Homosexual Marriage

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: fushigi;378163 [quote ]Actually, black homosexuals WERE.

They weren't picked out for being homosexual, they were picked for their strength probably more than anything.

According to your logic, black homosexuals should be allowed to marry whomever they choose, but not white ones.

I don't know where you got that from. Interracial marriage has always been between a man and a woman, I wasn't talking about homosexual interracial couples.

[fushigi]

I don't get it. Straight blacks should be allowed to marry whites because their ancestors were forced to come here, but gay blacks shouldn't?

I thought your point was that they suffered, and therefore should be compensated by being given equal rights.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Homosexuality is different than being black, and the comparison is apples and oranges. Homosexuals were not forced to come here on boats, and work for people they didn't know.

LOL. So if gay people ride the Staten Island Ferry to work and are employed by non-acquaintances, then they can marry?

The amusing thing about this sort of bias is that the arguments used to justify them never make sense.

The comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to laws which currently ban gay marriage is hardly apples and oranges.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp The comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to laws which currently ban gay marriage is hardly apples and oranges.

LOL Are you black?

There were laws in a few states up until the 60's that had those
miscegenation laws, but I would guess you could go to a state that allowed interracial marriage, and then you'd be legal. I have a friend who is close to 60 and he is half white, half black and always lived in Tennessee. His parents were married.They had like 10 kids. Actually I have a number of mixed friends that are in their 50's and their parents were married.

What does that have to do with slavery? Slavery was a gazillion times harder than being gay and wanting to get married. I know blacks that are offended by this comparison.

[TheNeutralClaim]

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. 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.

To Fangrim, please consider the issue of blacks and equality. When the black people where granted legal equality, by you're logic the same slippery slope argument could be applied as to whether or not animals deserve the exact same treatment as people even though they are not capable of interaction on the same level as humans.

Clearly this is an absured notion to all but the most radical animal rights activists.

My point however, still stands as to the fact that the goverment successfully regulates the legal equality of people vs. animals even though a group of people previously with out this right has obtained it. The right it self still exists and is subject to government regulation (animals dont have the same rights as people).

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: fushigi I don't get it. Straight blacks should be allowed to marry whites because their ancestors were forced to come here, but gay blacks shouldn't? I thought your point was that they suffered, and therefore should be compensated by being given equal rights.

Are you gay?

I'm not getting what you're talking about.:eek:

[Scoobydoo]

Coffeesaint

you said that under teh Constitution, homosexuals already have the right to marry, because heterosexuals do. Does that also mean that any person, under the Constitution cna marry anyone or anything he pleases. How would you draw the line if a man wanted to marry his mother? Sick, I know, but in your premise, wouldnt it be their 'right' ?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Scoobydoo Coffeesaint you said that under teh Constitution, homosexuals already have the right to marry, because heterosexuals do. Does that also mean that any person, under the Constitution cna marry anyone or anything he pleases. How would you draw the line if a man wanted to marry his mother? Sick, I know, but in your premise, wouldnt it be their 'right' ?

Actually, I don't think anyone has the right to marry. I do think that every citizen has the right to pursue the same privileges offered to some citizens. So if the government is going to recognize any marriage between consenting adults, it should recognize every marriage between consenting adults.

So I wouldn't draw the line at marrying mothers. What's wrong with marrying your mother? More importantly, why is that up to me? Why does it affect me in any way, any more than any other marriage?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe LOL Are you black? There were laws in a few states up until the 60's that had those miscegenation laws, but I would guess you could go to a state that allowed interracial marriage, and then you'd be legal. I have a friend who is close to 60 and he is half white, half black and always lived in Tennessee. His parents were married.They had like 10 kids. Actually I have a number of mixed friends that are in their 50's and their parents were married. What does that have to do with slavery? Slavery was a gazillion times harder than being gay and wanting to get married. I know blacks that are offended by this comparison.

I compared the anti-miscegenation laws to the current ban on gay marriage. I think that it is a fair comparison. You were the only one who mentioned slavery. I didn't.

When the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs Virginia in 1967, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books in 38 states. More than "few states" that you suggested.

And no. I am not black. Just a white kid who grew up in the South during the Civil Rights era and was more impressed with Martin Luther King than with the redneck bigots I saw all around me.

[Scoobydoo]

"WHat's wrong with marrying your mother anyways?"

it's sick for one thing..I guess I thought that was a given..

