Gay Marriage

[lemit]

As for Moderator

There really is no place here for my contributions. The prevailing dogma won’t allow it. I have proven over and over that my position is unacceptable to those who use emotion instead of reason to form their opinions. There is nothing about my position that is unfair, unconstitutional, or unkind. Simply stated, I want to see the LGBT community got all of the legal rights they deserve. And, simply stated, I don’t consider calling a gay or lesbian domestic partnership a “marriage” to be one of them, because that’s not what I understand the term “marriage” to mean. BUT I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Superficially, we differ on the contextual and historical meaning of marriage; it’s a shallow difference, surfacing as a dispute over a single word.

 

But the deeper difference between us is that I am willing to change my position on the meaning of the word “marriage” if a state supreme court or the SCOTUS rules that “gay marriage” is a right guaranteed by either a state or the US Constitution. What’s wrong with that? What could be more fair and reasonable in a constitutional republic? But my opponents, some at least, are unwilling to meet me on that landscape of fairness; they hold their opinions on this matter to be superior to those of designated legal bodies, assembled constitutionally to interpret their respective constitutions.

 

Well, so long for now. I’m too old to dither around with this pedantic blather. I may be squinting out of one eye, but in the Valley of Blind the one-eyed man is king.

 

Larv, the first time I read your post, I thought, "That's nice." Somehow, in that reading, I had missed all the sarcasm. You, I guess, are right. You are the voice of reason while we depend solely on emotion. You have the intellect and the grace to concede defeat to a bunch of Yahoos (not to be confused with the search engine).

 

The "superficial" difference I made some fun of earlier, the difference over "the contextual and historical meaning of marriage" doesn't sound very superficial when you say it that way.

 

Let me explain something to you. WE ALL COULD BE WRONG. I suppose I could say something about being the only person on my side of the argument to understand that, but I'm pretty sure I'd be wrong about that.

 

I do not think the fundamental difference between us is your ability to change your mind, partly because you haven't demonstrated your ability to change your mind and partly because I think there are many of us who have quietly accepted the past treatment of the GLBT community not out of fear or ignorance but simply because that was the way people of a different sexual orientation were treated. We too have changed our minds.

 

You mention "pedantic blather." Don't be so tough on yourself. Most of your posts are pretty well written and thought out.

 

Finally, I may have missed some things you wrote, since as you suggested I am blind. But I do think that through the haze of my impaired vision I know passive-aggressive bull when I see it. I grew up in a second generation passive-aggressive household. Passive-aggressive behavior is as addictive as drugs or gambling. I fight it all the time, but it unfortunately finds its way into some things I write.

 

If you are certain we are all wrong and only you are right, take off your hairshirt, pick up your chainmail, and return to the battle. You owe it to the TRUTH only you can see. (Yes, I like sarcasm too.)

 

Seriously, and I mean seriously this time, you have often been very close to making me change my mind again, but then you have not shown the discipline to drive home your argument with reason and logic. You have become sarcastic and opened the door to my humor.

 

I believe in the line "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," which I now see as being akin to my belief that people have an undeniable right to do things that make me uncomfortable. (I had always thought Voltaire had spoken or written that line. According to several sources, it first appeared in 1906 in the book The Friends of Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre, and was used as a way of summing up Voltaire's beliefs.)

 

I wish you well, whether you continue in this thread or not. If not, I wish you had chosen a more elegant exit, but I see some merit in what you say..

 

Good luck, sincerely.

 

--lemit

[lawcat]

In the 2000 census, 43.1% of same-sex households in the US had children under 18. 38.9% of same-sex households had children which they identified as their own (i.e. biologically related to one parent)

 

Do not confuse family with household. Those children had a mother and father as every child does. Not two fathers, or two mothers. The fact that the parents do not live together, does not destroy the family. In fact, the State preserves the family by enforcing obligations of parents, who chose not to live together, to children. The family remains by the force of the State, albeit altered as between parents. This is at the root of family laws.

[InfiniteNow]

And yet families with their own children is not relevant to the state recognition of marriage, as evidenced by the fact that the state recognizes the marriage of the infertile, the elderly, and those who choose not to have children.

[Zythryn]

In addition, everyone is allowed to marry, it is just that State validates those unions that are conducive to procreation and civilization.

 

But the State also validates those unions that are not conductive to procreation. So why not validate unions between two men or two women?

