Gay Marriage

[TheBigDog]

InfiniteNow, your post has had me perplexed since I first read it. I am under the impression that you responded thinking that this was a reply to your own question; and as we discussed earlier today it was not. I don't want to pursue discussion on the basis of such a misunderstanding, and I would defer to you to either post another response which I would gladly respond to, or to simply let me know that you wish to continue with this discussion as it stands.

 

My post did address some points previously covered in the thread, but was meant to stand alone as an fresh opinion on the topic.

 

Please let me know how you wish to proceed.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

Also... Any chance that you're gonna respond to my rebuttals of your other points, or concede those parts where you were mistaken?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

My post did address some points previously covered in the thread, but was meant to stand alone as an fresh opinion on the topic.

 

Please let me know how you wish to proceed.

I would like for you to clarify your stance. In the post you've just referenced, you (throughout) referred to the importance of intercourse in marriage.

 

Will you please clarify:

1) How this is relevant, since same sex couples can have sex? After all, intercourse/coitus/sex is not limited in any way, shape, or form to opposite sex couples. So, please clarify the relevance of your point as pertains to this thread on same sex marriage.

 

2) If your argument is to suggest that sexual intercourse is mandated by the state when marriages exist, then I'd like you to please cite a reference in support of this claim (or, clarify your intent so we can ensure to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings).

 

 

In sum, I want you to explain why you are against same sex marriage. I want to know what is the basis for your opposition, and I wish to better understand the reasons you hold this view.

 

I think that is an enormously fair request, and hope that you agree.

[TheBigDog]

I would like for you to clarify your stance. In the post you've just referenced, you (throughout) referred to the importance of intercourse in marriage.

 

Will you please clarify:

1) How this is relevant, since same sex couples can have sex? After all, intercourse/coitus/sex is not limited in any way, shape, or form to opposite sex couples. So, please clarify the relevance of your point as pertains to this thread on same sex marriage.

 

2) If your argument is to suggest that sexual intercourse is mandated by the state when marriages exist, then I'd like you to please cite a reference in support of this claim (or, clarify your intent so we can ensure to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings).

 

 

In sum, I want you to explain why you are against same sex marriage. I want to know what is the basis for your opposition, and I wish to better understand the reasons you hold this view.

 

I think that is an enormously fair request, and hope that you agree.

I don't agree. The post is well fashioned and makes the points clearly; but let us proceed.

 

1) I made no argument that sex is or is not relevant to same sex marriage. Perhaps that is why you are confused. I did emphasize the fact that sex is a part of marriage, and that as such the marriage contract excludes rights to non-sexual partners.

 

2) I answered this thoroughly as well and made citations. You even strengthened my argument with your rebuttal of my statement. If sex were not part of marriage then I would be able to marry my son; or any other family member. I cannot because that would amount to the state approving incest.

 

Summary: I am for rights for partnerships of all sorts. I think that marriage carries the meaning of "man and woman" and I don't see a need to change that. So in that respect I am against same sex "marriage" but I am for other means of attaining equal rights under the law. I spelled this out in my post.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I don't agree. The post is well fashioned and makes the points clearly; but let us proceed.

 

1) I made no argument that sex is or is not relevant to same sex marriage. Perhaps that is why you are confused. I did emphasize the fact that sex is a part of marriage, and that as such the marriage contract excludes rights to non-sexual partners.

 

2) I answered this thoroughly as well and made citations. You even strengthened my argument with your rebuttal of my statement. If sex were not part of marriage then I would be able to marry my son; or any other family member. I cannot because that would amount to the state approving incest.

Well, I still fail to see the relevance any of that has in this discussion about same sex marriage, but thanks anyway.

 

 

 

Summary: I am for rights for partnerships of all sorts.

Good deal. That's certainly a positive step.

 

 

I think that marriage carries the meaning of "man and woman" and I don't see a need to change that.

Okay, but it's been robustly established that your personal definition of a marriage being between a "man and a woman" is not universal. Other countries, and even states within our own country, use a definition much more inclusive than the one you've just put forth.

