Gay Marriage

[freeztar]

we simply feel like toying with civilization.

 

I think we should leave that to the lawyers.

 

As Modest points out, public opinion holds sway.

 

Should it be decided *fairly* at the Fed level? I think so.

Has it been already? Clearly not.

 

Does fertility have anything to do with this? (Please stay on topic freeztar...)

[lawcat]

That is one hell of a trend toward tolerance and equality!

 

~modest

 

You call it tolerance. I call it irrational exuberance.

[lawcat]

 

Should it be decided *fairly* at the Fed level? I think so.

Has it been already? Clearly not.

 

 

Fed courts could not have been more fair. The problem is: arguments are not won by the scale of irrational exuberance meter.

[Moontanman]

Lawcat the very premise of your argument is false, marriage between a man and a woman is not the basis for or necessary for the well being of the state. A great many civilizations have allowed for multiple marriages and even gay marriage in one form or another. Even if gay marriage was shown to be bad for the state the occurrence of gay marriage among the population is so low it's effects would be minimal. The idea that marriage between a a man and a woman is necessary or even supportive of the state is just as misleading and wrong as the idea that religion is necessary for civilization. What possible harm could gay marriage do to anyone? I say none, but it can and does do good, gay people can and do adopt children that other wise would have to be raised by the state and be a burden on the state. If your state doesn't allow it then they are wrong. all the problems with gay marriage are rooted in religious morality not reality. Any laws prohibiting gay marriage should be struck down for the simply reason that they are religious in nature and the state cannot support any religion over another or lack of religion. Religious values cannot be forced on the population. Laws against gay marriage are based solely on religious values, nothing else. It is totally disingenuous to say other wise.

[Larv]

What possible harm could gay marriage do to anyone?

But if they told you how they feel about it you wouldn’t accept the premise of their “pain.” And you would probably call them homophobic bigots.

 

So let’s look at the other side of your question: Why should a gay person feel harmed if he couldn’t call his domestic partnership a “marriage”?

[InfiniteNow]

But if they told you how they feel about it you wouldn’t accept the premise of their “pain.” And you would probably call them homophobic bigots.

The problem with your idea is that their "pain" is self-inflicted. It is not caused by the same sex individuals getting married. It is caused by their own, personal, perceptual negative interpretation of that. The harm is not caused by an external source (the same sex marriage), it is caused by an internal one (their own inability to be okay with it).

 

This is why the "harm" you describe does not meet the criteria we have in place for our secular laws (the most common motivation for which is to avoid actual and measurable harm to others, such as that caused by murder, rape, or theft).

 

 

So let’s look at the other side of your question: Why should a gay person feel harmed if he couldn’t call his domestic partnership a “marriage”?

I don't know. Why did black people feel harmed when they were told they couldn't drink from the same water fountains as white people, or enter the same restaurants?

 

The harm is obvious. You are suggesting that the same sex marriage is somehow inferior, and not worthy of being allowed to use your special word. You are discriminating against an entire group of our society all for no relevant secular reason.

 

It's the exact same "separate, but equal" crap we supposedly already moved past in our culture decades ago. So much for that. :xmas_sheep:

[Larv]

InfiniteNow, two questions: Do you think your definition of "marriage" is the only one that should matter? And do you think Jim Crow laws actually apply to homosexuals?

 

(Correct answers: No and No.)

[Zythryn]

Two people of same-sex = 0% chance of fertility

Two people of opposite sex = very very high chance.

 

No Lawcat, at least with the couple I am discussing.

Two people of opposite sex = 0% chance of fertilitiy.

So why are my wife and I allowed to be married?

 

Why are two 90 year olds allowed to marry (0% chance there as well)?

Again, what is the reasoning?

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow, two questions: Do you think your definition of "marriage" is the only one that should matter? And do you think Jim Crow laws actually apply to homosexuals?

 

Larv, I consider myself to be an open-minded individual who is perfectly willing to change my mind on an issue if a good argument is presented to me. I've been engaged in debates and arguments surrounding this topic of same sex marriage for some time now, and have yet to hear a single good argument in favor of opposing the allowance of state recognized marriages for same sex partners (an argument which doesn't immediately falter when viewed from a different worldview... one which is consistent and strong across ideologies).

 

For that reason, yes, I do think that my definition of "marriage" is the only one that should matter because I've taken great steps to ensure that my definition is accurate.