[modest]

Do not confuse family with household. Those children had a mother and father as every child does. Not two fathers, or two mothers. The fact that the parents do not live together, does not destroy the family. In fact, the State preserves the family by enforcing obligations of parents, who chose not to live together, to children. The family remains by the force of the State, albeit altered as between parents. This is at the root of family laws.

 

Again, the definition of family does not depend on biologically related offspring. If a man, woman, and adopted child can be considered a family then so can a gay couple and their children.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

And yet families with their own children is not relevant to the state recognition of marriage, as evidenced by the fact that the state recognizes the marriage of the infertile, the elderly, and those who choose not to have children.

 

You and Zythryn, and Modest to a degree, raise the same question. It was answered awhile back, but it bears repeating.

 

There is State, and there are mother and father. There are also grandmother and grandfather, and so on. Everyone has both. This is the natural structure.

 

The State has an interest in procreation and structure. On the other hand, the mother and father have a fundamental right in decision-making. If the two chose to marry, the state validates and encourages that for State's interest. If not, the State enforces obligations for State's and child's interest.

 

The State may not encroach on mother-father's decision making to raise children--this is fundamental. Since the mother and father have a fundamental right in decision making, they have a fundamental right to chose who to bond with to accomplish those goals.

 

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society . . . . Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

 

The fact that some people may never have children, does not defeat the State's encouragement in the structure of the society. The fact that some people are infertile, or old, is at the fringe--the outer limits--of State's interest, where the fundamental right of a man and a woman to marry fits the natural structure of the human society. Those people may indeed conceive, or perform functions of mother-father, grandmother-grandfather, which comports with civilizational structure.

 

Gays comport to neither the natural structure of mother father, nor can they ever conceive in a bond.

[TheBigDog]

As has been FIRMLY established in this thread already, procreation has ZERO to do with marriage. This is evidenced by the fact that infertile couples, the elderly, as well as couples with zero desire to reproduce are ALL allowed to wed without challenge.

 

Bringing up a previously defeated argument later in the thread with no new information does not suddenly make it relevant.

I don't agree that this has been established. (Just as "separate but equal" not being about physical space has not been established.)

 

Fact: A society needs births to maintain and grow its population. (Immigration also works, but we will assume global society, so immigration is moot)

Fact: A society of heterosexual couples will produce offspring as a natural byproduct of the relationship. It just happens.

Fact: A society of homosexual couples will never produce offspring as a natural byproduct of the relationship. It requires intervention of sexual material from outside the relationship.

 

The reason that intentionally or unintentionally non-reproductive heterosexual couples are allowed to marry is one of privacy and *gasp* tradition.

 

Reproduction is the byproduct of heterosexual sex. It is not the byproduct of homosexual sex... ever.

 

The counter: homosexual men can use surrogate mothers, homosexual women can use artificial insemination.

 

Yes and yes. But is this enough to sustain a society? Heterosexual couples in isolation will inevitably have children. Homosexual couples in isolation will NEVER have children. It is imperative that there be breeding couples to sustain and grow a population. Marriage = sex = breeding. Same sex marriage = sex = ________.

 

Next point...

 

Voting is not "mob rule of the majority over the minority". Your spin is mind boggling when you have no argument but to accuse people of anger, hate, and bigotry.

 

I was especially amused that you repeatedly asked for SCOTUS rulings about this or that, even cited SCOTUS rulings about this or that, but then sluff off SCOTUS rulings that oppose your view as irrelevant as they are "just the current ruling, not the final ruling". Mind boggling. And the laws of the land are just the current laws, not the final laws. The countries of the world are just the current counties, not the final ones.

 

One of my favorites was the example that animals have homosexual sex, therefore homosexual sex is natural. You gave a link to prove it. Since when do we justify human behavior by what we witness in the animal kingdom? I saw a documentary about elephants where a male elephant killed another male elephant and then mounted the corpse. Justified human behavior? I have seen my dog hump my 6 year old THUS inter-species sex is natural. I am not arguing that homosexuality is unnatural; I am arguing that the case you are making is ludicrous.

 

Of course all of this distracts from the debate that many of us are trying to engage in, and is why I have let those BS arguments slide without comment. But repeating that behavior over and over does not make it right. You can do better.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I don't agree that this has been established. (Just as "separate but equal" not being about physical space has not been established.)

Well, then you are simply wrong, and blind to the facts of the discussion taking place.

 

Speaking of "facts"...