 

I'm fine if YOU PERSONALLY do not see the relationship of two same sex partners as a marriage. Seriously... I disagree, and I think it's an ignorant and implicitly bigoted position, but I'm still fine since it's nothing more than your opinion (also, your personal reasons don't have any worth when writing laws in our country).

 

The larger point, though, is that you've STILL failed to describe why you hold that position. You have evaded my request for you to explain your reasoning by being prickly and suggesting that your posts have been "well fashioned" and your "points made clearly." I beg to differ. You have NOT clarified your reasoning for this view, you have simply repeated your assertion that you feel this way.

 

 

Let me take another tack...

 

 

I wonder if I'm wrong in my interpretation of marriage. I wonder if I've been mistaken all of this time suggesting that it defines the relationship, and that the genitals of the participants in that relationship are absurdly irrelevant. I really could be wrong... that's sort of my standard operating procedure... that I very well could be wrong with practically anything I say or think or do. So, maybe I'm wrong with the definition of marriage which I've put forward.

 

Now, perhaps you can act like a wise site elder and help to convince me of why your position (that a marriage is restricted to a man and a woman) is the correct view. Maybe you'd be willing to show me the error of my ways by explaining why your view is the correct one to hold.

 

Again... You can disagree all you want, but I think this is a perfectly fair request, and ABSOLUTELY inline with the intent and heart of Hypography.

 

 

So... what do you say? Will you please, instead of simply repeating your position, instead explain for our readers your reason(s) for holding it? What informs your stance that "marriage carries the meaning of man and woman," and why should others be inclined to agree with you and accept that definition as their own?

[TheBigDog]

So... what do you say? Will you please, instead of simply repeating your position, instead explain for our readers your reason(s) for holding it? What informs your stance that "marriage carries the meaning of man and woman," and why should others be inclined to agree with you and accept that definition as their own?

So, I gather that you want me to say this differently...

Let us look at the tradition that has lead to our current laws. Laws as they were written prior to 1996 primarily made no specific indication that marriage was between a man and a woman. Why? Because it was not required to state the obvious. If I tell you that today is the 40th anniversary of man landing on the moon, I do not need to identify which satellite orbiting the earth, which "moon" I am referring to. The earth has many moons, but only one is "the moon". This is universally understood; and that is why laws written before 1996 did not need to specify that marriage was between a man and a woman. Now you can point to foreign law, you can point to ancient times when same sex marriages took place, but the discussion is the understanding of the definition of marriage prior to 1996 in the United States. The law books did not need to say "between a man and a woman" because everyone knew that was what marriage explicitly meant. Denying this fact makes people look silly and desperate. Acknowledging this fact does not make a person homophobic.

Why? I have not been shown that any of it is wrong or requiring restatement. I trust that those reading the thread understood me the first time. I may clarify for those just joining that 1996 marked the Defense of Marriage Act which specified for federal purposes that marriage meant a man and a woman and made specific reference to states not needing to recognize unions from other states that are otherwise; a violation of the 5th amendment as far as I am concerned if it is ever tested by the Supreme Court.

 

Now you may find examples of laws prior to 1996 that spelled out marriage as being a man and a woman. In fact I'm sure someone will. That does not nullify the veracity of my statement in terms of my argument.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

So, I gather that you want me to say this differently...

 

Why? I have not been shown that any of it is wrong or requiring restatement. I trust that those reading the thread understood me the first time.

 

Righto, then. That's not quite what I'd hoped for from an intellect such as yourself.

 

Let's just say that I'm unimpressed, and that you have failed at convincing me that my more inclusive definition of marriage is somehow mistaken, and that your definition (man and woman only) is the correct one to hold.

[TheBigDog]

Righto, then. That's not quite what I'd hoped for from an intellect such as yourself.

 

Let's just say that I'm unimpressed, and that you have failed at convincing me that my more inclusive definition of marriage is somehow mistaken, and that your definition (man and woman only) is the correct one to hold.

I could say that I am equally unimpressed that you make no effort to refute my statement, I at least supplied it; you simply state that I am wrong because I cannot convince you. What is that called again? Oh, yes... Burden of Proof. You do not supply a supported position, just a position, then demand that I support my own position. I do, and you simply state it is not good enough. Classic debating technique and logical fallacy.

