Homosexual Marriage

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Scoobydoo in regards to some comments above, that homosexuals should have the same exact rights as heterosexuals, in regard to marriage, I dont believe that's true. One doesnt get rights simply by demanding it, it doesnt fit the context or definition of marriage. marriage is a man+woman. I have nothing against homosexuals at all but 2 men or 2 women does not = marriage.

It isn't a question of homosexuals simply demanding the right, it is a matter of making sure the law complies with the underlying concept that makes this country work: that all people are equal under the law. A concept that is spelled out in both the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, in statements such as, "All men are created equal," and "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In other words, the right is already there: homosexuals have the right to be treated equally under the law. If heterosexuals have the right to marry the person of their choice, then homosexuals should have equal rights.

And marriage, as you define it (1 man + 1 woman, not 2 men or 2 women) is a religious concept, and as such has no place in government at all. Either all people have the right to marry whoever they want, or congress is making a law respecting an establishment of religion and restricting the free exercise thereof -- which is unconstitutional.

(I should note that Dirty Name argues that marrriage benefits are offered to heterosexuals because it is in the state's interest to promote nuclear families, and that there is no discrimination because every individual has the same right: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, he can't prove any of the underlying assumptions, and so his rhetoric is worthless in the end.)

Quote by: Scoobydoo The best thing I can liken it to is my teenager felt she should be able to drive at 11 yrs old, she simply didnt understand why she could not, when other larger adult like people could. The reason was not 'well, she should, because it's her right too, if it's adults rights, then it's hers too" that wasnt the answer. The answer was she cant drive because she is not 16. Its not prejudiced, it is what it is. If a 72 yr old person insisted on being allowed to join the girl scout club, would that be prejudiced to say no? Or I a man wanted to join a ladies mother's day tea party, and be honored teh same along with the moms there? Would that be prejudiced to turn him down? I know this will be ripped into by some, but it's my opinion, that one can't always say prejudice is the cause, OR that we can have a right by demanding it

It's likened to something very close all the time: miscegenation, or marriage across racial lines, used to be illegal, but some people protested, quite rightly, that that was discriminatory, and so the laws were changed. The same situation exists here, we just haven't evolved enough to accept that homosexuals are people just like anyone of any minority.

By the way, your rhetorical questions? All of them are discriminatory, but most wouldn't be illegal because they don't restrict the rights of a citizen. The only one questionable is the driving age, which is a separate issue; as it stands now, minors are not full citizens and so don't have rights. The discrimination is based on age and capacity to reason and follow rules of the road, etc., and so is not seen as illegal discrimination, but rather rightful discrimination -- sort of like the height requirements on roller coasters. Those aren't discriminatory against short folk, they're simply a safety precaution. We all discriminate, all the time, but as long as we don't create laws that restrict the rights of people unlawfully and unreasonably, there's nothing particularly wrong with discriminating. I wouldn't allow a Christian into my clubhouse, and I have no problem with being banned from a church.

[italiangm]

Quote by: againstthewind I have a question, what about those who aren't Christians or people of faith condemning gay marriage? Automatically the assumption you share with moralizing bigots must be people of faith namely monotheistic faith who deem homosexuality sinful. Please elaborate (I'm sure you will indulge us)

Quite frankly, no one has been able to produce a valid secular argument against gay marriage. And believe me, we've heard them all in this never-ending thread.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: againstthewind I like your post, thanks for sharing it with us Marilyn Monroe

You're welcome! :)

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint It isn't a question of homosexuals simply demanding the right, it is a matter of making sure the law complies with the underlying concept that makes this country work: that all people are equal under the law. A concept that is spelled out in both the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, in statements such as, "All men are created equal," and "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, the right is already there: homosexuals have the right to be treated equally under the law. If heterosexuals have the right to marry the person of their choice, then homosexuals should have equal rights. And marriage, as you define it (1 man + 1 woman, not 2 men or 2 women) is a religious concept, and as such has no place in government at all. Either all people have the right to marry whoever they want, or congress is making a law respecting an establishment of religion and restricting the free exercise thereof -- which is unconstitutional. (I should note that Dirty Name argues that marrriage benefits are offered to heterosexuals because it is in the state's interest to promote nuclear families, and that there is no discrimination because every individual has the same right: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Of course, he can't prove any of the underlying assumptions, and so his rhetoric is worthless in the end.)