 

Fact: A society needs births to maintain and grow its population. (Immigration also works, but we will assume global society, so immigration is moot)

FACT: Marriage laws are not based on the need to birth children, as evidenced by the FACT that we allow infertile couples to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow the elderly to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow couples with ZERO desire to reproduce to marry without challenge.

 

 

Fact: A society of heterosexual couples will produce offspring as a natural byproduct of the relationship. It just happens.

False. Infertile couples will NOT produce offspring. Elderly couples will NOT produce offspring. Those who choose not to, or who use contraceptives will NOT produce offspring.

 

Your comment is NOT a fact.

 

 

Fact: A society of homosexual couples will never produce offspring as a natural byproduct of the relationship. It requires intervention of sexual material from outside the relationship.

FACT: Marriage laws are not based on the need to birth children, as evidenced by the FACT that we allow infertile couples to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow the elderly to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow couples with ZERO desire to reproduce to marry without challenge.

 

 

The reason that intentionally or unintentionally non-reproductive heterosexual couples are allowed to marry is one of privacy and *gasp* tradition.

Tradition is not a relevant secular reason to deny rights from the minority. Tradition is not a valid argument to circumvent the protections DIRECTLY stated in our constitution, its amendments, and the SCOTUS rulings regarding its interpretation.

 

 

Reproduction is the byproduct of heterosexual sex. It is not the byproduct of homosexual sex... ever.

FACT: Marriage laws are not based on the need to birth children, as evidenced by the FACT that we allow infertile couples to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow the elderly to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow couples with ZERO desire to reproduce to marry without challenge.

 

 

The counter: homosexual men can use surrogate mothers, homosexual women can use artificial insemination.

Actually, no. That is not "the counter," that is "the strawman." The counter is that our laws require a relevant secular reason for existing. The counter is that there are no relevant secular reasons for the differential treatment of same sex couples from opposite sex couples. The counter is that tradition is not a good enough argument to circumvent the constitution. The counter is that children are peripheral to marriage, and that the concept of state recognized marriage is not in any way, shape, or form contingent on either the ability or desire to conceive offspring.

 

How about you argue against that, and stop with the misrepresentations. Strawmen are fallacies which have no place in a dialog such as this... at least... not if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

 

Marriage = sex = breeding.

FALSE. Marriage does NOT always equal sex. Marriage does NOT always equal breeding. Sex does NOT always equal breeding. Marriage is NOT contingent on offspring, as evidenced by the fact that the infertile, the elderly, and those who do not wish to have children are ALL allowed to marry... and ALL have their marriages recognized by the state.

 

 

Same sex marriage = sex = ________.

Equals NOT relevant to the concept of marriage.

 

 

 

Voting is not "mob rule of the majority over the minority". Your spin is mind boggling when you have no argument but to accuse people of anger, hate, and bigotry.

When something is true, it is not spin.

I have asked numerous times... Name the relevant secular reason why same sex couples should be treated any differently than opposite sex couples. You cannot.

 

You've named tradition. That is not a valid means to circumvent constitutional protections.

You've named the ability to procreate. That is not relevant to the concept of marriage since we allow couples to marry who cannot conceive.

 

You want me to stop calling those in opposition of same sex marriage "ignorant" and/or "bigoted?" Supply an argument which demonstrates that your opposition is about more than ignorance and bigotry.

 

 

I was especially amused that you repeatedly asked for SCOTUS rulings about this or that, even cited SCOTUS rulings about this or that, but then sluff off SCOTUS rulings that oppose your view as irrelevant as they are "just the current ruling, not the final ruling". Mind boggling.

I supported my argument.

I showed the faults in the arguments of those who disagree with me.

When asked a direct question about how I make up my mind on an issue, I responded that my mind is made up based on the merits of an argument, not based on what some court tells me. I further stated a simple truth regarding our judicial system.

A SCOTUS ruling is not the final say in matters of constitutionality, it is merely the current one.

 

The reason and rationality of my position is plain. If something so simple boggles your mind, I can understand why you can't formulate a valid argument to treat same sex couples any differently than opposite sex couples. It's obviously beyond your abilities.

 

 

One of my favorites was the example that animals have homosexual sex, therefore homosexual sex is natural. You gave a link to prove it. Since when do we justify human behavior by what we witness in the animal kingdom?

Well, besides the fact that you have now resorted to a demeaning tone and the fact that you have mocked the position instead of rebutting it, you have ALSO presented yet another strawman.

