined as between two individuals of the same gender until recently; that has always been a seperate institution. The 14th Amendment does entitle that an African American woman recieve the same legal benefits as a white woman for marrying a man. It does not declare that gay couples should have benefits, because their institution is separate from the institution of marriage. Denying gay couples state benefits is no worse than denying people financial benefits for being best friends.

And Alek, your subtle attempts to make me look like a bigot only make you look more desperate. The Far Left's often false cries of bigotry only show how little respect they have for the minorities they claim to represent. There is real racism out there that must be defeated, but when the Far Left tries to play the race card where there is no racism, they both denigrate the struggles of minorities who today struggle with racism as well as the intelligence of the minorities they claim to represent. It's like when John Kerry told black leaders he wondered why they weren't excited for him. He thought they should be because they were black and he was a Democrat. It's amazing how the racial McCarthyists of the Far Left, who often accuse anyone who disagree with them as being racist, often have the most condescending and racist views toward minorities of all.

I have lesbian friends, and I'm not a fucking bigot just because I disagree with the hardcore Far Left.

Wow, the old "some of my best friends are black!" defense.

But I still don't understand exactly why it is you disagree with those of us on the "hardcore Far Left" [rolls eyes]. I'd point out, first of all, that if it weren't for earlier generations of hardcore Far Leftists, a redskin/kike mongrel like you would have been denied lots of stuff that you now wish to deny to gays. Ah, irony's a fun thing, isn't it?

Let's suppose again, brian: imagine that some state legislature (not an unelected judicial tyrant!) passes a law saying that no people of Jewish heritage can have the same benefits as non-Jewish people. Being a person of such heritage, you oppose this law. But it is explained to you that we can't have the state granting special rights to Jewish people when there's a long social tradition (as indeed there is!) of discriminating against the Jews. You protest that you aren't asking for special rights, merely the same rights as non-Jews. No, they say, we can't give in to the Jewish agenda.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 15, 2007 at 3:08 PM:
Politically I think this is likely to help the Republicans. I think only a minority of voters want to extend health benefits to same-sex partners in public employment.
I think many voters would also be happy to cut benefits to hetero couples in public employment. Voters pay taxes. Many voters believe that government benefits are too generous. Anything that reduces government costs will appeal to a lot of voters.

FYI, the net result in this has been a HUGE waste of $$ in the Michigan public sector. All agencies and universities have been alerted that they must review and update EVERY written-policy, website, letterhead, etc. to remove the words "Equal Opportunity Institution". All of this work isn't being done for free, it is being PAID FOR by Michigan TAXPAYERS.

Of course repugs always seem to institute costly big-government solututions with their over-reaching morality, so this should not have been a surprise.

So, does this mean that Tim Hardaway and Kenny Chesney will not be sharing a quaint bungalow in Ypsilante?

I am so, so crushed.

I see where you're coming from, Alek, but at the same time I don't believe your analogy is completely accurate. Your analogy suggests that not giving benefits the gays is the same as not giving benefits to blacks. But it is very different because marriage has been defined throughout our country's history as being between a man and woman, white or black. It was never defined as between two individuals of the same gender until recently; that has always been a seperate institution. The 14th Amendment does entitle that an African American woman recieve the same legal benefits as a white woman for marrying a man. It does not declare that gay couples should have benefits, because their institution is separate from the institution of marriage. Denying gay couples state benefits is no worse than denying people financial benefits for being best friends.

Your assertion that our country has always acknowledged marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of race, is ahistorical and wrong. The law did not recognize slave marriages, and masters were free to sell enslaved spouses away from each other (and often did). In fact, slave wedding vows evolved to include the phrase "until death or distance do us part."

But let's imagine you're right. So we'll look at another, more recent example: interracial marriage. A black man wants to marry a white woman. Until relatively recently (the 1960s), such marriages were forbidden by law in many states. In fact, the arguments used to support such laws were strikingly similar to those used now to support gay marriage bans. So plug that into the scenario, brian, and tell me what you see.

Posted by: dcwp on February 15, 2007 at 3:57 PM :
The main programs that this is aimed at are the benefits received by partners at the state Universities and similar institutions. The U's have historically been very good about providing support for the families of their employees and this has made Michigan attractive to academics and researchers.
This has had no small part in making Michigan's universities some of the best in the country despite the absence of so many other factors that usually attract top researchers. We don't have the cosmopolitanism of east coast cities, we don't have beautiful weather and scenic vistas, we certainly don't have a strong economy outside the universities. But until recently, Michigan's universities have been able to provide a welcoming environment for the world's smartest scientists, artists, and researchers regardless of what kind of family they have.

Geez, y'don't suppose that Prop-2 and it's attack on that "welcoming atmosphere" could've -- in some small way --- influenced Pfeizer's decision to shutdown their longtime Michigan R&D facilities last month do you? And maybe ... just maybe Dick Flat-Earth Devos scared them, too with his plans to replace science with religion in Michigan Public Schools? And MAYBE the repugs outlawing Stem-Cell research in Mich might have scared off a Pharmaceutical R&D facility? COULD these have been FACTORS?

... nawww ... it was just Granholm's pittance of a tax increase to try to balance Porky Engler's budget mess that scared them off.

I don't wish to deny gays anything, Alek. They should have the right to marry in a church, they should have the right to do what they want in their bedroom. All I'm saying is that I will not give them that something-extra, that government subsidy. We don't give people benefits for being best friends, we don't give people benefits for being roomates.

And my mention of my gay friends was a foolish remark, my mention of my religious views on why gays should be tolerated and befriended the same as straight people was a foolish remark, because if you don't agree with Alek Hidell, you're a racist bigot, and I should of realized that no personal details will change that. I know I don't hate gays, I know God knows I don't hate gays. I don't need your approval on the issue of whether or not I'm a tolerant person.

And, just as said before, heterosexual couples and gay couples are different social units, different institutions. Jewish women, Christian women, white women, African American women, Hispanic women all recieve the same benefits when they marry a man, and all should. But when a woman marries a woman, or a man marries a man, that is a different social institution from marriage, just as when a man is employed by a woman that is a different relationship than marriage.

I'm done with this debate for now. You believe gay couples and straight couples are the same institution deserving the same rights, and I believe they are different institutions. I don't think you're a monster because you believe what you believe, even though you think I'm a racist bigot just because I don't agree with you. I don't think you're an idiot because you believe what you believe, even though you think I'm a "redskin/kike mongrel" because I don't agree with you. I don't think that you're a radical Leftist just because your views, if twisted to the extreme, are similar to theirs, even though you think I'm a radical reactionary because my views, if twisted to the extreme, are similar to theirs. I am going to respectfully disagree with you, even if you didn't have the maturity to respectfully disagree with me.

haha: It also means that only morons and other dregs, such as yourself, will serve in government. Treat public servants like indentured servants, and the rest of the world will continue to pass us by.

haha, you think government workers are treated like indentured servants? Read this, for example:

Public-pension provisions are determined by elected officials, and civil servants vote. Legislators have a long history of making such expensive upgrades to already generous plans.

Some of these giveaways are truly spectacular. In 1998 the city of Houston instituted a deferred-retirement option plan, or DROP, that would allow workers to in effect take their retirement when they became eligible for it but continue to work at their salary. The retirement income was put in a side account where it earned an attractive rate of return, and the employee could later have his pension adjusted upward to a higher level. The DROP, along with other pension improvements, drove the city's pension plan down from 91%-funded in 2000 to just 60% two years later. Houston had gone from contributing 9.5% of payroll toward pensions to more than 32%. Joseph Esuchanko, a Michigan actuary brought in to study the problem, discovered that things would only get worse. According to his calculations, it was possible for employees to become millionaires thanks to the system. Under one scenario, a lifelong city employee retiring with a salary of $92,000 could get $420,000 a year in pension benefits. The citizens of Houston agreed with Esuchanko's conclusion that the system was a "win-win for the employee and a lose-lose for the employer." Last May they voted to end the benefits.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_24/b3937081.htm

I'm from Michigan. Commenter rea is right and commenter Fitz is wrong. Proponents of the 2004 amendment did say to the public, "Don't worry, this amendment will not result in anyone losing their health-care benefits. Our only goal is to prohibit same-sex marriage." But of course they were lying when they made that assurance.

These Republican movers and shakers are both stealthy and shameless. They pulled another fast on Michigan residents in 2006. They wanted to put an anti-affirmative action amendment on the ballot, but they needed thousands of voters' signatures to accomplish that goal. So what did they do? First, they titled their proposed amendment the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative." Then they hired hundreds of young black people to stand on sidewalks in downtown areas to collect signatures.

I witnessed this myself. I was walking down the sidewalk in Ann Arbor when a pleasant young black women holding a clipboard looked at me and said something like, "Would you like to sign a petition for civil rights?" I would have signed the petition had I not been in a hurry to meet someone.

It later came to light that many of the young black signature-gatherers, and many of the persons who signed their petitions, actually thought they were doing something that would help, rather than hurt, minorities.

Unfortunately, the amendment made it onto the 2006 ballot, and passed.

Under one scenario, a lifelong city employee retiring with a salary of $92,000 could get $420,000 a year in pension benefits.

Maybe a politician could pull that off --- but not the schmucks in the trenches. Most are GROSSLY underpaid compared to their counterparts in the private-sector, but usually have decent, NOT EXCESSIVE, benefits to MAKE UP for their lack of pay. But you've managed to take one extreme case (if true) and try to apply it to ALL public employees. I'm not buying it.

brian, you're bigoted ignorance aside, the studies have clearly demonstrated that children in same-sex households are no worse of than those in hetero households.

however, given that conservatives frequently ignore the existing data when it suits them, and since I fully expect your scientific illiteracy to correlate perfectly with your conservatism, you at least get full points for consistency.

I wonder if the mob of wingers gay-bashing merrily away here in the comments realise that in a couple of years they're going to look just as foolish as the cretins who predicted doom if couples of differing races were allowed to marry.

I have lesbian friends, and I'm not a fucking bigot just because I disagree with the hardcore Far Left.

Correct. You disagree because you are a bigot, not the other way around.

Hey, Alek Hidell, I just wanted to compliment you on your blogging name.

I'm a student of the JFK assassination too. Two of my favorite books are "Libra" by Don DeLillo and "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner.

And Alex, as for evidence of the benefits of a mother and father, if you look at the statistics of people who live in poverty or commit crimes, they come from broken homes where either a mother or father was missing.