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp I compared the anti-miscegenation laws to the current ban on gay marriage. I think that it is a fair comparison. You were the only one who mentioned slavery. I didn't. When the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs Virginia in 1967, anti-miscegenation laws were on the books in 38 states. More than "few states" that you suggested. And no. I am not black. Just a white kid who grew up in the South during the Civil Rights era and was more impressed with Martin Luther King than with the redneck bigots I saw all around me.

Was it a law that was actually abided by because I know a lot of folks who had mixed parents that were married.

Good for you and MLK. Nobody's perfect don't forget that. We are all human beings, flesh and blood.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Scoobydoo "WHat's wrong with marrying your mother anyways?" it's sick for one thing..I guess I thought that was a given..

That's one of the big problems with all this stuff it's anesthesizing us to what's right and wrong.

Why should we care about anything?

We're a Prozac nation.:eek:

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint 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?"

If they don't, then the entire liberal philosophy is about to come crashing down. Bye-bye welfare. Bye-bye food stamps.

The idea is pretty straightforward and logical: Financial benefits help the recipient - in this case, a heterosexual couple with the potential for pregnancy - and in turn, those recipients are less likely to become burdens on society.

The question becomes - where do you draw the line? And as I have always answered, you draw it in the most obvious place: one man and one woman. It need not be more complex than that.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: TheNeutralClaim To Fangrim, please consider the issue of blacks and equality. When the black people where granted legal equality, by you're logic the same slippery slope argument could be applied as to whether or not animals deserve the exact same treatment as people even though they are not capable of interaction on the same level as humans. Clearly this is an absured notion to all but the most radical animal rights activists. My point however, still stands as to the fact that the goverment successfully regulates the legal equality of people vs. animals even though a group of people previously with out this right has obtained it. The right it self still exists and is subject to government regulation (animals dont have the same rights as people).

Oh almighty Russian comrade; and Coffeesaint as well, I think.

You overstep the very issue we are debating.
I have repeatedly accepted and supported equal access to the same right, without arbitrary discrimination.
I do not support redefining that right so that additional groups of people may abuse the equal protection clause and bastardize government regulation of rights in general.

Your comparison of gay marriage to black equality does not hold because it does not distuingish between equal access to a particular right, and the institution of a different right altogether.
For example, giving blacks the right to vote gave them equal access to that right without redefining what that right was, and is a suitable extension of the equal protection clause, part of the 14th Amendment which protected blacks' right to vote.

Giving gays the right to marry, however, constitutes a redefinition of the right of marriage. It would not be "giving equal access" of the right to marriage to homosexuals. It would be redefining marriage in a way that homosexuals would prefer. As it stands, homosexuals do have the right to marry: just not people of the same sex. Even a gay man can marry a lesbian woman, and thus homosexuals do have the individual right to marriage, and garner any of the benefits that come with that marriage. They simply do not have the right to marry a person of their choosing that is outside the very parameters of that right: the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Appealing to the equal protection clause in this debate is a bastardization of equal protection and the rights that it protects because gay marriage seeks to fundamentally undermine rights themselves. We should give equal protection of the laws, yes, but that equal protection, of course, only protects rights as they are; it does not change rights. Simply because I want to own a nuclear missile does not change regulation of the right to bear arms; I cannot appeal to the equal protection clause because I already am given equal protection of the law and equal access to my right to bear arms within the restrictions and regulations of the United States. This regulation is not unconstitutional simply because it does not allow me to bear the particular arm that I wish, or because it doesn't allow me to bear arms in any particular way; I still have that right, and my rights are still protected, because I do not have the right to bear my favorite weapon in the whole wide world because nuclear missiles, or laser and gatling guns, or chemical gases, are "awesome." I don't have the right to marry a loved one, or a loved ostrich, or a loved tomato plant named Toby, or a loved rock. I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else in this country, even homosexuals.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Scoobydoo "WHat's wrong with marrying your mother anyways?" it's sick for one thing..I guess I thought that was a given..

Hmm... there's something vaguely subjective about the term "sick."

[Dirty Name]

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?

This is what I mean by "chameleon argument." On one hand, you argue in favor of government recognition of gay marriage, while on the other hand, you argue for the abolition of marriage as a government recognized institution.

Why don't you tell me exactly why gays want marriage benefits. Spare me the cry for equality. I've shown repeatedly that gay couples do not have the same needs as heterosexual couples - the best you can possibly do is the lesbians with turkey-basters argument. Even if they were equal (and they aren't), why do same-sex couples WANT the benefits?

I ask this because you are advocating a position that demands government recognition and benefits, while at the same time claiming that government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

Your argument is so inconsistent that it's often hard to keep up with your logical gymnastics.

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.