 

My comments regarding same sex couplings in the animal kingdom was a DIRECT response to the claim that same sex partnerships "go against nature," are "against the natural order," and are a "human irrationality."

 

It's amazing how powerful a point can be when you have the context in which it was shared. NOBODY here is claiming that we justify that humans do it because animals do it. That's retarded. The comment about animals was a rebuttal of the position that "it's not natural," which is false as evidenced by nature itself.

 

 

You can do better.

Hello, pot?

Meet the kettle.

[modest]

You and Zythryn, and Modest to a degree, raise the same question. It was answered awhile back, but it bears repeating.

 

...The State has an interest in procreation and structure.

 

Disenfranchising gay couples does not serve a vested interest. Allowing gay people to marry doesn't prevent whatever vested interest incentivising heterosexual marriage might serve. In fact, there's a good argument that stabilizing gay relationships serves the state's interest as well.

 

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society . . . . Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

 

This decision does not limit the right to marry nor does it establish that the *only* reason that the right to marriage is protected is procreation. In fact, it points out what I've been stressing:

When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

 

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

And, of course, marriage is a fundamental right:

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

 

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

and you can't argue that homosexual relationships aren't "marriage" and therefore not a fundamental right because the decision as to whether they can marry is the very statutory classification under consideration—the argument would be circular.

 

Neither can you limit the definition of marriage by pointing out the vested interest inherent in heterosexual marriage. Honestly Lawcat, that doesn't make sense.

 

 

I believe strongly that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage would not withstand strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny should be applied for either of these reasons:

• Homosexuality is a suspect classification
  
• Marriage is a fundamental right
  

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Neither can you limit the definition of marriage by pointing out the vested interest inherent in heterosexual marriage. Honestly Lawcat, that doesn't make sense.

 

 

Your right to have gay sex, and to enter into a gay relationship is a fundamental right. The government can not put you in jail for that. That much is clear.

 

Moreover, if you want to marry, you are free to marry anywhere in the U.S.

 

The question is whether the State is without power to encourage marriage and validate it. State's interest goes to procreation and civilizational structure; State's interest is not in just any marriage.

 

The fundamental right of hetero couples to marry is a penumbra--a shadow of a shadow of an original right. The original right is the right to procreate. The right to procreate is not an individual right, but a right of a couple; a single person can not procreate, nor can two people of same sex procreate, thus there is nothing fundamental about it. Also, you can not force anyone to procreate. Once you procreate in a hetero couple, you have a fundamental right to decision-making about child rearing; this is a penumbra--a shadow right. But, if you have that penumbra right, then the right with who to procreate is also granted as a penumbra. This completes the right to family.

 

Now enter State. The right to marry is a shadow of a right to family, because the State can not prohibit it, because it is a fundamental right going back through child rearing and decision-making, to procreation. But the State does not have to validate it nor recognize it. However, if the State chooses to validate it, then the State can not discriminate based on race. Moreover, the only reason the State validates it is the State's inherent interest in the procreation, child's interest, and civilization.

 

Now enter gays. They fit nowhwere in the penumbra. We can not logicallyor naturally trace homo bonds to anything here. Tehy just do not fit. We need new set of rules. We need to deconstruct the system, if we are to fit homo bonds. Moreover, we need to circumvent the nature.

 

Now enter Modest. The argument is: we need to bifurcate and restructure the right to family into: (1) individual's right to procreation, and (2) right to chose the partner. Then we get into new set of penumbras. First penuimbra, a homo must be allowed to conceive in some hospital through invitro or through surrogateship. This is a new fundamental right to child rearing. Second penumbra, a homo must be allowed to marry his sex partner because this is fundamental. Third penumbra, a homo must be allowed to bring his child for adoption to his partner. Fourth penumbra, the partner has a fundmental right to adopt. Fifth penumbra, gays have a fundamental right to full family. Sixth penumbra, because heteros can marry, and we have established fifth new penumbra, then the State must be compelled to recognize and validate gay marriage as fundamental.

 

Maybe. But not by judicial decree. The legislative process is for such policy making.

 

(Got to go. If compelled, I'll respond tomorrow)

[modest]

The question is whether the State is without power to encourage marriage and validate it.

 

That question is well settled. The state clearly has power to encourage and validate marriage. Moreover, it has the right to regulate and deny it. The question at hand is whether the State can properly prohibit gay marriage.

 

State's interest goes to procreation and civilizational structure; State's interest is not in just any marriage.

