Gay Marriage

[lawcat]

Another hollow and vacuous assertion with zero basis in reality.

 

At some point, you guys on the staff are just going to have to close this thread. Either this guy is completely oblivious, or he's trolling the topic, and you shouldn't put up with either.

 

Why? It is your argument that does not comport with reality.

 

You argument is based on love's inspiration; not in logic. Your argument does not comport to laws and statues in the overwhelming majority of the States; thus it does not comport with evidence. It does not comport with history and tradition. Yet you want to shut down the overwhelming evidence.

 

You asked why, and I've given you plenty of answers. Now, Inow, you don't like it and you want it erased. Interesting.

 

The argument and explanations that we've had are not trolling. They are very real social issues. People have written about these same things in the same langauge, in courts and in the press. Here: read from page 13, http://books.google.com/books?id=GjzfB0GU428C&printsec=frontcover&dq=gay+marriage (especially page 17, bottom, about love.)

[modest]

Modest,

 

You raise a common argument: If two people can live together, love, share food, share finances, share joys and sorrows of this limited life on earth that we have, then they should be able to marry. The corollary of that is the biblial passage you posted which can be summarized as: it is a human necessity to go in pairs.

 

Both are incorrect. The first is incorrect because if it is essentially incorrect; if it were true you could marry you mother, your father, two neices, five tribal women, and share joys and sorrows of life; and this is not the case. The second is incorrect, because it is an arbitrary poetic construct; what arbitrary line of reason could possibly make us say that it is in pairs that we are the strongest.

 

That's an interesting argument you setup and try to refute, but it wasn't mine. I did not say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they are in a loving relationship. What an odd thing for you to think I said

 

I am establishing that there are benefits to gay marriage. Society has such vested interests that have nothing to do with procreation. This is a very obvious thing.

 

Gay people are going to be a part of society regardless of laws preventing same sex marriage. The proper question regarding the vested interest of society is whether or not we want these people to be happily married or not. I'm countering your insistence that marriage unrelated to procreation should be illegal because, apparently, you believe society's only interest is procreation.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

 

I am establishing that there are benefits to gay marriage. Society has such vested interests that have nothing to do with procreation. This is a very obvious thing.

 

Gay people are going to be a part of society regardless of laws preventing same sex marriage. The proper question regarding the vested interest of society is whether or not we want these people to be happily married or not. I'm countering your insistence that marriage unrelated to procreation should be illegal because, apparently, you believe society's only interest is procreation.

 

~modest

 

I agree with everything you said, except that I do not insist that society's only interest is procreation; but it is a very important interest: it is fundamental to species, and fundamental to structure of how we raise children. Therefore, I assign great weight to that interest as a matter of my reasoning.

However, as I stated before, a great weight can be attached to love and choice of individuals--which is not a state's interest but a matter of legal protections, or legislative policy. Further, great weight can be attached to the fact that gay couples can help raise additional children if the State deems this of value. But, that is all a matter of policy, not law.

 

The State can do many irresponsible things as a matter of policy--allow sheep to marry men, require children to work at tender age, etc.. It would be highly irresponsible to allow gay families, just as it would be irresponsible to spend 100 trillion on a mission to colonize space and send gays to do it.

 

Gays are free to love, have relationships, live together, contract, work, engage in political process. That is plenty tolerant for a lifestyle that is not conducive to civilization. But when irrational exuberance drives for irrational requests, that is where the buck must stop.

By listening to some of the arguments, like Inow, an observer would think that gays have always been allowed to marry, and they have always had family, but all of a sudden the gov't has turned against them. Funny.

 

First homosexuality was banned. Then, it was allowed on account of individual's privacy. Then, the gays took the battle to courts because States were limiting employment, rights of contract and such; and they won because States can not be irrational and vindictive: if a person has a right to be gay, than the state cannot condition employment on not being gay. Then, gays got all kinds of protective Federal and State statutes passed that explicitly protect gays. Now they want marriage because heteros can marry, and they want to have gay families. What?!?

 

In essence, because there is a right of privacy to take it in the rear, then the government must recognize it in a form of marriage and incentivize it. No. That is ludicrous.

