Post by: mek42 on May 03, 2008, 01:51:09 PM
All of the arguments against gay marriage that I am aware of are religious in nature. I am genuinely interested in hearing some cogent, non-religious arguments against gay marriage.
If all of the arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, if Congress passed a law banning gay marriage, wouldn't it be a violation of the first amendment?
Having said this, I do think that forcing churches to perform gay marriages would likewise be a violation of the first amendment.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on May 03, 2008, 02:03:25 PM
That's why the government likes marriage - they get something from it.
That's the argument as I remember it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 03, 2008, 02:21:25 PM
Post by: Chief Squattanpoo on May 03, 2008, 02:26:13 PM
If the year was 1850, there would be no way to make an anti-gay marriage amendment because then marriage was viewed as an inextricable part of religion; any limitation on who could marry would therefore prohibit the practice of religion but only if a religion could be found that allows gay marriage. Was there such a religion in 1850 and is there one in 2008? None that I'm aware of, unless someone has cooked up Gayslam or something. In other words, if marriage is part of religion, one has to prove that gay marriage is a religious practice to be protected. (Lateral question: Who defines what a legitimate religion is? Same as we can't make up religious holidays to get off work on any given day, there must be some standard.)
In 2008, such a case would be a perplexing conflict of postmodern jurisprudence. These days marriage is viewed less as religious and more as a business partnership among two adults (hopefully, some lunatics in Texas notwithstanding). For instance, you can get married by a judge---distinctly nonreligious. In this way, one can argue that marriage is not a religious practice and is not subject to protection from the First Amendment. However---and here's the kicker---such an interpretation of the law is certainly the anti-originalist viewpoint (i.e., judicial activism) but the ones who are most likely to read a 1791 text into 2008 English are likely to be the most sympathetic to gay marriage.
As people who think critically, we understand that there is a difference between what we say and what we mean; that words are an imperfect expression of an idea. We know that the Founding Fathers wrote in 1791 English and we should read their language in 1791 English in the context of late-eighteenth century society. I believe the Founders would have grouped marriage and religion. In this case, the originalist interpretation would be "pro-gay" (and may raise hackles). However, I believe it is the correct interpretation and that any anti-gay marriage amendment cannot be passed in the conventional way.
A better question would be: Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? Where in the Constitution does it say that the .fed or the States get to give you permission to marry through a license? Weren't marriage licenses instituted as Jim Crow laws to prevent interracial marriages anyway?
Post by: De Selby on May 03, 2008, 02:30:14 PM
Some see it as requiring the government to justify a compelling interest before it interferes in private matters, like personal relationships. They cite the Griswold line of decisions as justification.
Others think that only specifically enumerated freedoms and interests are protected, so only the bare minimum in terms of government justification will serve to satisfy any constitutional problems with something like a gay marriage or gay sex ban.
Hard to say who's going to win in the future. But Scalia was right-if you can't ban gay marriage, there are lots of other things you can't ban either...and it may be that a majority of the public isn't prepared to accept that fact.
Post by: cosine on May 03, 2008, 03:02:34 PM
Post by: stjeanp on May 03, 2008, 03:14:08 PM
Specifically the first - "Congress shall pass no law favoring an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free practice thereof."
Wow, first post and I really jump in.
Not specifically answering your question but IMO the State has no business being involved in marriage, regardless of who is getting married. That's a church thing, period.
The state should set up some means of allowing the happy couple to obtain the the property rights, power of attorney, financial rights, etc. that are currently wrapped up in the State's definition of "marriage".
Once the State sets that up, the churches should be allowed to marry anyone they want, provided it doesn't violate laws already on the books like age of consent, etc.
It's short, sweet, solves all the problems, and because of that will probably never happen.
Pat
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 03, 2008, 03:51:35 PM
there is a reason often hidden that needs be looked at. sanctioning gay marriage has legal and financial fallout. insurance eligibility on the job for couples would affect the bottom line. the change would require a reexamination of legal precedent and procedure particularly in regard to inheritence and child custody.
i'm a civil union guy myself .
Post by: mek42 on May 03, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Post by: stjeanp on May 03, 2008, 04:19:01 PM
What do you consider to be the difference between "civil union" and "marriage"? I see them as the same and don't understand the big hullabaloo.
A civil union done in one state may or may not be honored by another state, on a state by state basis.
A marriage which is done in one state is honored in all states.
Seems like a good reason for a little hullabaloo...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 03, 2008, 05:01:55 PM
Post by: grampster on May 03, 2008, 05:30:08 PM
Imho, the argument is less about the equality issues that are the trademarks of the argument than the desire by homosexuals to force being declared "normal" whatever that is. Normal isn't the issue though, it's equal protection under the law, a basic human right in our Republic. I've had discussions with friends who are gay. The response I usually get is "Why do I have to do all these things (mentioned above) just to get the same benefits that you do?" My answer to that is because I have to do them too, except for the tax policy in order to make the laws benefit me and those I feel I am responsible for. I have a partnership agreement: mine is called marriage. So get a lawyer and draw one up, call it what you want. It's cheaper than a wedding, actually and you don't need a license, blood test or pre-marital counseling. You can have the partnership listed as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. Beneficiaries have to have an insurable interest. A partnership agreement creates that. I have a will a trust and general power of attorney and poa for health care. Only a fool would not have these documents prepared, gay or hetero.
So lobby the government to change the tax policy so everyone is treated the same, married or not. Reformation of the health care system to make it competitive for individual purchases would work better than a socialist plan. Medicare is already doing this for SS recipients. Competition has created plans that provide more benefits for the medicare premium if you want to frog around shopping it.
Problem is solvable without all the hoo haa. But then, some folks want the hoo haa. As a heterosexual, I've never felt the need to broadcast my sexual
proclivities. I really don't think anyone really gives a rat's behind, actually. So I've always wondered why some homosexuals feel the need to broadcast theirs. Not gaining any support by doing that, Alice.Just my .02
Post by: mek42 on May 03, 2008, 05:39:20 PM
Regarding health care - without employer based family health plans, there are going to be way more children going without needed healthcare than there are already. I agree that financial ramifications should be a key consideration in deciding whether or not to have children, but I do not think this is a widely held view.
Post by: stjeanp on May 03, 2008, 05:52:04 PM
With the universally recognized civil union idea, would every couple (regardless of orientations) have a civil union with marriage no longer being a word recognized by the state? Would marriage then be the province of religions whereby a couple who got married in a church would also automatically be civil unionized in the eyes of the state?
That would be the ideal in my Perfect World(tm) but the current patchwork of states implementing civil unions and other states passing laws stating that they won't recognize them worries me.
I'm definitely not a Constitutional scholar but it seems to me that there's something there that says that the states should not be able to do that, kind of like concealed carry permits. And then the Feds get involved to sort things out.
Beware, here be dragons.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on May 03, 2008, 10:33:42 PM
Quote
A better question would be: Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? Where in the Constitution does it say that the .fed or the States get to give you permission to marry through a license? Weren't marriage licenses instituted as Jim Crow laws to prevent interracial marriages anyway?
Exactly. I don't know exactly how I feel about homosexuals marrying. But my biggest beef is the government licensing marriage. Get. Out. Of. My. Bedroom.
Post by: gunsmith on May 03, 2008, 11:33:36 PM
But I would be in favor of Conservatives passing a gay marriage bill with a nation wide ccw reciprocity attached.
That way the libs would be forced to accept it
edited for clarity.
In a thread long ago shut down in THR by drifting off topic, I had a great idea.
A conservative can either poison pill a liberal bill in favor of gay marriage by introducing a nation wide reciprocity for ccw.
Marriage gets nationwide reciprocity already so it would fit right in.
OR.
A conservative can create a bill for gay marriage, be considered a maverick by the lib media and stick a few lines in it creating nation wide ccw reciprocity ...
We win because we get reciprocity, liberals (or gay conservatives ) win.
I wish I had the ear of a brave congressman.
Post by: LAK on May 04, 2008, 03:11:17 AM
Quote
All of the arguments against gay marriage that I am aware of are religious in nature.
If you include the word nature in the discussion it is clear that all arguements are not only religious. Homosexuals do not reproduce, because they can not reproduce. Their misuse of their reproductive organs is not natural at all - and extremely unhealthy. Marriage is an act that forms the foundation of the smallest unit of civilized society; the family. Homosexuals do not produce offpring - children.
-----------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 41magsnub on May 04, 2008, 04:08:56 AM
Post by: gunsmith on May 04, 2008, 05:39:20 AM
Quote
What I don't get is why some folks are so threatened by something other folks do that will not affect them in the slightest.
Amen!
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2008, 06:19:08 AM
Specifically the first - "Congress shall pass no law favoring an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free practice thereof."
All of the arguments against gay marriage that I am aware of are religious in nature.
If all of the arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, if Congress passed a law banning gay marriage, wouldn't it be a violation of the first amendment?
All of the arguments against gay marriage that I am aware of are religious in nature.
If all of the arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, if Congress passed a law banning gay marriage, wouldn't it be a violation of the first amendment?
Where did you find this "first amendment"? Did you just type it out from memory? I thought it read,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I find your reading of the first amendment to be breath-takingly broad. Prohibiting some action from a religious motive, even if it were wrong on other grounds, would not seem to be an establishment of religion. Nor would it seem to prohibit free exercise of religion.
Quote
I am genuinely interested in hearing some cogent, non-religious arguments against gay marriage.
I have some. I have introduced them here, before. I have learned that it usually amounts to "pearls before swine." If you can read my arguments in an open-minded way, without reading things into them, I might be persuaded to do so again.
Post by: gunsmith on May 04, 2008, 06:34:19 AM
Quote
Prohibiting some action from a religious motive, even if it were wrong on other grounds, would not seem to be an establishment of religion. Nor would it seem to prohibit free exercise of religion.
If this quote is found nailed to the head of a liberal who got me angry on a bad day..... please don't tell them where to find me!
If I am caught, well...
I am just going to say "fistful made me do it"
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 04, 2008, 08:36:01 AM
to be at best wishful thinking
Post by: 41magsnub on May 04, 2008, 08:50:46 AM
i believe that applying " something other folks do that will not affect them in the slightest."
to be at best wishful thinking
to be at best wishful thinking
Please explain how or is that a prejudice coming through? Please explain how what somebody else does in the bedroom or combines resources into a partnership should matter to you at all?
Ok.. you did explain. The arguments are flawed but I guess you tried. So what if the costs go up (I doubt they will)? Should folks who swing the other way have fewer rights that those that don't?
Post by: Sindawe on May 04, 2008, 09:46:24 AM
Quote
Their misuse of their reproductive organs is not natural at all - and extremely unhealthy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! Dude, stop bogarting what ever it is you've been smoking and share it with the rest of us!
The natural world holds a contrary opinion it seems.
Quote
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
Published: Monday, 23-Oct-2006
Medical Science News
Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.
"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."
Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.
Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".
Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.
Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."
Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.
When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.
"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."
Indeed, there is a number of animals in which homosexual behaviour has never been observed, such as many insects, passerine birds and small mammals.
"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."
Petter Bockman regrets that there is too little research about homosexuality among animals.
"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."
One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.
"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.
Masturbation is common in the animal kingdom.
"Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark," says Petter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum.
http://www.uio.no
Source: http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=20718
Published: Monday, 23-Oct-2006
Medical Science News
Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.
"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."
Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.
Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".
Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.
Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."
Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.
When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.
"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."
Indeed, there is a number of animals in which homosexual behaviour has never been observed, such as many insects, passerine birds and small mammals.
"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."
Petter Bockman regrets that there is too little research about homosexuality among animals.
"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."
One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.
"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.
Masturbation is common in the animal kingdom.
"Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark," says Petter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum.
http://www.uio.no
Source: http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=20718
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Quote
A better question would be: Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? Where in the Constitution does it say that the .fed or the States get to give you permission to marry through a license?
Yeppers. Governments ONLY function in marriage is as a disinterested keeper of the records. The rest of the matter lays under the control of those adults (of whatever gender or number) who wish to have their partnership recognized by their fellows and their faith.
Post by: Nitrogen on May 04, 2008, 11:01:43 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 04, 2008, 12:21:23 PM
cool you write the check
and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero
Post by: JimMarch on May 04, 2008, 12:31:56 PM
It's unconstitutional to pass laws purely for the purpose of driving "the wrong type of voter" out of your state so as to cement your party's domination. It's unconstitutional to pass laws designed purely to harass and annoy the opposition.
It's wrong when "conservatives" do it to Democratic gays via "defense of marriage" laws, and it's wrong when Democrats in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Mass. and the like pass gun control laws that they KNOW are purely for the purpose of harassing Republicans/Libertarians/etc.
It's always wrong, and the perpetrators of such scams on BOTH sides are human filth.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2008, 12:47:39 PM
1. The Republicans did not start this dance. It was the left that started demanding these concessions to supposed "gay rights." For you to now claim that Republican voters are using these issues for some cynical purpose is just bizarre.
2. If we wished to harass the other side, we'd do so with issues that affect more than a tiny minority of voters, i.e., homosexuals that want to get "married."
3. Yes, I came up with a third one. What about the millennia of opposition to homosexuality of which your side likes to remind us? If there is such opposition (no matter how wrong-headed you may think it is), it would be silly to suppose that it will go away overnight. Makes a lot more sense in explaining a gay marriage ban than your harassment theory.
Post by: cosine on May 04, 2008, 01:00:57 PM
Post by: gunsmith on May 04, 2008, 03:39:19 PM
Quote
Argue the issue, not another's habits with recreational substances...
