Homosexuality

[Daystar]

Italy's nominee to become the European Union's Justice and Home Affairs commissioner failed on Monday to win the backing of the European Parliament's Justice Committee, days after testifying that he considers homosexuality a sin.

The panel narrowly failed to endorse Rocco Buttiglione, who is currently Italy's European Affairs minister, said Jean-Louis Bourlanges, chairman of the Justice Committee.

Buttiglione said that he would fight for the rights of homosexuals, but would not back away from his statement that the lifestyle is sinful.

Isn't this the way it should be? Fight for the rights of homosexuals, but individuals, but define their lifestyle as sinful (Lev. 18:22).

[Jose]

... then you must get married to a person of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.

This is certainly how it's been defined previously, we can't argue about that. But we know more now, including the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, and the fact that it's not contagious, and the fact that it is a mismatch between the sex of the brain and the sex of the external organs. I tend to think of people as who they are, not who their external organs are, and therefore think it makes sense to allow people to marry according to the characteristics of the brain that god gave them.

Homosexual marriages don't stand up to scrutiny. You should be arguing for the other side.

It depends on what criteria you use to scrutinize. Our discussion here is really about the criteria.

The marriage feast is about Love. Sex is just a side dish.
Everyone wants the fairness and freedom to marry the person they love.
To define marriage in terms of sex is to miss the point.

I'd like to agree, but historically, marriage really has been about sex. That's why marrying close relatives is disallowed, and why interracial marriages were disallowed, and why we're supposed to be abstaining from sex until marriage. This is also why many people don't like the concept of homosexual marriage--they cannot avoid thinking about the sex they would be having.

Imagine yourself exactly as you are except that you are only attracted to dogs. You feel sexually, towards dogs, exactly the way you do now towards males or females in a sexual way. You are not allowed to marry any of these dogs, but instead are told your rights are equal because you can marry someone of the same species that you find sexually repulsive.

Very good! I hadn't thought about dogs that way, but now that you mention it....

This is related to the point above: marriage has historically been defined as a contract for sex and the raising of children. We've re-defined it legally, and given the frequency of childless couples, we've begun to remove the notion of raising children as a requirement. Now, in the legal sense, it's hard to figure out how you'd handle your joint IRS return if you were married to your dog. How would Fido sign the return? What about Fido's W2 form? Is Fido a dependent? Fortunately, this isn't a big issue. Not many people seem to be clamoring for the right to marry their dogs--and none of the dogs are.

I have no idea how many people have their sexual preference neural wiring set up to focus on dogs, or gerbils, or Boston ferns. I'd bet it's a whole lot less than those whose embryology was altered by endocrine disruptors, resulting in their brain following the normal developmental pathway of the opposite sex (as defined by genital anatomy). What we'd be comparing, if we could, would be a situation that is very unusual and dependent on fairly severe changes in neural wiring, compared to a quite simple flip of a developmental switch that sends the brain down one or the other normal pathway.

In other words, it's not the same thing, so there!:google:

Why did God do this to you? Why did He make your embryonic development come out the way it did, with a mismatch between the sex of your brain and the sex of your external appearance?

Satan is responsible for sin. Not God. We are, in our very nature, evil. We all do evil things. We don't all do the exact same evil things.

But being born isn't evil or a sin. It is usually said, and is often said in this forum, that the development of the child in the womb is under the guidance of God. How can the same people claim that God guides our development, and then say that Satan did it if it comes out differently from what we wanted?

Why does everyone insist that your sex is determined by your flesh and not your mind?

By this, I will take "flesh" to mean sexual orientation and "mind" to mean biological/chemical components of your brain (both being physical, neither being mental).

Actually, "flesh" means your external genitalia. This is what is used to determine sex. Not the internal genitalia (many XY females exist, with testes that degenerate because the supporting somatic tissues aren't there). Not the person's stated beliefs and opinions. Just the external genitalia--and if they don't look "right" at birth, the US tradition is to "edit" them surgically, without consent of the person upon whom the operation is performed.