 

The State's interest is a matter of debate as well as an evolving concern.

 

The fundamental right of hetero couples to marry is a penumbra--a shadow of a shadow of an original right. The original right is the right to procreate. The right to procreate is not an individual right, but a right of a couple; a single person can not procreate, nor can two people of same sex procreate, thus there is nothing fundamental about it. Also, you can not force anyone to procreate. Once you procreate in a hetero couple, you have a fundamental right to decision-making about child rearing; this is a penumbra--a shadow right. But, if you have that penumbra right, then the right with who to procreate is also granted as a penumbra. This completes the right to family.

 

Now enter State. The right to marry is a shadow of a right to family, because the State can not prohibit it, because it is a fundamental right going back through child rearing and decision-making, to procreation. But the State does not have to validate it nor recognize it. However, if the State chooses to validate it, then the State can not discriminate based on race. Moreover, the only reason the State validates it is the State's inherent interest in the procreation, child's interest, and civilization.

 

I disagree completely. I believe an individual has a fundamental right to marry. It is not a penumbra of procreation. It's a basic and natural liberty common to the human condition. Saying that the State's only interest in marriage is procreation is strained. But, to say that a person's right to marry exists only as a shadow to and is contingent on procreation is completely unreasonable.

 

The fact that an individual is drawn to share their life with another, that they choose to do so and desire to do so—to love another, to be intimate, caring, protecting, serving, honoring, swearing to give the full dedication of everything they will ever have to another human being, is not peripheral to baby making.

 

The right to marry is not contingent on or derived from anything else. It is our nature. Humans don't need to marry to have children. The way lions do it would work fine. But, it is human nature to pair up for life. It's innate. It's necessary. It's essential—not for procreation, but (in the language of Meyer v. State of Nebraska) "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men".

 

Now enter gays. They fit nowhwere in the penumbra. We can not logicallyor naturally trace homo bonds to anything here. Tehy just do not fit. We need new set of rules. We need to deconstruct the system, if we are to fit homo bonds. Moreover, we need to circumvent the nature.

 

As the premise is incorrect, so too has the conclusion become.

 

Now enter Modest. The argument is: we need to bifurcate and restructure the right to family into: (1) individual's right to procreation, and (2) right to chose the partner.

 

I've argued no such thing. Ironically, it is the opposition position in this thread which bifurcates family rights into two groups which could be described as your 1 and 2 or marriage and civil unions.

 

Then we get into new set of penumbras...

 

Really, if you just recognize that it's not a penumbra at all you don't run into any such troubles.

 

~modest

[jackson33]

Infinite; Are you trying to add NEW meaning to the WORD arrogance. Your opinions are worth no more or less than any person that has ever posted on a forum, IN MY OPINION. Yet, your attitude and total lack of respect for ANY POSTER, who won't give you points or become your friend is getting a little tiring. You are responsible for having a good many posters over years banned, for making inflammatory comments far less outrageous than yours.

 

FACT: Marriage laws are not based on the need to birth children, as evidenced by the FACT that we allow infertile couples to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow the elderly to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow couples with ZERO desire to reproduce to marry without challenge.

 

Well we live in the US and had few marriage laws whatsoever, well into the 19th Century, then to outlaw, not establish marriage between people. It was an 1850 Congressional ruling that established one man/ one woman, for the Utah Territory to become a State and States have always maintained authority over such things.

 

FACT: Marriage laws are not based on the need to birth children, as evidenced by the FACT that we allow infertile couples to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow the elderly to marry without challenge... by the FACT that we allow couples with ZERO desire to reproduce to marry without challenge.

 

This being a repeated comment; Ask any young person, why they wish to someday marry. Number one I WILL BET, is to legitimize having kids and or social acceptance of their relationship (maybe in different words) and love if mentioned in regards to the above. I understand Gays fall in love, feel it's more sexual than emotional and also desire acceptance in the general society. How many 70 yo gays wish to marry, or those with out sexual drive, plenty of heterosexual couple marry, well into their 80's. If you think about all your comments on birth-less couples could lead to any number of movements.

 

Tradition is not a relevant secular reason to deny rights from the minority. Tradition is not a valid argument to circumvent the protections DIRECTLY stated in our constitution, its amendments, and the SCOTUS rulings regarding its interpretation.