Indeed, that is, like, the 3rd rail or something.
Post by: 41magsnub on May 04, 2008, 04:35:05 PM
So what if the costs go up care to explain how you imagine they won't go up?
cool you write the check
and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero
cool you write the check
and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero
You first.. how will they go up in any real sense? You first brought up the cost issue and if I'm supposed to refute something I need to know what it is.
Post by: JimMarch on May 04, 2008, 04:48:38 PM
Go read some period newspaper reports on it:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/case1.html
This was the real start of gay rights in America: a literal street brawl over their right to *exist* at all.
Do you think regular police raids of gay bars was in any way justified? I would hope not. Once you understand what began the gay rights fight, you cannot possibly claim that they "just began demanding concessions". They also realized early on (correctly) that any cultural/legal bias against them would in some cases trigger violence against them. They correctly realized that violence is cultural, and set about trying to change the culture in order to survive.
Unless you believe the simple right to exist should be denied them, unless you believe that regular police harassment of "homos" as was common in the '60s was EVER justified, you can't possibly see the gays as the instigators of these changes.
They reacted to hate, discrimination, false criminal charges and violence. And by and large, esp. in the years since Stonewall, the reaction has been both non-violent and appropriate, and sometimes funny as hell. When lines of drag queens doing the can-can faced off against the NYPD in full riot gear, they successfully pointed out the absurdity of what was going on.
They also revealed for all time who were the aggressors in the confrontation then - and now.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2008, 08:45:15 PM
Post by: JimMarch on May 04, 2008, 09:17:58 PM
Quote
you are conflating issues
No I'm not.
As long as the US does *any* discrimination against gays, an extra percentage of those prone to anti-gay violence will take that official discrimination as sanction to discriminate on the job (private and public sector) or commit violence up to and including murder.
The gay rights movement started as a reaction to violence and abuse against them. Their fight for full and equal civil rights is a continuation of that same struggle, for the same reasons: to establish their right to live.
Every attempt to deny them equal protection in any fashion raises their odds of being assaulted or murdered. This is doubly true when the discrimination comes at the hands of the state.
It is absolutely immoral for any of us to argue against somebody else's civil rights while advocating our own.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 04, 2008, 09:30:47 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 04, 2008, 09:56:20 PM
Post by: LAK on May 05, 2008, 03:25:00 AM
I know, 1500 animal species practice homosexuality. I of course recall seeing our family pets - a considerable number of dogs, cats, rodents, birds, snakes, lizards, turtles, tortoise etc of the same sex, male and female "mating". Countless zoo animals, wild game animals - everything from rabbits, birds, waterfowl to moose pawing each other and "mating" with the same sex (male and female) for the sheer aberrant pleasure of it "just because of the way they are."
Absolute BS.
In memory, about 45 years, I have seen it, uh, once - maybe twice. Well, let's say a mouse or two (snake food) a well. That makes four. A dog that thinks he's sniffing a bitch might do this when in fact his "gay partner" is another dog that has perhaps been in contact with a bitch in heat. A dog that literally has no interest in the opposite sex though, like human beings, is not going to reproduce. Period.
All this baloney about animals "practicing homesexuality" is another classic example of the kind of junk science propagated by the same communists who have introduced and forcefully pushed and promoted a number of destructive agendas in this country since WW2. And we can see the results readily in the decline of this country.
Are you trying to say that there is some sound "scientific proof" of the "normality" and "benefits" of male on male "sexual intercourse" and that it is somehow "healthy"?
We have a reproductive system that functions in a particular manner, with an element of pleasure, which with the participation of a man and a woman produces offspring. So we do not die off and cease to exist. Within society than we have families, the individuals of which in turn interact with individuals of the opposite sex in other families, when men and women pair off and produce more offspring - families.
No more to say on this. Anyone that can not see this for what it is even without debasing the discussion with some explicit terms and references is not worth arguing with.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 05, 2008, 03:27:26 AM
If we do nothing, the SCOTUS may well rule that no State can deny the right of men to marry other men. They have set the precedents by ruling that the 14th gives them jurisdiction over marriage, and by ruling that State laws against homosexual acts are unconstitutional. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is heading.
It might seem like a marriage amendment would be a religious amendment, but if we have no marriage amendment, and the feds force homosexual marriage on every State, then how is that keeping the feds out of religion? Either we do nothing and the feds trample our Christian values, or we amend the US Constitution to stop them.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 05, 2008, 04:08:01 AM
Quote
Are you trying to say that there is some sound "scientific proof" of the "normality" and "benefits" of male on male "sexual intercourse" and that it is somehow "healthy"?
It's irrelevant whether it is healthy or not.
I own my body. It's mine.
I have the inalienable right to pursue whatever sex acts I choose with whomever consents to have sex with me (children are generally seen as incapable of consent by law, so leave that argument at the door).
Even if it is discovered, and proven by the medical authorities, that gay sex causes immediate cancer in everybody who engages in it, it's none of your business. Just as it's none of your business how much sugar I put in my tea, even though sugar is known to be unhealthy.
Quote
We have a reproductive system that functions in a particular manner, with an element of pleasure, which with the participation of a man and a woman produces offspring. S
You are forgetting that I am an individual, and as a sapient individual, I have the right to choose. I may choose not to have sex, or to perform various kinds of sex that do not lead to reproduction, or to undergo permanent surgery to become unable to reproduce.
It is NOT my duty to bring children to the world (though it happens to be my hope that I will eventually do so), and it is not within your power to compel me to have only standard relationships (though I happen to be engaged to a woman, and faithful to her).
How can states 'ban' gay marriage is really beyond me. At worst/best, they can pass law to refuse to recognize these marriages from the standpoint of taxes and various benefits.
But if two (or more) people live together and love each other as a family, then they are a family. I don't see how you can legislate that away with a thousand laws.
Post by: Sindawe on May 05, 2008, 04:53:10 AM
Quote
Are you trying to say that there is some sound "scientific proof" of the "normality" and "benefits" of male on male "sexual intercourse" and that it is somehow "healthy"?
No, you made the assertion that "Their misuse of their reproductive organs is not natural at all - and extremely unhealthy. "
And I've supplied citations that show your statement is in error. Homesexual activity DOES occur in the natural world, therefor it cannot be unnatural by definition. The fact that YOU have only rarely observed it does NOT mean that is rarely happens. Such behavior is well documented by a multitude of skilled and trained observers. When presented with citations that are contrary to your opinion, you dismiss them as "junk science" put forth by "communists" then metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears so as to not hear anything else that you disagree with.
Post by: grampster on May 05, 2008, 05:37:04 AM
Ok, you've left yourself wide open here.. I gotta pull yer chain. This is meant to be funny, not critical. Ahem...the word is sentient not sapient which does, in the context of this discussion, make me laugh out loud because of the descriptive adjectival image that misuse of the word conjures as follows.
Petulant tone: I'm a sap, so I can use my body any way I want. End petulant tone. Post by: Nitrogen on May 05, 2008, 05:57:10 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2008, 06:06:13 AM
Can someone explain to me how being Homosexual is different from being, say Jewish?
I love how the other side asks these sorts of stupid questions. As if to prove that their position requires willful ignorance.
Post by: roo_ster on May 05, 2008, 08:44:25 AM
So what if the costs go up care to explain how you imagine they won't go up?
cool you write the check
and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero
cool you write the check
and there are quite a few legal issues that arise. ones that can be be addressed in a civil unions context.
civil unions would also allow couples who chose not to get married to qualify for benifits wether they are gay or hetero
You first.. how will they go up in any real sense? You first brought up the cost issue and if I'm supposed to refute something I need to know what it is.
Hokay, time to add some light to the heat. Or at least some data.
For those who think that it would cost nothing, dollar-wise, for insurance to cover the "partner" of a homosexual employees at a company, you fail basic arithmetic. Those folks, even if they had similar illness & mortality rates, would end up costing somebody more money, because they use dollars to cover their health care. TANSTAAFL...or TANSTAAFHC to be more specific.
Thing is, there are studies showing that homosexual males have an incredibly high mortality rate and use of health care during their peak earning years. This is relative to heterosexual males.
To give an idea, the following study shows just how significant the difference is:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf
Summary:
Vancouver, BC, Canada had X number of male HIV deaths over a period of time. Due to various factors, the homosexual population could not be accurately estimated as one percentage, so three estimates were used, high (95), med (6%) and low (3%). These three models were used to determine homosexual male mortality rates and loss in life expectancy due to HIV (see note 1).
Take a good, long, look at Tables ! & 2 and Tables 1 & 2. They are sobering tally a huge loss of life...and increased health care costs sooner, rather than later.
Code:
Life Expect Loss due to HIV
Gay and bisexual men
3% of population 34 (0.70) 21.3 (0.90)
6% of population 42.6 (0.50) 12.7 (0.70)
9% of population 46.3 (0.40) 9 (0.60)
All men 54.3 (0.10) 1 (0.20)
(Std err for each value in parenthesis)
Gay and bisexual men
3% of population 34 (0.70) 21.3 (0.90)
6% of population 42.6 (0.50) 12.7 (0.70)
9% of population 46.3 (0.40) 9 (0.60)
All men 54.3 (0.10) 1 (0.20)
(Std err for each value in parenthesis)
If you think it would cost fellow employees on the same insurance plan a big, fat, nuthin', I think the data says otherwise. The data shows that while men are in their prime earning years, homosexual males are in a big hurry to fall ill and die. Not only is the enterprise denied their skill and labor, it has to pay out big bucks for life-saving & extending treatments. I would bet that in addition to health care costs, that we can toss in disability for them.
Note 1: HIV is not the only thing that drives down homosexual life expectancy. There are large correlations between homosexuality and other risky behaviors.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 05, 2008, 10:49:28 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 05, 2008, 10:57:42 AM
How about a little 'live and let live' and some 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and especially 'remove the log from your own eye first'?
IOW, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH
hmmmmmmmm..........
?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 05, 2008, 11:31:42 AM
None of those sentiments apply here, Paddy. You'll have to excuse him, folks. For whatever reason, I serve for Paddy as a living caricature of the legalistic Pharisee. I hope it makes his life easier, somehow.
Post by: roo_ster on May 05, 2008, 11:32:38 AM
now you dun it! thanks for doing what i've been to busy to do
No problem. I am a data hound from way back.
I recall reading some studies in the past detailing homosexual mortality rates/life spans, but I was pretty darned shocked at the results in this study. Especially so, since I think the 3% homosexual estimate is too high for the general population. IME, the actual number is closer to 1% of the general population with 3% being what one might find in urban areas with higher concentrations.
Of course, the homosexual political groups claim 10%, but that can be dismissed as baloney, same as Muslim political groups' claims that America is 7% Muslim (reality closer to 1%).
An average life expectancy of 34 years due to HIV. That is caveman-equivalent mortality. That is a lot of folks dying young. What a tragedy and waste.
Those that survive end up on anti-HIV drugs for the rest of their lives.
Yeah, that sure is something to "celebrate."
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 05, 2008, 12:49:29 PM
Help, I've been snared in my own self-righteousness. None of those sentiments apply here, Paddy.
You'll have to excuse him, folks. For whatever reason, I serve for Paddy as a living caricature of the legalistic Pharisee. I hope it makes his life easier, somehow.
None of those sentiments apply here, Paddy. You'll have to excuse him, folks. For whatever reason, I serve for Paddy as a living caricature of the legalistic Pharisee. I hope it makes his life easier, somehow.
You got nothin' on me. I was once accused of being too legalistic by a Methodist minister who told me to go down the street to the Baptist church.
Post by: taurusowner on May 05, 2008, 01:57:50 PM
Post by: mek42 on May 05, 2008, 03:02:53 PM
Regarding health insurance and other employee benefits, wouldn't the cost go down? As it stands, many employers are required to extend heterosexual spousal benefits to homosexual non-married partners because there is no marriage option available. In fact, many non-married heterosexual couples feel this is itself a form of discrimination against their choice not to marry. Allowing gay marriage would certainly clear this up - employers could define benefits for people other then their employees however they saw fit without worry of discrimination against sexual orientation.
As for the matter of non-procreative sexual contact, many states still have laws against such things still on the books - many such laws do not discriminate about whether said acts are done between heterosexual or homosexual partners. I don't know, nor do I want to know, the details of any of your sex lives. I don't think we want the government to know these details either. If we ban gay marriage due to the procreation argument, shouldn't many of these anti-non-procreative sex laws be more vigorously enforced? Or are certain acts somehow "different" if done between a man and a woman vs. two men or two women?
Quote
We have a reproductive system that functions in a particular manner, with an element of pleasure, which with the participation of a man and a woman produces offspring. So we do not die off and cease to exist. Within society than we have families, the individuals of which in turn interact with individuals of the opposite sex in other families, when men and women pair off and produce more offspring - families.
What about heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children? Should marriages be automatically annulled after so many years if no offspring are propagated? What about the widower and widow retirees falling in love and getting married to spend the last of their time with each other as close as they can? Or, for that matter, people unable to have children? Taken to it's logical end, your argument would deny these folks the opportunity of marriage. Do we really want the government saying that in order to be married the couple in question must generate offspring?
Quote
It might seem like a marriage amendment would be a religious amendment, but if we have no marriage amendment, and the feds force homosexual marriage on every State, then how is that keeping the feds out of religion? Either we do nothing and the feds trample our Christian values, or we amend the US Constitution to stop them.