 

If you can manage to convince me and the other readers that my definition is somehow at fault, using solid logic, accurate premises, and clear empiricism, the I will gladly concede the point. However, until that time, I will continue to make my point that the marriage describes the relationship, and not the genitals required to be in that relationship.

 

 

 

Now, with that said, it is not my claim that the issue here today with same sex marriage (which you, yourself, continue to call a “marriage” in your own posts) is exactly the same as the issues faced by blacks as a result of the Jim Crow laws. My larger point is that the underlying motivations for those Jim Crow laws are exactly the same as the underlying motivations feeding the attempts to prevent equality in marriage for same sex couples, and I am simply calling attention to this fact.

 

AFAICT, the only difference really is the target of the discrimination, and perhaps also the extent to which those discriminations can be legally implemented. Fortunately, the Equal Rights Act helps to prevent many baseless discriminations and the differential conferment of benefits and privileges from being passed into legislation, but that act alone is hardly enough to overcome this issue of “marital segregation” which we are facing today, as evidenced by the fact that same sex couples are NOT currently granted the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples in the vast majority of states, despite the vast parallels, similarities, and concordance between their partnerships and those of opposite sex partners.

 

It’s obvious to even the most unaware observer that these same sex partners are being treated as second-class citizens. This treatment is simply unconstitutional and wrong, and this becomes even more obvious when you recognize that those individuals fighting in opposition to the allowance of same sex marriage cannot cite any relevant or secular reasons for their opposition (the only reasons thus far offered have been demonstrated to be invalid and/or based on logical fallacies).

 

 

Second-class citizen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While not necessarily slaves, outlaws or criminals, second-class citizens have limited legal rights, civil rights and economic opportunities, and are often subject to mistreatment or neglect at the hands of their putative superiors. Instead of being protected by the law, the law disregards a second-class citizen, or it may actually be used to harass them.

 

Second-class citizenry is generally regarded as a violation of human rights. Typical impediments facing second-class citizens include, but are not limited to, disenfranchisement (a lack or loss of voting rights), limitations on civil or military service (not including conscription in every case), as well as restrictions on language, religion, education, freedom of movement and association, weapons ownership, marriage, housing and property ownership.

 

Now, to be fair to you, Larv, you do seem to be okay with granting same sex couples equal rights and protections (which is excellent, and important for me to acknowledge), but you appear to be hung up on the issue of calling the relationship of two same sex partners a “marriage.”

 

However, as I have demonstrated, and as implicitly supported by your own word choice in your own posts, the term “marriage” refers to the relationship, not the genitals required to be in that relationship. Yet, despite that, you continue to argue that the relationship of a same sex couple should be called by another name (not that we should merely have a different descriptive adjective in front of the word “marriage” when needed, but that we should have a totally different word other than "marriage" altogether). However, you have consistently failed to offer a single justifiable and secular reason why two same sex partners should be called by a different name. What I find most troubling is that, whether you realize it or not, you are essentially advocating a form of government enforced separatism.

 

I raised those historical examples of Jim Crow not to suggest that the exact same thing is occurring here, but to point out the tremendous overlap and similarity in what is feeding these battles for equality in the present day with what fed those battles a generation ago. When viewed objectively, these attempts to argue against the allowance of state recognized same sex marriages are truly nothing more than segregationist desires, and it seems painfully obvious that those desires are not founded on any rational, justifiable, or secular reasons which are consistent across worldviews.

 

It’s as simple as that. If you cannot see the tremendous overlap of the fights which took place during the equal rights movement with the fights taking place now in favor of equality in our laws and protections for couples regardless of their sexual preference, then I fear you have no credibility when engaging in this discussion and should gracefully bow out and stop posting.

[Larv]

For that reason, yes, I do think that my definition of "marriage" is the only one that should matter because I've taken great steps to ensure that my definition is accurate.

Your definition reflects your opinion, just like my definition reflects mine. And I might add that my opinion is supported by the supreme courts of 43 out of 50 states. So, if you insist that your opinion is the only one that matters then your are a categorical bigot.

 

Now, with that said, it is not my claim that the issue here today with same sex marriage (which you, yourself, continue to call a “marriage” in your own posts) is exactly the same as the issues faced by blacks as a result of the Jim Crow laws.

This thread is about “gay marriage”! So give up your silly notion that I have somehow contradicted myself by using the term.

 

My larger point is that the underlying motivations for those Jim Crow laws are exactly the same as the underlying motivations feeding the attempts to prevent equality in marriage for same sex couples, and I am simply calling attention to this fact.