[Larv]

But isn't the REAL issue here simply a titular one? I think most reasonably intelligent people in America support legalizing gay domestic partnerships. And I think most of them, like me, want to see gay DPs have all the rights granted to traditional marriage. But I don't see the need to alter the traditional meaning or definition of "marriage" just to accommodate a minority group with a self-righteous attitude, especially if what they are demanding doesn't change the scope of their rights.

 

Am I being a "hater" if I ask: Why aren't fully legal gay DPs good enough for them? Why can't they be happy with their post-closet progress? And why shouldn't other minority groups like polygamists and necrophiliacs also claim the right to get "married," using the same basic reasons claimed by gays?

 

It's a titular thing, that's all.

[modest]

It would be highly irresponsible to allow gay families, just as it would be irresponsible to spend 100 trillion on a mission to colonize space and send gays to do it.

 

Your Non-sequiturs are so extreme that they are almost painful to read. You wouldn't send a bunch of elderly to populate a space colony but it does not follow that it is irresponsible to allow the elderly to marry. Old people are going to exist in society if they can legally marry or not. Allowing them to marry benefits society for reasons unrelated to the procreation practices of younger people.

 

It is very obvious that you are not going to address the problems people point out with your argument, and it almost looks like you're purposefully making and stressing argument fallacies. I can't imagine then what continued use this discussion would have.

 

First homosexuality was banned. Then, it was allowed on account of individual's privacy. Then, the gays took the battle to courts because States were limiting employment, rights of contract and such; and they won because States can not be irrational and vindictive: if a person has a right to be gay, than the state cannot condition employment on not being gay. Then, gays got all kinds of protective Federal and State statutes passed that explicitly protect gays. Now they want marriage because heteros can marry, and they want to have gay families. What?!?

 

In essence, because there is a right of privacy to take it in the rear, then the government must recognize it in a form of marriage and incentivize it. No. That is ludicrous.

 

I understand your inclination to say it is ludicrous and express outrage. I understand what motivates it. But, consider, you are unable to give any logical reason or scientific argument establishing gay marriage as a negative. In countries and states where the practice is legal everything has turned out fine.

 

Same sex marriage hurts no one. It empowers a group of people by giving them the same access to an institution as the majority. This is only viewed as a negative when a person dislikes the empowerment of the group. I've seen no scientific reason to disenfranchise gay people. And, I believe they will soon find justice.

 

I'm reminded of the quote INow gave of Martin Luther King Jr. the other day:

The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

~modest

[Moontanman]

But isn't the REAL issue here simply a titular one? I think most reasonably intelligent people in America support legalizing gay domestic partnerships. And I think most of them, like me, want to see gay DPs have all the rights granted to traditional marriage. But I don't see the need to alter the traditional meaning or definition of "marriage" just to accommodate a minority group with a self-righteous attitude, especially if what they are demanding doesn't change the scope of their rights.

 

Larv, if indeed DP is totally equal to "marriage" why is it a problem to call it marriage? Words can be very powerful larv, I live in the south, I've lived here all my life, I've seen words used to destroy otherwise good solid human beings from the inside out. Words like equal loose their real meaning when combined with the word separate. Equal but separate water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, schools and justice. Equal but still not the same is always used by one group to disenfranchise another. It may seem silly to insist on the word marriage but it goes beyond the mere word marriage. Anything less is not the same and DP could be changed or even enforced differently than marriage. If it's exactly the same as in simply marriage nothing can be changed to enforced differently with out affecting everyone. Even if it is termed gay marriage and is covered by different laws it leaves room for interpretation. Only real marriage, not a different type of marriage, can be relied on to protect everyone the same way and give everyone the same rights.

 

 

Am I being a "hater" if I ask: Why aren't fully legal gay DPs good enough for them? Why can't they be happy with their post-closet progress? And why shouldn't other minority groups like polygamists and necrophiliacs also claim the right to get "married," using the same basic reasons claimed by gays?

 

It's a titular thing, that's all.

 

Do you really think marrying the dead or polygamy is going to be a real problem? let those people fight their own battles, I'm betting the necrophiliac population is far too small to effect the population in any way and if consenting adults want to marry in groups there is always the fundamentalist LDS community for them.... The idea of the slippery slope really doesn't wash larv....