See above for my reasons for ignoring you on ocassion.

I ask that you prove exactly what you have argued: show me how the marriage benefits offered by the government have had a measurable positive effect on the children of those heterosexual unions, and thus have done good things for this society. Prove it.

Again, I point to welfare programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other government subsidies - yes, even marriage. If they don't benefit society at large, why do we bother?

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Thanks for the encouragement. I will keep trying, and someday, by God, I'll get an answer or I'll show everyone you try to bully how you can do nothing but act like a smug little weasel when I ask you to simply prove your own argument.

Mark it down as a Red Letter Day for CoffeeSaint. I finally validated his existence on Volconvo.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Fangrim You overstep the very issue we are debating. I have repeatedly accepted and supported equal access to the same right, without arbitrary discrimination. I do not support redefining that right so that additional groups of people may abuse the equal protection clause and bastardize government regulation of rights in general.

My hat is off to you. I've been fighting this battle for two years now and that is one of the more articulate responses I have seen on this absurd charge of bigotry and the attempt to link the gay marriage battle to the fight against interracial marriage.

There is no comparison whatsoever.

[TheNeutralClaim]

Quote by: Fangrim Oh almighty Russian comrade; and Coffeesaint as well, I think. You overstep the very issue we are debating. I have repeatedly accepted and supported equal access to the same right, without arbitrary discrimination. I do not support redefining that right so that additional groups of people may abuse the equal protection clause and bastardize government regulation of rights in general.

Correct me if I am wrong but if you look up the definition of marriage it says that same sex couples can be married. I don't know if this has any real relevance in this debate but its just something thats interesting.

You claim that you don't support "redefining" a right so as to fit an additional group of people. If we are going by the legal definition (as such something found in the constitution) then by all means the right to vote was redefined to include blacks and women, in fact I believe you guys had to amend the constitution it self to redefine the right to vote.

Additionally redefining a right as to include more people does not "bastardize" the right, if anything it gives the right more power as it applies to more people. The government is free to regulate the right just as the government regulates voting.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: TheNeutralClaim Correct me if I am wrong but if you look up the definition of marriage it says that same sex couples can be married. I don't know if this has any real relevance in this debate but its just something thats interesting. You claim that you don't support "redefining" a right so as to fit an additional group of people. If we are going by the legal definition (as such something found in the constitution) then by all means the right to vote was redefined to include blacks and women, in fact I believe you guys had to amend the constitution it self to redefine the right to vote. Additionally redefining a right as to include more people does not "bastardize" the right, if anything it gives the right more power as it applies to more people. The government is free to regulate the right just as the government regulates voting.

MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.Legal Definition of Marriage
And, in a court case:
The definition of `marriage' is derived from a case from the State of Washington, Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1191-92 (Wash. App. 1974); that definition--a `legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife'--has found its way into the standard law dictionary. Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


Not at all. The right to vote was in no way redefined. All that is entailed within the voting process was kept intact in the additional application of that right to blacks, and then women.
The right to vote was not redefined, it was simply recognized as the right of additional groups of people. In the case of gay-marriage, however, we do recognize gays to marry, only not with those of the same sex. They do have the same right as heterosexuals: the difference lies in their willingness to use that right. Simply because a person is given a right that they do not wish to use does not render that right unjust. A person is given the right to bear arms; this does not mean a man who wants to bear deadly poison-needle cacti-weaponry is being infringed simply because the restrictions and very definition of that right do not allow for such plant weaponry, or nuclear missiles.

Redefining rights does bastardize their very existence because it completely opens the door to any form of appeal to equal protection. Redefining rights because it does not provide for equality in some constitutionally arbitrary criterion - like the right to marry someone you love - creates a general, substantive validity to any criterion for equality a person could come up with in appeal to equal protection. The next obvious step is for a person to declare he is being discriminated against because he cannot marry his dog, because he believes we all have the right to marry any living thing that we love.
With the twisting and bastardization of the equal protection clause created by redefining rights based on constitutionally arbitrary criteria, he would actually have that right under the now warped clause's power, because the new restrictions on the right to marriage violates this new criterion of marriage rights.
Then, a woman wishes to marry her pet rock, and she would be validated by the equal protection clause.

Redefinition of rights using the equal protection clause fundamentally destroys the very concept of rights under our Constitution.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Scoobydoo "WHat's wrong with marrying your mother anyways?" it's sick for one thing..I guess I thought that was a given..

Given to you. I happen to agree. But for both of us, that is a subjective morality, and thus not any reasonable basis for laws.

Same thing with heterosexual/homosexual.