Homosexual Marriage

[againstthewind]

Marriage is a sacred institution created by God even before the church, as the family goes so does society. The only hope for our nation is to get back to the Lord Jesus Christ

[Hmm]

Quote by: againstthewind Marriage is a sacred institution created by God even before the church, as the family goes so does society. The only hope for our nation is to get back to the Lord Jesus Christ

Can you justify your opinion with something other than a fairy tale?

[againstthewind]

Of course you would say that, it doesn't surprise me. Look where the family is compared to the place it used to occupy. Family is sacred and now they are nothing, just an impediment to success. Of course you would not see it when you are looking at the Bible as if it's something to be read only on Sunday.

[Heather]

Quote by: Dirty Name And I have argued that it's not actually progress at all, that it will in fact harm the institution of marriage in the same manner that allowing people to print counterfeit $50 bills harms the legitimate ones in your wallet.

What if Thomas Edison didn't bother to make progress on his light bulb until it actually worked right? What if we all tried everything once, shrugged our shoulders and said, eh... good enough. Would this satisfy you?

It's because of progress and re-examining the things around us that we as humans have accomplished as much as we have. It would be ashame if we stopped now.

Quote by: Fangrim Then let us bastardize our rights and "progress" right over to marrying dogs and rocks...

This is an argument I’ve heard my mother tell. I have yet to understand its logical basis. A rock and a dog are not humans. Do you think that if someone falls in love with someone of the same sex that means that other people may be at risk of falling in love with a rock or a dog? Give people more credit. You’re making it sound as though there are enough people in this world to make the desire of marrying a rock or a dog a reasonable prospect of occurring making it a real issue for concern.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Fangrim Then let us bastardize our rights and "progress" right over to marrying dogs and rocks...

I would LOVE to see a dog or a rock sign a marriage license actually! Now THAT is entertainment!

[Fangrim]

Quote by: fushigi Dirty Name / Fangrim, Question for you two--not an ironic one, merely seeking an answer to a pesky question. You say the 14th Amendment already provides equal rights under the law for gays to marry--so long as they're marrying someone of the opposite gender. However, why wasn't this argument used to prevent mixed race marriages in the US? After all, blacks could marry anyone they wanted--so long as they were black. Troublesome question here. According to your logic there, Americans could have been denied the right to interracial marriage. fushigi

Those actions that prevented blacks from marrying whites were unconstituional, or at least illegal.
Laws that prohibited such marriages were wholly invalid by the defintion of marriage, which has no restrictions based on race.

The states acted out of bounds in prohibiting inter-racial marraiges, I'm with you there. They interfered with the right to marriage, which need only be of opposite sexes, not same races.

[Fangrim]

To the people who responded to my brief ridicule of gay marraige rights: Mozart1220, Heather, Nikkums.

I had previously given an in-depth analysis as to why redefining marriage, or any right, bastardizes those rights and their enforcement.

Quote by: Fangrim 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.

Homosexual Marriage
Additional posts:Homosexual Marriage
Homosexual Marriage

Regardless of whether dogs are capable of signing marriage contracts, such a necessity as that would be rendered unconstitutional using the Equal Protection Clause should marriage be redefined, just as the poll tax was rendered unconstitutional because it infringed the the poor's right to vote.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Regardless of whether dogs are capable of signing marriage contracts, such a necessity as that would be rendered unconstitutional using the Equal Protection Clause should marriage be redefined, just as the poll tax was rendered unconstitutional because it infringed the the poor's right to vote.

Is there any reason to believe that marriage will cease to be a contract between consenting adults? That one person's agreement will be enough to constrain another?

Is there any reason to think that animals, or rocks, will gain legal personhood status in the future?

Is there any reason to think that some people will want legal recognition of marriage involving a dog or a rock?

If the answer to any or all of these is No, why is this part of the discussion?

[RickSp]

Gee, Fangrin your argument didn't make sense the first time. Repeating yourself doesn't add much.

