"The policy question: Given America's notional commitment to equality and freedom under the law, should the civil status of marriage be open to same-sex couples on the same terms it is to heterosexual couples under the law?"

I don't see why not. (?)


"The default value, based on the Constitutional principles involved should tend toward the positive unless there are specific facts of merit to the case which might militate against it. "

I agree with that.

"Ake's argument that homosexuality, in and of itself, seems to bring about AIDS, is pretty well rebutted in this thread."

I'm not sure about that. There may be some merit to his argument.

"Other arguments, based not on measured realities but on hypotheticals, superstitions, or religious beliefs, are not factual."

I don't know if they're factual or not, but they are significant in a social sense. Customs are based on a society's consensus as to what people like to do and think is "normal and proper"...as such, customs are more a subjective than an objective manner. They don't rest upon measurable facts as much as they rest upon people's preferences...and their expectations.

"AKe has argued that there is an insufficiently understood connection between HIV transmission and homosexuality. It has been shown in discussion on this thread that logically, this connection is not due to homosexuality itself but to various unsafe methods and practices which result in increased transmission rates between heteros and homosexuals. It is not therefore adequate grounds for infringing on the default value of equal civil rights."

I agree with you on that.

"Do you have any other facts which would militate for such an infringement?"

I am not arguing in favor of any such infringement nor am I looking for such facts.

"Note that an existing tradition of reduced civil rights for a group in the past is not legal grounds for perpetuating it. We went through all that in the Civil Rights movement."

Absolutely. Look, I've said before on this thread that I do not object to ANY pair of consenting adults marrying one another. I don't necessarily object to the custom (in some societies) of one man having several wives...and I wouldn't object to one woman having several husbands if it were customary in that society...AND IF all the adults involved consented freely to the arrangement. I wouldn't object to a man or a woman marrying a dog IF it could be clearly established that the dog understood the arrangement and was in favor of it. (It can't though...so that negates that possibility, doesn't it?)

I am in favor of free choice for people, Amos.

I don't miss your point. I'm just talking about a different point that concerns me, that's all, and it has to do with the hazing of individuals who in some way don't conform to the majority opinions of people in some peer group. When those individuals start being labelled as "homophobes", "anti-semites", "racists", "sexists", and other highly charged words of that sort, I don't like to see that.

I don't mind so much if they are said to be "stupid" or "uninformed" or "stiff-necked" or "conformist" or something else along that line...because it doesn't carry the condemnatory weight of being called a "racist", a "homophobe", a "sexist" or an "anti-semite". It is not tantamount to an accusation of what amounts to heresy. The aforementioned terms however (racist/homophobe/sexist/anti-semite) are tantamount to an accusation of heresy in today's politically correct climate. They are terms commonly used now to brand and destroy people in a professional sense, and to silence them, and sometimes even to bring legal actions against them under what is called "hate" legislation.

I regard that as fascism in action.