This is one of the things that turned me away from Christianity - the desire of many Christians to impose their will on others instead of sharing their beliefs and letting others make their own choices. Is it not a greater act of worship to have the opportunity to choose wrong and do the right thing or to not have such an opportunity and choose to do the right thing? Did Jesus go to the Romans and ask them to make prostitution illegal or did he go to the prostitutes to convince them that they were doing wrong and to live righteously instead?
Does knowing your neighbor sins cause you to go out and commit that same sin? Legislating morality is a very slippery slope which our founding fathers recognized. Where do we stop? The Bible clearly states that taking the Lord's name in vain is one of the worst, most offensive sins - maybe we should jail people for that. The Bible also states that the appearance of sin is bad also - maybe we should stone women who go out in public with men other than their husbands because it looks like adultery.
Even then, let us say that we do legislate Christian morality. Do you think God would rather people avoid sin out of the fear of God or fear of the State? Isn't this close to what the Pharisees had going that Jesus so passionately railed against? As long as a sin does not cause harm to another, isn't it better to not legislate against that sin so that people can avoid the sin as an act of worship as opposed to mere obeisance to the State?
Quote
I don't really care about the marriage or union aspect of it. But I do think that any and all families that lack both a father and a mother are starting out deficient. Granted some single parent homes can rise above the challenge and still raise children, but it's not starting on the same footing as a complete home. The "authorities", religious, legal, whatever, can't do much to stop divorce, or stop children out of wedlock. But that doesn't mean they should activly condone "families" that start from the get go lacking a father and a mother.
It seems to me that homosexual couples overall might make better parents than heterosexual couples just by eliminating unplanned pregnancies. A homosexual couple would have to adopt a child or undergo some sort of artificial / surrogate pregnancy to have children. These processes all have a major PITA factor - after having made the decision to go through such an irritating process, it seems to me there is a greater likelihood of following through and making a good effort at doing things right than Johnny and Susie 9 months after prom night. Maybe it would cut down on child abuse if the government did actively prevent people from having children prior to demonstrating that they meet some standard of good parenting ability. I don't think any of us wants that to happen.
Allowing homosexual couples to marry and adopt children would help remove children from the foster care system and just might free up enough resources to prevent more child abuse. How is this a bad thing? Even if (and I do not agree, nor do I believe there is enough data to decide - you may be right though) it is true that a loving homosexual couple cannot do as good a job at raising a child as a loving heterosexual couple, surely the loving homosexual couple would be preferred to a foster home.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 05, 2008, 03:35:35 PM
many? where? required?
but you are right i know quite a few gay couples make great parents. one lady i know has often talked about ho she'd love to raise a son and she'd raise a real boy too
Post by: mek42 on May 05, 2008, 04:16:49 PM
All I remember is that one place where I worked there was a lot of discontent about homosexual non-married partners of the employee getting benefits while unmarried heterosexual couples did not have the same setup. I haven't looked hard into this.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 05, 2008, 05:59:52 PM
civil unions would/could help eliminate this
and i think companies expanding benifits is great but it should be their choice
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 05, 2008, 07:52:43 PM
"..and as a sapient individual, I have the right to choose."
Ok, you've left yourself wide open here.. I gotta pull yer chain.
This is meant to be funny, not critical. Ahem...the word is sentient not sapient which does, in the context of this discussion, make me laugh out loud because of the descriptive adjectival image that misuse of the word conjures as follows. Petulant tone: I'm a sap, so I can use my body any way I want. End petulant tone.
Ok, you've left yourself wide open here.. I gotta pull yer chain. This is meant to be funny, not critical. Ahem...the word is sentient not sapient which does, in the context of this discussion, make me laugh out loud because of the descriptive adjectival image that misuse of the word conjures as follows.
Petulant tone: I'm a sap, so I can use my body any way I want. End petulant tone. Actually, while the conventional use is sentient, the proper word is sapient.
Sentience has been defined as 'the ability to feel or perceive subjectively', which is commonly ascribed not only to humans, but also to monkeys, dogs, cows, and basically all animals. Animal rights activists often go for that as the litmus test for rights.
Sapience is 'the ability to act with judgement'.
Now you tell me, what is unique to humans? Hint: We're called the Homo sapiens for a reason.
Sorry, nit-picking sci-fi fanboy here
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 06, 2008, 04:13:02 AM
Quote
This is one of the things that turned me away from Christianity - the desire of many Christians to impose their will on others instead of sharing their beliefs and letting others make their own choices.
Again, I see this as a North/South thing. It is not the South that wants to force its will on others. It is the North. Egalitarians/libertarians have done everything they could to impose their will upon my region, even resorting to all out war and amending the US Constitution by military force. We can see that they are about to force homosexual marriage upon us, and the only way to stop them would seem to be to amend the US Constitution. I don't see how we keep coming up with the idea that such an amendment makes the Christians out to be the aggressors. In my view, it is your side, the libertarians/egalitarians, that are manic to force their values upon us all.
Post by: grampster on May 06, 2008, 04:16:50 AM
Post by: mek42 on May 06, 2008, 05:32:36 PM
Quote
This is one of the things that turned me away from Christianity - the desire of many Christians to impose their will on others instead of sharing their beliefs and letting others make their own choices.
Again, I see this as a North/South thing. It is not the South that wants to force its will on others. It is the North. Egalitarians/libertarians have done everything they could to impose their will upon my region, even resorting to all out war and amending the US Constitution by military force. We can see that they are about to force homosexual marriage upon us, and the only way to stop them would seem to be to amend the US Constitution. I don't see how we keep coming up with the idea that such an amendment makes the Christians out to be the aggressors. In my view, it is your side, the libertarians/egalitarians, that are manic to force their values upon us all.
Oh, wow, nested quotes work here, very nice.
If anyone is trying to get the state to force churches to marry people than I am against that. In the eyes of the state though, I believe that homosexual partners should have the same opportunity to pursue happiness as heterosexual partners. Whether either chooses or not to become married in the eyes of the state, that choice should be available. Or simply remove marriage as an institution of the state altogether - though I think this would cause more problems than freely allowing homosexual marriage. How is the attempt to increase freedom more of a "forcing of values" situation than trying to restrict freedom?
I still do not understand how people or society as a whole are harmed by homosexual marriage. The closest to harm to society I have seen here is that lack of offspring would erode the tax base. I counter this by saying that the homosexuals who would like to get married to each other are not likely to suddenly decide to engage in procreative heterosexual marriage simply because they are not permitted to pursue happiness together in the form of marriage. Rather, they will likely maintain a monogamous long-term non-married relationship similar to heterosexual couples that often are referred to as "common law" married couples. Further, I think it would be worse for society for every two people to procreate - this would lead to overpopulation at a time when energy and food resources are already stretched rather thin.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 07, 2008, 04:42:33 AM
Quote
How is the attempt to increase freedom more of a "forcing of values" situation than trying to restrict freedom?
What you call "an attempt to increase freedom" seems to me to be an attempt to increase egalitarianism/libertarianism. It's your view of freedom, not mine. And what you call "trying to restrict freedom" seems to me to refer to the right of the people of each State to define their own society and culture. Is it so hard to comprehend the idea that if homosexual marriage is forced upon Virginia then Virginians will be less free?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 07, 2008, 12:41:32 PM
So... if California residents wish to have a complete ban on guns, defining their culture as "gun free", that's their right? Or an I missing your logic somewhere?
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 07, 2008, 04:25:51 PM
Quote
So... if California residents wish to have a complete ban on guns, defining their culture as "gun free", that's their right? Or an I missing your logic somewhere?
I do not believe that the States' reserved rights include a right to ban guns. In Presser v. Illinois, the SCOTUS said that the States cannot ban guns because it would interefere with the US militia powers and general powers. And it might be argued that if a State banned guns then it would be trampling a pillar of the republican form of government which the US Constitution guarantees to each State. In contrast, I see something like defining sodomy as an intrastate affair ... or if it isn't then I don't know what is or why we have States.
"The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives." -Ronald Reagan (Executive Order 12612 re: Federalism)
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 07, 2008, 05:15:13 PM
Let's say (for the sake of discussion) that Iowa wants to ban motorcycles. Their reasoning is that "bikers" represent problems that they don't want in their culture. Would you be ok with that?
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 07, 2008, 08:07:52 PM
Quote
Ok, let's pick something non-Constitutional...
Let's say (for the sake of discussion) that Iowa wants to ban motorcycles. Their reasoning is that "bikers" represent problems that they don't want in their culture. Would you be ok with that?
Let's say (for the sake of discussion) that Iowa wants to ban motorcycles. Their reasoning is that "bikers" represent problems that they don't want in their culture. Would you be ok with that?
I think that would still be an interstate/Union/federal matter ... if some States banned motorcycles (or pickup trucks or Cadillacs) then that would impede interstate traffic. But what if France banned motorcycles, would you be "OK" with that?
"A state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation when that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States." -New York v Miln
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 07, 2008, 08:20:49 PM
Either you're just not getting my point, or I'm not illustrating it properly (which I'll concede is very possible).
The point you make above suggests that, if the people in a state decide they want to limit someone's freedom, not allowing them to do so makes them less free. Is that the point you're trying to say, or am I misunderstanding you?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 08:16:00 AM
Quote
I am starting to feel a little shame at starting this thread due to some of the less than respectful posts from those who seem to share my point of view.
The overall tenor has always been hostile and contemptuous here. Inconsistent with armedPOLITEsociety IMO.
Post by: SADShooter on May 08, 2008, 12:09:45 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 12:44:15 PM
Quote
Paddy, do you remain in hopes of bringing us back around to a civil discourse, or does the "hostile and contemptuous" tenor satisfy you in some way?
And there's an example. A nasty personal remark, with no redeeming value or purpose other than to disparage a specific individual.
Post by: SADShooter on May 08, 2008, 01:12:38 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 01:35:29 PM
If you're seriously interested in a discussion, I'd be glad to engage you. However, I'm not interested in trading insults or oneupmanship remarks with you, or anybody else.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 08, 2008, 01:43:00 PM
Quote
Paddy, do you remain in hopes of bringing us back around to a civil discourse, or does the "hostile and contemptuous" tenor satisfy you in some way?
And there's an example. A nasty personal remark, with no redeeming value or purpose other than to disparage a specific individual.
And in response to a hypocritical remark, with no redeeming value or purpose other than to disparage a large group of individuals.
SADShooter, the mere fact that Paddy would make that complaint is just priceless. Especially considering his first post in this thread. Come to think of it, he's yet to do anything to this thread but urinate in it. But we expect that from him.
Post by: mek42 on May 08, 2008, 02:59:04 PM
Quote
So... if California residents wish to have a complete ban on guns, defining their culture as "gun free", that's their right? Or an I missing your logic somewhere?
I do not believe that the States' reserved rights include a right to ban guns. In Presser v. Illinois, the SCOTUS said that the States cannot ban guns because it would interefere with the US militia powers and general powers. And it might be argued that if a State banned guns then it would be trampling a pillar of the republican form of government which the US Constitution guarantees to each State. In contrast, I see something like defining sodomy as an intrastate affair ... or if it isn't then I don't know what is or why we have States.
"The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives." -Ronald Reagan (Executive Order 12612 re: Federalism)
Sodomy between homosexuals has already been decided to be covered under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in [A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas"]Lawrence v. Texas[/A].
Quote
How is the attempt to increase freedom more of a "forcing of values" situation than trying to restrict freedom?
What you call "an attempt to increase freedom" seems to me to be an attempt to increase egalitarianism/libertarianism. It's your view of freedom, not mine. And what you call "trying to restrict freedom" seems to me to refer to the right of the people of each State to define their own society and culture. Is it so hard to comprehend the idea that if homosexual marriage is forced upon Virginia then Virginians will be less free?
But all Virginians wouldn't have to engage in homosexual marriage. Therefore nothing is being forced upon them. If the homosexual couple down the street gets married in the eyes of the state (again, churches remain free to marry or not marry them as the church feel fit) rather than merely cohabitating, how does this cause your quality of life to suffer? This is what I do not understand.
If the issue was simply decreased future tax base due to lack of progeny people would not be as emotionally excited about the issue as they seem to be.
Post by: cosine on May 08, 2008, 04:26:43 PM
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 08, 2008, 04:32:34 PM
Quote
Sodomy between homosexuals has already been decided to be covered under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in Lawrence v Texas.
The 14th was not intended to strike down the States' laws re: sodomy between homosexuals. It looks to me like an activist SCOTUS is grasping at straws, and that in reality the States' reserved police powers include a right to define sodomy to include homosexual acts.
It is Lawrence v Texas and Loving v Virginia that convince me that we need a marriage amendment.
Quote
But all Virginians wouldn't have to engage in homosexual marriage. Therefore nothing is being forced upon them. If the homosexual couple down the street gets married in the eyes of the state (again, churches remain free to marry or not marry them as the church feel fit) rather than merely cohabitating, how does this cause your quality of life to suffer? This is what I do not understand.
I do not see how you can assert that if homosexual marriage is forced upon Virginia then nothing is forced upon Virginians. It's as if the assertion is completely removed from any sense of government or federalism or anything beyond the individual and libertarianism.
It's not a question of what harm homosexual marriage causes Virginians. The point is, it's properly our call, because it's by right our State. And it's a matter of how we wish to define our own society and culture. We simply don't want homosexual marriage in Virginia because Virginians have other values.
Post by: roo_ster on May 08, 2008, 04:52:46 PM
HM is a statist means by its proponents to impose their values and jurisprudence on the majority that is doing just fine without it.