They also, by the same token, come from homes with parents with low educational attainments, homes that were in poverty, and homes with parents who were criminals.

One might even suspect that the facts of poverty, criminality, and poor education and career prospects are the ones that cause the homes to become broken and, also, the ones that contribute to poverty and criminality in the next generations.

OTOH, you have to be a complete nutball to think the problem is insufficient exposure to heterosexuality.

It merely indicates that two breadwinners are better than one.

Or two caretakers. Or a breadwinner and a caretaker. But, yeah, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation whatsoever.

This “welcoming environment� is supposed to compare to the redefinition of an foundational social institution?

Marriage is not a “foundational social institution” that has had a static “definition” in terms of the conditions attached to it, the obligations and rights involved in it, and what kind of couples may enter in to it, for any substantial period of time.

It is an institution for which the laws have varied from time to time and place to place throughout human history, and, at least in American and European history, one where inconsistency and fairly frequent change have been the norm.

I've never commented here before, but the gay bashing here is hacking me off. Brian, I'm a gay man. I am from Michigan, went to U of M tho I live in D.C. now. I'll never move back as long as that law is on the books. More importantly, I have to ask, "do your lesbian friends know that you regard them as less than equal to straight people?" You really need to tell them that because you ARE NOT their friend. And us queers are not really asking you for equal rights - we're demanding them until we get them. It may take 20 years or 100 years but we will get them. So thanks for nothing, "friend."

"I frequently find that state employees live in homes that I feel are too nice..."

Hah! My grandmother actually literally made this argument to me. She is distressed that the police detective who lives across the street from my parents owns a home.

"brian, you're bigoted ignorance aside, the studies have clearly demonstrated that children in same-sex households are no worse of than those in hetero households."

Heh, on the other hand a study just yesterday indicates that children in american and british homes are worse of than those in 19 other wealthy nations.

I understand why people are against gay marriage. It's because male gay sex seems yucky to them, and they want whatever they think is yucky to be illegal.

What I don't understand is why a conservative would want the government to be in the business of deciding who can and cannot participate in a religious ceremony or sacrament. If the govt can say who can be married, they can say who is baptized or confirmed or bar mitzvahed or ordained.

All I'm saying is that I will not give them that something-extra, that government subsidy. We don't give people benefits for being best friends, we don't give people benefits for being roommates.

Brian, babe, you sound so like an ass. My lover of twelve years (longer than the first marriages of any of my siblings) indeed was my best friend and roommate. He also was the love of my life and the focus of all that I was and wanted to be. I helped him finish school and start a great career, he and his computer nerdiness help position me to take advantage of the changes that the information age brought to my career. We bought cars and condos together and god knows how many chachkis.

One day I found myself driving at top speed through the streets of inner city Houston with my guy curled up in a ball on the passenger floor board fighting off spasms of pain. I carried him into the ER.

Houston is a progressive city. Luckily the staff was supportive, and we were able to get a few forms signed (and witnessed) giving me power for his medical decision making. I would shortly end up using that. "Something extra"! I cannot even begin to describe the years of something extra gay couples in similar situations face.

I have no desire to type the rest of this story. Just note the verb tense used in the second paragraph.

You say you have friends who are gay? Lucky them….They could do better.

Also, there can be no determination through nuclear anti-proliferation protocols that Iran constitutes a direct threat by developing nuclear energy and/or weapons until Israel comes out of the nuclear closet and joins the NPT, followed by all of the other nuclear countries that are not treaty members.

Anyone who does not sign on to the treaty becomes a direct threat to the United States, international order and other nuclear and non-nuclear parties pledged to the United Nations and international law shared regime, with the appropriate measures and sanctions put in place, and one can imagine how that could also lead to the determination that such nuclear development constitutes a hostile and intolerable threat to those abiding by these rules and quite possibly lead to urgent reconsideration for the grounds of military action and war beyond direct self-defense.

Only then in my view, when the playing field is not tilted and all are treated with equal respect and dignity, by acknowledging and exposing for all to see our shared responsibilities and threats on this finite Earth, would it possibly not be evil to kill in situations other than direct self-defense against an attack.

Heh, on the other hand a study just yesterday indicates that children in american and british homes are worse of than those in 19 other wealthy nations.

One might also note that the #1 country in that ranking (the Netherlands) was also the first to allow same-sex marriage; that 3 of the 4 countries in the study that allow same-sex marriage nationally were in the top half, and the fourth was number 12 of 21, far above the US's #20 and UK's #21 position.

So, clearly, while causation may be debated, tolerance of same-sex marriage seems to have a positive correlation, on a national level, with the well-being of children.

Oops...wrong thread.

Lest there be any doubt about the fraud perpetrated by the forces for discrimination against gays in Michigan, let me submit a small sampling of available quotes from the state's major papers:

Detroit News 10/26/2004:
Supporters of the amendment say it's not their intention to take away domestic partner benefits and that it's an argument raised to confuse voters.

Detroit Free Press 10/2/2004:

But supporters of the proposal said private contractual agreements will not be affected by the amendment anyway, and the language of the proposal makes no mention of private sector benefit plans.

Detroit News, 10/27/2004:

Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, the group that ram-rodded the petition drive to get the issue on the ballot, said it is not focused on benefits or discrimination. Members don't want same-sex marriages validated here like judges and politicians have done in Massachusetts and California.

"This is about defining marriage of one man and one woman," said Kristina Hemphill, of Southfield, a communications director for Citizens for the Protection of Marriage. As for people losing benefits, "nothing that's on the books is going to change. We continue to confuse this issue by bringing in speculation."

Free Press, 9/4/2004:

[Marlene] Elwell, [Chairwoman of the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage,] responded that civil unions would be banned under the proposal, but "it doesn't talk about benefits, it doesn't talk about any of that."

She added: "This is saying marriage is between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, period.

Just in case anyone is curious, the American Academy of Pediatrics has an official policy statement to the effect that is summarized by

"Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."

The AAPs most recent policy statement is in support of same-sex partnerships to the full extent that they are afforded every legal right of all other children and parents.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 1 July 2006, pp. 349-364

Next: A resolution to define the right of due process as a promise from the state to a heterosexual.

Ex-liberal wrote:

haha, you think government workers are treated like indentured servants? Read this, for example:

From the article ex-lib linked to:

"Excluding federally funded programs, pensions went from 2.15% of all state and local spending in 2002 to approximately 2.44% in 2003."

Wow. Less than 2.5% of state/local spending. Given that state & local government costs are mostly labor-related, I'd have thought it was three times that.

By comparison, GM's unfunded pension liability (using 2002 numbers, easiest to google) was $19 billion, compared to net income of $1.8 billion and a then market cap of $21 billion.

American Hawk: "I'm straight ..."

I think you have most of us mistaken for people who give a shit.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Several people on this thread seem to be confused about how marriage actually works in this country:

Although many (though by no means all) people in this country have a religious marriage ceremony, it is absolutely not required.

What IS required is a license from the state you're getting married in. Without that license FROM THE STATE, you will not be legally married.

That means that two people can get married in front of an atheist judge at the courthouse without a single reference to God ever being spoken, and they are completely married in the eyes of the law.

This equally means that two people can have a 90-minute long full Roman Catholic mass with a reference to God in every other line, but NOT be married at the end of it. Because if they didn't have a license, the state doesn't care what was said during the ceremony: they ain't married.

So the argument that the state is somehow regulating religion by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is 100% bogus. The First Amendment says that the Catholic church will not have to marry gay couples any more than they have to marry divorced couples. Their church, their rules.

In fact, you could probably make the argument that the state is making an unfair infringement on religious freedom by making ministers be licensed to perform wedding ceremonies.

Of course, the simple solution is to completely divide marriage the legal process from the big hoopla wedding. Make everyone go down to the courthouse and get married there, and then they can celebrate it as they wish.

Of course, if we did make marriage completely secular, there would still be howls from the cheap seats about taking God out of the state's rightful business, or something.

Kevin, I really like the posts you put out for us to discuss. I don't always agree with you, but you make me think, & so do some of your respondents. But most of them are the same tiresome 8 or so people who are using this as their personal chat room, engaging in private arguments & slinging very smelly mud at each other. It gets old separating the flyshit from the pepper.

A suggestion: Why not limit each of us to one post, or maybe one per hour? That way the little kid bullies might have the time to think about what they are saying (fat chance!). The rest of us would really appreciate it, I am sure.

Oh, yes. Civil Unions & benefits. Simple. It's the economy, stupid. The reason private enterprise twisted the arms of the insurance industry to offer these benefits to gays was to be able to keep good employees instead of losing them to more enlightened employers. By denying these benefits, govt is shooting itself in the foot. They traditionally pay less than the private sector does for the same work. So do taxpayers want to spend more to equalize benefits between their straight & gay workers, or do they want to pay more for less efficient workers by losing good ones, regardless of sexual orientation?

Sock Puppet of the Great Satan: Less than 2.5% of state/local spending. Given that state & local government costs are mostly labor-related, I'd have thought it was three times that.

By comparison, GM's unfunded pension liability (using 2002 numbers, easiest to google) was $19 billion...

SPotGS, you're comparing a liability balance (for GM) to an annual outgo. The government pension liability number is in that same article:

Excluding federal workers, more than 14 million public servants and 6 million retirees are owed $2.37 trillion by more than 2,000 different states, cities, and agencies, according to recent studies

Of course there are a lot more government workers than GM workers, but $2.37 trillion ain't hay.

I have never understood the leftist habit of comparing gays with blacks or other racial groups.
Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay. Homosexuality continues to be viewed as a "chosen lifestyle", and as such, is no more entitled to any special rights or privileges than any other "chosen lifestyle".

Think about this for a moment. In 2004, the majority of Michigan voters re-elected a DEMOCRAT to the Senate. The majority of Michigan voters put the state's electoral votes for the Democratic Presidential candidate.

The majority of Michigan voters voted AGAINST Gay marriage.

Does this sound like a conservative conspiracy???

The GLBT community needs to take a closer look at their "friends."

Brian really doesn't understand the Constitution of the United States, does he?

Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay. Homosexuality continues to be viewed as a "chosen lifestyle", and as such, is no more entitled to any special rights or privileges than any other "chosen lifestyle".
Posted by: Hunter

There have actually been 4 separate linkage studies in separate populations, 3 of which demonstrate evidence for linkage of male homosexual tendancies to a small part of the X chromosome (Xq28).