Your existing rights versus new rights argument is just silly. Rights are subject to interpretation. It was illegal for gay folks to have sex in many states until only four years ago when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy statutes. Their rights were redefined with a single ruling. If one is judged by one's actions, in a real sense, it was illegal to be homosexual in many states prior to 2003. Now gay folks are no longer criminals in their own bedrooms.

The same applies to the all the anti-miscegenation laws prior to Loving vs Virginia in 1969. The arguments were remarkably similar to your foolish "if gay people are allowed to marry why not marry our pets" nonsense. The old bigots used to argue that blacks shouldn't marry whites for the same reason that dogs don't marry cats or men don't marry their dogs. The great thing about bigotry is that the arguments rarely change.

Slavery was a respected institution over most of human history. That is a true statement but it is not an argument for the continuation of slavery. Likewise, marriage may have been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That too is a true statement, and it also is not an argument against gay marriage.

Gay marriage is legal in much of Western Europe and Canada. Their cultures have not collapsed or for that matter changed measurably as result of gay marriage or civil unions. Homosexuals are a tiny minority in any culture. Treating this minority fairly is, well, only fair. Just part of liberty and justice for all. The absurd claims made by the anti-gay partisans are ludicrous and offensive. I cannot speak for them but I can say in my house tolerance is a traditional family value.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: RickSp Gee, Fangrin your argument didn't make sense the first time. Repeating yourself doesn't add much. Your existing rights versus new rights argument is just silly. Rights are subject to interpretation. It was illegal for gay folks to have sex in many states until only four years ago when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy statutes. Their rights were redefined with a single ruling. If one is judged by one's actions, in a real sense, it was illegal to be homosexual in many states prior to 2003. Now gay folks are no longer criminals in their own bedrooms. The same applies to the all the anti-miscegenation laws prior to Loving vs Virginia in 1969. The arguments were remarkably similar to your foolish "if gay people are allowed to marry why not marry our pets" nonsense. The old bigots used to argue that blacks shouldn't marry whites for the same reason that dogs don't marry cats or men don't marry their dogs. The great thing about bigotry is that the arguments rarely change. Slavery was a respected institution over most of human history. That is a true statement but it is not an argument for the continuation of slavery. Likewise, marriage may have been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That too is a true statement, and it also is not an argument against gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in much of Western Europe and Canada. Their cultures have not collapsed or for that matter changed measurably as result of gay marriage or civil unions. Homosexuals are a tiny minority in any culture. Treating this minority fairly is, well, only fair. Just part of liberty and justice for all. The absurd claims made by the anti-gay partisans are ludicrous and offensive. I cannot speak for them but I can say in my house tolerance is a traditional family value.

I don't know why you need to rely on claims of bigotry and intolerance to refute my post. If you're going to say that anti-gay marriage posts are absurd, perhaps you could illuminate the exact absurdities?

I've already addressed the slippery-slope ridicule, and further, I am not anti-gay. I believe gays have the same civil rights that we do. The same civil rights, meaning the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Simply because a gay person is not "serviced" in the same particular way by this right does not make the right unequal; it is only unequal in accordance to that constitutionally arbitrary criterion.

Your appeal to empirical evidence doesn't work, unless you'd like to provide documents that explicitly state that we once had the right to have sex only with persons of the opposite gender.
I provided the court case that explicity defined marriage as a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and also noted that gay marriage would be the first redefinition of that right, ever.
Unless you can show that any right has ever been redefined after having been set to legal definition, my case stands.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim I don't know why you need to rely on claims of bigotry and intolerance to refute my post. If you're going to say that anti-gay marriage posts are absurd, perhaps you could illuminate the exact absurdities?

I do not rely on claims of bigotry to "refute" your post. Is it a reading comprehension issue or did you just not read my post? Your bigotry is a separate issue.

Quote by: Fangrim I've already addressed the slippery-slope ridicule, and further, I am not anti-gay. I believe gays have the same civil rights that we do. The same civil rights, meaning the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Simply because a gay person is not "serviced" in the same particular way by this right does not make the right unequal; it is only unequal in accordance to that constitutionally arbitrary criterion.