"Mind" means your brain, in both its physical/biological components and its mental components that flow from the physical/biological makeup.

And if it is a result of the biological/chemical mind by saying that you can be born that way, why shouldn't homosexuals be categorized under some sort of mental/functional disorder (that something is wrong with them)?

Doing so would be something akin to saying that the natural human condition (as defined by the dominant alleles) is to have black hair and dark skin, so we should define "being blonde" as a genetic disease. Actually, the current trend is to develop a more inclusive society, in which those with genetic differences are treated more equally, not labeled as "weird." At best, your suggestion might label these people as "disabled," in which case they would come under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), which specifies that we must accomodate their needs. Hmmm...

Be forewarned: This discussion is going outside my realm of belief. Not every point I make will be a belief/opinion held by me.

That's what makes it fun. If we go outside our realm of expertise and understanding, we can (a) learn new things and (b) make ourselves look really silly, both of which are good to do from time to time.

Cheers.

--J

[Vianne]

What we'd be comparing, if we could, would be a situation that is very unusual and dependent on fairly severe changes in neural wiring, compared to a quite simple flip of a developmental switch that sends the brain down one or the other normal pathway.

I'd have to agree.

During gestation, the fetus is originally female. There is a flush of testosterone that triggers the development of male characteristics and ultimately the forming of a male child. It also affects the development of the hypothalamus, the part of the brain that controls basic hunger, thirst, and sexual urges.

If the hypothalamus is poorly flushed with testosterone, sexual inclinations will develop in such a way as to reflect those of a female, even while the rest of the fetus receives enough to trigger masculine development.

There is a distinct biological factor in the development of homosexuality. Since biology was created by God, I personally find it blasphemous to think He didn't know precisely what He was doing ... or that He may have made it that way, but really *meant* something else.

Vianne

[chrispalasz]

Jose wrote: This is certainly how it's been defined previously, we can't argue about that.

Why corrupt the definition and concept, which is sacred and holy to so many people, to appease the minority? I'm against it either way, but the least they could do is create an accurate term for the practice.

Jose wrote: including the fact that homosexuality is not a choice

1. The action is a choice, even if the mindset is not.
2. Some people are born different, which casues them to be homosexual. This is not being disputed. However, some people are not, and do choose to be homosexual. Some people are curious. This means that it is a choice in some cases.

Jose wrote:
and the fact that it is a mismatch between the sex of the brain and the sex of the external organs.

You started off talking in relation to marriage. I'm not sure where you are at this point... or I don't understand what you mean by this.

Jose wrote: I tend to think of people as who they are, not who their external organs are, and therefore think it makes sense to allow people to marry according to the characteristics of the brain that god gave them.

I follow you in the blue... but I don't draw the same conclusions as you in the red. Those could include all sorts of mental defects and instabilities and perversions.

Jose wrote:
But being born isn't evil or a sin. It is usually said, and is often said in this forum, that the development of the child in the womb is under the guidance of God. How can the same people claim that God guides our development, and then say that Satan did it if it comes out differently from what we wanted?

I'd have to look into this question more. But there are many many instances in the Bible talking about diseases and abnormalities (such as being born blind and such). Jesus heals them. I'm pretty sure it's all directly related to sin.

Jose wrote: Doing so would be something akin to saying that the natural human condition (as defined by the dominant alleles) is to have black hair and dark skin, so we should define "being blonde" as a genetic disease. Actually, the current trend is to develop a more inclusive society, in which those with genetic differences are treated more equally, not labeled as "weird."

I don't think external appearance is quite the same as mentaly disfunctional. Setting mental standards and expectations inside a boundary according to morality seems quite normal to me, and seems to be done with a lot of other mentalities.

At best, your suggestion might label these people as "disabled," in which case they would come under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), which specifies that we must accomodate their needs. Hmmm...