Things like the DoMA and a Constitutional Amendment are reactions to statist actions attempting to subvert both federalism and the rights of the citizens of the United States to govern those states as they see fit.
It is not fed.gov's responsibility to sanction every whimsy and codify its legitimacy.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 04:53:28 PM
By that logic, anything that the citizens of a state decide they don't like, they can ban. I believe the phrase we're looking for is "tyranny of the majority": a situation where, because an unpopular group is in the minority, their rights are trampled...
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 04:54:37 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 05:17:37 PM
Quote
jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...
And I want the same free world class medical care that every member of Congress gets, but I'm not a member of that club, either. To be 'married', you must marry a member of the opposite sex. That's the definition of 'marriage'. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
Yes, it's possible for a homosexual couple to get the same protections for themselves, via a large number of hoops and involving a fair lawyer's bill. For a heterosexual couple, it requires around $100 and a trip to the county courthouse. I do believe we can fix that without causing undo trauma to the fabric of society...
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 05:43:50 PM
The bottom line is that the majority define the society in which they live.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 05:49:46 PM
If the practice has no impact on society at large (which, I submit, "gay marriage" wouldn't), then the majority needs to suck it up and deal.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 06:01:48 PM
Is that right? What about democracy?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 06:11:07 PM
Your take is that the majority CAN decide to make life more difficult for an unpopular majority then?
Myself, I'm of the opinion that the "rights and protections" of a married couple should be available (and just as readily so) for any group of 2 or more consenting adults, and "marriage" should be strictly the balliwick of your respective church. maximum freedom for everyone, without having to trouble over changing meaning of terms...
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 08, 2008, 06:32:56 PM
Quote
By that logic, anything that the citizens of a state decide they don't like, they can ban. I believe the phrase we're looking for is "tyranny of the majority": a situation where, because an unpopular group is in the minority, their rights are trampled...
I believe that the relevant phrase is "free government" or "free State". A free State has a popular government. It is not an absolute government, there are limits to what a free government can do, and there are also federal limits. But the idea that government can only legislate to prevent harm and not to establish cultural/societal values just goes to show what I have said for years - libertarianism precludes culture and society.
Quote
If the practice has no impact on society at large (which, I submit, "gay marriage" wouldn't), then the majority needs to suck it up and deal.
I don't see how you can say that forcing homosexual marriage on a State would not impact its society.
Quote
maximum freedom for everyone
Virginians don't want a libertarian hell hole.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 08, 2008, 06:41:03 PM
therein lies the rub
thats why a recognized civil union is both preferable and more likely to be accepted.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 08:02:53 PM
"You don't agree with me, so you're a statist". wow... great debate skills there!
Your take is that the majority CAN decide to make life more difficult for an unpopular majority then?
Your take is that the majority CAN decide to make life more difficult for an unpopular majority then?
No, you're a statist because you want to use the power of government to override the will of the people.
The majority did not force the 'unpopular' minority into homosexuality. That was a choice they made on their own. Whatever benefits marriage provides can otherwise be obtained by homosexual partners with Powers of Attorney, Revocable Living Trusts, Health Care Directives, and other legal instruments.
And while we're at it, I want to be in the next Miss America contest. Oh, wait, I have testicles, so I'm excluded? How freaking unfair is that?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 08, 2008, 08:13:05 PM
And I honestly don't believe that anybody made a choice to "be homo". That would be like saying I made a choice to find slender redheads attractive: there's no explanation for why someone finds whatever shape, size, and equipment attractive. Hell: even fistful found someone!
If you can accept that it's not a concious choice, then the question comes up "What can we allow?". You say that "allowing" some form of civil union is "forcing the will of the minority on the majority", but I really don't think so. Heck, we can dispense with the term "marriage" here, and most folks on the gay side would be happy: they just want to have the protections others enjoy, without having to go to extreme measures. And it's silly that it should be necessary for them to have to.
Post by: 41magsnub on May 09, 2008, 07:27:30 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 09, 2008, 07:41:02 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 12:54:33 PM
I'm new here, but isn't arguing with Paddy sort of like competing in the Special Olympics? Even if you win...
More or less. A lot of us do it from time to time, though. It passes the time.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 09, 2008, 01:22:46 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 01:26:08 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 09, 2008, 01:31:23 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 02:15:48 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 09, 2008, 05:21:40 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2008, 07:14:24 PM
And thee-enuh we'll-uh have an exorcism-uh. And cay-ast ay-OUT the DEEEEEE-mon of-uh wee-itch-cray-aft.
Post by: mek42 on May 11, 2008, 03:32:35 AM
Apparently the court that made this decision stated that the legislature could pass laws to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages from outside of NY. Would this be a violation of the 14th Amendment?
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 11, 2008, 03:35:24 PM
I'd say that the spirit of the 14th is that any citizen can move to any State and have certain rights, such as the right to own property there, the right to reside there, the right to protection and due process of the law ... I do not think that homosexual marriage is one of the privileges and immunities that the 14th was intended to regard ... and if NY legislates that they won't recognize/allow homosexual marriage, then that seems like due process to me. I do not believe that the State law in question would violate a conservative construction of the 14th.
On the other hand, the 14th passed because they said it passed, and it means whatever they fancy ... so sure, they might use the 14th to force homosexual marriage upon every State. That is what we're still talking about ... except in this new scenario homosexual couples would have to go to CA or MA and get married and then come to VA and we'd be forced to accept the marriage.
Some of these posts make me think of Jefferson's warning about how New Englanders "support principles which go directly to a change of the federal constitution, to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that". I think that pretty much sums up today's view of the 14th "Amendment".
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on May 11, 2008, 05:13:18 PM
now to blow one arguement to outer space.
lesbians have wombs and gays have semen, and there are plenty of ways to get semen into wombs without doing the nasty. basically, if they so choose, they can have kids through Artificial insemination and adoption.
if you have a moral problem with LBGTT, i don't care. if you don't want to associate with LBGTT folks, then don't associate with them. but making or continuing laws that force the LBGTT crowd to limit their personal choices is not really in the spirt of this country. not to mention, its just another aspect of letting the state control people.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 12, 2008, 04:35:39 AM
Quote
making or continuing laws that force the LBGTT crowd to limit their personal choices is not really in the spirt of this country
It seems to me that there are a lot of States, they have existed for a long time, and they generally and historically have laws against sodomy and homosexual marriage. It seems completely removed from reality, just "play pretend", to say that such laws are not in the spirit of the Country.
Quote
IT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU
Why do y'all keep repeating this? First off, if it effects my society and culture, then it effects me. Secondly, it seems incredibly naive to think that we must strike down all laws which regard things that "don't effect me". It "doesn't effect me" if the federal government says we must allow prostitution, or legalize heroin, or most any such facet of society. The simply truth is that the people of each State have a right to define their own society and culture within certain federal limits, the federal government has no proper jurisdiction over the matters in question, and that is the spirit of this country.
Post by: SteveS on May 12, 2008, 08:15:38 AM
If we pretend that the 14th was ratified.
Why do we have to pretend? There were 37 states at that time and 28 were needed for ratification (per Art. V). It was eventually ratified by every state.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 12, 2008, 09:12:34 AM
Quote
Why do we have to pretend [that the 14th was properly ratified]?
It is my understanding that the 14th failed every part of the ratification process described in Article V. I am thinking that there were 36 States in the Union, but only 25 were represented in the Congress that proposed the 14th. And I believe that 13 States would have refused to ratify the amendment if they had been free to do so. The Southern States were put under military rule and denied a place in the Union until they agreed to ratify the reconstruction amendments. New Jersey and Ohio turned against the 14th but they were told that they could not change their ratification vote.
Just yesterday I finished reading a book on reconstruction and Virginia (Unleased at Long Last - Squires) which said "Congress had little respect for the Constitution in 1868, so Congress decided that the [14th]amendment was passed and ordered it proclaimed". I believe that even their proclamation was invalid, not just because it was false, but because the President had to approve it, and they skipped that step, because President Johnson was opposed to the 14th.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 12, 2008, 01:23:59 PM
I've read the same thing about the fourteenth, BTW. FWIW.
Post by: SteveS on May 13, 2008, 02:56:33 AM
This may be somewhat of a moot point, though. All states have ratified the 14th.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1076805
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 13, 2008, 03:41:58 AM
Quote
Some had to do with how the Southern states were "counted' and influenced, but losing the war probably had some effect as to how this was worked out.
Of course losing the war had everything to do with it. Yankees took over, and they modified the US Constitution by force, because they could.
Quote
NJ and Ohio were told they couldn't change their votes. Since there is nothing in Art. V that talks about this it could have been proper to tell them this.
I don't think so ... how can it be proper to tell the Northern States that voted "yes" that they CANNOT change their votes, while telling Southern States that voted "no" that they MUST change their votes or remain under military rule?
Quote
It wasn't just Congress. The President and the Supreme Court also went along with the 14th. I am not aware of any cases where they said it was invalid due to the ratification process.
The President was opposed to the 14th and he advised the States to not ratify it. President Johnson was so opposed to what Congress was doing that they tried to impeach him and get him out of the way. And when the 14th came to the SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse cases they didn't "go along with it" but rather they cut it down to size. So I wouldn't say that the President and the SCOTUS went along with the 14th, but it's true that the US treats the 14th as if it was ratified. I think it demonstrates a lack of integrity and credibility.
Quote
This may be somewhat of a moot point, though. All states have ratified the 14th.
I don't think that's true, or at least we're back to pretending that it was properly ratified when it was ratified by force. For instance, when did my State of Virginia ratify the 14th, and under what conditions? My understanding is that we would be held under military rule until we agreed to it. So yeah, Virginia ratified the 14th, with a gun to our heads. If parties sign a contract because they have a gun to their head, do you consider that to be a valid contract, and would you say that all parties signed it, as if it was legitimate?
It's not moot to me. Folks like to pretend that the 14th was properly ratified, and pretend that it means things that it was never intended to mean. My point is that, even if we pretend that it was properly ratified, there was no intent to force homosexual marriage upon the States. You asked why we have to pretend that the 14th was ratified, and I think I have answered that question well enough.
Post by: RaspberrySurprise on May 13, 2008, 11:37:37 PM
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 14, 2008, 05:25:50 AM
Quote
I'd like to see the reasons people have of how allowing gay marriage would affect them as it doesn't appear anyone has so far. Also allowing something is not forcing it on you, allowing gay marriage in your state will not force you to run out and marry a man. Thirdly comparing gays to heroin addicts is apples and oranges at best.
No it is not apples and oranges. You say that the federal government can strike down a Virginia law on the basis that it wouldn't impact me, and I am trying to show how that assertion is completely removed from any sense of government. If what y'all keep repeating had any substance, if it was true, then the federal government could strike down other Virginia laws, such as our laws against prostitution, on the same basis, that it would not impact me. That is what y'all keep repeating, that it wouldn't impact me. It makes no sense whatsoever. Supreme Court Justice Scalia had this to say about Lawrence v Texas:
"Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to "liberty" under the Due Process Clause, though today's opinion repeatedly makes that claim."
What's more, if foreign and horrid values are forced upon Virginia, then that will impact me and every Virginian. It isn't a question of which foreign and horrid values they force upon us, it might be homosexual marriage, or prostitution, or legalized heroin ... and it isn't a question of whether I will be forced to marry a homosexual, or be a prostitute or use heroin, that doesn't even sound like an adult argument to me ... it's a question of Virginians having a right to control our own State within certain federal limits.
"should the whole body of New England continue in opposition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. It can never be harmonious & solid, while so respectable a portion of it's citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal constitution, to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that. Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government." -Thomas Jefferson
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 02:15:51 PM
The feds stepped in there, and ignored a state law in favor of federal law. So... you're fine with a state deciding to make something legal, that the feds say is not?
Post by: roo_ster on May 14, 2008, 06:07:58 PM
jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...
They already have the same protections I do. They have to jump through the same hoops I do, such as marry someone of the opposite sex.
Equal treatment, there you go.
Just another statist movement masquerading as libertarian. Feh.
=============
As to the "It doesn't effect you..." argument, I blew it outta the water a few pages back.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 14, 2008, 06:29:15 PM
I'd like to see the reasons people have of how allowing gay marriage would affect them as it doesn't appear anyone has so far. Also allowing something is not forcing it on you, allowing gay marriage in your state will not force you to run out and marry a man.
1. Gay marriage doesn't affect me. Hence, there is no reason to grant it legal status.
2. Gay marriage is already allowed, just not legally recognized.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 15, 2008, 04:25:36 AM
Quote
Ahh... but you already don't have that right. Look at the medical marijuana case out of California (Raich?).
The people of each State most certainly do have a right to control their own State within certain federal limits. That is our constituted frame of governent. Of course these rights have been trampled by the federal government for many generations.
Quote
The feds stepped in there, and ignored a state law in favor of federal law. So... you're fine with a state deciding to make something legal, that the feds say is not?
Are you asking about nullification? I have mixed feelings about it ... on the one hand, I think a State in the Union must abide by the laws of the Union ... on the other hand, I try to respect the separation between State and federal powers just as I respect the separation between the different State governments ... if California legalized pot and Alaska struck down the law, I don't think that California should abide by the will of Alaska ... I don't see how it's different if the US strikes down the California law, because they don't seem to have any more jurisdiction over it than Alaska does.
Post by: 41magsnub on May 15, 2008, 05:18:11 AM
jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...
As to the "It doesn't effect you..." argument, I blew it outta the water a few pages back.