1) Where do you find a right to marriage in the Constitution?
2) Why can't the government regulate who or what a person may marry, while still allowing the general right to marry?
Even if you find or justify a right to marriage, the right could just as easily be for a person to marry another person of the opposite sex, or to marry within apt government regulation, just as the right to bear arms is subjecft to restrictions such that I do not have the right to own a nuclear missile.
This may sound like the classic "slippery slope argument" on gay marriage, but if the government cannot regulate marriage in the fashion of who a person may marry, than a government could not regulate that a person even has to marry within his or her own species.
Otherwise, you discriminate based on "special preference."

[TheNeutralClaim]

The slippery slope argument has no real standing in this debate. Consider the example of marrying outside you're species; that would be possible except that in order to get married one has to be able to understand and sign a legal contract, since I know of no animals (aside from man) that are capable of even comprehending of the idea of marriage, I seriously doubt the validity of the slippery slope argument. (sorry if this has been posted before as I just skipped to the last page)


To Fangrim, comparing the regulation of firearms and homosexual marriage is just preposterous. The government (U.S.A) regulates firearms because of their lethality to people as individuals, the same cannot be said about homosexual marriage. Additionally firearm sales are regulated against people by condition(for example you're mentally handicapped so you cannot legally own a firearm) not by people's sex.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: TheNeutralClaim The slippery slope argument has no real standing in this debate. Consider the example of marrying outside you're species; that would be possible except that in order to get married one has to be able to understand and sign a legal contract, since I know of no animals (aside from man) that are capable of even comprehending of the idea of marriage, I seriously doubt the validity of the slippery slope argument. (sorry if this has been posted before as I just skipped to the last page) To Fangrim, comparing the regulation of firearms and homosexual marriage is just preposterous. The government (U.S.A) regulates firearms because of their lethality to people as individuals, the same cannot be said about homosexual marriage. Additionally firearm sales are regulated against people by condition(for example you're mentally handicapped so you cannot legally own a firearm) not by people's sex.

This variation of the slippery slope argument is perfectly valid because it focuses on equal rights protection, not the simply moral indignation that might arise from a man wanting to marry an ostrich. This is not a moral issue that I address, it is a Constitutional issue.
A pro-Gay marriage poster previously said that individuals have the right to marry whom they wish. I respond that they only have that right as permitted and regulated by the government, that the right only outlines marrying individuals of the opposite sex.
If marriage is redefined as a right to marry whomever a person chooses that must be protected by the law, than there is no possible way for the government to regulate what a person chooses to marry. In this way, all regulations and conditions on marriage that would infringe on a person's right to marry another thing would be unconstitutional because it infringes on the equal protection clause. The government would be forced by constitutional law to allow marriage for whatever a person chooses. Marriage benefits would be a complete joke.
The government has a clear prerogative and authority to regulate rights such that they may have specific conditions, procedure, and entitlements, just as in the right to arms. Regardless of the objective of regulating the right to arms - such that even if regulating the right to arms applies to prevent murder, and the right ot marriage to prevent Christian moral outrage, this will still apply - it is clear that the government may set outlines of constitutional rights such that they are not bastardized by the equal protection clause. An individual who wishes to own a nuclear missile could very well appeal to the equal protection clause, with the justification that he is being prevented from bearing the arm of his choosing rather than bearing an arm prescribed by the law. This is the same logic used for gay-marriage.

Affirming gay-marriage through the equal protection clause is a bastardization of all constitutional rights by completely nullifying all of the Government's capacity to regulate those rights.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim 1) Where do you find a right to marriage in the Constitution?

I don't. Does that mean nobody should be married under the law?

Quote by: Fangrim 2) Why can't the government regulate who or what a person may marry, while still allowing the general right to marry?

It can. It cannot, however, provide benefits to one group without granting all other groups fair and equal access, unless there is a valid reason for such discrimination. I don't believe there is a valid reason in this case. Either homosexuals should be allowed the marriage benefits, or nobody should.

Quote by: Fangrim Even if you find or justify a right to marriage, the right could just as easily be for a person to marry another person of the opposite sex, or to marry within apt government regulation, just as the right to bear arms is subjecft to restrictions such that I do not have the right to own a nuclear missile. This may sound like the classic "slippery slope argument" on gay marriage, but if the government cannot regulate marriage in the fashion of who a person may marry, than a government could not regulate that a person even has to marry within his or her own species. Otherwise, you discriminate based on "special preference."

Animals don't have rights, and so discriminating against an animal be removing its right to marry is a contradiction in terms. Otherwise, provided there are not legal issues with the ability of one person or another to consent to the marriage, I see no problem with allowing any two people the same opportunity to marry as anyone else. We all get the same rights: that's the way this works.