True. But "accomodating" homosexuals would equate to homosexual marriages no more than accomodating a Schizophrenic would equate to equal rights for all personalities within the mentality. More likely, filing homosexuality under the ADA would provide homosexuals with counciling and other sorts of help. I'm okay with that.

[BeHereNow]

TQWcS wrote

Actually marrying for romantic love is a fairly new concept. Cultures that arrange marriages have a lower divorce rate than cultures that marry for romantic reasons.

That is an interesting thought.
You suggest a cause and effect relationship between the type of marriage (romantic vs. arranged) and the divorce rate. Further you suggest that arranged marriages are superior because they result in a lower divorce rate.
You hint that arranged marriages are better because the family can make better decisions than the possible bride and groom can on their own. The romantic heart is “too romantic, too idealistic” I suppose, whereas the family can make an unbiased decision. This may be true.

Personally, I like Vianne’s reasoning better. Cultures where marriages are arranged are often cultures where women are treated as chattel, or certainly second class citizens. In some cases the wife can never seek divorce, only the husband may do that. Even if she is permitted, it may bring disgrace on her family. Certainly at the least she is seen to be a “used” woman, damaged goods. These would all be strong reasons for the wife to remain married.

Really I’ll accept either reasoning for the purpose of my discussion. The point is, arranged marriages decrease the divorce rate and that is a good thing.
I was wondering how good of a thing it might be for a Christian such as yourself or perhaps Greenlight311. For example, you seem to have a strong interest in discouraging homosexuality. You see it as a sin against God, and something that might condemn the person to hell. I would say you are in favor of outlawing it, although you never said that outright. All of this is based not on your own prejudices, but because the bible tells you homosexuality is a sin.

So, what about divorce?
Is there a chance it should be treated the same as homosexuality?
One of the Ten commandments speaks against adultery. Thou shall not commit adultery. Surely adultery is as much a sin as homosexuality. If we want to rid society of one, the other must go as well. Can we doubt this?
Now what constitutes adultery according to the New Testament?
In Matthew we learn that any man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery unless she has commited fornication. In that case, she is a fornicator, which is as bad as an adulteress. So any woman who is divorced is either an adulteress or a fornicator. A divorced woman is just as bad as a homosexual. Can it be seen any other way? We also see that if any man marries a divorced woman he has committed adultery. [Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.] So men who marry divorced women are just as bad as homosexuals.
Romans 7:3 tells us that if a divorced woman remarries while her ex-husband is still living, she has committed adultery.

Clearly, divorce leads to adultery. Clearly arranged marriages should be the norm for Christians particularly and society in general. Clearly those arrangements which cause adultery (such as divorce and remarriage) should be illegal.
Do you disagree with any of these statements?
Why is it that you do not speak out on these issues the way you do on homosexuality?

[Corvus]

I agree with BeHereNow. If one could get divorced from an arranged marriage I would think it defeats the purpose of having one at all. The traditional Kyrgizstan method of finding a wife involves abducting one and bringing her home. The women of the household then try to coax aor coerce her into it. If they manage to get a bridal veil over her head, this denotes acceptance, even if she clearly struggled against it. Though perhaps all of the women eventually settle quietly into their new lives in their traditional social roles, this does not take away from the fact that it is a barbaric tradition.

If you wrote on the invitations that you must bring one friend, and only those who bring a partner of the opposite sex are entitled to that icecream, then your invitation is unfair. (A very poor analogy, but I can't think of a better one at the moment).

I thought your analogy was fine.

Not if the above statement is true AND the invitation says that everyone that comes must bring a friend of the opposite sex. They don't have to come if they don't want to. That's the case. If you choose to get married, you don't have to, then you must get married to a person of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.

Nope. The invitation says anybody can come and everybody must take a friend, but only those people who took a member of the opposite sex are entitled to cake. I think, though, that comparing a party and the distribution of cake is a pretty awful analogy from which very little can be gleaned.

Corvus wrote:A law stating that you could only marry those of your race, though treating all equally, is still unfair, the reason being that the conditions of this law, and the reasons for implementing it, do not stand up to scrutiny.