There is evidence for skewed X chromosome inactivation in homosexual men's mothers, further suggesting a role for the X chromosome in male homosexuality.

There are numerous examples of homosexuality among mammals, including a sheep population with a consistent 8-10% population incidence of male rams who prefer mounting other males, suggesting a trait exisitng in genetic equilibrium.

Of course, none of this definitively PROVES men are born gay.

But keep demanding such proof. I'm sure you come accross MUCH better than those who attempted to sub-humanize blacks and Jews despite all existing scientific evidence to the contrary.

In lieu of such definitive data, however, please look into the actual subject before flapping your mouth. Perhaps blinding obviousness can break through your wingnutty aversion to science.

FWIW, the only other court to rule on this question, the Alaska Supreme Court, found exactly the opposite -- that the marriage ban does NOT trump equal treatment. Naturally, conservatives blew a gasket, insisting that the stupid judges didn't realize that the marriage ban was supposed to restrict benefits too.

Except... at the time the marriage ban was debated, a mere 9 years ago, nothing was said about restricting benefits -- except that they wouldn't be. Just like in Michigan, Alaska had a bait-and-switch.

Hunter, I was going to point out, just how wrong the thesis of your post is, but Nads has ably performed that task.

Let me simply add a notation from FamilyDoctor.org which is as far a I can tell, a site with no axe to grind.

No one knows why some people are homosexual. Some people who study human sexuality believe that sexuality is a result of genetics, social or individual factors, alone or in combination. A common misperception is that troubled family relationships cause people to be homosexual, but no scientifically sound research supports this myth.

Bob in Fla:

The give and take on this site is part of what makes this place so interesting and,yes, occasionally annoying. Hey, that's free speech for ya.

So just to clarify here, this is an opinion that bars state employers from offering these benefits to same-sex couples?

I could understand why Republicans might balk at preventing these benefits from being in any way legally required, but if any employer, even a state funded one, chooses to offer these benefits as part of their budget, what business does government have to refuse them?

"Hands off government"? Yeah, right.

Andre, the opinion bars state and local governmental entities from offering those benefits. There's no restriction on private employers, as I understand it.

Mike Cox, the Attorney General (and highest Republican elected official in Michigan) who delivered that sorry judgement was on his way to a gubernatorial run when it was disclosed that his own personal definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and another woman. He may have another term as AG, but I doubt it; his raging libido locked the truly gruesome Dick DeVos into the nomination, and the resultant bloodbath for the Michigan GOP has not endeared him to the party.
Karma seldom strikes so soon.

John Edwards opens campaign headquarters in Second Life.

Wouldn't this make powers of attorney and living wills void?

"I'm saying is that I will not give them that something-extra, that government subsidy."

Except, idiot, it isn't a "subsidy"--it's payment for work. Jeez, do you think maybe the state ought to take their paychecks away, too? They might spend it on someone of the same sex!

Nad
It's like global warming, for every study saying homosexuality is genetic there is one saying the opposite.
I do note, however, that...like most liberals...you feel so threatened by opposing views that you resort to insults on a personal level in your arguments.
How sad that you are so inadequate in your beliefs.

"Homosexuality continues to be viewed as a 'chosen lifestyle', and as such, is no more entitled to any special rights or privileges than any other 'chosen lifestyle'."

So, apparently, you think it would be okay if the state banned benefits for members of your particular religion.

It's like global warming, for every study saying homosexuality is genetic there is one saying the opposite.

Hunter is again typing falsehoods.

There is a preponderance of “studies� saying that the human caused acceleration of global climate change (of which so-called global warming is one symptom) is very real. The pro-con debate is no where close to being even. Quite frankly, only the truly ignorant or the truly deceitful claim otherwise.

The use of modern scientific research (much of it genetic based) in the field of human sexuality is still in its relative infancy. Because of this, there is not a broad range of peer reviewed data available at this stage; yet, some trends are beginning to show.

A quick survey of scholarly research – those not published in religious or gay publications, indicate that innate sexual orientation develops relatively early in life, quite some time before “choice� can be considered a logical factor.

What confuses some folk (Hunter?), is that extreme societal and pressure familial can cause many adolescents to hide, if not struggle to totally suppress their emotional orientation. That (forced) choice is fraught with potential emotional danger.

Again, Hunter’s claim, shown above, is just flat wrong.

Hunter, perhaps you'll let us know about that great moment in your life when you chose heterosexuality. Please, do tell.

Hey Hunter, you seem to be up on the latest scientific research. How do you respond to the fact that holds true across all male homosexuality studies - the fact that a boy's chances of being gay goes up measurably for every older biological brother he has? Do you think maybe something is happening in his mother's womb?

Susan,

I wouldn't be suprised to hear that Hunter must "choose" heterosexuality every single day. The problem he has is making his choice 'stick.'

I have never understood the leftist habit of comparing gays with blacks or other racial groups.
Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay. Homosexuality continues to be viewed as a "chosen lifestyle", and as such, is no more entitled to any special rights or privileges than any other "chosen lifestyle".

Hmmm...well, religion is equally a "chosen lifestyle" as to my knowledge there has never been scientific proof that anyone has ever been born Methodist, say. Would you therefore say that no one should be entitled to any "special" rights or privileges because of their religion and that, in fact, the state can bar people of a certain religion (again, let's say Methodists) from marrying?

(Ignoring, of course, the fact that racial identity depends in large part on social constructs and that many people of mixed-racial heritage can actually "choose" their racial identity).

Hunter: Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay. Homosexuality continues to be viewed as a "chosen lifestyle", and as such, is no more entitled to any special rights or privileges than any other "chosen lifestyle".

By the way, Hunter, since you "chose" to be straight presumably you were also considering at one point whether to be gay. What tipped you away from the gay side? Better dental benefits?

Politically I think this is likely to help the Republicans. I think only a minority of voters want to extend health benefits to same-sex partners in public employment.
Posted by: ex-liberal on February 15, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Nope. It's a fairness versus cruelty issue. American's always come down on the side of fairness, even if a bitter 40% minority opposes them. So many of these issues break like the slavery issue of the 1850s. 60% for freedom and justice with 40% ready to kill to maintian their discrimination.

And, just as said before, heterosexual couples and gay couples are different social units, different institutions. Jewish women, Christian women, white women, African American women, Hispanic women all recieve the same benefits when they marry a man, and all should. But when a woman marries a woman, or a man marries a man, that is a different social institution from marriage, just as when a man is employed by a woman that is a different relationship than marriage.

Um ... why? You keep asserting this, and I don't see why. Marriage is whatever we say it is. If the state grants a license to two people to be "married," they're married. How is a gay union a "different social institution"? They are emotionally committed to each other; they share financial burdens; they have a physical relationship that includes their living together as a couple and consensual sexual activity. How is this different from heterosexual marriage?

(To preempt one possible response, it can't be because they cannot have children, because many straight couples also cannot have children, or choose not to. Yet they are still "married," under any definition.)

I don't think you're a monster because you believe what you believe, even though you think I'm a racist bigot just because I don't agree with you. I don't think you're an idiot because you believe what you believe, even though you think I'm a "redskin/kike mongrel" because I don't agree with you. I don't think that you're a radical Leftist just because your views, if twisted to the extreme, are similar to theirs, even though you think I'm a radical reactionary because my views, if twisted to the extreme, are similar to theirs. I am going to respectfully disagree with you, even if you didn't have the maturity to respectfully disagree with me.

Sigh. I had a feeling you'd misconstrue that "redskin/kike mongrel" remark. It's called irony, brian.

I'm sorry if I came off as disrespectful. On the other hand, I don't have much respect for arguments that lack substance. I still don't know why you'd prefer to prevent gay people from having the same benefits as straight people; you haven't explained why. You've made repeated assertions about a "different social institution," but haven't made clear what the difference is.

Damn straight America needs more nuclear families - Why, Mr and Mrs Menendez of California were able to raise two fine lads.

To add to your comment, thethirdpaul,

The Bush and Cheney clans...they have procreated a fine line of upstanding citizens.

...not to mention George W and Laura! Why, Jenna and Not-Jenna are models of rectitude.

American Hawk says:

But gays aren't entitled to special rights. I'm straight, and I can't get married to another person of the same sex either.

Anatole France says:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

brian wrote: "It's not gay bashing to say every child deserves a mother and a father,"

No, it's just ignorant.

"nor is it gay bashing to say the state should not actively encourage social experimentation in which children will be guinea pigs."

And this is even more ignorant.

"If a parent has a child and adopts an alternative lifestyle,"

And even more ignorance.

"the child deserves the presence of their biological parent"

And even more ignorance.

"but the whole idea that we should actively encourage a society where gay marriage, polygamy, and all sorts of alternative lifestyles exist is nothing more than the propaganda of the radical, elitist Left."

And even more ignorance.

So far, there is quite literally nothing to respond to.

"If gays want a private ceremony, the church should have the freedom to that as protected in the First Amendment"

Since this is already the case, and nobody has claimed otherwise, this comment is a non sequitur.

"but when it comes to benefits offered by the state, it should only go to a man and a woman,"

An assertion supported by absolutely nothing.

"as in the Bible and our heritage that is the basis of family."

Oh lord.... This doofus doesn't even know what's in the Bible! Free clue: there is more than one type of marriage celebrated in the Bible and in "our heritage."

"This is not to say that children who grow up in other families, such as a divorced family, which I grew up in, are doomed"

No shit, Sherlock.

"but it is to say that having a father and mother is best."

Only if you're ignorant of the basic facts.

"And while we should not use government to control gays' personal lives, we also should not use government to force the gay agenda on others,"

And more ignorance.

"especially by taking from the public Treasury to give gays benefits, which is exactly what the unelected judicial tyrants in Michigan intend to do."

And one last bit of stunning ignorance. Man, I wish that someone on the opposing side of this issue would muster just one rational argument and show even a basic knowledge of the underlying issues and the research surrounding them.

Jeff R,

Tres bien!

I have never understood the leftist habit of comparing gays with blacks or other racial groups.

Its based on how they are treated; they are also frequently compared to currently or formerly oppressed religious minorities, too.

Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay.

Science doesn't definitively prove positive claims, it definitely disproves them; those that prove useful and resistant to disproof are accepted as models of reality into such time as that changes. So the absence of definite scientific proof is true of any positive statement you can think up, because definite proof isn't what science does.