[InfiniteNow]

But I don't see the need to alter the traditional meaning or definition of "marriage" just to accommodate a minority group with a self-righteous attitude

First, the "traditional definition" argument fails because no where and at no time was gender included or codified in our marriage laws until 1996 when DOMA passed. Before then, the laws did not specify gender, since the laws regard the relationship, not the genitals. My point is inherently true, as if laws had previously "defined" a marriage to be between one man and one woman, then DOMA would never have been necessary. Since the laws did NOT specify gender, DOMA was required to do so. So, that particular argument fails.

 

 

Second, as I've already put forth several times with empirical evidence and citations, the Christian church itself performed same sex marriages as far back as the 8th century, and they were rather common in the 11th and 12th. So, on this front, one would more accurately argue that the "traditional" definition is one where gender is not relevant.

 

 

Your argument misses the mark on several fronts as shown by the simple fact that historical evidence counters your assertion in more ways than one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's an interesting argument you setup and try to refute, but it wasn't mine. I did not say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they are in a loving relationship. What an odd thing for you to think I said.

 

Yeah, same here. He did the same thing to me. This lawcat guy is like a logical fallacy christmas tree.

[Larv]

Larv, if indeed DP is totally equal to "marriage" why is it a problem to call it marriage? Words can be very powerful larv, I live in the south, I've lived here all my life, I've seen words used to destroy otherwise good solid human beings from the inside out. Words like equal loose their real meaning when combined with the word separate. Equal but separate water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, schools and justice. Equal but still not the same is always used by one group to disenfranchise another. It may seem silly to insist on the word marriage but it goes beyond the mere word marriage. Anything less is not the same and DP could be changed or even enforced differently than marriage. If it's exactly the same as in simply marriage nothing can be changed to enforced differently with out affecting everyone. Even if it is termed gay marriage and is covered by different laws it leaves room for interpretation. Only real marriage, not a different type of marriage, can be relied on to protect everyone the same way and give everyone the same rights.

At least we agree that it’s all about the word. And whose word definition should trump another’s? We have differing definitions of the word “marriage,” that’s all. Which one of us is right? The only way I know of to settle this matter fairly in a legal context is for a supreme court to rule on its constitutionality. I’m willing to abide 100% with such a ruling. Are you?

 

Do you really think marrying the dead or polygamy is going to be a real problem? let those people fight their own battles, I'm betting the necrophiliac population is far too small to effect the population in any way and if consenting adults want to marry in groups there is always the fundamentalist LDS community for them.... The idea of the slippery slope really doesn't wash larv....

Can't really say for sure about polygamists and necrophiliacs, but we’ve got people out here in Washington sate who are hot for bestiality; there's been some interesting news on the various combinations. They say it isn’t hurting anybody, not even the animals. One guy said his horse enjoys it. Who am to question their needs and desires, even if they might claim the right to marry their beastie bedfellows?

 

Same drama, different characters.

[Larv]

First, the "traditional definition" argument fails because no where and at no time was gender included or codified in our marriage laws until 1996 when DOMA passed. Before then, the laws did not specify gender, since the laws regard the relationship, not the genitals. My point is inherently true, as if laws had previously "defined" a marriage to be between one man and one woman, then DOMA would never have been necessary. Since the laws did NOT specify gender, DOMA was required to do so. So, that particular argument fails.

 

Second, as I've already put forth several times with empirical evidence and citations, the Christian church itself performed same sex marriages as far back as the 8th century, and they were rather common in the 11th and 12th. So, on this front, one would more accurately argue that the "traditional" definition is one where gender is not relevant.

All I need to hear from you is your agreement that a supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of "gay marriage" is fair and final in any legal context. If you can't agree to that then what are your principles on fair judgement for the common good?

 

Your argument misses the mark on several fronts as shown by the simple fact that historical evidence counters your assertion in more ways than one.

And yet you're not comfortable with trusting a supreme court to make that determination, because you're afraid it will make a determination that is contrary to yours.

 

Yeah, same here. He did the same thing to me. This lawcat guy is like a logical fallacy christmas tree.

Once again, by flaming another poster this way your only reveal your emotional underwear.