Homosexual marriages don't stand up to scrutiny. You should be arguing for the other side.

No one has given me a convincing explanation why yet.

I want to marry my mother. I love her.
I want to marry my father. I love him.
I want to marry my son. I love him.
I want to marry my sister. I love her.
I want to marry my these 10 girls I met who I am not related to. I love them all.

Allowing marriage for only a man and woman still means, as far as I know, that a man cannot marry their sister or mother, so why would we expect this to be different under a law that allows homosexual marriage?

Let us put that aside for the moment and answer why incestuous partnerships aren't permissible even if the partners are sterile. My first thought was that these are - almost without exception - abusive relationships. Looking up combinations of words like incest, incestuous, psychology, statistics, marriage, etc, almost all the pages I came upon were about sexual assault and paedophilia. I had my own speculative thoughts on the issue, and these had to do with the fact taht in every family there exists a model in which age is essential in dictating authority, and to turn a purely platonic love into a sexual/romantic love is to upset the balance of power and render the family dysfunctional. Romantic love is far more volatile than platonic love, and one is conditional, the other is not. This could be problematic, not just if an incestuous relationship is going on in a family, but also if the incest taboo is removed so that it becomes permissible for family members to look upon each other as mates. Parenting is already difficult enough without having to worry about amorous powerplay.

The only thing I found that came anywhere near what I am describing isthis.

There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society."

According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."

Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.

In all honesty, I would not be too concerned with allowing intrafamily marriage, the reason being that an incest taboo is rather strongly ensconced in the public conscience, and anyone who actually dared to go ahead with one would be exposing themselves to moral outrage. Cousins are allowed to marry in most states, from what I understand, yet this has a considerable "ick" factor still attached to it.

As for polygamy, there is nothing stopping you from having a ceremony to commemorate some sort of partnership with 10 young ladies, but the law can only grant you, in the interests of that vague and uncertain concept which is fairness, the legal benefits of a single wife.

There are 1049 laws in the U.S in which marital status is a factor. I think same-sex couples have a legitimate complaint.

Imagine yourself exactly as you are except that you are trapped in a body that has the external appearance of the opposite sex. You feel exactly the way you do now, except that your own apparent sex happens to match that of the people to whom you are attracted. You are not allowed to marry any of these people, but instead are told your rights are equal because you can marry someone of the sex that you find sexually repulsive.

Imagine yourself exactly as you are except that you are only attracted to dogs. You feel sexually, towards dogs, exactly the way you do now towards males or females in a sexual way. You are not allowed to marry any of these dogs, but instead are told your rights are equal because you can marry someone of the same species that you find sexually repulsive.

If you can find me a dog that is capable of understanding the terms and conditions of the marriage contract and give its consent, then I will not dispute your right to marry this dog as your lawfully wedded wife or husband. I will even have my mother bake you a cake. And no, a paw print will not do.

[Vianne]

If you can find me a dog that is capable of understanding the terms and conditions of the marriage contract and give its consent, then I will not dispute your right to marry this dog as your lawfully wedded wife or husband. I will even have my mother bake you a cake. And no, a paw print will not do.

And I'll bring the ice cream!

Seriously, though. Until we find a way of clearly communicating with animals, there is no way to ensure their consent in a matter like this. I believe animals are intelligent, but not as intelligent as us -- you don't see them training scientists to put together experiments to communicate with us, do you? In this case there would be no other recourse but to call marriage to a dog abusive.

Homosexuals are human. They think, they reason, they watch sitcoms and laugh, they stub their toe and curse, they study for tests and hope they pass them. They have the right to choose, just like the rest of us.

I already explained how there is a biological factor in the development of homosexuality, and someone argued that this doesn't mean they have to act on it -- does this imply that even though God made it that way, he didn't really know what he was doing, or perhaps he made it that way but really *meant* something else?

Come on, folks!