Tell me the valid reasons why homosexuals should be denied the right to marry.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim This variation of the slippery slope argument is perfectly valid because it focuses on equal rights protection, not the simply moral indignation that might arise from a man wanting to marry an ostrich. This is not a moral issue that I address, it is a Constitutional issue. A pro-Gay marriage poster previously said that individuals have the right to marry whom they wish. I respond that they only have that right as permitted and regulated by the government, that the right only outlines marrying individuals of the opposite sex. If marriage is redefined as a right to marry whomever a person chooses that must be protected by the law, than there is no possible way for the government to regulate what a person chooses to marry. In this way, all regulations and conditions on marriage that would infringe on a person's right to marry another thing would be unconstitutional because it infringes on the equal protection clause. The government would be forced by constitutional law to allow marriage for whatever a person chooses. Marriage benefits would be a complete joke. The government has a clear prerogative and authority to regulate rights such that they may have specific conditions, procedure, and entitlements, just as in the right to arms. Regardless of the objective of regulating the right to arms - such that even if regulating the right to arms applies to prevent murder, and the right ot marriage to prevent Christian moral outrage, this will still apply - it is clear that the government may set outlines of constitutional rights such that they are not bastardized by the equal protection clause. An individual who wishes to own a nuclear missile could very well appeal to the equal protection clause, with the justification that he is being prevented from bearing the arm of his choosing rather than bearing an arm prescribed by the law. This is the same logic used for gay-marriage. Affirming gay-marriage through the equal protection clause is a bastardization of all constitutional rights by completely nullifying all of the Government's capacity to regulate those rights.

Everyone has the same right to marry a person that he or she loves. Heterosexuals currently have this right. Homosexuals do not. That is unfair discrimination. It is a question of equal access, not equal outcome. Dirty Name argues that everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that this is therefore equal access; if we had no emotions, this would make sense. Unfortunately, we do in fact have feelings, and most of us do care who we marry, so the chance to marry for love does in fact have an effect on us.

Animals are not included because it takes two to swear marriage vows, and last time I checked, a pig's word would not hold up in court. I can go swear to love, honor, and cherish a pig as much as I want, but the pig and I aren't married until the pig says "I do," and means it.

So no, gay marriage (once again) will not lead to bestiality. :rolleyes:

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Everyone has the same right to marry a person that he or she loves. Heterosexuals currently have this right. Homosexuals do not. That is unfair discrimination. It is a question of equal access, not equal outcome. Dirty Name argues that everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that this is therefore equal access; if we had no emotions, this would make sense. Unfortunately, we do in fact have feelings, and most of us do care who we marry, so the chance to marry for love does in fact have an effect on us. Animals are not included because it takes two to swear marriage vows, and last time I checked, a pig's word would not hold up in court. I can go swear to love, honor, and cherish a pig as much as I want, but the pig and I aren't married until the pig says "I do," and means it. So no, gay marriage (once again) will not lead to bestiality. :rolleyes:

Claiming that we all have the right to marry whom we love is absurd. This is in no way a fundamental right of any person, nor even a significant right, nor even a minimal right. There is no obligation of the government to protect our right to marry. The government does not provide marriage ceremonies, it does not subsidize marriage costs to allow poor people to marry, it does not provide date services to allow socially inept people to court others for marriage. The right to marry "someone you love" is in no way a government protected-right.

From your criticism of my post, it appears that you actually miss the very point of it.
Yes, I support equal access, but only in the context of what that access should be. People shouldn't have equal access to their favorite weapon like an atomic bomb; they are restricted to government approved weaponry.
In this exact manner, people do not need equal access to their preferred partner, whether it be one of the same sex, an animal of a different species, or even a rock. They are restricted to government approved marriages. Of course, the government does not prevent conventional unions between same-sex couples; they may live together and interact with each other as they wish. But the government does not have an obligation to protect their right to marry their preferred partners; the right to marriage is not defined in this manner, it is instead a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as it is not a right to marry any living animal, or the right to marry any existing object.
Further, simply because it is currently impossible to marry an ostrich does not void its consititutional gravity. If a regulation or restriction of a right infringes on a person's right to equal protection, those restrictions are unconstitutional. This is seen in the unconstitutionality of poll taxes, which infringed on the poor's right to vote. Thus, if gay-marriage is affirmed, and marriage is redefined, there is nothing the government can do to restrict marriage to the bounds of even the same species; for such a restriction, under your proposed new guidelines, would infringe on the right of a person to marry a particularly loved dog. The incapability for a dog to sign a marriage agreement would be null, since such a restriction on marriage would be a violation of your proposed redefiniton of the right to marriage.