 

The Federal Government is the only secular and relevant entity in this discussion. The American Society is anything but secular and the primary point of that discussion, it's desires, hopes, wishes or whatever word you wish to use are based on personal perceptions of traditional attitudes. Even the Federal is made up of Religious folks, with no less hopes, desires etc....

 

1- When something is true, it is not spin.

2- I have asked numerous times...Name the relevant secular reason why same sex couples should be treated any differently than opposite sex couples. You cannot.

 

1- When you create an opinion, it's spin, no less than my spin on this topic. If not please list your credentials for under which your authority in civil matters come come. In this case a PhD in Genetics Social Science or law would be helpful, though not definitve...

 

2- You name what secular philosophy is mandated to be accepted by a religious society and its government, with out proper and acceptable/reasonable consideration.

 

You want me to stop calling those in opposition of same sex marriage "ignorant" and/or "bigoted?" Supply an argument which demonstrates that your opposition is about more than ignorance and bigotry.

 

It's called common decency; Aside from that most folks arguing either side are simply stating their own opinions, not asking for a verbal thrashing. There have been a good many decent/respectful post on both sides with interesting content and not thrashing anyone. What ever happened to the thread author anyway, she simply asked an honest question or two.

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite; Are you trying to add NEW meaning to the WORD arrogance. Your opinions are worth no more or less than any person that has ever posted on a forum, IN MY OPINION. Yet, your attitude and total lack of respect for ANY POSTER, who won't give you points or become your friend is getting a little tiring. You are responsible for having a good many posters over years banned, for making inflammatory comments far less outrageous than yours.

I suggest you focus on supporting your own position, or showing where mine is faulty. These personal comments don't do you any good, and weaken your debating position.

 

 

 

Well we live in the US and had few marriage laws whatsoever, well into the 19th Century, then to outlaw, not establish marriage between people. It was an 1850 Congressional ruling that established one man/ one woman, for the Utah Territory to become a State and States have always maintained authority over such things.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. We have marriage laws now which are different from marriage laws then, and the argument here is about whether or not there is a valid reason for the differential application of those laws based on sexual preference alone.

 

 

 

This being a repeated comment; Ask any young person, why they wish to someday marry. Number one I WILL BET, is to legitimize having kids and or social acceptance of their relationship (maybe in different words) and love if mentioned in regards to the above.

First, I disagree. Second, what young people think is the purpose of marriage is not a valid reason to deny constitutional protections of equality among same sex couples.

 

 

I understand Gays fall in love, feel it's more sexual than emotional and also desire acceptance in the general society. How many 70 yo gays wish to marry, or those with out sexual drive, plenty of heterosexual couple marry, well into their 80's. If you think about all your comments on birth-less couples could lead to any number of movements.

Relevance?

 

 

 

The Federal Government is the only secular and relevant entity in this discussion. The American Society is anything but secular and the primary point of that discussion, it's desires, hopes, wishes or whatever word you wish to use are based on personal perceptions of traditional attitudes. Even the Federal is made up of Religious folks, with no less hopes, desires etc....

Again, relevance? The composition of our populace has zero impact on the guarantees of our constitution. There are explicit protections for minority groups from mob rule/tyranny of the majority. So, not only do I fail to see your point, but I struggle to believe that you have one which is at all relevant.

 

 

1- When you create an opinion, it's spin, no less than my spin on this topic. If not please list your credentials for under which your authority in civil matters come come. In this case a PhD in Genetics Social Science or law would be helpful, though not definitve...

There is no need for me to appeal to title, or appeal to my own authority, since my arguments appeal only to their own merits and rest on their own laurels. What I have shared in this thread is much more than an "opinion." I have shared solid arguments why equality applies in this case with same sex couples, and clear demonstrations of how the arguments of those in the opposition camp fail or are based on logical fallacy.

 

I have further continued to draw attention to the blaring lack of relevant secular arguments for the differential application of our laws, and how those in the opposition camp are not making valid arguments in support of their position. If you wish to dismiss my posts as mere opinion, that's fine, but my points and arguments themselves remain valid despite your dismissal.

 

 

2- You name what secular philosophy is mandated to be accepted by a religious society and its government, with out proper and acceptable/reasonable consideration.

Nobody is mandating that the religious elements of our society accept anything whatsoever. The mandate is that any differential application of our laws requires a relevant secular reason for that differential application. Religious groups can choose not to accept same sex marriage. I'm good with that. However, the state has no such ability to refuse if they do not have a relevant secular reason for doing so. My argument is DIRECTLY supported by the constitution of these United States, its amendments, and the countless SCOTUS rulings confirming my interpretation.