Nobody has blown that argument out of the water. I saw the numbers on the aids stuff. You have a small point that they can pool resources which reduces the money base into insurance, but it is a very small point. All folks engaging in risky sex have the same risks. also the likelyhood of a gay guy catching aids goes down when folks are married. Gay folks can be as monogamous as the rest of us when they get hitched. All in all I'd call it a wash.
There seems to be a bit of homophobia on this forum, it's the only explanation I can think of. Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others? I mean seriously, every argument against gay marriage/civil union here comes across like that. Help me understand in simple bullet points why this is a bad idea besides health insurance since I do not buy that argument at all?
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 15, 2008, 06:06:51 AM
Quote
Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others?
I'd say that it is folks trying to enforce the immorality of their false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism. That is the yankee jihad that a marriage protection amendment is intended to stop. The way y'all keep framing this North/South conflict, Southern values are taboo because they are Christian in nature, and we must go with Northern values because they are based upon false religions ... the moral of the story seems to be that it is constitutional for Notherners to force their values upon the South, but unconstitutional for Southerners to force their values upon the North ... it all seems biased beyond all reason.
It's not about being afraid of homosexuals. It's about considering homosexual acts to be sodomy, buggery, a crime against nature, a sin, and not something that we want our society to condone. I don't see how people come up with this homophobia stuff ... as an analogy, if some people in Virginia were eating dogs, and we passed a law making it illegal to eat dogs in Virginia, would that mean that we have dogophobia? Or would it just mean that we don't condone eating dogs, just like we don't condone buggery.
And its about rule of law, constitutionalism, free government, federalism ... we shouldn't need an amendment to say that the federal government isn't empowered to force homosexual marriage upon the States! It's like saying "since the federal government defies the separation of State and federal powers, and the separation of legislative and judicial powers, and just legislates whatever they fancy from the bench, pretending to be empowered by the 14th dictate or the interstate commerce power or some such nonsense ... it is hereby declared that the federal government's despotic jihad shall not go to such an absurd extreme as to force homosexual marriage upon the States".
Post by: 41magsnub on May 15, 2008, 07:52:19 AM
Quote
Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others?
I'd say that it is folks trying to enforce the immorality of their false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism. That is the yankee jihad that a marriage protection amendment is intended to stop. The way y'all keep framing this North/South conflict, Southern values are taboo because they are Christian in nature, and we must go with Northern values because they are based upon false religions ... the moral of the story seems to be that it is constitutional for Notherners to force their values upon the South, but unconstitutional for Southerners to force their values upon the North ... it all seems biased beyond all reason.
It's not about being afraid of homosexuals. It's about considering homosexual acts to be sodomy, buggery, a crime against nature, a sin, and not something that we want our society to condone. I don't see how people come up with this homophobia stuff ... as an analogy, if some people in Virginia were eating dogs, and we passed a law making it illegal to eat dogs in Virginia, would that mean that we have dogophobia? Or would it just mean that we don't condone eating dogs, just like we don't condone buggery.
And its about rule of law, constitutionalism, free government, federalism ... we shouldn't need an amendment to say that the federal government isn't empowered to force homosexual marriage upon the States! It's like saying "since the federal government defies the separation of State and federal powers, and the separation of legislative and judicial powers, and just legislates whatever they fancy from the bench, pretending to be empowered by the 14th dictate or the interstate commerce power or some such nonsense ... it is hereby declared that the federal government's despotic jihad shall not go to such an absurd extreme as to force homosexual marriage upon the States".
Maybe you personally should follow your values as dictated to you buy a possibly mythical guy that has been dead for thousands of years and re-interpreted time and again by men with an agenda, but not try to enforce them on the people around you and vice versa.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 15, 2008, 10:00:07 AM
Quote
Maybe you personally should follow your values as dictated to you buy a possibly mythical guy that has been dead for thousands of years and re-interpreted time and again by men with an agenda, but not try to enforce them on the people around you and vice versa.
I think you are saying that Virginia laws should be based upon your values, and I'm saying that Virginia laws should be based upon the values of Virginians ... and somehow you spin it so that I am trying to force my personal values onto others! It is you libertarians that have the manic need to force your views onto every State in the union. That is why we need a marriage protection amendment.
Post by: 41magsnub on May 15, 2008, 10:11:28 AM
Quote
Maybe you personally should follow your values as dictated to you buy a possibly mythical guy that has been dead for thousands of years and re-interpreted time and again by men with an agenda, but not try to enforce them on the people around you and vice versa.
I think you are saying that Virginia laws should be based upon your values, and I'm saying that Virginia laws should be based upon the values of Virginians ... and somehow you spin it so that I am trying to force my personal values onto others! It is you libertarians that have the manic need to force your views onto every State in the union. That is why we need a marriage protection amendment.
Because your values would prevent somebody from doing something that only affects them and in a positive way, whereas their values do not force you to do something you do not want to do. The hypocrisy in the arguments against this are mind boggling, they are too stupid to even try to counter. It's like arguing with a 3 year old over bed time.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 15, 2008, 01:09:15 PM
Maybe you personally should follow your values as dictated to you buy a possibly mythical guy that has been dead for thousands of years and re-interpreted time and again by men with an agenda, but not try to enforce them on the people around you and vice versa.
Are you trying to describe Christianity? If so, you are very poorly informed. Jesus was an actual historical figure. There's really no debate about that. And the teachings in the New Testament most certainly have more textual support than that of other ancient thinkers, so I don't know why interpretation should be an especial problem. We can see for ourselves what he said.
Post by: 41magsnub on May 15, 2008, 01:48:55 PM
Maybe you personally should follow your values as dictated to you buy a possibly mythical guy that has been dead for thousands of years and re-interpreted time and again by men with an agenda, but not try to enforce them on the people around you and vice versa.
Are you trying to describe Christianity? If so, you are very poorly informed. Jesus was an actual historical figure. There's really no debate about that. And the teachings in the New Testament most certainly have more textual support than that of other ancient thinkers, so I don't know why interpretation should be an especial problem. We can see for ourselves what he said.
Maybe.. maybe not. I have no idea if there was a person in those times named Jesus, possibly. I guess I phrased that poorly though, I don't believe any of the "Son of god" stuff is real which is what I was shooting for in that statement. I probably should not have used that statement at all since it was guaranteed to cause a thread drift.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 15, 2008, 02:01:03 PM
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on May 15, 2008, 02:31:04 PM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080515/D90MB7SO0.html
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 15, 2008, 02:32:17 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 02:49:47 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on May 15, 2008, 05:36:29 PM
jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...
As to the "It doesn't effect you..." argument, I blew it outta the water a few pages back.
Nobody has blown that argument out of the water. I saw the numbers on the aids stuff. You have a small point that they can pool resources which reduces the money base into insurance, but it is a very small point. All folks engaging in risky sex have the same risks. also the likelyhood of a gay guy catching aids goes down when folks are married. Gay folks can be as monogamous as the rest of us when they get hitched. All in all I'd call it a wash.
There seems to be a bit of homophobia on this forum, it's the only explanation I can think of. Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others? I mean seriously, every argument against gay marriage/civil union here comes across like that. Help me understand in simple bullet points why this is a bad idea besides health insurance since I do not buy that argument at all?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 15, 2008, 05:44:05 PM
Quote
It's about considering homosexual acts to be sodomy, buggery, a crime against nature, a sin,
(emphasis mine)Here's the thing: my faith has no concept of "sin". So that argument is a wash...
Post by: 41magsnub on May 15, 2008, 06:41:23 PM
jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...
As to the "It doesn't effect you..." argument, I blew it outta the water a few pages back.
Nobody has blown that argument out of the water. I saw the numbers on the aids stuff. You have a small point that they can pool resources which reduces the money base into insurance, but it is a very small point. All folks engaging in risky sex have the same risks. also the likelyhood of a gay guy catching aids goes down when folks are married. Gay folks can be as monogamous as the rest of us when they get hitched. All in all I'd call it a wash.
There seems to be a bit of homophobia on this forum, it's the only explanation I can think of. Are people scared of the gays or is it folks trying to enforce the morality of their religion on others? I mean seriously, every argument against gay marriage/civil union here comes across like that. Help me understand in simple bullet points why this is a bad idea besides health insurance since I do not buy that argument at all?
er... no, this is not like a Godwin at all. I really am having a hard time coming up with any other reason for opposition besides fear and bigotry. Step up here, tell us legitimate reasons why this should not be allowed that do not involve religion or dubious health insurance stuff.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 08:02:39 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 15, 2008, 08:26:50 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516013347.668wf0ld&show_article=1
Quote
California's Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
The ruling added that all California couples had a "basic civil right" to marry "without regard to their sexual orientation."
Before Thursday only one US state -- Massachusetts -- allowed gay marriage, although California, New Jersey and Vermont have legislation which grants same-sex partners many of the same legal rights as married couples.
Plaintiffs and gay rights activists erupted with joy after the victory.
"It's the best day of my life, quite honestly I'm thrilled for all of us," Diane Olson said.
In San Francisco, couples immediately began lining up at the city clerk's office for marriage licenses, even though officials said they will not be able to issue any for at least 30 days, when the decision takes effect.
Thursday's ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.
In February 2004, the city of San Francisco defied state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that existing laws were illegal because they violated equal rights legislation.
A court later halted the issuance of licenses and declared that same-sex marriages that took place during this period were void.
However, San Francisco and civil rights activists waged a legal case arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional and that the law should be struck down.
In 2005 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that there was no justification for refusing to allow marriages.
But the decision was overturned in 2006 by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state's desire to "carry out the expressed wishes of a majority" was sufficient to preserve the existing law.
California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state's court system to decide on.
Legal analysts say Thursday's court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court's history of landmark rulings.
"The California Supreme Court's example is often emulated and it often is sort of a groundbreaker," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law.
"In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the US Supreme Court got around to it."
But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, reacted with dismay, insisting "marriage is naturally for a man and a woman."
"If the institution of marriage is redefined and therefore destroyed in the law, the wellbeing of children is threatened, both emotionally, socially, even physically," Thomasson added.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups have vowed to attempt to add a vote calling for a ban on same-sex marriage when California goes to the polls in November's election.
State election officials will rule next month on whether sponsors of the vote have gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot.
"We have 1.1 million signatures," according to the Reverend Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, describing the California ruling as "completely out of line."
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
The ruling added that all California couples had a "basic civil right" to marry "without regard to their sexual orientation."
Before Thursday only one US state -- Massachusetts -- allowed gay marriage, although California, New Jersey and Vermont have legislation which grants same-sex partners many of the same legal rights as married couples.
Plaintiffs and gay rights activists erupted with joy after the victory.
"It's the best day of my life, quite honestly I'm thrilled for all of us," Diane Olson said.
In San Francisco, couples immediately began lining up at the city clerk's office for marriage licenses, even though officials said they will not be able to issue any for at least 30 days, when the decision takes effect.
Thursday's ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.
In February 2004, the city of San Francisco defied state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that existing laws were illegal because they violated equal rights legislation.
A court later halted the issuance of licenses and declared that same-sex marriages that took place during this period were void.
However, San Francisco and civil rights activists waged a legal case arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional and that the law should be struck down.
In 2005 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that there was no justification for refusing to allow marriages.
But the decision was overturned in 2006 by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state's desire to "carry out the expressed wishes of a majority" was sufficient to preserve the existing law.
California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state's court system to decide on.
Legal analysts say Thursday's court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court's history of landmark rulings.
"The California Supreme Court's example is often emulated and it often is sort of a groundbreaker," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law.
"In the 20th century California was the first state to strike down laws against inter-racial marriage. They did that 19 years before the US Supreme Court got around to it."
But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, reacted with dismay, insisting "marriage is naturally for a man and a woman."
"If the institution of marriage is redefined and therefore destroyed in the law, the wellbeing of children is threatened, both emotionally, socially, even physically," Thomasson added.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups have vowed to attempt to add a vote calling for a ban on same-sex marriage when California goes to the polls in November's election.
State election officials will rule next month on whether sponsors of the vote have gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot.
"We have 1.1 million signatures," according to the Reverend Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, describing the California ruling as "completely out of line."
Post by: 41magsnub on May 16, 2008, 04:03:16 AM
ahhhh so, if its not in lockstep with you its dubious?
Not at all, but I do reject the "OMG, don't let them do it because I'll have to pay for all their AIDS treatments!!!!111!!" argument.
Post by: roo_ster on May 16, 2008, 04:34:03 AM
And then call those with other views both stupid and bigoted.
Why do I think you are not sincere?
Post by: 41magsnub on May 16, 2008, 04:54:05 AM
Hmm, you ask for ways in which this might have an effect on others, yet you reject any data pertaining to health care and monetary effects on others who will pay the costs.
And then call those with other views both stupid and bigoted.
Why do I think you are not sincere?
And then call those with other views both stupid and bigoted.
Why do I think you are not sincere?
To be fair I did not call anyone stupid and as I don't have access to your mind can't speculate why you may or may not think something.
Let's assume there is something to the higher costs for a sec...
Should smoker's be allowed to marry? The obese? Drug users? Reckless drivers? Other folks who through personal choices may cost the rest of us money due to higher health care needs. And, those are folks that it is a choice for (except for some of the obese where it is a glandular thing or whatever), while possibly some people choose to be gay most are just wired that way. Not to mention, gays do not automatically engage in risky activities that put them at risk of AIDS.
That is my problem with the numbers shown, the whole picture is not included. Also, it seems you guys would penalize an entire group of people for something a subset of them do.
So I ask again, what else have you got?