That being said, there is considerable empirical evidence of both significant genetic contribution to sexual preference and significant though potentially not genetic in-born component (the "older biological brothers" connection mentioned above, for instance).

There's also, I seem to recall seeing several years back, some evidence that homosexual behavior in mammal species generally increases with increased population density, and that this effects the generation that experiences the change, not only the subsequent generations, which may suggest that there may also be an in-born tendency to respond to certain environmental cues by developing a homosexual tendency.

But, the thing is, ultimately whether homosexuality is innate or chosen shouldn't matter all that much; due process means we don't differentiate among people in the rights and privileges provided under public policy on bases that don't provide an adequately compelling justification—based on a secular, public purpose—for the degree of discrimination applied. Whether the basis of discrimination is innate (like race) or chosen (like religion or political party affiliation) doesn't change that.

Further, prohibition of same-sex marriage discriminates by sex of the partners, and sex is clearly an innate characteristic; so even if the innate vs. choice issue was particularly relevant, whether homosexuality was innate or a choice wouldn't be the key point.

There is a rhetorical advantage to the term “taking away benefits�

#1. Americans are a compassionate people.
#2. No one wants to be made to feel they are depriving people of something already/easily obtained by them.

Unfortunately this (intentionally) sidesteps the real issue.
Why extend benefits to individuals who are not directly employees?
Being from Michigan I have talked with university employees, receipt of these benefits is not an easy matter.

Why not extend benefits to

Cohabitating male/female couples?

Divorced spouses of employee’s? (this is a particular sore spot with professors I have spoken to, they may no longer love their former spouses, but they want them to have good healthcare and so forth and still form a arguably important/supportive family unit)

Roommates who live with and care for one another?

Siblings who live with and care for one another?

Sons & Daughters who live with and care for a Mother/Father who is in need of care?

The argument “people should get benefits� is a guaranteed crowd pleaser.

The more important question is What people should receive benefits from the limited pool available?

What makes the gay relationship more important than any number of care giving relationships?

It's like global warming, for every study saying homosexuality is genetic there is one saying the opposite.

It IS exactly like global warming in the respect that the preponderance of evidence supports the point of view I'm presenting.

I do note, however, that...like most liberals...you feel so threatened by opposing views that you resort to insults on a personal level in your arguments.
How sad that you are so inadequate in your beliefs.
Posted by: Hunter

Your ignorance and illiteracy as justification for your bigotry annoy me, nothing more. It would be foolish to be threatened by someone arguing at the equivalent level of a preliterate 4yr old.

Why not extend benefits to

Cohabitating male/female couples?

Cohabiting male/female couples are legally permitted to marry and thus obtain the benefits extended to married couples.

Divorced spouses of employee’s?

Divorced male/female couples are legally permitted to marry and thus obtain the benefits extended to married couples.

(this is a particular sore spot with professors I have spoken to, they may no longer love their former spouses, but they want them to have good healthcare and so forth and still form a arguably important/supportive family unit)

Civil marriage does not require any claim of or commitment to "love", merely the acceptance of the obligations of mutual support contained in the legal incidents of marriage in the particular jurisdiction.

What makes the gay relationship more important than any number of care giving relationships?

There is no such thing as "the gay relationship", so the question is nonsensical.

What makes the gay relationship more important than any number of care giving relationships?
Posted by: Fitz

The only people that categorize this way are already predisposed to thinking that there is something inherently unequal about a same-sex marriage or union, and so are attempting to frame the issue as nothing more than a couple of "best friends."

Bullshit. Just because your mind finds the reality "icky" is no reason to enshrine the bigotry into law and financial practice.

"Let's suppose again, brian: imagine that some state legislature (not an unelected judicial tyrant!) passes a law saying that no people of Jewish heritage can have the same benefits as non-Jewish people. Being a person of such heritage, you oppose this law. But it is explained to you that we can't have the state granting special rights to Jewish people when there's a long social tradition (as indeed there is!) of discriminating against the Jews. You protest that you aren't asking for special rights, merely the same rights as non-Jews. No, they say, we can't give in to the Jewish agenda."

At first after reading the above, I thought this was the most convincing and clearly illustrative comment on this sequence. But that logic only holds if being gay is something other than a conscious "choice."

If being gay is a choice, then being a bigot is so much more defensible. And its clear from reading this sequence of comments that the jury is still out. Unfortunately.

All of that time spent by Fitz speaking with University of Michigan professors, and so little time spent at the English Department.

The only people that categorize this way

That’s rather broad and definitive.

"are already predisposed to thinking that there is something inherently unequal about a same-sex marriage or union,"

If an apple is different than an orange
then two apples are different than two oranges
And both are distinct from an apple & an orange.

All three of them are distinct and cannot be said to be "equal"

There are any number of "things" inherently "unequal" between same-sex and opposite sex relationships.

"and so are attempting to frame the issue as nothing more than a couple of "best friends."

I understand your point if your saying a romantic sexual relationship is of a different character than a close friendship. What I’m asking is why one is more entitled to benefits than the other?

What I’m asking is why one is more entitled to benefits than the other?
Posted by: Fitz

The why give it to hetero married couples? Same-sex couples are asking for EQUAL rights, nothing more.

Your line in the sand is arbitrary, and designed to fit your existing prejudices.

Ted Haggard illustrates how The Lord likes to be loved.

Of course he's been secretly straight all the time.

There are any number of "things" inherently "unequal" between same-sex and opposite sex relationships.

You provide no reason to believe this is true in any way relevant to public policy any moreso than it is true for, say, a difference between same-race and mixed-race marriages, or between same-religion and mixed-religion marriages, or between same-nation-of-birth marriages and different-nation-of-birth marriages, or between same-cultural-background marriages and different-cultural-background marriages. Or, for that matter, just between same-cultural-background marriages among partners from one cultural background and the same type of marriage among partners from a different cultural backgrounds.

Certainly, across any of those divides, dynamics and features of the relationship will differ in ways significant to the people in the relationship and often significant to their consideration of whether or not they ought to enter into such a relationship.

The question is on what difference relevant to public policy do you ground your desire to differentiate in the distribution of public benefits between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples?

"Your line in the sand is arbitrary, and designed to fit your existing prejudices."

Its hardly arbitrary if men and women are distinct.

What is arbitrary is your denial of "equel rights" from one sort of same-sex relationship compared to another...that is your existing prejudice in the truest sense.

cmdicely hits the nail on the head so well I thought I'd repeat it,

But, the thing is, ultimately whether homosexuality is innate or chosen shouldn't matter all that much; due process means we don't differentiate among people in the rights and privileges provided under public policy on bases that don't provide an adequately compelling justification—based on a secular, public purpose—for the degree of discrimination applied. Whether the basis of discrimination is innate (like race) or chosen (like religion or political party affiliation) doesn't change that.

Further, prohibition of same-sex marriage discriminates by sex of the partners, and sex is clearly an innate characteristic; so even if the innate vs. choice issue was particularly relevant, whether homosexuality was innate or a choice wouldn't be the key point.

If being gay is a choice, then being a bigot is so much more defensible.

Hardly. Religious bigotry is no more defensible than racial bigotry, and religious affiliation is clearly a choice.

Bigotry is, without limitation or exception, entirely indefensible.

keith, If being gay is a choice, then being a bigot is so much more defensible.

As per the recent crank steam about how Obama isn't black enough or that he ought to choose to be white.

As a gay man, who did not "choose" to be so, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

Keith

"Further, prohibition of same-sex marriage discriminates by sex of the partners, and sex is clearly an innate characteristic; so even if the innate vs. choice issue was particularly relevant, whether homosexuality was innate or a choice wouldn't be the key point."

Well the sex discrimination angel has been a non-sequintor (outside the Baehr v. Miike (HI) case) courts have rejected it as nonsensical.

What you are missing is that every protected catogory in law (from race to religion) is

#1. Treated differently in multiple ways

and most importantly

#2.Directly adopted by the American people through the democratic process as a class of people worthy of such protections. (Too wit, homosexuality has been rejected as such a category)

Keith,

I knew that, but your comment made me realize that people like Rush Limbaugh probably imagine they can have some such notion.

At first after reading the above, I thought this was the most convincing and clearly illustrative comment on this sequence. But that logic only holds if being gay is something other than a conscious "choice." If being gay is a choice, then being a bigot is so much more defensible.

Why? As in the example above, (where discrimination against gays was compared to discrimination against Jews) being Jewish is similarly a "choice." Babies, after all, are not born inherently Jewish. (While babies may be considered Jewish or not by society, that is merely as a result of a particular ethnic/religious groups choice to consider them as such). Why is bigotry any more defensible if directed at an identity someone chooses rather than at an identity one is born with?

Similarly with race, many people of mixed heritage "choose" a particular racial identity. Someone with three white grandparents and only one black grandparent may still appear and identify themselves as black -- would racial bigotry directed at such a person be less odious merely because the person had "chosen" to be black rather than white?

Its hardly arbitrary if men and women are distinct.

That men and women are distinct physically is true, but irrelevant to the question of why they should be restricted to only mixed-gender marriages. That is to say, they are distinct, but so what? There is nothing in their physical distinctiveness that means that men are uniquely suited to marry only women, or vice versa.

Well the sex discrimination angel has been a non-sequintor (outside the Baehr v. Miike (HI) case) courts have rejected it as nonsensical. It is factually indisputable that restricting same sex marriage differentiates in the allocation of rights by sex. A man may not marry a man, a woman may marry a man. Courts may have chosen, for various reasons, not apply the heightened (intermediate) scrutiny usually applicable to sex discrimination in Due Process analysis, but it doesn't change the indisputable fact that it does, in fact, discriminate on the basis of sex.

What you are missing is that every protected catogory in law (from race to religion) is

#1. Treated differently in multiple ways

I don't miss that at all. In fact, above I've cited the broad standards by which such differentiation must be justified.

#2.Directly adopted by the American people through the democratic process as a class of people worthy of such protections.

Insofar as by "democratic process" you mean eitehr the legislative process or the Constitutional amendment process, but not judicial fiat in the form of case law, this is incorrect. While the Due Process clause, under which "protected classes" are simply bases of discrimination that are subjected to more rigorous requirements for justification (intermediate or strict scrutiny), was adopted through the Amendment process, the designations of particular "protected classes" are all through case law.