It is clear that using the equal protection clause in this manner is a bastardization of rights, completely incapacitating the government to regulate any right because of a jarring shift in the criterion for that right to exist at all.

[againstthewind]

Some things are absolute. Absolute truth, and marriage is absolutely one man + one woman= marriage, anything else is perversion.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Claiming that we all have the right to marry whom we love is absurd. This is in no way a fundamental right of any person, nor even a significant right, nor even a minimal right. There is no obligation of the government to protect our right to marry. The government does not provide marriage ceremonies, it does not subsidize marriage costs to allow poor people to marry, it does not provide date services to allow socially inept people to court others for marriage. The right to marry "someone you love" is in no way a government protected-right.

The right to marry anyone is not in any way a government-protected right. Nothing about this is about fundamental rights, significant rights, nor minimal rights; marriage as recognized by the state is only and ever a privilege. There is no reason why a marriage needs to be recognized by the state -- so none of us have the right to marry anyone.

Are you arguing, therefore, that marriage should be entirely abolished as a government-sanctioned state? I have no problem with that, frankly.

Quote by: Fangrim From your criticism of my post, it appears that you actually miss the very point of it. Yes, I support equal access, but only in the context of what that access should be. People shouldn't have equal access to their favorite weapon like an atomic bomb; they are restricted to government approved weaponry.

I agree. Logical and Constitutional restrictions on government powers are all fine and good.

Quote by: Fangrim In this exact manner, people do not need equal access to their preferred partner, whether it be one of the same sex, an animal of a different species, or even a rock. They are restricted to government approved marriages. Of course, the government does not prevent conventional unions between same-sex couples; they may live together and interact with each other as they wish. But the government does not have an obligation to protect their right to marry their preferred partners; the right to marriage is not defined in this manner, it is instead a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as it is not a right to marry any living animal, or the right to marry any existing object.

Clearly if a same-sex couple cannot be married in the eyes of the law they cannot interact "in any way they wish." Yet the heterosexual couple can. The way it stands now, the heterosexual citizen has the ability to enter into a government sanctioned contract with a person he or she loves, and the homosexual does not. The government is in essence restricting the selection criteria for a marriage, telling the citizen who he or she can and cannot marry; because of those restrictions, some citizens are blocked from entering into the contract with the party of their choice, and others are not so blocked. Can you explain how that is fair and equal access?

Why is marriage necessarily the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? Why is it acceptable for government to recognize only those marriages and not others? What makes those marriages good and other marriages bad? The limitations on governmental restrictions of our rights must be both logical and Constitutional, or they are not reasonable limitations. What is your justification for the government's sanctioning only of heterosexual unions?

Quote by: Fangrim Further, simply because it is currently impossible to marry an ostrich does not void its consititutional gravity. If a regulation or restriction of a right infringes on a person's right to equal protection, those restrictions are unconstitutional. This is seen in the unconstitutionality of poll taxes, which infringed on the poor's right to vote. Thus, if gay-marriage is affirmed, and marriage is redefined, there is nothing the government can do to restrict marriage to the bounds of even the same species; for such a restriction, under your proposed new guidelines, would infringe on the right of a person to marry a particularly loved dog. The incapability for a dog to sign a marriage agreement would be null, since such a restriction on marriage would be a violation of your proposed redefiniton of the right to marriage.

Allow me to say this again: marriage, as it is now and as it would be under the proposed changes, is a contract between two people, both of sound mind, who are capable of understanding and honoring such a contract. Since the dog cannot understand the contract, cannot agree to it nor honor it, and cannot sign the license, the man cannot marry the dog. He can call the dog his wife, or he can call himself the dog's bitch, but he cannot marry it unless it can sign the document and say "I do." Therefore there is no possible way that bestiality could be a constitutionally defensible form of marriage, because nobody has the "right" to marry someone that cannot legally consent to the marriage. Nor does the argument for gay marriage open the door to that, since gay marriage also would be a contract between two consenting adults.

Quote by: Fangrim It is clear that using the equal protection clause in this manner is a bastardization of rights, completely incapacitating the government to regulate any right because of a jarring shift in the criterion for that right to exist at all.