Vianne

[chrispalasz]

Corvus wrote: Nope. The invitation says anybody can come and everybody must take a friend

This isn't true. The invitation says that anybody can come ONLY IF they bring a friend of the opposite sex, in which case they also get cake/icecream.

Corvus wrote: No one has given me a convincing explanation why yet.

Whew! Tough cookie. Good thing your opinion doesn't determine the outcome. If homosexual marriages stood up to scrutiny, though, they'd be legal.

I personally think that is because you've made up your mind already and are just stating your point of view. You have no intention of changing your mind regardless of the argument.

I am simply making my personal case. I have no intention of changing my mind.

Corvus wrote: Allowing marriage for only a man and woman still means, as far as I know, that a man cannot marry their sister or mother, so why would we expect this to be different under a law that allows homosexual marriage?

No, sorry. You misunderstood. My posted argument was in response to why marriage law is not simply about love with sex as a side dish. It's definately about sex. That's why I posted what you have responded to. I think if you go back and read it again, it might be more clear, now.

Corvus wrote: There are 1049 laws in the U.S in which marital status is a factor. I think same-sex couples have a legitimate complaint.

Well then, to them I say: Take it up with those laws. Don't corrupt a holy and sacred ritual that is clearly not applicable in the case of homosexuality just to take it all out with one FOUL swoop.

Corvus wrote: If you can find me a dog that is capable of understanding the terms and conditions of the marriage contract and give its consent, then I will not dispute your right to marry this dog as your lawfully wedded wife or husband. I will even have my mother bake you a cake. And no, a paw print will not do.

Vianne wrote: Seriously, though. Until we find a way of clearly communicating with animals, there is no way to ensure their consent in a matter like this. I believe animals are intelligent, but not as intelligent as us -- you don't see them training scientists to put together experiments to communicate with us, do you? In this case there would be no other recourse but to call marriage to a dog abusive.

Why are you so discriminatory against dogs? Dogs are not the same species as humans are, so you obviously can't treat them under law the same way.

"Humans don't have tails like a dog, so humans can't have dogs as a pet."

What kind of logic is that? We're not talking about a dog marrying a human. We're talking about a human marrying a dog. Similar to the discussion currently going on regarding arranged marriages. Just because a marriage is arranged and the wife has no say in it, does that nullify the marriage when they travel to another country where consent from both husband and wife is needed? No. Not at all. Dogs do not have the same rights as humans. Humans are the owners of dogs. So long as the dog is not physically harmed, the human should have the right to marry the dog without the dog's consent - the same way the husband marries a woman without her consent in an arranged marriage.

Not only that, but humans and dogs cannot procreate... not ever - in the same way that homosexuals cannot. If we legalize homosexual marriages... there is no reason not to legalize marriage with animals.

Neither case is moral - so instead of trying to justify two wrongs... let's just leave things the way they are regarding homosexual marriages. Nobody is telling a person they can't be gay. But be realistic and reasonable.

Vianne wrote: Homosexuals are human. They think, they reason, they watch sitcoms and laugh, they stub their toe and curse, they study for tests and hope they pass them. They have the right to choose, just like the rest of us.

They have the right to choose, just like the rest of us. Nobody is stopping them from marrying a member of the opposite sex and nobody is stopping them from having a relationship with a member of the same sex should they not be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Vianne wrote: I already explained how there is a biological factor in the development of homosexuality, and someone argued that this doesn't mean they have to act on it -- does this imply that even though God made it that way, he didn't really know what he was doing, or perhaps he made it that way but really *meant* something else?

Come on, folks!

Do you believe in God? You tell me. You're entirely ignoring the factor of sin. If you do beleive in some god... are you saying that your god knew what he was doing when he made Hitler to kill 11 million people in the same way that he knew what he was doing by making some people homosexual and others heterosexual? If you're going to stick with your argument, you're going to have to justify both... and every other evil/wrong thing that exists/existed/will exist.