But, in any case, differentiation on any basis in treatment under the law requires a rational relationship to legitimate public purpose, whether or not a "protected class" is involved.

Your ignorance and illiteracy as justification for your bigotry annoy me, nothing more. It would be foolish to be threatened by someone arguing at the equivalent level of a preliterate 4yr old.
Posted by: Nads

And so you prove my point.
Not once did I say anything derogatory concerning you other than that you seem incapable of debate without personal attacks.
Who is displaying bigotry other than you?

“That men and women are distinct physically is true, but irrelevant to the question of why they should be restricted to only mixed-gender marriages. That is to say, they are distinct, but so what? There is nothing in their physical distinctiveness that means that men are uniquely suited to marry only women, or vice versa.�

Well its much more than physically true, is socially true, culturally true, physiologically true, psychologically true, historically true, legally true, and just plain true…

There are any number of “What’s� to your “so what�? question…

You seem to be denying our very humanity in your quest for gay “inclusion�.

CM Dicley

"the designations of particular "protected classes" are all through case law."

Statutes from the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1957 Civil Rights Act, and so forth are what determine if courts extend such classifications on to a particular group.

Brian said: "All I'm saying is that I will not give them that something-extra, that government subsidy. We don't give people benefits for being best friends, we don't give people benefits for being roomates."

How insulting, to say/imply that the love two gay people feel for one another is less than the love two straight people feel for one another, or that the gay couple's relationship is any less important, good, right, or valuable.

A gay couple are NOT roommates. They are lovers, partners, friends, life partners.

I'm straight, and I wholeheartedly support (and work actively for) legal gay marriage. To deny it is selfish and paranoid (how does their marriage affect yours?). You don't want your taxes paying for their benefits? Well maybe my gay friends are tired of paying taxes that pay for the benefits of STRAIGHT marrieds, and not getting anything in return.

Just because you say you're not a bigot doesn't make it so.

And for the love of god:

"it's" = "it is"
"its" = possessive

And it's "separate" not "seperate."

If you can't get common words correct, people, well, You have something in common with our current despot.

I am a gay man, who voted against this measure in Michigan, I warned my family and friends at the time of the subversive nature of the added verbage.... "Why was it there at all if not intended for some secondary purpose?"

I regret that most believed the propoganda that this measure was only about the institution of marrage when it passed, and I suspect that some of my 7 siblings voted for it, despite professing being at peace with my being gay.

Now that I have established my street cred as an agrieved party on the issue here I must ask the question, have some posters lost any sense of "irony?" When I said that: "If being gay is a choice, then being a bigot is so much more defensible." I was being IRONIC.....

Well its much more than physically true, is socially true, culturally true, physiologically true, psychologically true, historically true, legally true, and just plain true… There are any number of “What’s� to your “so what�? question…
You seem to be denying our very humanity in your quest for gay “inclusion�.

I'm trying to respond to this, but frankly am finding it a bit difficult to figure out what, if any, point you think you're trying to make. As I said, sure men and women are different. And again, so what? What difference does it make as to their marriage status? You can't just assert that there's a "difference" -- you have to make clear why you think the fact of that gender difference is so overwhelming that it overpowers all other justifications and rationales for people of the same gender to marry each other.

By that token one could as easily argue that men shouldn't be allowed to marry women, and vice versa, since they're different. We should stick with our own kind -- men should marry men, and women women, since they're so physically and physiologically and psychologically different....

Or to reverse it, I could argue along the lines of "Jews and Catholics are different, both socially and culturally and historically, etc. Therefore Catholics shouldn't be allowed to marry Catholics, but should only be allowed to marry Jews." It doesn't make much more sense there either....

And so you prove my point.
Not once did I say anything derogatory concerning you other than that you seem incapable of debate without personal attacks.
Who is displaying bigotry other than you?
Posted by: Hunter

You make statements like:

"Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay."

and

"It's like global warming, for every study saying homosexuality is genetic there is one saying the opposite."

Both of your above quotes demonstrate a willingness to fabricate science and ultimately demonstrate that, despite attempting to quote it, you really have very little understanding of the science behind the genetics of homosexuality (and apparently, the science behind global warming). It is not at all incorrect to call you ignorant of the science involved (which YOU invoked, btw).

Furthermore, as an MD and someone who actually did do a small amount of research in the genetics of sex determination and differentiation (and worked int he same lab as someone working on the genetics of male homosexuality), I find your ignorant misstatements personally offensive.

In fact, the only reason I can think of that you would attempt to misquote the studies of which you remain so ignorant would be to give some veneer of legitamcay to your bigotry.

That deserves, IMHO, no respect.

Statutes from the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1957 Civil Rights Act, and so forth are what determine if courts extend such classifications on to a particular group.

No, they are what determines if courts apply the protection of those statutes to a particular group, not if they protect the freedom of discrimination not constitutionally justified deriving from the due process clause to that group; every group gets that, and whether they get more or less scrutiny under it is not generally dependent, at least directly, on whether they have been designated special in statute.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there exist Constitutional protections against discrimination as well as particular statutory protections.

Stefen

“I'm trying to respond to this, but frankly am finding it a bit difficult to figure out what, if any, point you think you're trying to make. As I said, sure men and women are different. And again, so what? What difference does it make as to their marriage status? “

Let me answer (briefly, this is hardly an exhaustive list) from the New York High Court Opinion on this very subject.

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.

“You can't just assert that there's a "difference" -- you have to make clear why you think the fact of that gender difference is so overwhelming that it overpowers all other justifications and rationales for people of the same gender to marry each other. “

It doesn’t have to be “so overwellming…� It just has to be good public policy, which it is. (its also overwhelming by the way)

"You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there exist Constitutional protections against discrimination as well as particular statutory protections."

I am not..

You seem to be confusing constitutional protections that apply to individuals with….

Legal recognition of specific classes of individuals in our common law.

Well, to take these in order:

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.

Well, (a) this sounds like more of a reason to support straight fucking rather than straight marriage, and (b) the fact that straight marriages are more likely to result in childbirth is still no reason to ban gay marriages. After all, there's no shortage of marriage licenses -- a straight couple which wants to marry and have children won't be prevented from doing so because the gay couple ahead of them in line snapped up the last license.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal,

In the real world, of course, other things are not equal.

for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.

Again, probably a fine argument for allowing straights to fuck (and, tangentially, to marry) but not really an argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Sure, it may be "better" for a child to have both a mother and a father, (something I don't necessarily accept), but if that ideal case wasn't available, as it isn't for many children, wouldn't it then be better for the child to have two fathers, or two mothers, rather than only one single father or one single mother?

Fitz:

(1) I realize your quotes from the New York court's opinion are without context, but it seems to me that when the court opines that a legislature "could" rationally believe something, it implies that there is also a "could not."

(2) Is English your native language?

I am not..

You certainly seem to be.

You seem to be confusing constitutional protections that apply to individuals with….

Legal recognition of specific classes of individuals in our common law.

Er, no, not at all. First of all, the class protections you are referring to that you seem to think I am confusing with constitutional protections in fact exist in the statute law, not the common law, and second of all, I'm not confusing them at all; while the Constitutional protections are individual and individually enforceable, how they are applied (particularly, the standards of review that are applied) vary based on, inter alia, what type of class the differentiation is based on (racial differentiation generally receiving strict scrutiny, sex differentiation generally receiving intermediate scrutiny, sexual orientation discrimination generally subject only to rational basis scrutiny, for instance.)

It doesn’t have to be “so overwellming…� It just has to be good public policy, which it is.

Er, no. There is no degree of due process scrutiny which requires it to be "good public policy". It must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, at least, and depending on what level of scrutiny is involved, it may also need to be more narrowly tailored to that purposem, and the purpose may need additionally to be important or compelling.

But being good public policy is never a requirement as to the power of the legislature to discriminate, only as to its desirability.

Let me answer (briefly, this is hardly an exhaustive list) from the New York High Court Opinion on this very subject.

There is no such body as the "New York High Court". The court involved is the New York Court of Appeals, the case is Hernandez v. Robles, and I'd argue that it was decided in error, misapplying the rational basis test, or at best simply fails to justify its result, stating a bald conclusion. Most key is the flimsy analysis immediately following the portion you quote:

Plaintiffs, and amici supporting them, argue that the proposition asserted is simply untrue: that a home with two parents of different sexes has no advantage, from the point of view of raising children, over a home with two parents of the same sex. Perhaps they are right, but the Legislature could rationally think otherwise.

To support their argument, plaintiffs and amici supporting them refer to social science literature reporting studies of same-sex parents and their children. Some opponents of same-sex marriage criticize these studies, but we need not consider the criticism, for the studies on their face do not establish beyond doubt that children fare equally well in same-sex and opposite-sex households. What they show, at most, is that rather limited observation has detected no marked differences. More definitive results could hardly be expected, for until recently few children have been raised in same-sex households, and there has not been enough time to study the long-term results of such child-rearing.

Plaintiffs seem to assume that they have demonstrated the irrationality of the view that opposite-sex marriages offer advantages to children by showing there is no scientific evidence to support it. Even assuming no such evidence exists, this reasoning is flawed. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the commonsense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home. And a legislature proceeding on that premise could rationally decide to offer a special inducement, the legal recognition of marriage, to encourage the formation of opposite-sex households.

In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals.

The problem here is that the Court utterly fails to identify anyway a rational basis for differentiation. Indeed, the only basis the Court identifies is unsubstantiated assumption in the absence of any evidence supporting the differentiation. While the court tries to dress this up by calling it "common sense", and asserting over and over again that "a rational legislature could think...", it never once points to a single rational basis for the conclusion that it claims a rational legislature could reach, and indeed asserts explicitly, though bizarrely, that such a belief could be rational where no evidence exists to justify it.

It then, In sum, there are rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals.

It then, even more bizarrely, asserts that it is not clear that the policy is supported only by "prejudice", which is, precisely, assumption of a conclusion in the absence of adequate evidence.

Further, the court reverses the burden of proof, requiring those challenging the law have the burden of conclusively proving beyond doubt that there is no grounds for the differentiation, rather than, as would be proper, requiring the state to demonstrate a rational (=reasonable) basis, not a mere unsubstantiated prejudice, supporting the differentiation.

Not giving gay couples benefits does not mean discrimination against gays; it just means the government will remain neutral

If the government were "neutral", it wouldn't sanction homosexual or heterosexual marriage, dumbass.