That non-argument is so obviously stupid that I wonder why you raise it. (I note that you borrowed it from Dirty Name.) Your plagiarized suggestion that rights are equal because a gay person could marry someone who by definition they could not love, seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of marriage. Why even bother?

Quote by: Fangrim Your appeal to empirical evidence doesn't work, unless you'd like to provide documents that explicitly state that we once had the right to have sex only with persons of the opposite gender.

That sentence simply doesn't make sense, either grammatically or logically. If you are incapable of observing the world around you, that is your problem.

Quote by: Fangrim I provided the court case that explicity defined marriage as a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and also noted that gay marriage would be the first redefinition of that right, ever. Unless you can show that any right has ever been redefined after having been set to legal definition, my case stands.

Spare me your pomposity. I did indeed provide three examples of rights being "redefined after having been set to legal definition". I guess you didn't bother to read my post before this round of bloviation.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: RickSp That non-argument is so obviously stupid that I wonder why you raise it. (I note that you borrowed it from Dirty Name.) Your plagiarized suggestion that rights are equal because a gay person could marry someone who by definition they could not love, seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of marriage. Why even bother?

Somewhat ironic that you attack my non-argument by saying that I have a misunderstanding of the nature of marraige, and then don't even bother to explain what that misunderstanding is: a non-argument if I ever read one.
Nevertheless, I believe you are referring to the nature of marraige being that of a loving union? A person can marry another for any of a number reasons, love being one, but in addition to the simple economy of marriage, or politics, or religion, or tradition, or arrangement (arranged marriages, I mean). That last example would be a primary sign that love is not a fundamental aspect that defines what a marriage must constitute, not to mention that many couples can end up not loving each other but still stay married.
Regardless of why people get married, it doesn't change the fact that giving gays the right to marry each other constitutes a redefinition of that right. I hope we can agree on that much?

That sentence simply doesn't make sense, either grammatically or logically. If you are incapable of observing the world around you, that is your problem.

I see no grammatical error...maybe there is one, but I can't find it.
If you are incapable of conveying what I should be observing, than it is our problem, since it doesn't help a conversation or debate if one person refuses to even carry it on without assuming the other is a moron.

Spare me your pomposity. I did indeed provide three examples of rights being "redefined after having been set to legal definition". I guess you didn't bother to read my post before this round of bloviation.

I read your post, and I think it was very clear in what it said.
What it ignored, however, is that the "rights" you mentioned were not defined, anywhere. You did not define what the right of sex was, or the right to marry, or anything else.
Unless you provide legal documentation of what those rights actually were, regardless of whether a legislature tacked on unconstutional restrictions on those rights (as I view those other examples you gave as illegitimate infringement on civil rights), this particular direction of the debate can't proceed, because a state could very well ignore the definition of the rights it's supposed to protect, and thus make laws that infringe on those rights without explicitly redefining what those rights were.
That's why I asked you to give me the definition of the various rights examples that you listed.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Is there any reason to believe that marriage will cease to be a contract between consenting adults? That one person's agreement will be enough to constrain another? Is there any reason to think that animals, or rocks, will gain legal personhood status in the future? Is there any reason to think that some people will want legal recognition of marriage involving a dog or a rock? If the answer to any or all of these is No, why is this part of the discussion?

I don't give any reason to believe that these things will happen. The point is that all it takes is for one person to say their rights are being violated based on a constitutionally arbitrary criterion of what that right should be, and with this set as a precedent, the Equal Protection Clause would force all restrictions or regulations of that right that infringe on that criterion to be unconstitutional.
Thus, any requirements of contracts, or the personhood of the desired partner, or any other legal recognition necessary would be unconstitutional because it infringes on the civil right of this new-fangled marriage definition, just as poll taxes were rendered unconstitutional because it was a restriction that infringed on the poor's right to vote.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim Unless you provide legal documentation of what those rights actually were, regardless of whether a legislature tacked on unconstutional restrictions on those rights (as I view those other examples you gave as illegitimate infringement on civil rights), this particular direction of the debate can't proceed, because a state could very well ignore the definition of the rights it's supposed to protect, and thus make laws that infringe on those rights without explicitly redefining what those rights were.