If this were true then why don’t we speak of marriages—heterosexual marriages—between two blacks as ”black marriage”? And Jim Crow laws sought to prevent blacks from marrying whites in the heterosexual tradition. You’re not talking about the heterosexual tradition, you’re talking about something more akin to polygamy, incest or bestiality. None of those things were targeted by Jim Crow laws.

 

… It’s as simple as that. If you cannot see the tremendous overlap of the fights which took place during the equal rights movement with the fights taking place now in favor of equality in our laws and protections for couples regardless of their sexual preference, then I fear you have no credibility when engaging in this discussion and should gracefully bow out and stop posting.

So, if I don’t share your opinion on these matters then I should not enter into this debate. Is that it? How is that different from skipping merrily down on a path called bigotry?

 

I’m still waiting to learn why a contrary opinion on “gay marriage” is like the old separate-but-equal laws for drinking fountains of the Jim Crow era. And I still haven’t heard from you about how genitalia play no part in differentiating men from women who seek to gain marital status. That’s like saying the number of wheels don’t differentiate a bicycle from a tricycle.

[dannieyankee]

This is semi-appalling.

 

We are using current laws to debate whether current law is fair or not. Lawcat is talking about something unrelated. As it has been discussed, religion is clearly one of the biggest factors denying homosexuals the right to marry, and it is illogical to state otherwise. However, it is equally illogical to state that it is the ONLY reason.

 

However, Lawcat's argument that marriage is for procreation is completely under false pretences. While he can whip an argument out of thin air for infertile couples, nobody has questioned older couples. A woman well past menopause is not going to be able to reproduce, yet she is allowed to marry any man she wants. What is your argument there? 'To be nice to the heterosexual seniors'?

 

The entire idea of procreation-based marriage is, quite frankly, outdated. Your arguments all involve current law - laws that are both based off religious teachings and homophobic principals, based on a society that was far less accepting than it is today.

 

Now, of course, the people raised in the era that believe homosexuality was a disease are OF COURSE going to believe that homosexual marriage is wrong. What matters is the group of people that were raised in an era that did not believe the same thing. This shows that future progress is going to end up where I am today - thoroughly convinced that homosexuals deserve the same right to marry whom they love, rather than who has different genitalia.

[InfiniteNow]

If this were true then why don’t we speak of marriages—heterosexual marriages—between two blacks as ”black marriage”? And Jim Crow laws sought to prevent blacks from marrying whites in the heterosexual tradition. You’re not talking about the heterosexual tradition, you’re talking about something more akin to polygamy, incest or bestiality.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner, folks! That just takes the cake.

 

You honestly just compared homosexuality to incest and bestiality. Unbelievable.

 

Yep... You're right. This issue is NOTHING like when people called black people monkeys.

 

Further, it sure is hard to disagree with your suggestion that it is ME who is the bigot, what... with me not putting up with such ignorance laden hatred, and all. :cup:

 

 

I'm officially done responding to you now. Enjoy. :cup:

[Moontanman]

larv how can you possibly equate "gay marriage" with incest or bestiality? (and by the way, quite a few people seem to be getting by with polygamy in some states already, in some cases quite obviously forced polygamy and it's not being prosecuted due to religion) Tell us exactly what tit is about "gay marriage" that bothers you. Why does it bother you that homosexuals might marry? How do homosexuals getting married hurt anyone in any way? It' not enough for you to turn the question around on me. We have shown many times that homosexuals do not get he same rights from any other arrangement in most states. It's great that your confers the same (so you say) rights to gay couples as heterosexual couples but again why does it bother you so much for gays to marry? If it's not homophobia then tell me what it is. personally I don't care what any consenting adults do in private but something about it bothers you, what is it?

[modest]

My larger point is that the underlying motivations for those Jim Crow laws are exactly the same as the underlying motivations feeding the attempts to prevent equality in marriage for same sex couples, and I am simply calling attention to this fact.

...Jim Crow laws sought to prevent blacks from marrying whites in the heterosexual tradition. You’re not talking about the heterosexual tradition, you’re talking about something more akin to polygamy, incest or bestiality. None of those things were targeted by Jim Crow laws.

 

I won’t express outrage, but I will point out the logical problem here—what you say, Larv, makes no sense at all.