Post by: grampster on May 16, 2008, 05:22:35 AM
These arguments are silly on boards. They would be better done in town hall meetings when selecting representatives to protect our collective interests from too much intrusion into our lives. The law is on our side in this matter. That is if anyone is concerned enough to leave their keyboard long enough to use the power we have.
People are too fat, lazy and self absorbed to do their duty, mostly. The proof of that statement is in the government we have at the moment.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 16, 2008, 05:27:41 AM
To be fair.......................
No. You presume fear and bigotry and homophobia because you can't or don't care to understand other's perspectives on the issue. That is not fair at all.
Post by: 41magsnub on May 16, 2008, 05:37:13 AM
To be fair.......................
No. You presume fear and bigotry and homophobia because you can't or don't care to understand other's perspectives on the issue. That is not fair at all. Seriously? I'm trying to figure out what all the opposition is and fear, bigotry, and homophobia is all I can come up with since the other arguments are hypocritical at best.
What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group. If you don't support gay marriage, then fine don't marry a guy. But how is it fair for that to be denied to somebody else for the "reasons" provided?
Again, what else have you got?
Post by: MechAg94 on May 16, 2008, 05:39:59 AM
Quote
What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group.
Do you believe in ritual sacrifice? I haven't seen anything useful from you yet. "I should be able to do what I want because I can" is not an argument. What have you got?
Post by: MechAg94 on May 16, 2008, 05:41:52 AM
To be fair.......................
No. You presume fear and bigotry and homophobia because you can't or don't care to understand other's perspectives on the issue. That is not fair at all. Seriously? I'm trying to figure out what all the opposition is and fear, bigotry, and homophobia is all I can come up with since the other arguments are hypocritical at best.
What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group. If you don't support gay marriage, then fine don't marry a guy. But how is it fair for that to be denied to somebody else for the "reasons" provided?
Again, what else have you got?
Post by: 41magsnub on May 16, 2008, 05:52:22 AM
To be fair.......................
No. You presume fear and bigotry and homophobia because you can't or don't care to understand other's perspectives on the issue. That is not fair at all. Seriously? I'm trying to figure out what all the opposition is and fear, bigotry, and homophobia is all I can come up with since the other arguments are hypocritical at best.
What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group. If you don't support gay marriage, then fine don't marry a guy. But how is it fair for that to be denied to somebody else for the "reasons" provided?
Again, what else have you got?
Well, you are either a hypocrite or a bigot. Which is it? My argument consists of that there is no good reason to deny a group of people rights that another group has.
Post by: 41magsnub on May 16, 2008, 05:55:29 AM
Quote
What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group.
Do you believe in ritual sacrifice? I haven't seen anything useful from you yet. "I should be able to do what I want because I can" is not an argument. What have you got?
Ritual sacrifice? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
This is America, I should be able to do what I want because I can and it makes me happy is an argument. A person should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not negatively affect other people in a tangible way. Nothing that has been shown here shows tangible harm.
I'm out of here though, none of us is going to change the other's position and it is all a waste of time. Gampster got that part right.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 16, 2008, 07:04:45 AM
Weak argument man: no "accepted" religion in the Western world allows ritual sacrifice...
Post by: bedlamite on May 16, 2008, 07:27:45 AM
Do you believe in ritual sacrifice?
Yes, I sacrifice a plate in the honor of his noodly appendage regularly.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 16, 2008, 07:34:30 AM
Quote
there is no good reason to deny a group of people rights that another group has.
What "rights"? What group in Virginia has a right to marry someone of the same gender? There is equality under the law, not class discrimination.
I think what you are trying to say is that there is no good reason to define marriage to be between a man and a woman, because you feel that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 16, 2008, 08:26:03 AM
>Do you believe in ritual sacrifice?<
Weak argument man: no "accepted" religion in the Western world allows ritual sacrifice...
Of course it is. And it was a good response to a weak argument. Weak argument man: no "accepted" religion in the Western world allows ritual sacrifice...
Lots of laws impose moral behavioral standards on others.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 16, 2008, 08:34:32 AM
Quote
What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group.
Do you believe in ritual sacrifice? I haven't seen anything useful from you yet. "I should be able to do what I want because I can" is not an argument. What have you got?
Ritual sacrifice? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
This is America, I should be able to do what I want because I can and it makes me happy is an argument. A person should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not negatively affect other people in a tangible way. Nothing that has been shown here shows tangible harm.
I'm out of here though, none of us is going to change the other's position and it is all a waste of time. Gampster got that part right.
I do agree with you on that bolded part.
On the "because I can part", I have no problem with your choice of behavior. That is your choice and you can live with it. What is at question on the issue that I see if you want the government and rest of us to legally define marriage as including same sex couples. That is a bit different and a little beyond the simple personal choice argument.
...but yeah, it probably is pointless to go further.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 16, 2008, 10:59:15 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 16, 2008, 11:10:31 AM
Post by: mek42 on May 18, 2008, 03:40:34 PM
If so, Mr. Damright would surely welcome same-sex marriage in Virginia if many people who believed in same-sex marriage moved to Virginia and thus became the majority of the Virginia populace and so decided to accept same-sex marriage at the state level. Right?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 18, 2008, 06:13:58 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 18, 2008, 06:55:06 PM
>They should be asking your side to explain why the law should be changed, and why we should pretend that men and women are interchangeable, even in such a conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual institution.<
This may sound ignorant, but humor me: WHY is it "conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual"?
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 18, 2008, 06:56:59 PM
Quote
If so, Mr. Damright would surely welcome same-sex marriage in Virginia if many people who believed in same-sex marriage moved to Virginia and thus became the majority of the Virginia populace and so decided to accept same-sex marriage at the state level. Right?
Hardly. Why would I welcome millions of people with yankee values (or lack thereof) moving to Virginia and taking over? If that happened, I might would move to another State where I'd feel more at home ... but regardless, I'd still be for a marriage protection amendment in the US Constitution.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 18, 2008, 07:24:29 PM
Post by: Fjolnirsson on May 18, 2008, 07:34:55 PM
Quote
>Do you believe in ritual sacrifice?<
Weak argument man: no "accepted" religion in the Western world allows ritual sacrifice...
Weak argument man: no "accepted" religion in the Western world allows ritual sacrifice...
Hmmm. I was going to say, "yes", until Strings pointed out you meant human sacrifice. Even so, I am not terribly opposed, provided it is practiced as my ancestors did it, by sacrificing criminals to the Gods. After all, I do support the death penalty. Anyhow, I was thinking of goats, but now I see the point...
Post by: mek42 on May 19, 2008, 02:36:01 AM
mek, I was afraid you had abandoned this thread altogether. I wanted to thank you for your comments back in post #50. For my part, I'm disappointed in my fellow conservatives in this thread. They shouldn't let your side get away with asking for reasons to oppose homosexual marriage, as if we were the ones needing to explain ourselves. They should be asking your side to explain why the law should be changed, and why we should pretend that men and women are interchangeable, even in such a conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual institution.
I've been working late and enjoying the fruits of overtime.
Recently bought some more woodworking equipment and have been busy making sawdust and wood shavings.Why should the law be changed? I have a reason. With DSM IV, homosexuality is no longer a treatable mental illness or a deviant behavior, but is recognized as merely an alternative lifestyle. This change coincided with laws being struck down that had made homosexual behavior illegal. Like it or not, for better or for worse, homosexuality is now accepted in the eyes of the law, if not every individual, as an acceptable alternative lifestyle in America. Therefore, denying homosexuals equality with heterosexuals in regards to the State accepting a formalization of a permanent relationship (whether it be called marriage, civil unions, personal incorporations or what have you, so long as the semantics and legal construction in the eyes of the State be equal, not similar, not equivalent, but equal) is a denial of liberty under Amendment XIV, section 1.
Quite a few more years ago, people of non-Caucasian races were considered inferior. Eventually this attitude changed leading to changes in the laws (see Amendments XIII, XIV and XV among other changes of law). Likewise, women were once not thought of as capable of being part of the People's self-governing process. Eventually this attitude changed leading to Amendment XIX (again, among other changes of law). It seems to me that sexual orientation is following the historical patterns of change previously exhibited in regards to the attitudes of race and gender. Aren't many of the arguments against homosexuality given here the same or similar to those that were once used against miscegenation? "It isn't natural." "No valid offspring."
Quote
If so, Mr. Damright would surely welcome same-sex marriage in Virginia if many people who believed in same-sex marriage moved to Virginia and thus became the majority of the Virginia populace and so decided to accept same-sex marriage at the state level. Right?
Hardly. Why would I welcome millions of people with yankee values (or lack thereof) moving to Virginia and taking over? If that happened, I might would move to another State where I'd feel more at home ... but regardless, I'd still be for a marriage protection amendment in the US Constitution.
But Hugh, isn't that flying in the face of your own statement? If the majority of the people in Virginia said they wanted "gay marriage", you would still stand against it?
Hugh, it's not a very good way to debate to claim State's Rights for when the State agrees with you but then desire the State be trampled by the Federal gov't when the State doesn't agree with you. If you personally are just against homosexuality and want laws against it, fine, but don't make it into a State's Rights issue unless you are willing to be ok with homosexuality if the majority of your state is.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 19, 2008, 07:59:15 AM
Quote
But Hugh, isn't that flying in the face of your own statement? If the majority of the people in Virginia said they wanted "gay marriage", you would still stand against it?
Quote
Hugh, it's not a very good way to debate to claim State's Rights for when the State agrees with you but then desire the State be trampled by the Federal gov't when the State doesn't agree with you. If you personally are just against homosexuality and want laws against it, fine, but don't make it into a State's Rights issue unless you are willing to be ok with homosexuality if the majority of your state is.
I think my position is consistent. Ideally, I think that homosexual marriage should be up to each State. However, I do not believe that is possible. I think that one or two States will have homosexual marriage, and then the SCOTUS will force it upon the other States. If 3/4 of the States ratify an amendment to clarify that marriage in the US is between a man and a woman, then that is not the federal government trampling States' rights. In the one case the feds legislate from the bench forcing unwanted values on the majority of States, in the other case the States amend the Constitution to stop the feds from forcing unwanted values on the majority of States.
I think the States' rights stuff came about because people keep asking what right Virginia has to define marriage to be what Virginians want it to be. The way it is right now, it is up to each State. I would like to see an amendment to put homosexual marriage beyond the States.
Quote
don't make it into a State's Rights issue unless you are willing to be ok with homosexuality if the majority of your state is.
I don't see what one thing has to do with the other ... there are lots of Virginia laws that I do not like, but I respect that Virginia had a right to legislate them.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 10:20:24 AM
What I don't get is why some folks are so threatened by something other folks do that will not affect them in the slightest. I even find gay folks a little creepy at times, but that is no excuse to deny them the same legal and social rights as a couple that regular folks get.
Reasonable line of thought and one I agree with. Who am I to judge others? No one, unless they represent a threat to me.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 10:40:10 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 10:46:13 AM
and still, nobody answering my question...
The Constitution is malleable and can be amended either way. If enough people decide gay people are as human as the rest of us, then no, it will not be unconstitutional. If enough people decide gay people should always be a different class when it comes to marriage then yes, it will become unconstitutional. Look at prohibition for an example of something that goes against common sense (as all bans do) but which was added in an amendment by popular sentiment despite the stupidity of the notion that a piece of paper would change what people wanted to drink, anymore than a piece of paper will ever change who people are attracted to.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 19, 2008, 10:48:02 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 19, 2008, 10:50:17 AM
was someone trying to make being gay illegal? :rolleyes
but that was a valiant albeit failed attempt at misdirection
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 10:53:47 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 19, 2008, 10:59:15 AM
Seriously though, where does the slope stop? I don't have a problem with civil unions, and I'm also not religious, so I don't have a dog in that fight. Just because DSM IV changes the definition isn't really an unequivocal argument. There are a host of other things that are currently considered deviant behavior which might be up for reconsideration for inclusion into the next DSM. Where is the line drawn? NAMBLA?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 11:12:43 AM
Um, actually, I don't recall that question being answered. Least, not since I asked it, and I don't really have time to wade through 8 pages of thread to find the answer. So, let's try again:
>They should be asking your side to explain why the law should be changed, and why we should pretend that men and women are interchangeable, even in such a conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual institution.<
This may sound ignorant, but humor me: WHY is it "conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual"?
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 19, 2008, 11:24:41 AM
Quote
The leave it up to each State argument is the best
I do not think it is possible that the federal government would leave it up to each State ... I think it would take an amendment declaring that no State shall be forced or coerced into allowing or recognizing homosexual marriage or union.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 11:27:04 AM
Quote
The leave it up to each State argument is the best
I do not think it is possible that the federal government would leave it up to each State ... I think it would take an amendment declaring that no State shall be forced or coerced into allowing or recognizing homosexual marriage or union.
Based on how the fed has looked at drug war enforcement, I would agree - we are moving towards fascism, not away from it. Rule of thumb moving forward is lowest common denominator will be forced on everyone.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 19, 2008, 11:49:58 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 01:34:58 PM
Quote
This may sound ignorant, but humor me: WHY is it "conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual"?
No, I've already said I'm not going to play that game. You tell me how you can deny that marriage is heterosexual, or how marriage can happen without at least one member of each sex.