"Unless you provide legal documentation of what those rights actually were." yadda yadda yadda.

You claim that gays cannot marry without a redefining of rights. I gave examples of how rights have been significantly redefined, and this response is the best you can manage? Now you are just becoming a pendantic bad joke. If you cannot argue the issues without sinking into this sort of florid foolishness, why bother?

[Hmm]

Quote by: againstthewind Of course you would say that, it doesn't surprise me. Look where the family is compared to the place it used to occupy. Family is sacred and now they are nothing, just an impediment to success. Of course you would not see it when you are looking at the Bible as if it's something to be read only on Sunday.

Why would you trust the bible to begin with?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: RickSp "Unless you provide legal documentation of what those rights actually were." yadda yadda yadda. You claim that gays cannot marry without a redefining of rights. I gave examples of how rights have been significantly redefined, and this response is the best you can manage? Now you are just becoming a pendantic bad joke. If you cannot argue the issues without sinking into this sort of florid foolishness, why bother?

Jesus Christ...

My point is that those rights were not redefined. They were unjustly enforced and protected for only certain groups, while denied to others by unjust legislatures and government leaders. The right stayed the same, but the protection was discriminatory. The right to marriage itself did not restrict marriage by race; that was a local decision that completely contradicted the right to marriage, and I'm glad that our right to marry regardless of race is now protected, because race was in no way a part of the right to marriage.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim Jesus Christ... My point is that those rights were not redefined. They were unjustly enforced and protected for only certain groups, while denied to others by unjust legislatures and government leaders. The right stayed the same, but the protection was discriminatory. The right to marriage itself did not restrict marriage by race; that was a local decision that completely contradicted the right to marriage, and I'm glad that our right to marry regardless of race is now protected, because race was in no way a part of the right to marriage.

You keep postulating a distinction without a difference. The argument is as pointless and meaningless as your silly claim that gays indeed have the right to marry, just not to those with whom they might have any interest in marrying. And the right to marry was indeed tied directly to race for several hundred years in this country.

As I suggested before your assertion that marriage has been traditionally a union between a man and a women is indeed true. It just isn't an argument that this is the only form that marriage can take.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim I don't give any reason to believe that these things will happen. The point is that all it takes is for one person to say their rights are being violated based on a constitutionally arbitrary criterion of what that right should be, and with this set as a precedent, the Equal Protection Clause would force all restrictions or regulations of that right that infringe on that criterion to be unconstitutional. Thus, any requirements of contracts, or the personhood of the desired partner, or any other legal recognition necessary would be unconstitutional because it infringes on the civil right of this new-fangled marriage definition, just as poll taxes were rendered unconstitutional because it was a restriction that infringed on the poor's right to vote.

So you're saying that we shouldn't redefine marriage to include homosexuals in accordance with their wishes, because some things that as far as we know will never happen might happen?

I see.

I'm going to say that I am perfectly willing to run the risk of allowing man-dog marriages and man-rock marriages, if it means that we allow people to marry who they want to. Can you give me a reason why man-dog marriages and man-rock marriages would be a bad idea?

[fushigi]

Quote by: Fangrim Those actions that prevented blacks from marrying whites were unconstituional, or at least illegal. Laws that prohibited such marriages were wholly invalid by the defintion of marriage, which has no restrictions based on race.

I don't see how restricting interracial marriage could be considered unconstitutional. Blacks weren't restricted from marrying at all! They were free to marry--each other.

fushigi

[fushigi]

Quote by: RickSp It was illegal for gay folks to have sex in many states until only four years ago when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy statutes.

Actually it WAS legal for gays to have sex, so long as it was with members of the opposite gender. According to Fangrim, they already enjoyed equal protection under the law.