 

 

It's called common decency; Aside from that most folks arguing either side are simply stating their own opinions, not asking for a verbal thrashing. There have been a good many decent/respectful post on both sides with interesting content and not thrashing anyone. What ever happened to the thread author anyway, she simply asked an honest question or two.

As I said in my opening of this post, I suggest you focus on supporting your own position, or showing where mine is faulty. These personal comments don't do you any good, and weaken your debating position.

 

This isn't about thrashing people and their opinions. It's about thrashing ridiculous and specious arguments and illuminating the weaknesses in the position of those who oppose equal protections for same sex couples. It's about standing up and fighting for equality. It's about standing up for the principles espoused in our nations constitution, and it's about protecting same sex couples from baseless segregation based on nothing more than ignorance and bigotry.

[TheBigDog]

Unless one considers married couples paying a lower federal income tax than they would if they were not married not to be a “legal right”, Larv’s claim isn’t true. Not registered domestic partners in the state of Washington, married people of the same sex in US states that perform same-sex marriage (currently Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa) , nor people of the same sex married in non-US countries that perform same-sex marriage (currently the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden) required to file US federal tax returns, are allowed to claim the married filing jointly tax status. Although I’m unfamiliar with details of Washington state’s domestic partnership laws and regulations, from the FAQ page Zythryn gave in post #408, and from Larv’s statement (italics mine) that

 

I gather that local tax and other benefits are also not. Therefore Larv’s claim that

Appears to me simply wrong. One-sexers are getting some of, not everything, two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights.

 

(sources: wikipedia article “status of same-sex marriage”; The Gay CPA: Domestic Partner Tax Issues)

 

The argument that separate but equal rights are valid with regards to domestic partnerships vs. marriage would be more compelling if the rights granted by each were actually equal.

It took me some time to get back to this Craig. I am not sure that federal tax benefits are a right that people should be scrambling to get. The marriage penalty is a little bugaboo that results from the progressive tax code. It has been "fixed" by various Bush tax legislation that is to continue through 2010, but what are the chances that the current political system keeps them in play? Simply put, the marriage penalty happens when a couple who both have income file as "married filing jointly". The way their combined income falls into the "married" tax bracket can cause them to pay higher taxes. This has been true since 1969, and was only corrected in 2003 by the Bush tax cuts. According to the article there are some instances where a couple may pay less for being married, but this is when there is a highly dominant earner in the couple. In almost all cases it is preferable to file individually when there are two comparable incomes.

In 1996, forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single, according to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office analysis[2]. The average penalty was $1,380.

 

...

 

Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010. [4] Unless reauthorized by Congress, however, the marriage penalty will return in 2011. [4] However, through passing those pieces of legislation, the tax system is now such that couples with disparate incomes will pay less tax than they would have paid as two single taxpayers

If same sex couples want to share this windfall they better vote Republican.

 

Bill

 

ps. here is a good link from the Congressional Budget Office discussing marriage penalty/bonus. It shows that it is a two sided coin with some couples paying less while others pay more, and has good description of the goals of the US tax code in terms of equity.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7&type=0&sequence=2

[InfiniteNow]

I am not sure that federal tax benefits are a right that people should be scrambling to get.

 

<...>

 

If same sex couples want to share this windfall they better vote Republican.

 

Just to remind you, this is about much more than just taxes... both ideologically and tangibly.

 

 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS

 

CATEGORY 2—VETERANS' BENEFITS

 

CATEGORY 3—TAXATION

 

CATEGORY 4—FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS

 

CATEGORY 5—EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND RELATED PROVISIONS

 

CATEGORY 6—IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS

 

CATEGORY 7—INDIANS

 

CATEGORY 8—TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

 

CATEGORY 9—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 

CATEGORY 10—CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

 

CATEGORY 11—LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND PAYMENTS IN AGRICULTURE

 

CATEGORY 12—FEDERAL NATURAL RESOURCES AND RELATED PROVISIONS

 

CATEGORY 13—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

 

 

 

See the link for a full list and elaboration on each category of benefits being differentially applied at the federal level.

[jackson33]

I suggest you focus on supporting your own position, or showing where mine is faulty. These personal comments don't do you any good, and weaken your debating position.