 

Where exactly do I find the reasoning behind your belief should I wish to inquire about it? Or we could simply agree to disagree?

 

Bill

[modest]

I'm sorry, Lawcat. You asked a direct question which I never did answer:

 

But, there is finer point here. First, you asked me to give you the traditional definition, and then, with the definition I gave you, you said that it is not valid in Holland. Ok. But, you did not refute that my definition was a traditional definition. Correct? It is plain that it is, since we must change it to have a new law in U.S.

 

So, let's say that traditional definition is: "community recognized union of a man and a woman."...

 

When someone says "the traditional definition of marriage", I know what they're talking about. They are referring to marriage between opposite sex couples. In the United States marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman. A gay couple didn't even try to get a marriage license until 1972. The clerk, of course, denied the license because they were both the same sex.

 

The couple pointed out that nothing in state or federal law prohibited them from marriage, but it was nonetheless an unwritten rule, and upheld by the courts. So, of course, until the gay rights movement there was no reason to explicitly say: "marriage is between a man and a woman".

 

But this does not, in my opinion, mean that marriage is traditionally defined that way—only that it has been traditionally done that way in this country. This is a completely unimportant distinction until someone says "gays can't be married because the word "marriage" means between a man and a woman". Only then does the distinction matter.

 

So, I will answer your question directly, the traditional definition of marriage is: "a life-long contract between individuals and recognized by the state signifying an intimate relationship". In the US this has traditionally been between one man and one woman. The traditional participants in this contract does not preclude the word from being used when the participants are not traditional. I believe the word marriage is appropriate in cases of polygamy. You could easily say John Doe is married to two women. The word works in that case. The definition of the word makes it applicable in that case.

 

Likewise, if I lived 100 years ago and I read an encyclopedia which stated "The Emperor of Rome, Elagabalus, married a young man in a public ceremony", I would understand the meaning of the word in that context. I would understand that such a marriage is non-traditional, but that the word marriage is nevertheless appropriate. Likewise, if I read in the bible that Solomon married hundreds of women, I would understand the word's appropriateness in that context.

 

I therefore disagree that the traditional definition of marriage is "...between man and woman". Although it has traditionally been done that way, it has also been done and can be done another way. The definition itself is not exclusive.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

You do not supply a supported position, just a position, then demand that I support my own position. I do, and you simply state it is not good enough. Classic debating technique and logical fallacy.

 

Where exactly do I find the reasoning behind your belief should I wish to inquire about it?

You might try reading my posts to this thread. I have stated my reasoning multiple times in multiple ways and have been consistent throughout. However, I (unlike you) don’t mind honoring a request for clarification of argument, so please see below.

 

The relationship of two same sex individuals is parallel in every way with a relationship of two opposite sex individuals, except for the ability to procreate. We have established that the ability to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage, as evidenced by the fact that infertile couples and the elderly are all allowed to wed without question or opposition. The state recognizes the marriages of opposite sex couples, and with that recognition confers 1138 different benefits and privileges.

 

As a result of DOMA, those same benefits and privileges are being denied to same sex couples. Since this differential conferment of benefits is written into law, it must have a relevant secular reason for existing, as per the establishment clause of the first amendment, the Lemon Test put forth by SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the mandate for “secular purpose” and “primary effect tests” provided in Abington Township v. Schempp, as well as the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment. This does not even begin to touch on the issues with the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1.

 

My position is that there is no legitimate reason to treat same sex couples differently than opposite sex couples in the eyes of the law, and that the only reasons offered by those who oppose same sex marriage for doing so are based on nothing more than false premises, logical fallacies, and bigotry. My position is that these arguments against same sex marriage parallel the fights which took place attempting to deny equal rights from blacks, and that folks arguing that a marriage is only between a man and a woman are going to find themselves shortly on the wrong side of history.

 

 

You, on the other hand, propose a marital segregation. You implicitly suggest that the correct position is to treat homosexuals as second class citizens. I’ve merely asked you to expound on why you have chosen your position that the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, at the exclusion of same sex partners, and for you to use your logic and debate skills to convince readers that this (yours) is the correct position to maintain. Thus far, however, you’ve done nothing but evade the question, do a bunch of hand waving and waffling, and you instead continue in your attempts to circumvent the request put to you for clarification by attacking me personally, and to change the subject by trying to wipe your own special brand of “poo stinky” on me, my character, and my logic.