[Corvus]

Corvus wrote: Nope. The invitation says anybody can come and everybody must take a friend

This isn't true. The invitation says that anybody can come ONLY IF they bring a friend of the opposite sex, in which case they also get cake/icecream.

Let's stop quibbling about what a hypothetical invitation says.

Corvus wrote: No one has given me a convincing explanation why yet.

Whew! Tough cookie. Good thing your opinion doesn't determine the outcome. If homosexual marriages stood up to scrutiny, though, they'd be legal.

Not necessarily. There are still some reservations held by a conservative public. It wasn't until 1967 interracial marriages were permitted under the law and it wasn't until 1975 that married women were allowed to have credit in their name.

I personally think that is because you've made up your mind already and are just stating your point of view. You have no intention of changing your mind regardless of the argument.

I have no intention of changing my mind because I am quite firmly convinced there is no reason for it, though this is not to say that I won't ever change my mind in the future. Personally I think the very existence of marriage is not something that the law should concern itself with, but removing it utterly might be unfeasible in modern society, so I support it being readily available to both sexualities, and not based on something given to us only by chance.

Corvus wrote: Allowing marriage for only a man and woman still means, as far as I know, that a man cannot marry their sister or mother, so why would we expect this to be different under a law that allows homosexual marriage?

No, sorry. You misunderstood. My posted argument was in response to why marriage law is not simply about love with sex as a side dish. It's definately about sex. That's why I posted what you have responded to. I think if you go back and read it again, it might be more clear, now.

I understand, but you must understand that the sex aspect is only an implied part of the contract, not an explicit condition. Sex really means procreation, not recreation, yet current laws don't reflect this at all. The most obvious example is that in many states, cousins are not permitted to marry unless they are sterile or over a certain age (60 or 70, I believe), emphasising that fruitless couplings can be blessed under the law. Marriage is not entirely about sex and not entirely about love. There are concessions made for each.

Corvus wrote: There are 1049 laws in the U.S in which marital status is a factor. I think same-sex couples have a legitimate complaint.

Well then, to them I say: Take it up with those laws. Don't corrupt a holy and sacred ritual that is clearly not applicable in the case of homosexuality just to take it all out with one FOUL swoop.

The holy and sacred ritual is defined on state level, and every state has different laws and, up until now, has had the authority to define marriage as they see fit, with some general consensus. If it is a holy and sacred ritual, then you may go forward with this ritual in the privacy of a church, and the concept of this ritual will still remain intact, as it always has. There is a difference between a marriage ritual/ceremony and a civil marriage. Tradition for tradition's sake is no excuse to keep a law.

Corvus wrote: If you can find me a dog that is capable of understanding the terms and conditions of the marriage contract and give its consent, then I will not dispute your right to marry this dog as your lawfully wedded wife or husband. I will even have my mother bake you a cake. And no, a paw print will not do.

Vianne wrote: Seriously, though. Until we find a way of clearly communicating with animals, there is no way to ensure their consent in a matter like this. I believe animals are intelligent, but not as intelligent as us -- you don't see them training scientists to put together experiments to communicate with us, do you? In this case there would be no other recourse but to call marriage to a dog abusive.

Why are you so discriminatory against dogs? Dogs are not the same species as humans are, so you obviously can't treat them under law the same way.

Actually, the law can't deal with them at all.

Just because a marriage is arranged and the wife has no say in it, does that nullify the marriage when they travel to another country where consent from both husband and wife is needed? No. Not at all. Dogs do not have the same rights as humans. Humans are the owners of dogs. So long as the dog is not physically harmed, the human should have the right to marry the dog without the dog's consent - the same way the husband marries a woman without her consent in an arranged marriage.

It's a nice try, but the law, in the case of a foreign arranged marriage being recognised is still dealing with citizens and a process that is transferrable in some way into a new country. Even so, a marriage by coercion or at a time when she was not capable of giving her consent would, I believe, be grounds for a called a voided marriage in the U.S, where the marriage is valid until a court annuls it. I believe the assumption when an arranged marriage is recognised by U.S law is that such arranged marriages are consensual until their partners demonstrate otherwise, which is often true because both have been socially conditioned to accept it. Even so, you fail to take into account incestuous and polygamous marriage, even if undertaken in another country, are automatically void in the U.S.