 

No sir, I'm a casual poster. It doesn't matter to me if I'm banned, censored or humiliated by any person. When you go after some poster, who has spent time to offer his/her legitimate opinions, I feel obligated to protest publicly. Remember I'm protesting your public comments. As for debating under any debate model I've practiced, you would not get past the first response, "relevance".

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant. We have marriage laws now which are different from marriage laws then, and the argument here is about whether or not there is a valid reason for the differential application of those laws based on sexual preference alone.

 

There WERE NO laws then and what were and as is today, limitations on who can be recognized. Some Colonies had moral clauses or required some religious conviction, then on to racial differences and so on. Again, since Sodomy was already outlawed, no consideration was given to same sex, since same sex would infer sodomy and forbidden. All this relates to traditional reasoning, you have classified 'not relative'.

 

Would you really like the Congress to be forced to address SSM or your OPINION, DOMA is unconstitutional.

 

TEXAS Current law: DOMA adopted as state law Legislation: Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

 

For each of the 50 States;

50-state rundown on gay marriage laws

 

Again, relevance? The composition of our or populace has zero impact on the guarantees of our constitution.

 

Insert relevance, then argue the point??? There was/is no 'right' in effect 1790 or 2009 that was or does not include all people. In 1790, NO ONE was allowed to practice sodomy, gay, bi or straight. Nationally today and for Federal Purposes all persons can marry one person of the opposite sex, no mention of reasoning behind the marriage, gay, bi or heterosexual.

 

There is no need for me to appeal to title, or appeal to my own authority, since my argument appeal only to their own merits. What I have shared in this thread is much more than an "opinion." I have shared solid arguments why equality applies in this case with same sex couples.

 

You are presenting you opinions as factual judgments. If qualified, as in your doctor, when he/she tells you something, it's acceptable. Your arguments are just that, arguments/opinions which stand on no merits other than your own concepts. If we are talking law, the validity would mean more with a law degree or at least having studied law, otherwise are opinions formed. I might add in any court, you would never make a statement based on your merits, even if referencing precedence or previous opinions.

 

I have further drawn attention to the blaring lack of relevant secular arguments from the opposition camp. If you wish to dismiss my posts as mere opinion, that's fine, but my points and arguments themselves remain valid despite your dismissal.

The other Camp, are members of your society, most of which have agreed with you and in your opinions to a certain level. For some yet known reason, anything short of a Constitutional Amendment (required) and the use of a religious term (Sanctity of Marriage, demeaning to all religions worldwide) and the full acceptance of each and every variation of what Gay/Lesbian activity includes, seems to be your argument. This is neither practical, acceptable or realistically possible IMO.

 

Nobody is mandating that the religious elements of our society accept anything whatsoever. The mandate is that any differential application of our laws requires a relevant secular reason for that differential application. Religious groups can choose not to accept same sex marriage. I'm good with that. However, the state has no such ability if they are to act in line with the constitution of these United States.

 

I don't think religious people in the US oppose, same sex relationships or said another way what goes on in a bedroom. Having said that, they (the majority of States) have the right to under the Constitution and the Congress to dictate anything they can agree on. That's the idea of our Constitutional Government, where Congress, with or with out the Executive or the SC can offer Amendments and be ratified. For instance, if an amendment were offered "Marriage in the US is defined as (insert DOMA)", the executive does not need to sign and the SC cannot find it unconstitutional. Prohibition was just such an example, probably effecting 80/90% of a drinking society.

 

As I said in my opening of this post, I suggest you focus on supporting your own position, or showing where mine is faulty. These personal comments don't do you any good, and weaken your debating position.

 

I have no ax to grind on this issue. I don't oppose gay rights, sodomy or promote religious tolerance. I'd agree rights are important, mine being infringed on many times in my years and in nearing the end see many more that may be taken. I jumped into this debate when you were attacking 'larv', adding my two cents and here again on another personal attack on a poster. I do have opinions however, and have made them opposed to your comments, not that I disagree with your comment, rather respect those opinions in that other camp.

[TheBigDog]

InfiniteNow, just for clarification, and to avoid any misinterpretations, can you provide your preferred definition of secular so that I can make an attempt to answer the most recent revision of your standing question?

 

What relevant secular difference is there between same sex and opposite sex couples which should inform our decision to call their relationship by different names, and what relevant secular reason is there for allowing one group of people to marry the person of their choosing (heterosexuals) while disallowing another group of people from marrying the person of their choosing (homosexuals)?

 

Thanks.

 

Bill