 

Who again here is engaging in logical fallacies? Maybe you should go find that mirror about which we recently spoke in another thread.

 

 

I'll tell you now the same thing I told Larv. It's time for you to put up, or shut up.

[modest]

So... what do you say? Will you please, instead of simply repeating your position, instead explain for our readers your reason(s) for holding it? What informs your stance that "marriage carries the meaning of man and woman," and why should others be inclined to agree with you and accept that definition as their own?

So, I gather that you want me to say this differently...

Let us look at the tradition that has lead to our current laws. Laws as they were written prior to 1996 primarily made no specific indication that marriage was between a man and a woman. Why? Because it was not required to state the obvious. If I tell you that today is the 40th anniversary of man landing on the moon, I do not need to identify which satellite orbiting the earth, which "moon" I am referring to. The earth has many moons, but only one is "the moon". This is universally understood; and that is why laws written before 1996 did not need to specify that marriage was between a man and a woman. Now you can point to foreign law, you can point to ancient times when same sex marriages took place, but the discussion is the understanding of the definition of marriage prior to 1996 in the United States. The law books did not need to say "between a man and a woman" because everyone knew that was what marriage explicitly meant. Denying this fact makes people look silly and desperate. Acknowledging this fact does not make a person homophobic.

Why? I have not been shown that any of it is wrong or requiring restatement. I trust that those reading the thread understood me the first time. I may clarify for those just joining that 1996 marked the Defense of Marriage Act which specified for federal purposes that marriage meant a man and a woman and made specific reference to states not needing to recognize unions from other states that are otherwise; a violation of the 5th amendment as far as I am concerned if it is ever tested by the Supreme Court.

 

Now you may find examples of laws prior to 1996 that spelled out marriage as being a man and a woman. In fact I'm sure someone will. That does not nullify the veracity of my statement in terms of my argument.

 

Bill

 

I think I understand Bill's argument. Demonstrative of the fact that marriage is traditionally defined as "between man and woman" is the fact that laws have not traditionally needed to state "...man and woman" in order to exclude same sex couples from marriage. But that they were, nonetheless, excluded from marriage. How were they excluded if not by the meaning of the word "marriage" itself?

 

I'm not, personally, convinced by this argument. It's just as likely that legislatures did not explicitly outlaw same sex marriage because no same sex couples were asking to be married. When a couple finally did ask the court examined the language of the statute and found the words "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (*) in the law and concluded that the statute did not intend to permit same sex couples. They did not rely on the definition of marriage itself.

 

~modest

[CraigD]

I may clarify for those just joining that 1996 marked the Defense of Marriage Act which specified for federal purposes that marriage meant a man and a woman and made specific reference to states not needing to recognize unions from other states that are otherwise ...

I think this is a good summary of DOMA. However, as DOMA is a very short law (slightly over 330 words, about 7 times the length of the above summary), I recommend all readers simply read it in its entirety. It’s available from many sources, such as this wikisource.

... a violation of the 5th amendment as far as I am concerned if it is ever tested by the Supreme Court.

I don’t follow.

 

The 5th Amendment is:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How does this law have anything to do with marriage, gay or straight?

[Turtle]

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. ~ Voltaire

[InfiniteNow]

In plain english, the fifth amendment is about the right not to self-incriminate... the right to "take the fifth."

 

Craig's question is valid, and should have been leveled at Lawcat earlier in the thread who proposed the same thing... that DOMA could only be defeated based on the fifth amendment (which, like many of lawcat's other legal suggestions, is patently false).

[modest]

I don’t follow.

 

The 5th Amendment is:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How does this law have anything to do with marriage, gay or straight?

 

Both the 5th and 14th amendments have a due process clause. It asserts that the government cannot deprive a person of ...liberty... without due process of law. This historically includes the right of marriage:

 

MEYER v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

'No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'

 

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge,

to marry

, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Gay rights advocates claim that being denied the right to marry someone of their own gender deprives them of liberty without due process.