That's the whole point.

Personally, this sounds perfectly fine and reasonable that public taxpayer dollars should not be used to support same gender sex unions and dependents as beneficiaries.

After all, public tax dollars are not used to fund abortion as many people feel their tax dollars should not be used to fund actions/behaviors they do not believe in.

There are even laws where people can not live in public subsidize housing if their behavior is objectionable or they have a relative living with them who's behavior is deemed unlawful. The tenant can be evicted despite them not having engaged in unlawful behavior.

So denying the use of public funds for behaviors deemed unproductive to society or intolerable is not considered unjust.

Public tax dollars are also not used to provide scholarships based on merit because tax payers of state funded University's beleive those dollars should only be awarded to recipients with a demonstrated financial need.

Therefore, not using public tax dollars to fund benefits for individuals in non-marital unions is perfectly reasonable.

Good for Michigan!

Regarding:
But, the thing is, ultimately whether homosexuality is innate or chosen shouldn't matter all that much; due process means we don't differentiate among people in the rights and privileges provided under public policy on bases that don't provide an adequately compelling justification—based on a secular, public purpose—for the degree of discrimination applied. Whether the basis of discrimination is innate (like race) or chosen (like religion or political party affiliation) doesn't change that

I respectfully disagree with this reasoning. The facts are that while we do not discriminate against individuals when it comes to rights and priviledges under public law. Society does discriminate against BEHAVIORS of individuals, thus we have laws opposing prostitution, rape, bestiality, theft, serial killing etc.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR that while legal, cannot be consider the same when discussing rights and privileges of individuals. Driving in our society is a priviledge and when individuals drink too much (behavior) and drive we prosecute them.
Homosexuals have the right to engage in whatever sexual conduct they chose in their owns, as well as the right to not be discriminated against in terms of employment and housing. These are the individuals rights all people in this society have. Homosexuals however have no right to access public funds for benefits because they choose to not marry the opposite sex. The decision not to marry the oppsite sex is one of choice.

Society has every right to discriminate and not provide the priviledge of tax payer funded benefits to individuals who engage in same gender sex, just as we prosecute individuals for whoring and do not fund abortions nor drug addictions or drinking and driving behavior.

Personally, this sounds perfectly fine and reasonable that public taxpayer dollars should not be used to support same gender sex unions and dependents as beneficiaries. After all, public tax dollars are not used to fund abortion as many people feel their tax dollars should not be used to fund actions/behaviors they do not believe in.

Hey, I feel my tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund mixed-gender marriages or the Iraq War, and yet I pony up vast sums a year for them.

Society does discriminate against BEHAVIORS of individuals, thus we have laws opposing prostitution, rape, bestiality, theft, serial killing etc. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR that while legal, cannot be consider the same when discussing rights and privileges of individuals. Driving in our society is a priviledge and when individuals drink too much (behavior) and drive we prosecute them.

Er, no. You don't seem all that bright, so let me help you out and point out the flaw in your reasoning. Generally we have laws opposing murder, rape, etc. not for the behavior inherent in itself but because of the involuntary consequence it imposes on others -- that is, the person murdered, the person raped, etc. These are all coercive behaviors, and we ban them in order to protect innocent victims from being subjected to harm they do not consent to.

Homosexuality, by contrast, is a purely voluntary behavior (though not a voluntary orientation) that has no similar "innocent victim" as in murder or rape. Both people freely engage in the act -- that is to say, no one finds themselves having gay sex purely by accident, no matter what the odd Baptist preacher or Republican congressman may claim.

Homosexuals have the right to engage in whatever sexual conduct they chose in their owns, as well as the right to not be discriminated against in terms of employment and housing.

Actually, no, they don't have that right these days. In many, and perhaps even most, states, you can freely fire or evict someone purely because they're gay.

After all, public tax dollars are not used to fund abortion as many people feel their tax dollars should not be used to fund actions/behaviors they do not believe in.
Posted by: glissade

25 years ago, you would have been using this same logic to argue against providing benefits to mixed race marriages. It was discrimination then, too.

Soon enough, your kind will either change their mind, or die off ... I really couldn't care which one.

Homosexuals however have no right to access public funds for benefits because they choose to not marry the opposite sex. The decision not to marry the oppsite sex is one of choice.

Similarly the decision to enter into a mixed-gender marriage is one of choice, so why should straights have the right to access public funds just because they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex?

And, as I've noted above, would we similarly endorse giving a publicly-funded tax break to Jewish synagogues, say, but not Roman Catholic churches, because being Catholic is a matter of choice, and therefore society should have every right to discriminate and not provide the privilege of taxpayer funded benefits to individuals who engage in Catholicism?

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR that while legal, cannot be consider the same when discussing rights and privileges of individuals.

And, just to finish this off, homosexuality is not simply a behavior, but also an orientation and a matter of self-identity. You can consider yourself gay and never have had gay sex in your life. The vast majority of heterosexuals, for example, don't consider themselves straight only when they're having straight sex -- they just feel straight, it's who they are, they consider it part of their innate psychological make-up. Similarly so with homosexuality.

I respectfully disagree with this reasoning. The facts are that while we do not discriminate against individuals when it comes to rights and priviledges under public law. Society does discriminate against BEHAVIORS of individuals, thus we have laws opposing prostitution, rape, bestiality, theft, serial killing etc.

We discriminate against individuals, both based on purely innate and otherwise non-behavior status (age—on which many rights and benefits are conditions, sex—on which selective service obligations are conditioned, race—on which minority-owned-business preferences in public contracting are based) and on behavior.

But the basis of such discrimination must be such as to provide a rational, sufficient, secular, public purpose for the discrimination. The details of what is sufficient legally vary based on all types of distinctions among kinds of discrimination in the Constitutional case law and the statute law, as well, but Constitutionally all discrimination, whether based on status or behavior, must have such justification.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR that while legal, cannot be consider the same when discussing rights and privileges of individuals.

The “behavior” involved in choosing to marry someone of the same sex is no more different than the behavior involved in choosing to marry someone of a different race than the behavior of choosing to marry someone of the same race.

Merely asserting that homosexuality is “a behavior” (aside from being false, homosexuality is a preference, which may or may not be reflected in behavior, and which may manifest in many different types of behavior if it manifests in any) and that it is not “the same” does not establish a basis for differentiating between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples in rights.

Homosexuals have the right to engage in whatever sexual conduct they chose in their owns, as well as the right to not be discriminated against in terms of employment and housing. These are the individuals rights all people in this society have. Homosexuals however have no right to access public funds for benefits because they choose to not marry the opposite sex. The decision not to marry the oppsite sex is one of choice.

So is the decision to seek a job or housing. Why are people entitled to non-discrimination in the public sphere where it regards their choice of job or housing, but not where it regards their choice of life partners?

Society has every right to discriminate and not provide the priviledge of tax payer funded benefits to individuals who engage in same gender sex, just as we prosecute individuals for whoring and do not fund abortions nor drug addictions or drinking and driving behavior.

Whether or not adequate grounds exist to treat differently people who engage in those other behaviors is not the issue; the issue is whether or not such grounds exist where it comes to people who choose someone of the same sex as their life partners (not people who choose to have same-gender sex, either, as, in law, marriage is not a commitment to have sex.)

You present no such reason, and the mere assertion that it is in some vague and unspecified way analogous to those other behaviors does not make your point for you.

In reply to:

But the basis of such discrimination must be such as to provide a rational, sufficient, secular, public purpose for the discrimination. The details of what is sufficient legally vary based on all types of distinctions among kinds of discrimination in the Constitutional case law and the statute law, as well, but Constitutionally all discrimination, whether based on status or behavior, must have such justification.

G: OK, so you are saying that society must have a justification for the discrimination, and are accepting that indeed society does discriminate against specific behaviors. When it comes to same gender sex, society has clearly indicated it does not want to encourage or promote sexually behavior which is contributes to a breakdown of the family unit. The family unit is essential to perpetuation of society and that is why society encourages individuals to marry and provides tax incentives as well as benefits. Same gender sex marriage and behavior does not provide those benefits to society thus the discrimination.

CMDICELY: The “behavior� involved in choosing to marry someone of the same sex is no more different than the behavior involved in choosing to marry someone of a different race than the behavior of choosing to marry someone of the same race.

G: You are making my case for me. Society believes that, thus they are unwilling to change the law for individuals to have special benefits based on what their genitals. All men and women in this society can choose to marry the opposite sex. If marriage is so important to them there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

CMDicely: Merely asserting that homosexuality is “a behavior� (aside from being false, homosexuality is a preference, which may or may not be reflected in behavior, and which may manifest in many different types of behavior if it manifests in any) and that it is not “the same� does not establish a basis for differentiating between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples in rights.

G: All sex is a behavior, whether it is incest, rape, prostitution,pedophilia, necrophilia whoring, homo, hetero or bisexual. Sex is a behavior. To assert that homosexuality is a behavior, which by definition means the individual's preference is same gender sex is not false. It is a fact. Forgive me if I presumed that it was accepted fact that the homo prefix means same gender sex. Sex is a behavior independent of the gender of the partner. The gender of the partner merely designates the preference or choice of the individual when it comes to their sexual BEHAVIOR.

I agree and society agrees that discriminating against any individual on the basis of the individual rights granted under the constitution is unacceptable. However, society does not agree that because an individual chooses to engage in same gender sex that marriage that they are entitled to re-define marriage on the basis of their sexual preferences and desire for financial benefits. The same is true for abortion. Individuals get to engage in sex irresponsibly, they do not get to assert that society should pay for their abortion. Just as society does accept that individuals who drink can drive even though drinking is legal. Society also does not accept that individuals who whore can do so without penalty even though sex is legal. Nor does society believe that public nudity or bigamy are acceptable even though marriage is legal and nudity is natural.

CMDICELY: Why are people entitled to non-discrimination in the public sphere where it regards their choice of job or housing, but not where it regards their choice of life partners?

G: The lack of discrimination is based on constitutional rights of the individual independent of their behavior. If you engage in activities that are deemed socially unacceptable such as lewd behavior on your job, society will fire you. If you have a DUI society will discriminate against giving you a job based on your 'irresponsible judgement' even though the job may not require you to drive. In this society once you engage in behaviors that are 'outside the norm' or which are deemed as socially reprehensible, society accepts and tolerates the individual being discriminated against as they choose not to encourage the behaviors in others. This is true for criminals who may have paid their 'debt' to society in terms of incarceration as well. Society has consistently discriminated against behaviors which are not conducive to a civil and productive community. Homosexuality is one of those.