Dogs are not citizens and have not agreed to - or been placed under - any laws, and thus any civil contract between them cannot be recognised. As you yourself stated; dogs do not have the same rights as humans.

[mrmufin]

I am simply making my personal case. I have no intention of changing my mind.

Good for you!

No, sorry. You misunderstood. My posted argument was in response to why marriage law is not simply about love with sex as a side dish. It's definately about sex.

Actually, "marriage law" has nothing at all to to do with sex. Legally, marriage is but a contract. Parties to marriage contracts have certain legal benefits (re. inheritance, hospital visitation, right not to testify, etc.) unavailable to unmarried couples. There is no way to assure that a couple getting married is in love, or if they care at all about each other. There is no sexual attraction, orientation, or dedication tests conducted prior to marriage or at any time thereafter. Married persons certainly don't have a monopoly on sexual activity. Nor do married persons have a monopoly on loving, caring, trusting relationships. Nor do married couples have a monopoly on raising children. Or home ownership. Or family vacations. For legal purposes, it seems that marriage is only about certain state-certified marriage benefits.

Tersely expressed, there's a world o' difference between marriage vows and marriage law.

Regards,
mrmufin

[chrispalasz]

Check out this Sex Law in Massechusetts! What hypocrites!

Wow... I had no idea these were all actual laws, even if they aren't subject to prosecution... - what do you think?

Fornication

M.G.L. c.272, sec. 18. Fornication.

Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

Fort v. Fort, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 411, 425 NE2d 754 (1981). "The crimes of fornication, adultery, and lewd and lascivious cohabitation are never, or substantially never, made the subject of prosecution."

Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 418 Mass. 316, 636 NE2d 233 (1994). "This statute is of doubtful constitutionality, at least as applied to the private, consensual conduct of persons over the age of consent."

Adultery

M.G.L. c.272, sec. 14 Adultery.

A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 449 NE2d 357 (1983). The court held that the Massachusetts adultery statute was not unconstitutional and that it was proper to have applied it to consensual acts between adults in private.

Sodomy

M.G.L. c.272, sec. 34. Crime against nature.

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

M.G.L. c.272, sec. 35. Unnatural and lascivious acts.

Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years.

Commonwealth v. Balthazar, 366 Mass. 298, 318 NE2d 478 (1974). The "unnatural and lascivious acts" statute has been held to include public fellatio and oral-anal contact.. "must be construed to be inapplicable to private, consensual conduct of adults."

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders v. AG, 436 Mass. 132, 763 NE2d 38 (2002). "Our holdings in the Balthazar and Ferguson cases concerning acts conducted in private between consenting adults extend to § 34, as well." [private consenting acts will not be prohibited].

Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (June 2003). Texas sodomy law ruled unconstitutional by US Supreme Court.

Incest

M.G.L. c.272, sec. 17. Incestuous marriage or intercourse

Persons within degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or have sexual intercourse with each other, or who engage in sexual activities with each other, including but not limited to, oral or anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, or other penetration of a part of a person's body, or insertion of an object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body, or the manual manipulation of the genitalia of another person's body, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.

Bigamy

M.G.L. c.272, sec. 15. Section 15. Polygamy.

Whoever, having a former husband or wife living, marries another person or continues to cohabit with a second husband or wife in the commonwealth shall be guilty of polygamy, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars; but this section shall not apply to a person whose husband or wife has continually remained beyond sea, or has voluntarily withdrawn from the other and remained absent, for seven consecutive years, the party marrying again not knowing the other to be living within that time, nor to a person who has been legally divorced from the bonds of matrimony.

Bestiality

M.G.L. c.272, sec. 34. Crime against nature.

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/sex.html