Saying it is clear doesn't make it so. You are not right about the marrying of animals, sir -- marriage requires two consenting adults, and there's no way to ignore that. I await your explanation of the logical and Constitutional rationale behind the granting of marriage recognition to heterosexuals and the denial of it to homosexuals.

[RickSp]

Quote by: againstthewind Some things are absolute. Absolute truth, and marriage is absolutely one man + one woman= marriage, anything else is perversion.

My vodka is Absolut.

Funny, I grew up hearing the crackers talk about race mixing the way you talk about gay marriage - it was perversion pure and simple to let black men (not the phrase they used, come to think of it) marry white women.

As the French say, the more things change... Perhaps only bigotry is eternal.

[Dirty Name]

Quite frankly, no one has been able to produce a valid secular argument against gay marriage.

Ignorance is bliss. Whatever you do, don't click the link in my signature.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Ignorance is bliss. Whatever you do, don't click the link in my signature.

What's funny is that you think your assumptions have traction in the real world.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: TheNeutralClaim the same cannot be said about homosexual marriage.

Ah, but the same could easily be said of who qualifies for unemployment benefits, crop subsidies, welfare, and any number of government programs / benefits.

The question still stands regardless of your flippant dismissal of the gun analogy.

[Dirty Name]

What's funny is that you think your assumptions have traction in the real world.

What's funny is that you think your 3% minority is a reflection of the real world.

Quote by: Fangrim If marriage is redefined as a right to marry whomever a person chooses that must be protected by the law, than there is no possible way for the government to regulate what a person chooses to marry.

There you go, pinning down the gay rights crowd and trying to force them to answer the ultimate question.

Funny thing though, they won't give you consistent answers. Half of them will tell you it's OK to discriminate against a bunch of other minority groups (with a laundry list of complaints about them and why it's not the same as discriminating against same-sex couples), the other half will tell you that "anything goes" should be OK and that government should get out of the marriage business.

At the end of the day, the pro-marriage crowd is forced to defend against a "chameleon argument" that changes depending on the point they are arguing, while at the same time fighting off baseless accusations of bigotry and hatred (a sure sign of a weak argument if ever there was one).

Best of all, the secular case against gay marriage forces them into a corner where they trot out appeals to emotion based on lesbians impregnating themselves with turkey basters and how that somehow equates to a committed heterosexual relationship.

Keep trying, though. God knows I've been in here hammering away at these people for almost two years now. The good news is that some of them are starting to finally acknowledge that a secular argument exists, even if they don't agree with it. But some, like italiangm, are so militant and angry about their homosexual plight they resort to insults as you can read above.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name What's funny is that you think your 3% minority is a reflection of the real world.

You mean 4-6% dontcha? The range has been cross-tabulated with the census, marriage rolls, and subscription databases to various publications, yanno.

According to those that use homosexuals as a scapegoat to raise money, very much real. And desired. Apparently all the other suspects weren't paying off any more.

Quote by: Dirty Name But some, like italiangm, are so militant and angry about their homosexual plight they resort to insults as you can read above.

Honey, you haven't seen militant or angry yet. LOL!

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name There you go, pinning down the gay rights crowd and trying to force them to answer the ultimate question.

Hey, speaking of pinning down and forcing an answer to a question . . .

Can you prove that the marriage benefits offered to heterosexual couples by the government actually provide the benefits to society you claim they do? Can you even come close to proving something as amorphous as "a benefit to society?"

Quote by: Dirty Name Funny thing though, they won't give you consistent answers. Half of them will tell you it's OK to discriminate against a bunch of other minority groups (with a laundry list of complaints about them and why it's not the same as discriminating against same-sex couples), the other half will tell you that "anything goes" should be OK and that government should get out of the marriage business.

I'm willing to keep government in the marriage business if you can prove to me that there's any reason for the government to be in the marriage business in the first place. Can ya? Huh? Can ya?

Quote by: Dirty Name At the end of the day, the pro-marriage crowd is forced to defend against a "chameleon argument" that changes depending on the point they are arguing, while at the same time fighting off baseless accusations of bigotry and hatred (a sure sign of a weak argument if ever there was one).

Funny, it feels to me like I've been asking you exactly the same question for more than a year now, without ever getting a straight answer. The first time I asked it, you vanished for 6 months; by the time you came back I had left for an even longer time, and now that we've both been on this board more or less for the last 5 months, you simply stopped acknowledging my existence.

Do you have me on ignore? Because that, more than anything, is the sure sign of a weak argument: that you won't even argue it.

Quote by: Dirty Name