CMDICELY: the issue is whether or not such grounds exist where it comes to people who choose someone of the same sex as their life partners (not people who choose to have same-gender sex, either, as, in law, marriage is not a commitment to have sex.)

If marriage was not a commitment to have sex for homosexuals they would choose a heterosexual partner and we would not even be discussing this issue. Heterosexuals who are single do not ever talk about wanting to marry someone for benefits and to access public tax money. Only homosexuals do so. They are not content to be single and engage in same gender sex. They want financial benefits for their sexual preferences. Otherwise they would choose to marry the opposite gender.

What individuals who engage in same gender sex have chosen to do is place their sexual behavior as the utmost priority in their lives. They have taken it to the point of even assuming it as some sort of identity. Rather than recognize that sex is something individuals do not who you are. After all even heterosexuals engage in anal and oral sex.

Truthfuly, there is no such thing as a homosexual, there are only individuals who engage in homosexual acts. When people go to such an extreme about their genital behavior to the point of claiming it as an 'identity' then it is a problem for society and it is aberrant. Imagine if the world accepted rapists simply because they claimed that behavior publically or even thieves. Simply be claiming an aberrant behavior society is suppose to accept it and tolerate it? Nope.

Most individuals understand that sex is not who they are and they do not attempt to get the world to accept or judge them on the basis of what they do with their genitals. It raises the question of mental stability when an individual makes such a claim as an identity. Sex is private behavior and it should remain such. There should be no special exceptions or genital rights based on aberrant sexual behavior.

The sad thing about this discussion is that not ONCE did I give my personal opinion of the subject.
I merely stated what is absolutely true...that many people consider homosexuality to be a chosen lifestyle.
I have known many gays...both male and female...in my life, and am fully aware that none of them actually chose to be such, although most of them personally believed it to be a result of the enviroment during their childhood.
Nads and the others who attacked me ASSUMED that I was anti-gay...which I am not.

I was insulted on a personal level because Nads and the other rabidly liberal writers here obviously have never bothered to look up the actual definition of the word "bigotry".

The prime meaning of the word is:

the state or condition of a narrow-minded, intolerant person; blind and obstinate attachment to a particular creed, party, or opinion; intolerance; fanaticism.

Now, who is displaying bigotry here...me, or the blindly liberal people who attacked and insulted me because THEY SUSPECTED THAT MY OPINION DIFFERED FROM THEIR OWN?

Now, who is displaying bigotry here...me, or the blindly liberal people who attacked and insulted me because THEY SUSPECTED THAT MY OPINION DIFFERED FROM THEIR OWN?
Posted by: Hunter

awww ... poor persecuted little bigot.

again, you whining jackass, you're being attacked because you made asinine statements of a scientific nature without knowing the science involved. you were hoping no one would notice.

you got bitch slapped by someone who called you out on it ... because he happens to know the science.

again, this isn't personal ... I just happen to dislike scientificly illiterate conservatives misquoting data they know nothing about.

Again, Nads, I NEVER QUOTED ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA.
Face it...YOU, SIR, ARE A BIGOT!!!
On top of that, you are an unmitigated asshole who will probably never recognize the fact that you are both a bigot and an asshole.
Like most liberals, you consider yourslf to be "enlightened" and incapable of ever being wrong on any subject that you and your elitist co-liberals have decided is worthy of your opinion.

Of course, telling you this is like beating one's head against a wall because you are intellectually incapable of conceiving the fact that you are an inferior sub-species that will succomb to natural selection in the future.
You and your politically-correct friends will never understand how the world actually operates because you are too busy villifying anyone whose opinions don't coincide with your "rose-colored glasses" vision of paradise where everyone skips happily along hand-in-hand as they plunge over the edge like lemmings.
MORON!

Hey, I feel my tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund mixed-gender marriages or the Iraq War, and yet I pony up vast sums a year for them.
Stefan on February 16, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Unfortunately, funding a military to 'protect' our national interest is something no Americans have a choice about. OTOH, when it comes to BEHAVIORS society chooses not to encourage we do get a choice.i.e. abortion/housing for addicts

Individuals, who engage in homosexual acts, have all the benefits of any other non-married person.

Society, chose to provide additional tax benefits and insurance to married couples to encourage marriage for heterosexual couples to reproduce. While reproducing is not mandatory for those benefits, society benefits greatly from children being raised in a stable home by their mother and father.

There is reams of data to support this. Gay couples do not provide a benefit to society in that regard. Recent data, in fact has shown that children raised by lesbians/gays have developmental issues when it comes to relating to the adult gender not present in their home. They are also far more likely to explore same gender sex. This is not behavior society deems of a high priority to promote.

Just like animals, the modeling of human development by adults is important for our youth. Single parenting as well, has been shown to be the most predictive factor for a child being uneducated, impoverished or engaging in criminal conduct, drugs and struggling with peer-adult relationships.

As none of these outcomes for youth are highly desired by society...same gender marriage and divorce are not encouraged by access to public funding that benefits that status.

And, just to finish this off, homosexuality is not simply a behavior, but also an orientation and a matter of self-identity. You can consider yourself gay and never have had gay sex in your life. The vast majority of heterosexuals, for example, don't consider themselves straight only when they're having straight sex -- they just feel straight, it's who they are, they consider it part of their innate psychological make-up. Similarly so with homosexuality.
Posted by: Stefan on February 16, 2007 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

To quote you, er, you don't seem so bright. Let me show you the flaw in your reasoning by starting with some basic facts. All human sex is solely a behavior. Who an individual chooses for a sexual partner is the only thing that the term homosexuality denotes. To put it succinctly, there is no such thing as a homosexual, there are only individuals who engage in homosexual acts.

Sex is something that individuals do it is not who they are. Sexual behavior is not an identity anymore so than whoring, bestiality, prostitution, theft or drinking until a person is drunk. All of these are behaviors. Point of fact, the very idea that some person believes they can create an identity out of their aberrant sexual conduct is absolutley absurd and creates doubt about their mental stability.

If we allow people to simply claim behaviors as an identity and to change laws simply because they claim it as an identity...we would also have folks claiming drunkard, whore and prostitute as an identity.

Furthermore, the term sexual 'orientation' is a completely made up term based on the premise that there is some biological/genetic basis for sexual behavior. All scientific data which has purported to demonstrate such has been thoroughly debunked and refuted to the point of the very scientist who conducted the flawed research denouncing the wholly inaccurate conclusion of some genetic basis for sexual conduct having been demonstrated by their own research!

Again, Nads, I NEVER QUOTED ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA.
Face it...YOU, SIR, ARE A BIGOT!!!
Posted by: Hunter

I know, jackass ... that's my point. You did, however, make these statements:

"Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay."

and

"It's like global warming, for every study saying homosexuality is genetic there is one saying the opposite."

Both of these were appeals to science which YOU made under the auspices of your bigoted argument in favor of discrimination against homosexuals. The fact that you don't actually KNOW THE SCIENCE, and therefore DIDN'T QUOTE ANY SCIENCE is my entire point.

You were hoping everyone lese was as ignorant as you and that your statements would be allowed to pass without comment.

Your statements were wrong, and I've demonstrated as much. Knowing the science clearly somewhat better than do you, it frankly wasn't that hard.

So ... now you've been educated, and informed that the 4 of the 5 human linkage studies, and nearly ALL animal studies, DO in fact support a genetic basis for male homosexuality.

What will you do with this new found data? Will you suddenly stop being a bigot? Will you repent for all these years of misleading others everytime you opined on this subject?

Furthermore, the term sexual 'orientation' is a completely made up term based on the premise that there is some biological/genetic basis for sexual behavior. All scientific data which has purported to demonstrate such has been thoroughly debunked and refuted to the point of the very scientist who conducted the flawed research denouncing the wholly inaccurate conclusion of some genetic basis for sexual conduct having been demonstrated by their own research!
Posted by: glissade

You are full of shit, and barely worth responding to. However, like Hunter, my baseline assumption with you and all conservatards is that you are scientifically illiterate, and likely cannot understand the data, anyways.

however, having made the statement: "All scientific data which has purported to demonstrate such has been thoroughly debunked and refuted," I would LOVE to read what sources you are attributing that to.

I can only assume that they are also scientists .. because linking to random rightwing newsmags would be somewhat akin to learning about Jewish ancestry from nazi textbooks.

Ah...There it is!
The standard liberal attitude.

"I'm smarter than anybody else and the whole world should follow goose-stepping behind my obviously superior intellect because I know what is best for everybody."

Self-delusion at its finest.
Tell me...Have you ever considered therapy for those delusions of grandeur?
No...wait...I'm sorry.
I forgot.
You're smarter than the therapists, aren't you?
Moron.

All I can do is lead the wingnut to knowledge ... I can't make him less of a bigot.

Hunter ... just admit you got pwned by someone who knows the studies which you invoke, yet manage to remain ignorant of.

I'm not smarter than everybody else ... just you. Demonstrably.

... and why this aversion to intellect and the scientific method, anyways? Your ilk takes the term "scientific illiterate" as a compliment ... why are your panties in such a twist over having your particular ignorance highlighted?

like Hunter, my baseline assumption with you and all conservatards is that you are scientifically illiterate, and likely cannot understand the data, anyways.

Wrong. Shithead. You have been spewing bovine excrement claiming to be literate in science. I am a dyed in the wool liberal. Hamer, LeVay and Bailey's data have all been debunked and refuted. Anyone else you which to discuss, asshole? Don't even bring up that ridiculous animal data you trotted out from those rightwing and GLAAD journals ... as we are humans.
You got science in humans...bring it on!

Also, let me say now, I will cease this dialogue if you cannot refrain from using profanity and name calling. I have met you once at your level, that is it. Discuss the issue. Not me.

Excellent ... claims of literacy. This should be more enlightening.

Given your confidence in my ignorance and shit-spewing, it should be easy for you to cite something to disprove their data, right ... since it has all been debunked and disproven. Which of these, exactly, have been disproven?

1) A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation.
Science. 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):321-7

2) Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females.
Nat Genet. 1995 Nov;11(3):248-56.

3) A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples.
Behav Genet. 1999 Mar;29(2):79-86.