[Zythryn]

I agree with everything you said, except that I do not insist that society's only interest is procreation; but it is a very important interest: it is fundamental to species, and fundamental to structure of how we raise children. Therefore, I assign great weight to that interest as a matter of my reasoning.

So once again, I ask. Why do you not propose a ban to infertile heterosexual couples?

 

It would be highly irresponsible to allow gay families...

 

Again, why?

If you refuse to answer simple questions, I would also suggest the thread be closed as your lack of interest in discussion is tiresome.

[Turtle]

..

In essence, because there is a right of privacy to take it in the rear, then the government must recognize it in a form of marriage and incentivize it. No. That is ludicrous.

 

so it's the anal sex part that you can't get over eh? keep replaying that image in your mind do ya? not sure how big a deal that is for the lesbian couples, but they have their own disgusting practices now don't they? :) in all fairness to the hetero's, the anal intercourse practice has wide appeal, and contrary to something MoonMan implied earlier, anal sex between married opposite sex partners is considered sodomy under the laws of many states. so too is oral sex sodomy under the law in many states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

 

for those of you with chronic nagging necrophilia dreams, have i got a plant for you! >> ethnobotony - Science Forums

[InfiniteNow]

Can't really say for sure about polygamists and necrophiliacs, but we’ve got people out here in Washington sate who are hot for bestiality; there's been some interesting news on the various combinations.

You should have compared homosexuality to pedophilia, too. You could have made it a perfect trifecta.

 

 

 

 

All I need to hear from you is your agreement that a supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of "gay marriage" is fair and final in any legal context.

Well, no. You won't be hearing that from me, because it's simply false and implies a lack of understanding of how the laws in our nation operate.

 

As I've previously noted in this thread and others, rulings from the SCOTUS do NOT represent a final ruling on issues of legality and constitutionality, just the current one. After all, the SCOTUS has already put forth their position on same sex marriage. They did so back in 1972 in Baker v. Nelson when they dismissed the case, not even willing to hear it, for "lack of a substantial federal question." So, by your logic, we should have nothing more to discuss, despite the fact that this question in modern times brings forth VERY substantial federal questions, as evidenced by the battles today taking place on the issue of same sex marriage, as well as the huge number of homosexual citizens being treated as second class and being denied the same rights and privileges offered to our heterosexual citizens.

[dannieyankee]

Modest,

 

You raise a common argument: If two people can live together, love, share food, share finances, share joys and sorrows of this limited life on earth that we have, then they should be able to marry. The corollary of that is the biblial passage you posted which can be summarized as: it is a human necessity to go in pairs.

 

Both are incorrect. The first is incorrect because if it is essentially incorrect; if it were true you could marry you mother, your father, two neices, five tribal women, and share joys and sorrows of life; and this is not the case. The second is incorrect, because it is an arbitrary poetic construct; what arbitrary line of reason could possibly make us say that it is in pairs that we are the strongest. Why not in triplets or double pairs, or in dozens? Certainly twelve people are stronger than two.

 

The only essence of marriage is two people of opposite sex who agree to marry. Nothing else is required, and everything else must be excluded.

 

Marriage is not a biological component, how many times must we tell you that! Since it is not a necessity to procreate, it must not be treated as such for discrimination!

 

Twelve people in a relationship are NOT stronger than two, because humans are naturally possessive and jealous - we do not share our partner.

 

Relationships are not a necessity for procreation. Procreation is a natural drive to spread genes. Relationships are formed to soothe our natural drive and desire for love and acceptance; humans are social. Marriage is a form of socialisation, not biological reproduction.

 

The reason incest is not legal is because it often is paired with abuse - of course, some people can fall in love with their brother or mother, ect, but the majority of incest cases involve molestation and mental damage to a child. The child will feel pressured into being in that relationship with their parent, because it is their parent - they have to follow orders, or be punished. That is what the law is trying to prevent.