And if you could wrap your mind around such a silly concept as a same-sex marriage, why should our government entertain such a silly idea?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 01:38:38 PM
Quote
something that goes against common sense (as all bans do)
All bans go against common sense? How about the ban on murder?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 01:41:14 PM
Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 01:45:04 PM
Quote
Why should the law be changed? I have a reason. With DSM IV, homosexuality is no longer a treatable mental illness or a deviant behavior, but is recognized as merely an alternative lifestyle.
mek, you have got to be kidding me. That is hilarious. You cannot rail against laws based on religious opinions on the one hand, then base law on the pronouncements of a bunch of psychologists on the other. Nor can you seriously claim that all mentally healthy behavior must on that basis be legal.
All that aside, no one here (well, maybe Hugh Damright, I haven't read his posts) is trying to stop homosexuals from homosexualing, living together, or having weddings. I am simply saying that homosexual relationships offer nothing that would merit government recognition.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 01:48:21 PM
Weird picture, aka fistful, aka scapegoat, aka josh:
Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?
Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?
Why should they? A homosexual marriage and a real marriage are demonstrably not the same thing, simply as a matter of fact. Why should one union be treated equally with another, when they are not the same?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 19, 2008, 01:50:40 PM
Weird picture, aka fistful, aka scapegoat, aka josh:
Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?
Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?
Why should they? A homosexual marriage and a real marriage are demonstrably not the same thing, simply as a matter of fact. Why should one union be treated equally with another, when they are not the same?
Oddly, I agree. Maybe because I view the purpose of marriage to be very different from the purpose of the 'union' of two homosexuals. But then, I think 'gay' is a choice, also.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 02:13:12 PM
I think homosexuals may have some good points about power of attorney not being strong enough, or about visiting their loved ones in the hospital. (I'm not rendering a judgment on those things, I'm just saying that I don't know.) So they should pursue those goals for EVERYONE who lives in a non-traditional home, not just for people who have gay sex. I'm thinking of people who live with parents or adult children, or same-sex room-mates who don't have a sexual/romantic relationship.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 19, 2008, 04:04:01 PM
I heard one pastor speak on the subject and he was concerned that if same sex marriage is made legal, someone may attempt to legally force him and others to marry same sex couples on discrimination grounds or similar. He said he would refuse, but it is an interesting line of thought.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 19, 2008, 05:12:13 PM
One other possibility is to get the govt out of the marriage definition business completely. Define civil unions in law and take marriage out of it. Let people define marriage as they see fit. I kind of doubt anyone would accept that though.
A solution in search of a problem. Marriage is not just a "religious institution" as both sides seem to think. It is just as much a secular, social institution as a religious one.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 19, 2008, 06:14:23 PM
Quote
What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group.
Do you believe in ritual sacrifice? Ritual sacrifice of animals is a Constitutionally protected practice according to SCOTUS.
Post by: taurusowner on May 19, 2008, 09:33:24 PM
Quote
Well, there you go. We may all disagree on whether "gay is OK." But we should all be able to agree on whether a same-sex relationship is the same as a heterosexual relationship, and should merit the same legal recognition. I remnember when homosexuals used to claim that what they did in their bedrooms was their business. And I agree with them. I just wish they would go back to that mindset, instead of asking govt. to recognize what they're doing in there as a marriage.
I don't agree. As I have already stated, I believe that the natural "1 mom 1 dad" parent group is the ideal way to raise a family, and while warpings of that can be tolerated(divorce, etc) after the fact, they should not be encouraged from the start; ie gay marriage. Divorce or the death of a parent might not be ideal. But they started out correctly, and went wrong later. A homosexual couple raising children is defective from the start. IMO, all of the tax and property issues are irrelevant and can be take care of with civil unions and what not. But I think the raising of children by a natural male/female parent group is the only pairing that should be actively encouraged.
Post by: Az-at-hoth on May 19, 2008, 10:57:44 PM
Quote
Why should they? A homosexual marriage and a real marriage are demonstrably not the same thing, simply as a matter of fact. Why should one union be treated equally with another, when they are not the same?
For the simple fact that both hetero- and homosexual unions involve adult human beings, and, in this country at least, all adult human beings have equal protection under the law. If heterosexual unions are treated differently than homosexual ones, there's a problem. Think of it this way, what if the debate was about interracial unions, which were once against religious laws. Seperate but equal was found to be wrong on May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 20, 2008, 12:21:22 AM
Quote
For the simple fact that both hetero- and homosexual unions involve adult human beings, and, in this country at least, all adult human beings have equal protection under the law.
I don't see how you construe equal protection of the law to mean that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I don't think that equal protection has ever meant that before. I think we are back to the assertion that the 14th "Amendment" means that every State must have homosexual marriage, even though the 14th had no such intent or purpose.
Quote
If heterosexual unions are treated differently than homosexual ones, there's a problem.
Heterosexual relationships have been treated differently than homosexual ones since time began, what has been the problem?
Quote
Think of it this way, what if the debate was about interracial unions, which were once against religious laws. Seperate but equal was found to be wrong on May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Yes, these are good examples of how the US spins the 14th "Amendment" to mean whatever they fancy. The 14th was not intended to force black/white marriage upon the States or to integrate the schools, and for the feds to come along a century after the amendment took effect and make up such new constructions seems like a poor attempt to cover up despotism.
Post by: Az-at-hoth on May 20, 2008, 01:27:50 AM
Quote
Yes, these are good examples of how the US spins the 14th "Amendment" to mean whatever they fancy. The 14th was not intended to force black/white marriage upon the States or to integrate the schools, and for the feds to come along a century after the amendment took effect and make up such new constructions seems like a poor attempt to cover up despotism.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
I'd say marriage is a privilege.
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,...
Liberty means:
1. The condition of being free from control or restrictions.
2.The condition of being free from imprisonment, slavery or forced labour.
3.The condition of being free to act, believe or express oneself as one chooses.
4.Freedom from excess government control.
...without due process of law;...
Due process:
1. A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when he/she is being deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a given reason.
2.The limits of laws and legal proceedings, so as to ensure a person fairness, justice and liberty.
...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are laws governing marriage. These laws help protect married people. Homosexuals are people. They are afforded the same protection under the law as heterosexual people. To say otherwise ignores section 1 of the amendment above.
Post by: SteveS on May 20, 2008, 02:57:58 AM
Quote
The leave it up to each State argument is the best
I do not think it is possible that the federal government would leave it up to each State ... I think it would take an amendment declaring that no State shall be forced or coerced into allowing or recognizing homosexual marriage or union.
The feds already decided this issue in 1996, when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. It states:
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
There have been numerous challenges to this law, but lower courts have upheld the constitutionality. The Supreme Court has declined to hear any cases on this matter.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 20, 2008, 07:16:19 AM
Quote
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
I'd say marriage is a privilege.
I'd say marriage is a privilege.
Laws defining marriage to be between a man and a woman do not violate the 14th in any way.
If Virginia passed a law saying that a homosexual man cannot marry a woman, then that might be seen as conflicting with the 14th (even though the 14th had no such intent or purpose).
I think you are confusing the P&I of Citizens of the US with the P&I of Citizens of a State. It makes sense to me to see the right to marry someone of the opposite gender as a P&I of Citizens of the US. However, homosexual marriage is clearly not a P&I of Citizens of the US, it is a P&I of Citizens of certain States and not others.
Quote
There are laws governing marriage. These laws help protect married people. Homosexuals are people. They are afforded the same protection under the law as heterosexual people. To say otherwise ignores section 1 of the amendment above.
Not even close. There is no law that says that homosexuals can marry in Virginia, quite the contrary, we have a Constitution which says that we will not recognize homosexual marriage or union. You seem to imagine that there is a law which says that anyone can marry anyone, and then you conclude that homosexuals are denied due process and equal protection and such.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 20, 2008, 07:31:47 AM
Quote
The feds already decided this issue in 1996, when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.
I wasn't aware of that ... I seem to remember the republicans taking over in 1994, so it makes some sense to me that such a law was passed in that era ... I'll have to read all about it.
Post by: mek42 on May 27, 2008, 03:49:28 PM
Quote
Why should the law be changed? I have a reason. With DSM IV, homosexuality is no longer a treatable mental illness or a deviant behavior, but is recognized as merely an alternative lifestyle.
mek, you have got to be kidding me. That is hilarious. You cannot rail against laws based on religious opinions on the one hand, then base law on the pronouncements of a bunch of psychologists on the other. Nor can you seriously claim that all mentally healthy behavior must on that basis be legal.
All that aside, no one here (well, maybe Hugh Damright, I haven't read his posts) is trying to stop homosexuals from homosexualing, living together, or having weddings. I am simply saying that homosexual relationships offer nothing that would merit government recognition.
I was using the DSM IV change to reinforce that at one time homosexual activity was socially / legally unacceptable but that it now is (at least legally) acceptable. I think, but do not know for a fact that the legal changes preceded the DSM change. The change of legal and social status is, obviously, more important to the status of homosexual marriage than the DSM change - in this I think we agree though we disagree on the issue in general.
Quote
For the simple fact that both hetero- and homosexual unions involve adult human beings, and, in this country at least, all adult human beings have equal protection under the law.
1) I don't see how you construe equal protection of the law to mean that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I don't think that equal protection has ever meant that before. I think we are back to the assertion that the 14th "Amendment" means that every State must have homosexual marriage, even though the 14th had no such intent or purpose.
Quote
If heterosexual unions are treated differently than homosexual ones, there's a problem.
2) Heterosexual relationships have been treated differently than homosexual ones since time began, what has been the problem?
Quote
Think of it this way, what if the debate was about interracial unions, which were once against religious laws. Seperate but equal was found to be wrong on May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
3) Yes, these are good examples of how the US spins the 14th "Amendment" to mean whatever they fancy. The 14th was not intended to force black/white marriage upon the States or to integrate the schools, and for the feds to come along a century after the amendment took effect and make up such new constructions seems like a poor attempt to cover up despotism.
(I added numbers to the above quote)
1) Regarding what the various amendments are "for", people argue that the second need only be interpreted towards the state of the art military arms of 1789 - thus stipulating that ownership of modern fully automatic weapons is clearly not protected by Amendment II even if it is an individual right. I do not agree with this view.
2) No. Ancient Greece and feudal Japan recognized same-sex relationships. Additionally, this site, a same-sex relationship information site, reports:
Quote
Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage. In other cultures (see the debate between Brent Shaw and Ralph Hexter) the meaning of same-sex unions remains opaque and complex. In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted.
Even if the historical precedents cited are not identical to heterosexual marriage at the times / places given, the fact that Canada has equal same-sex marriage nullifies this argument. Before anyone brings up that the US and Canada are different, "since time began" implies a broader view than strctly that of America.
3) Just like Amendment I is obviously not intended to apply to radio, television or internet forms of the press.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
I'd say marriage is a privilege.
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,...
Liberty means:
1. The condition of being free from control or restrictions.
2.The condition of being free from imprisonment, slavery or forced labour.
3.The condition of being free to act, believe or express oneself as one chooses.
4.Freedom from excess government control.
...without due process of law;...
Due process:
1. A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when he/she is being deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a given reason.
2.The limits of laws and legal proceedings, so as to ensure a person fairness, justice and liberty.
...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are laws governing marriage. These laws help protect married people. Homosexuals are people. They are afforded the same protection under the law as heterosexual people. To say otherwise ignores section 1 of the amendment above.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
I'd say marriage is a privilege.
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,...
Liberty means:
1. The condition of being free from control or restrictions.
2.The condition of being free from imprisonment, slavery or forced labour.
3.The condition of being free to act, believe or express oneself as one chooses.
4.Freedom from excess government control.
...without due process of law;...
Due process:
1. A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when he/she is being deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a given reason.
2.The limits of laws and legal proceedings, so as to ensure a person fairness, justice and liberty.
...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There are laws governing marriage. These laws help protect married people. Homosexuals are people. They are afforded the same protection under the law as heterosexual people. To say otherwise ignores section 1 of the amendment above.
At the very least, each homosexual couple seeking to marry which the state wishes to deny should be granted a fair hearing and/or trial by judge or jury to appeal the decision to comply with due process in regards to the deprivation of life, liberty and property as all three of these issues are impacted by the ability to marry. This will, of course, increase taxes to cover these costs, but if the citizens of a given state truly disagree with same-sex marriage they will surely decide to send in extra money on top of their tax bill to ensure that these hearings happen in accord with the law.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 27, 2008, 04:11:07 PM
Post by: mek42 on May 27, 2008, 06:06:15 PM
Marriage, by definition, requires at least one of each sex. That is really all that needs to be said here. Can we move on to real arguments yet, or what?
Which definition?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 27, 2008, 06:40:13 PM
To return to more fundamental facts, though, marriage is heterosexual. It is not homosexual. To deny this is to screech and claw against reality.
Post by: Hugh Damright on May 28, 2008, 04:29:06 AM
I don't think it's a good thing to try to twist the Constitution to mean something it wasn't intended to mean in order to push an agenda. The 14th has nothing in the world to do with it. Not due process. Not privileges and immunities. Y'all might as well say that laws against homosexual marriage make homosexual couples afraid to travel interstate, making it an interstate commerce issue.
Post by: mek42 on May 30, 2008, 05:52:16 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 31, 2008, 05:51:49 AM
I was using the DSM IV change to reinforce that at one time homosexual activity was socially / legally unacceptable but that it now is (at least legally) acceptable. I think, but do not know for a fact that the legal changes preceded the DSM change. The change of legal and social status is, obviously, more important to the status of homosexual marriage than the DSM change - in this I think we agree though we disagree on the issue in general.
Making paper airplanes is also legal and socially acceptable, so far as I know. Yet we don't have a licensing program for this activity. Nor do we have licenses for guys who like to get together and play touch football.
Some legal and socially acceptable things are more worthy of legal recognition than others.