4) A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation.
Hum Genet. 2005 Mar;116(4):272-8. Epub 2005 Jan 12

5) Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men.
Hum Genet. 2006 Feb;118(6):691-4

All of these support evidence of genetic contribution to male homosexuality (in humans for the intellegent designer in you). All with verifiable study populations and standard statistical genetic linkage parameters -- Leonard Kruglyak, who I'm sure you're familiar with if you know anything about biostatistics, is a senior author on the 1995 Nat Genetics paper.

Of note, there also exists

1) Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28.
Science. 1999 Apr 23;284(5414):665-7

.. so to summarize, there exist 5 studies which support genetic contribution to male homosexuality, 3 of which highlight the X chromosome's contribution, 1 which does not find Xq28 but supports strong autosomal loci, and 1 of which was not designed to address linkage (but only familial predisposition) which found increased incidences in families beyond expected for a non-genetic/non-familial trait.

And we have a failure to replicate the Xq28 locus in 1 other study.

So ... tell me where I fucked up. Please ... educate me.

so to summarize, there exist 5 studies which support genetic contribution to male homosexuality, 3 of which highlight the X chromosome's contribution, 1 which does not find Xq28 but supports strong autosomal loci, and 1 of which was not designed to address linkage (but only familial predisposition) which found increased incidences in families beyond expected for a non-genetic/non-familial trait.Nads on February 18, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Oh brother another scientifically challenged person. Do you even understand what 'contribution' means or increased incidence?

I can design a study that shows aspirin has a contribution to headache. I can also show that there is an increased incidence of aspirin use in people with headaches. The studies would show a strong evidence/association of aspirin with headaches. Does that mean that aspirin causes headaches? Given that I would be able to demonstate a very strong statistical correlation (linkage) with aspirin and headaches. If the world did not know what causes headaches there are some who would suggest due to the strong evidence that Asprin does. That would be a totally invalid conclusion. That is what the studies you have posted are doing.

It appears that you clearly do not understand the scientific terms that are used when discussing genetics.

I think we need to define terms so that your feigned literacy will not make the dialogue more challenging than necessary.

Can you differntiate between the terms, heriditable, inherited, linkage, correlated, association and causal when discussing genetic claims as a basis for homosexuality?

I have found that individuals who do not have a good grasp of these concepts invariable are unable to understand the conclusions let alone the significance of what the studies are NOT claiming.

In other words they make BS claims like you have here.

Please share with me your understanding of those terms when used to discuss genes before I begin to show you why all those studies are meaningless.

Just in case anyone reading isn't ... say ... a geneticist:

The single inability to replicate a result, positively or negatively, is not the same as "debunking" or "refuting." Both of those terms imply scientific inaccuracy.

For example, prior to the discovery of SRY as THE gene on the Y chromosome which begins testes determination in utero, and so is ultimately responsible for sex differentiation (whether we become male or female), there were a few candidates which were way off.

1) The sex-determining region of the human Y chromosome encodes a finger protein.
Cell. 1987 Dec 24;51(6):1091-104.

The above study was well done, completely accurate, and completely wrong. According to this, the real sex-determining gene was a zinc fingered protein ... which ended up being physically located very close to the real candidate.

That's genetics ... we're limited by the technology, the numbers of patients or samples, and our sensitivity to detect an effect with existing methods. For something as obvious as male vs female, there were still completely accurate false positives and false negatives.

That's why we do more studies.

Imagine for something as "messy" as sexual orientation, with likely environmental contributions, the amount of noise contaminating the ability to detect a positive linkage.

None of which, of course, absolves ignorant people from saying things like:

"Despite their fervent desire to convince the world otherwise, there has never been definite scientific proof that anyone has ever been born gay."

and

"It's like global warming, for every study saying homosexuality is genetic there is one saying the opposite."

There IS existing data, and it doesn't suggest the above statements at all. To say them implies either bigotry or ignorance.

Unless glisxsade educates me about why the several studies above are scientifically inaccurate.

Can you differntiate between the terms, heriditable, inherited, linkage, correlated, association and causal when discussing genetic claims as a basis for homosexuality?
Posted by: glissade

heritability implies the ability for a trait to be transmitted from parent to offspring.

inherited means that the above has occurred.

linkage is a statistical genetic term to show that a trait and a marker co-exisit with a higher frequency than would be expected to occur by chance. It requires a family study, or a collection of families, to demonstrate linkage. It is often reported as a LOD score, which, in short, is the log10 odds of the linkage between trait and marker occurring by chance.

correlated just means that two (or more) factors are related in some predictable way, such that you can model the behavior of one by knowing the other. as any 16yo can tell you, it doesn't imply causation.

association is similar to linkage, except it does not require a family structure. since it isn't limited to families, it requires more people (is statistically less powerful). association shows that a marker and trait in a population are more highly correlated than would be expected by chance.

causal means exactly that ... the underlying genetic variation causes the trait.

... as for your aspirin example, presented at the high school level as it is, I'm, going to have to teach it to you at that level. of COURSE all you've described is a simple correlation, implying nothing about causation.

however, if you set up a study looking at all genome markers and correlate them with homosexuality, and you find something with ... say a LOD score of 3 (which means 1000:1 odds of occurring by chance) showing that a particular part of chromosome 1 is shared amongst those with headaches, then it would be fair to say that this small part of chromosome 1 occurrs more frequently among headache sufferers than among non-headaches, or amongst the general population. it would also, therefore, be accurate to say that there is a genetic contribution to headaches.

then it would be INACCURATE to say that "there is no scientific evidence that headaches are genetic." clearly, there is a genetic contribution, possibly a predisposition, based on this shared piece of chrom 1 (especially if i's been repeated over 3x).

I get the feeling I'm arguing with someone who's understanding of genetics and statistics never went beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" ... which, at the risk of sounding like a know-it-all elitist liberal, I already knew.

BTW, feel free to PubMed or GoogleScholar my name and initials from my email ... or email me personally. I'm sure the various statistical genetic papers I've c-authored are all somehow flawed by my poor math comprehension.

I can also show that there is an increased incidence of aspirin use in people with headaches. The studies would show a strong evidence/association of aspirin with headaches. Does that mean that aspirin causes headaches? Given that I would be able to demonstate a very strong statistical correlation (linkage) with aspirin and headaches.
Posted by: glissade

small point about terminology ... you're describing an "association" here, not "linkage." To define linkage, your aspirin study requires a family structure, whereas to pick up simple association, you don't.

Linkage is a specific term regarding whether the trait being measured tracks with a particular spot on the genome ... that' why it requires families.

I know ... it's getting complicated for you. A tuch more than you'd bargained for, I'm guessing.

Any more tests? The basics are always good to brush up on.

Wrong. Shithead. You have been spewing bovine excrement claiming to be literate in science. I am a dyed in the wool liberal.

I did a quick google of your names and emails. You seem like a fairly decent dude ... except for your glaring blindspot about the evils of the homosexual agenda, which really, really takes up a lot of your writing.

I also take exception to your description of yourself as a "dyed in the wool liberal" when your self-description in HuffPo was

"I also am not a right winger...I am your worse nightmare, a fiscally conservative social moderate who opposes gay rights. I think all gays should join the Log Cabin republicans and leave the democratic party ALONE.
By: elrapierwit on March 15, 2006 at 06:54pm

I also needed to know what level of education I'm dealing with ... I'm (just guessing here) going to aim for 30-something mid level pharmaceutical rep. Clearly not an MD or PhD ... maybe a MS at best. Some science, basic math and stats, but nothing too complicated.

Discuss the issue. Not me.
Posted by: glisxsade

when discussing homesexuality with someone who says things like:

Now I do not know what planet you are on, but last time I checked both homosexuality and pedophilia were deviant sexual behaviors.

... then it seems only germane to talk about them, as well. I can see why you'd want to avoid the topic, though, bigotry being such an ugly thing.

Isn't Al Gore's Internet grand!

OK, Nads.
You obviously know what you are talking about.
However, everything I have read concerning the research done on the subject also gave strong cautions against making any final assumptions as to whether the genetic traits found in the studies were a cause, or a result of the X2q8 chromsome.
What is your opinion on this?

I actually do have a number of gay friends and am curious about the subject.

Obviously, much more research needs to be done on the subject.
Do you believe that an actual physical cause for homosexuality might also indicate that a cure or preventative is possible or is that idea way too far in the future to consider?
Most of the gays I know are quite content to be so, but will also admit that their lives would have probably been much less turbulent if they had been straight.

BTW...I apologize for the "moron" comment, but not for the "liberal" ones.
There are way too many other issues that I just can't understand the liberal viewpoint on.

I think there are likely genetic predispositions for homosexuality ... I view it like obesity, heart disease, and other complicated traits.

There are really skinny people who have great diets who have heart attacks by age 40 ... just like their father and uncles ... probably a genetic predisposition. Likewise, there are really fat people with awful diets who never have heart attacks ... presumably better genetics.

We all know fat people who actually eat pretty well ... but they and everyone else in their family is overweight.

I view homosexuality as an interplay between genetics and environment.

I don't think anything is pre-determined, but I DO think that there are definite predispositions, and that any policy or thought system regarding homosexuality needs to account for both genetic and environmental factors.

Just as it is unlikely that there is ONE gene which causes obesity, I think it unlikely that ONE gene causes being gay. But there is definite evidence that genetics is involved ... which makes it difficult to parse.

Frequently, gays are told that they shouldn't compare their situation with blacks or Jews since one cannot help being born a certain race, whereas being gay is ALL a choice. ... Eventually, we'll all interbreed to a point where variations in skin pigment will become, like obesity and heart disease, a complex condition. Gays are essentially already there: predisposed but not obligated to being a certain way. We wouldn't tolerate discrimination based on predisposition to more pigment, so why allow discrimination based on this predisposition?

sorry for being a dick.

Hey, we all have our moments.
Thanks for the information.
I particularly liked the comparison with being overweight and heart attacks, seeing as how my wife has always been overweight but has never had heart problems, whereas I have always been moderately slender and in great health but had a heart attack at 48.
Go figure!

I have noticed your comments in a few of the other subjects online and still think you're hopelessly liberal, but then I was raised by hopelessly liberal parents so it really doesn't bother me much.
I guess that kind of rules out liberalism as being genetic, though, doesn't it?
But then...I'll leave that question to you experts.

Hope you're doing OK after the heart attack.