 

The idea that gay relationships are abusive, if you were to bring it up, is as true as in heterosexual relationships; it is no more, no less damaging. I can assure you my neighbours got married because they were in love, and they have sworn to never procreate, though they're thinking about adopting. My lover and I, since we are English, can join into a union, though we will not, because we demand full marriage before going into it. However, we plan on adopting a child soon. My best friend (who is straight) is one of the sweetest, most normal men you will ever meet, and you would never guess that he was raised by gay parents. His parents are not his natural parents, obviously, but he has no need to be with his natural parents, and after inquiring about them, he lost interest. After all, they gave him up.

 

Saying that procreation is the main form of marriage goes against this - if parents HAVE to raise their own children, then why do we have an Adoption system?

[pamela]

Can't really say for sure about polygamists and necrophiliacs, but we’ve got people out here in Washington sate who are hot for bestiality; there's been some interesting news on the various combinations. They say it isn’t hurting anybody, not even the animals. One guy said his horse enjoys it. Who am to question their needs and desires, even if they might claim the right to marry their beastie bedfellows?

 

Same drama, different characters.

How you can equivocate two human individuals in love, to deviant sexual behaviour is beyond me. You manage to reduce people who are not the same as you into a less than category.Geeze, even your location speaks volumes of how you judge people. I would suggest that you keep such comments as written above to yourself. Take the time to understand people and rethink this skewed opinion that you have for others.

In essence, because there is a right of privacy to take it in the rear, then the government must recognize it in a form of marriage and incentivize it. No. That is ludicrous.

what is ludicrous lawcat, is the comment you have made.To totally disregard the love of two individuals and simply refer to a sexual act is pathetic.What if you and your fiancee were in a car accident and you were dismembered. Would you qualify to be married, when clearly procreation is out of the question? or lawcat, would you continue forward because love was the impetus for your civil union?

[lawcat]

FACT: MARRIAGE WAS CREATED BY HETEROS FOR HETEROS, BY NATURE--NOT BY STATE.

 

Gays can create their own institution. The question is whether the State must incentivize whatever gays come up with? The answer to that is clearly no: the State is not required to incentivize it. There is nothing there civilizationally worth incentivizing.

 

 

It is very obvious that you are not going to address the problems people point out

Again, why?

If you refuse to answer simple questions, I would also suggest the thread be closed as your lack of interest in discussion is tiresome.

 

Can you spell out what that is? You keep asking why not infertiles? If you took time to read my responses instead of being inspired by exuberance, you would find the answer. I've answered that at least three times.

 

Same sex marriage hurts no one. It empowers a group of people by giving them the same access to an institution as the majority.

~modest

 

No. It empowers them to have a family. Something two gay people can not have, and are not intended to have. Institution was not created by the State. It was created by heteros for heteros., by nature. State merely recognizes and incentivizes it. Now, you want something totally unrelated to be recognized and incentivized on top as well?

 

IT EMPOWERS GAYS TO HAVE A FAMILY WITH THE HELP AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE STATE because ADOPTION AND INVITRO ARE HEAVILY REGULATED, AND ARE NOT FUNDAMENTAL EVEN TO HETEROS. So, WE GO FROM RIGHT TO SEX, TO MARRIAGE, TO RIGHT TO ADOPT -- WITH THE HELP OF STATE, NOT NATURE.

 

We would be remedying the nature and not man-made wongs; and that my friend is wrong.

[modest]

Lawcat, please don't shout.

 

If you were to answer the criticisms put to your posts rather than repeating your opinion with steadily escalating acrimony then the conversation might move forward in a positive direction. As it stands, I see no benefit to respond to the content of your post and I think we can both recognize that this discussion is going nowhere.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

FACT: MARRIAGE WAS CREATED BY HETEROS FOR HETEROS, BY NATURE--NOT BY STATE.

 

<...>

 

No. It empowers them to have a family. Something two gay people can not have, and are not intended to have. Institution was not created by the State. It was created by heteros for heteros., by nature.

 

<...>

 

We would be remedying the nature and not man-made wongs;

 

So, now your basic argument is that homosexuality is not natural, a "fundamental man made wrong." Well, this too is also patently false considering that over 1500 different species have been demonstrated to engage in homosexual activity in the wild. In fact, no single animal we've ever observed nature has ever been shown to be exclusively heterosexual.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/17804-is-homosexuality-unnatural.html

 

 

I wonder... How many times are you going to keep swinging your bat before you realize that you struck out several innings ago?