 

~modest

 

******** EDIT *********

 

(had to slip this one in):

 

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. ~ Voltaire

 

"A witty saying proves nothing" ~Voltaire :eek_big:

 

******** EDIT *********

[TheBigDog]

The relationship of two same sex individuals is parallel in every way with a relationship of two opposite sex individuals, except for the ability to procreate. We have established that the ability to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage, as evidenced by the fact that infertile couples and the elderly are all allowed to wed without question or opposition. The state recognizes the marriages of opposite sex couples, and with that recognition confers 1138 different benefits and privileges.

 

As a result of DOMA, those same benefits and privileges are being denied to same sex couples. Since this differential conferment of benefits is written into law, it must have a relevant secular reason for existing, as per the establishment clause of the first amendment, the Lemon Test put forth by SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the mandate for “secular purpose” and “primary effect tests” provided in Abington Township v. Schempp, as well as the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment. This does not even begin to touch on the issues with the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, Section 1.

 

My position is that there is no legitimate reason to treat same sex couples differently than opposite sex couples in the eyes of the law, and that the only reasons offered by those who oppose same sex marriage for doing so are based on nothing more than false premises, logical fallacies, and bigotry. My position is that these arguments against same sex marriage parallel the fights which took place for equal rights with blacks, and that folks arguing that a marriage is only between a man and a woman are going to find themselves shortly on the wrong side of history.

I am very much in agreement with the first two paragraphs. Not 100%, but enough to say we have common ground. I won't insist on documentation of the 1138 benefits ;) I won't pretend to be as versed in the legal history as you appear to be, I will take you at your word on that too. I am also in sync with your for much of the third paragraph. I see the parallel between equal rights for blacks and equal rights for those seeking same sex relationships, but I don't believe it is solid enough a correlation that I would make that argument. One is a matter of pure genetics, while the other is behavior influenced by genetics (there is a specific distinction there but I think if you continue reading you will find that diving into this particular detail is not pertinent to our current discussion).

 

You, on the other hand, propose a marital segregation. You implicitly suggest that the correct position is to treat homosexuals as second class citizens.

I did not suggest second class, I suggested that we preserve the current definition, and add definitions as needed to describe any other relationship that may require defining. You could have marriage (man and woman), lesbian marriage (woman and woman), gay marriage (man and man). Since I have established that marriage is synonymous with an active monogamous sexual relationship, the description of the contract would help with the different legal requirements that may be required for entering and dissolving each type of contract. In addition I suggest that non-sexual relationships be recognized for benefits as well, each with a different name, and each with the requisite red tape for entering and exiting. Is this segregation? Yes. It is also the legal rights that are being sought plus rights beyond that (non-sexual couples).

 

I might also add that for getting to your long term goal this is probably the faster means to the end. You are correct that there is much resistance to this change in our cultural norms. And it will meet with substantial resistance politically. Your approach of accusing your opposition of being composed of "false premises, logical fallacies, and bigotry" does not make it easy for anyone to want to actually come to terms with you. To extend your own parallel with civil rights, separate but equal was a necessary evil in the societal evolution toward that change. It made progress and let society have time to overcome its hangups. I am sure that over time the definitions of the various couplings would merge and the sensitivity would dissolve enough that just saying "married" would do it, but the FACT that must be dealt with is that socially we are far from there, and using a sledge hammer, Vaseline, and humiliation is not the way to get people to accept the change.

 

Bill

 

ps. I will expand upon my disagreements in another post. It has gotten very late.

[TheBigDog]

I think this is a good summary of DOMA. However, as DOMA is a very short law (slightly over 330 words, about 7 times the length of the above summary), I recommend all readers simply read it in its entirety. It’s available from many sources, such as this wikisource.

 

I don’t follow.

 

The 5th Amendment is:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How does this law have anything to do with marriage, gay or straight? ;)

You are absolutely correct. I am not quite sure how I got that wrong. It is actually Section 4, Article 1 that would strike is down when eventually challenged.

Article IV - The States

 

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

 

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

How I had that in my head as Amendment five... :confused:

 

Bill