 

You say that Jim Crow is in the heterosexual tradition and fault the comparison of gay marriage with Jim Crow laws because the former is homosexual and the latter is heterosexual. You then say a more appropriate comparison is polygamy, incest, or bestiality. Well, I’ve got news for you Larv: polygamy, incest, and bestiality are in the heterosexual tradition as well. Sex in all three categories is a male/female affair just as much as interracial marriage is. So there’s no logic at all to what you’re saying. The very exact objection you make to InfiniteNow’s comparison can be made to your comparisons.

 

It’s like saying “You can’t compare a tree to a frog because one is a plant and one is an animal. A better comparison is between a tree and a bird”. It’s illogical. The argument itself makes no rational sense.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

No Lawcat, at least with the couple I am discussing.

Two people of opposite sex = 0% chance of fertilitiy.

So why are my wife and I allowed to be married?

 

Why are two 90 year olds allowed to marry (0% chance there as well)?

Again, what is the reasoning?

 

Exactness in legislation is not required.

 

The Fundamental, basic, reason for two heteros getting together is a drive to procreate, the drive to extend the species. This is basic, fundamental, biological fact. In the wild two heteros will get together to extend the genes for another generation. All other considerations that follow are derivative or attenuated.

 

When two heteros do procreate, each parent equally has a reasonable expectation of child rearing--decisional freedom to teach your young to hunt, gather berries, to become adult, to be good. From that expectation springs the obligation of parents to each other, and ultimately community, to do what is in the best interest of the child. From that obligation springs the civilizational necessity for the division of duties and familial life.

 

From that necessity, after centuries, the history and tradition of humankind, heteros have reasonable expectation they can marry to enter into socially structured familial life.

 

The government recognizes and incentivizes this structure because it comports to civilizational fundamental development and order of the society.

 

Homosexuals do not satisfy the fundamental premise. Yet they want to be included on the basis of some attenuated derivative reason.

 

Without hetero bonds there is no civilization. There are no computers, no cars, no blackberries. We are not going to send gays to Mars to colonize. Get life?

 

Those are not antiquated consideration but fundamental truths of life and society. As I said before, the Bill of Rights is not there to remedy nature, but to remedy man-made fundamental wrongs, and the only fundamental wrong here would be gay marriage.

[modest]

With the above post, I thought it would be interesting to replace the words homo* and gay* with "old people" and the word hetero* with "young people" using Word's automatic find/replace option. The result speaks for itself:

 

Exactness in legislation is not required.

 

The Fundamental, basic, reason for two young people getting together is a drive to procreate, the drive to extend the species. This is basic, fundamental, biological fact. In the wild two young people will get together to extend the genes for another generation. All other considerations that follow are derivative or attenuated.

 

When two young people do procreate, each parent equally has a reasonable expectation of child rearing. From that springs the obligation of parents to do what is in the best interest of the child. From that springs the division of duties and familial life.

 

After centuries, the history and tradition of humankind, young people have reasonable expectation they can marry to enter into socially structured familial life.

 

The government incentivizes this structure because it comports to civilizational fundamental development and order of the society.

 

Old people do not satisfy the fundamental premise. Yet they want to be included on the basis of some attenuated derivative reason.

 

Without young people bonds there is no civilization. There are no computers, no cars, no blackberries. We are not going to send old people to Mars to colonize. Get life?

 

Those are not antiquated consideration but fundamental truths of life and society. As I said before, the Bill of Rights is not there to remedy nature, but to remedy man-made fundamental wrongs, and the only fundamental wrong here would be old people marriage.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

The Fundamental, basic, reason for two heteros getting together is a drive to procreate, the drive to extend the species. This is basic, fundamental, biological fact.

By your argument, it is the "drive to procreate," or the "drive to coitus" which is the basic fundamental fact, and of critical importance to the concept of marriage. Well, I've got news for you there, chief. Homosexuals are acting on the EXACT same drives and urges as heterosexuals. Basically, your implied difference between the two groups simply doesn't exist.

 

Further, we don't engage in sex thinking, "Oh yeah, this will enable me to produce viable vehicles to spread my gens into the future." No... that is silly. We do it because it feels good, and that is common regardless of the gender you prefer in your sexual partners.

 

 

Homosexuals do not satisfy the fundamental premise.

That matters not, since your fundamental premise is completely flawed. You can repeat yourself about the need to reproduce all you want. It has been demonstrated repeatedly to be an invalid argument as pertains the ability of two individuals to marry, and repeating an invalid point with no new information does not suddenly make it valid.