Post by: SteveS on May 31, 2008, 02:27:40 PM
I was using the DSM IV change to reinforce that at one time homosexual activity was socially / legally unacceptable but that it now is (at least legally) acceptable. I think, but do not know for a fact that the legal changes preceded the DSM change. The change of legal and social status is, obviously, more important to the status of homosexual marriage than the DSM change - in this I think we agree though we disagree on the issue in general.
The DSM II was the first to get rid of homosexuality as a mental illness and it was published in the early 70's. I remember the DSM IIIR from grad school and there was no mention of homosexuality. FWIW, legal changes in some states came long after this.
Post by: rickomatic on June 01, 2008, 06:39:55 PM
Quote
The state should set up some means of allowing the happy couple to obtain the the property rights, power of attorney, financial rights, etc. that are currently wrapped up in the State's definition of "marriage".
As far as I know, there is now not one thing in law preventing gays from entering into this type of contract.
To to an attorney and have it drawn up.
As to the idea of the 1st Amendment keeping religious discussions or viewpoints out of law, I think that the founding fathers would be surprised to hear that view, as they quite frequently brought those ideas into their discussions when writing the Constitution.
It's sad to see how the meaning of the 1st Amendment along with the meaning of the 2nd has gotten so messed up since their inception.
Post by: mek42 on June 02, 2008, 02:13:28 PM
Quote
The state should set up some means of allowing the happy couple to obtain the the property rights, power of attorney, financial rights, etc. that are currently wrapped up in the State's definition of "marriage".
As far as I know, there is now not one thing in law preventing gays from entering into this type of contract.
To to an attorney and have it drawn up.
As to the idea of the 1st Amendment keeping religious discussions or viewpoints out of law, I think that the founding fathers would be surprised to hear that view, as they quite frequently brought those ideas into their discussions when writing the Constitution.
It's sad to see how the meaning of the 1st Amendment along with the meaning of the 2nd has gotten so messed up since their inception.
So, two people of the same gender should be able to go to an attorney and be able to sign a contract stating, "Person A and person B do hereby engage together in a legal construct equivalent to marriage as per the laws of state Z." Would this really work? Would this really be valid in all 50 states? Overseas to places that recognize US marriages?
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 02, 2008, 02:22:23 PM
Quote
The state should set up some means of allowing the happy couple to obtain the the property rights, power of attorney, financial rights, etc. that are currently wrapped up in the State's definition of "marriage".
Again, why? It sounds callous, but we're talking about govt. bennies here. Whatever the affection or commitment that two people of the same sex might feel for one another, there's no public interest in it. Any two people can obtain a power of attorney. Why should a homosexual couple have an easier time getting one? Anybody might feel a desperate need to see a close friend who's in the hospital. Why should this be easier for a homosexual couple to do, than for others?
Post by: mek42 on June 02, 2008, 04:16:16 PM
Quote
The state should set up some means of allowing the happy couple to obtain the the property rights, power of attorney, financial rights, etc. that are currently wrapped up in the State's definition of "marriage".
Again, why? It sounds callous, but we're talking about govt. bennies here. Whatever the affection or commitment that two people of the same sex might feel for one another, there's no public interest in it. Any two people can obtain a power of attorney. Why should a homosexual couple have an easier time getting one? Anybody might feel a desperate need to see a close friend who's in the hospital. Why should this be easier for a homosexual couple to do, than for others?
Then why have marriage as a function of the State at all?
Post by: roo_ster on June 02, 2008, 05:50:52 PM
Without the heterosexual breeders hooking up and breeding, there is no society or civilization.
See Europe for countries so far gone in the pleasure principle that they are no longer having enough children to survive as a society. By 2050, the concepts of Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and several others will be about spent due to sub 1.3 CPW birth rates.
There are some cities in the USA that are below placement birth rates. Which large city has the lowest birth rate?*
Homosexual relationships are generally sterile and of no significance to the future. They are a dead end.
* In Pig Latin: Ansay Ransicofay
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 02, 2008, 06:15:03 PM
Quote
The state should set up some means of allowing the happy couple to obtain the the property rights, power of attorney, financial rights, etc. that are currently wrapped up in the State's definition of "marriage".
Again, why? It sounds callous, but we're talking about govt. bennies here. Whatever the affection or commitment that two people of the same sex might feel for one another, there's no public interest in it. Any two people can obtain a power of attorney. Why should a homosexual couple have an easier time getting one? Anybody might feel a desperate need to see a close friend who's in the hospital. Why should this be easier for a homosexual couple to do, than for others?
Then why have marriage as a function of the State at all?
Marriage isn't a function of the state. The state recognizes the relationship, and deals with it in a way that makes sense (hopefully). But I know what you're asking. Should gov recognize marriage? I think it's a fair question. I'm inclined to say yes. Marriage, far from being just a religious sacrament, or just a sexual arrangement, is a very basic building block of human society. It is how families merge into new families and produce and raise children. It is something most adults do at some point. So, it only seems to make sense that gov. would go along with this, just from pragmatism.
Homosexuality, whatever one's moral stance on it, doesn't have that kind of relevance. Partly (and only partly) because homosexual "marriages" are much less common. But for other reasons. Joe and Bob should be free to live together, but in the big picture, what does it matter whether they have a sexual relationship, or are just friends? Or whether they split up? Or whether they are taxed separately, or together? As I have already said (or maybe I haven't said it yet in this thread) we might need to make it easier for people to arrange powers of attorney, or to visit one another in the hospital, or even adopt, or whatever the case may be. But should we do it merely on the basis of their sexual practices? And again, heterosexual marriage is not just a matter of sex or love or commitment or romance. It is much more than all of that.
Post by: De Selby on June 02, 2008, 07:14:36 PM
Because heterosexual marriage has much more significance to government and society.
Without the heterosexual breeders hooking up and breeding, there is no society or civilization.
See Europe for countries so far gone in the pleasure principle that they are no longer having enough children to survive as a society. By 2050, the concepts of Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and several others will be about spent due to sub 1.3 CPW birth rates.
There are some cities in the USA that are below placement birth rates. Which large city has the lowest birth rate?*
Homosexual relationships are generally sterile and of no significance to the future. They are a dead end.
* In Pig Latin: Ansay Ransicofay
Without the heterosexual breeders hooking up and breeding, there is no society or civilization.
See Europe for countries so far gone in the pleasure principle that they are no longer having enough children to survive as a society. By 2050, the concepts of Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and several others will be about spent due to sub 1.3 CPW birth rates.
There are some cities in the USA that are below placement birth rates. Which large city has the lowest birth rate?*
Homosexual relationships are generally sterile and of no significance to the future. They are a dead end.
* In Pig Latin: Ansay Ransicofay
The problem with this theory is that it conclusively went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that the government had no business telling people not to use contraception-
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas remains the most lucid comment on this issue that I've read so far supporting the bans on gay marriage.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 03, 2008, 02:38:35 AM
Quote
The problem with this theory is that it conclusively went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that the government had no business telling people not to use contraception-
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
And the problem with that is, it has nothing to do with this subject.
Post by: roo_ster on June 03, 2008, 05:58:32 AM
Quote
The problem with this theory is that it conclusively went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that the government had no business telling people not to use contraception-
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
And the problem with that is, it has nothing to do with this subject.
fistful is correct. Finding that the gov't can not deny access to birth control does not void its interest in societal continuity.
Post by: De Selby on June 03, 2008, 12:31:56 PM
Quote
The problem with this theory is that it conclusively went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that the government had no business telling people not to use contraception-
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
And the problem with that is, it has nothing to do with this subject.
You mean a legal justification for discriminating against gay marriage based on reproductive ability? It most certainly does.
Fertility, or the decision to have children, is and for the past 50 years has been a clearly unconstitutional grounds for government discrimination and legislation that denies marital rights to some, or that penalizes sexual conduct. That is really a sailed ship in terms of constitutional law. Hence, it is not and never will be a good constitutional argument in favor of permitting states to ban gay marriage or to continue refusing to recognize gay marriages.
If it were, the government could also come up with schemes to promote "the compelling interest in the future" by requiring fertile persons only marry other fertile persons, etc etc.
The government's interest in "societial continuity" flatly cannot be its basis for banning gay marriage-if it were, it would not explain why a host of laws could be applied only to gay couples but not to heterosexual couples who didn't want to or could not have children.
The main argument is the extent to which the government may promote and define moral conduct-the "societal continuity" argument is legally not even a sideshow-it's about as far from plausible as could be. As long as we're talking about this from a constitutional perspective, and not what we'd all like to be the case, anyway.
Post by: mek42 on June 03, 2008, 12:50:02 PM
Marriage isn't a function of the state. The state recognizes the relationship, and deals with it in a way that makes sense (hopefully). But I know what you're asking. Should gov recognize marriage? I think it's a fair question. I'm inclined to say yes. Marriage, far from being just a religious sacrament, or just a sexual arrangement, is a very basic building block of human society. It is how families merge into new families and produce and raise children. It is something most adults do at some point. So, it only seems to make sense that gov. would go along with this, just from pragmatism.
To me, the fact that marriage implies a legal difference of status makes marriage a function of the state. Are we on totally different pages or is this a semantic difference?
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 03, 2008, 01:07:25 PM
But, yeah, it's probably just a semantic difference.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 03, 2008, 01:11:36 PM
Quote
The problem with this theory is that it conclusively went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that the government had no business telling people not to use contraception-
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
The government may have an interest in promoting births, but it clearly has no right to discriminate against people who choose not to have children while being in a relationship.
And the problem with that is, it has nothing to do with this subject.
You mean a legal justification for discriminating against gay marriage based on reproductive ability? It most certainly does.
Fertility, or the decision to have children, is and for the past 50 years has been a clearly unconstitutional grounds for government discrimination and legislation that denies marital rights to some, or that penalizes sexual conduct. That is really a sailed ship in terms of constitutional law. Hence, it is not and never will be a good constitutional argument in favor of permitting states to ban gay marriage or to continue refusing to recognize gay marriages.
If it were, the government could also come up with schemes to promote "the compelling interest in the future" by requiring fertile persons only marry other fertile persons, etc etc.
Except that I'm not arguing against gay marriage based on "reproductive ability." I'm not arguing against gay marriage at all. As I said some time ago, I am asking the other side to produce a good argument for gay marriage. Until that happens, I have no need to argue against it.
Furthermore, it is funny that some people can't see the difference between an infertile woman and a homosexual man.
Post by: De Selby on June 03, 2008, 01:16:01 PM
Except that I'm not arguing against gay marriage based on "reproductive ability." I'm not arguing against gay marriage at all. As I said some time ago, I am asking the other side to produce a good argument for gay marriage. Until that happens, I have no need to argue against it.
Unfortunately for you, the legal authority on this subject requires you (or people who want to ban gay marriage, anyway) to come up with the argument, not them. If there's no good argument for discrimination against a practice that involves intimate relationships, institutionalized discrimination against that practice will not survive judicial review. Simply asserting "there is no good argument for preventing gay people from marrying" would be good enough to justify a ruling that banning gay marriage were unconstitutional, if no good argument materalized on the other side.
I was responding, btw, to a post about reproduction and societal continuity when you chimed in with "that has nothing to do with it", so I was explaining the legal relevance of the point. This is still a thread about whether or not it is constitutional to ban gay marriage, so I was making a point about the arguments so far cited as legal arguments.
Post by: Perd Hapley on June 03, 2008, 01:34:55 PM
Please do not assume that I don't know the difference between theory and practice. I am well aware that homosexual marriage will be demanded without any rational argument for it. That is all too obvious. What I will no longer do is take the bait of arguing against it, as this grants the pro-HM view more legitimacy than it deserves.
Post by: De Selby on June 03, 2008, 03:56:40 PM
Actually, no. We were talking about why govt. recognizes marriage, in general.
Please do not assume that I don't know the difference between theory and practice. I am well aware that homosexual marriage will be demanded without any rational argument for it. That is all too obvious. What I will no longer do is take the bait of arguing against it, as this grants the pro-HM view more legitimacy than it deserves.
Please do not assume that I don't know the difference between theory and practice. I am well aware that homosexual marriage will be demanded without any rational argument for it. That is all too obvious. What I will no longer do is take the bait of arguing against it, as this grants the pro-HM view more legitimacy than it deserves.
This makes sense-if the debate had been handled in public this way from the beginning, we might be dealing with different realities now.
Post by: RaspberrySurprise on June 03, 2008, 11:25:05 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 04, 2008, 04:23:54 AM
The thing I have against making gay couples create a partnership contract is that it likely costs a good bit more than getting a marriage license and a trip to the courthouse.
Well that can be remedied with little or no opposition/argument from anyone. You can probably do it on the state or local level as well.
Post by: Hugh Damright on June 04, 2008, 05:02:04 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 04, 2008, 06:15:03 AM
The founders were very specific in laying out what the government is allowed to do, what its duties are, etc. What the government is allowed to do is [supposed to be] very limited. The document is very broad in matters concerning freedoms reserved to the states and the people.
The issue of marriage does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the federal government shouldn't have a position for or against it. It is left to the states.
You could try fighting for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide; then again, we don't amend it for anything else these days.
Post by: richyoung on June 05, 2008, 10:39:36 AM
You have to be a certain age, (with parental consent, even older without it).
You have to be married to someone legally of the opposite gender.
You have to be unmarried at the time you get married.
Can't have multiple wives or husbands, can't marry animals, can't marry close relatives, can;t marry dead people.
If you want to CHANGE this, CHANGE society.
But you haven't yet....