Homosexual Marriage

[Mozart1220]

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

WE tried the long hair and sandals thing in the 60's. All we got was beat up.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: fushigi You just pulled that small thumbs thing right out of your butt, didn't you. I'm pretty sure "deficiency" means a significant disadvantage, like a cleft palette or mental retardation.I didn't mention rape--I was talking about sex of any kind. I'd be surprised, for example, if interracial sex didn't increase after mixed marriages were legalized.

I doubt it increased much, but more people felt free to admit it.

[fushigi]

We're off topic with this incest thing, folks. Let's stick to gay marriage.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: fushigi 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.

We'd need to see the actual legal words that would indicate what the definition of those rights were at the time. Otherwise, this part of the discussion is pointless.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint 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?

You say it yourself. "if it means that we allow people to marry who they want to."
The thing is, that "who" would be replaced by "what."
If you want a society like that, then go ahead and vie for homosexual marriage and redefinition of civil rights.

I personally have no opinion of man-dog and man-rock marriages. I don't care.
But I assume other people do care about such marriages, which is why I've been making argument and pointing out this effect. Up to others to decide if we still want homosexual marriage if it ends up bastardizing rights protection.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim We'd need to see the actual legal words that would indicate what the definition of those rights were at the time. Otherwise, this part of the discussion is pointless.

This legalistic nonsense gets old fast. If you are sufficiently uniformed on the topic at hand perhaps you should look up those references before wasting further bandwidth.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: RickSp This legalistic nonsense gets old fast. If you are sufficiently uniformed on the topic at hand perhaps you should look up those references before wasting further bandwidth.

It's not my job to prove your claims for you. Do that on your own.

I provided evidence for my claims.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim It's not my job to prove your claims for you. Do that on your own. I provided evidence for my claims.

LOL. You did what? Well, you do keep me laughing. It also appears that in addition to being uniformed, you are also too lazy to Google. Demanding pointless documentation for easily verifiable facts is very poor debating strategy. It is a transparent dodge that fools no one.

Thus far you have suggested that if gays are allowed to marry that we may all end up marrying our pets, an idiotic suggestion made several years ago by Rick Santorum. You also repeated Dirty Name's bizarre assertion that gays can marry, just not to those they love. All I have seen so far is plagiarism. You haven't broached a single original idea yet.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim You say it yourself. "if it means that we allow people to marry who they want to." The thing is, that "who" would be replaced by "what." If you want a society like that, then go ahead and vie for homosexual marriage and redefinition of civil rights. I personally have no opinion of man-dog and man-rock marriages. I don't care. But I assume other people do care about such marriages, which is why I've been making argument and pointing out this effect. Up to others to decide if we still want homosexual marriage if it ends up bastardizing rights protection.

Excellent; I'm glad to hear that we are in agreement. I do want a society where people are free to determine for themselves who, or what, they want to consider part of their family, without moralizing intervention from society's snobs. I have no particular problem with eliminating marriage benefits, so that all of these new and different marriages don't have to be a burden on the taxpayer, but for me, if the government is going to recognize and legitimize any marriages, then it should recognize all.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. You did what? Well, you do keep me laughing. It also appears that in addition to being uniformed, you are also too lazy to Google. Demanding pointless documentation for easily verifiable facts is very poor debating strategy. It is a transparent dodge that fools no one. Thus far you have suggested that if gays are allowed to marry that we may all end up marrying our pets, an idiotic suggestion made several years ago by Rick Santorum. You also repeated Dirty Name's bizarre assertion that gays can marry, just not to those they love. All I have seen so far is plagiarism. You haven't broached a single original idea yet.

The fact that you maintain that I have plagiarized these ideas only reveals the fact that you don't even understand them. I did not, in fact, "steal" them. I provided a constitutional analysis as to why they are valid, rather than a ridiculed "slippery slope" fallacy. My arguments are not the slippery slope, they are a constitutionally asserted claim concerning rights protection.
My arguments are not a moral diatribe about the protection of marriage, they are a plea for the defense of the Constitution and the protection of our rights that make the United States what it is.
My rights are not a bigoted attempt to thrash on anti-gays and anything against conservatism, they are a well-minded and gay-sympathetic analysis as to why we still cannot redefine marriage to allow a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman.

Maybe if you didn't continually resort to ridicule of my posts, if you didn't constantly ignore your burdens to provide evidence, this debate could go somewhere. As it is, you do nothing but superficially attack the words of what I write without addressing the underlying principles, of the Constitution, of rights protection, of the bastardization of anything the government can do to regulate our rights and protect them from those who would seek to destroy them in the future with "equal rights" this and "equal rights" that. Just because I recognize the threat to our Constitutution and the very foundation our rights and of the United States and you do not does not exempt you from forming your arguments coherently, thoughtfully, and with a logical basis.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim Just because I recognize the threat to our Constitutution and the very foundation our rights and of the United States and you do not does not exempt you from forming your arguments coherently, thoughtfully, and with a logical basis.

As I said you do keep me laughing. That last sentence is a howler, again both grammatically and contextually. I suppose if you can't write a coherent sentence it may be a bit much to expect coherent argument. Suggesting that basic fairness is a threat to our Constitution is amusing as well.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: RickSp As I said you do keep me laughing. That last sentence is a howler, again both grammatically and contextually. I suppose if you can't write a coherent sentence it may be a bit much to expect coherent argument. Suggesting that basic fairness is a threat to our Constitution is amusing as well.

Oh thank you so much for belittling my post because I forgot the word "of" and a few commas to separate my "and"'s. You're quite a debater Rick...

If this is the only kind of response I'm going to get, ones that don't even address the debate at all but merely call my posts "amusing," I don't think I should even try anymore. I hope anyone who read this can see that I at least tried to keep the debate a debate instead of a discussion that goes: "Fangrim makes a post. Rick insults Fangrim. Fangrim makes a post. Rick insults Fangrim..."

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Fangrim You say it yourself. "if it means that we allow people to marry who they want to." The thing is, that "who" would be replaced by "what." If you want a society like that, then go ahead and vie for homosexual marriage and redefinition of civil rights. I personally have no opinion of man-dog and man-rock marriages. I don't care. But I assume other people do care about such marriages, which is why I've been making argument and pointing out this effect. Up to others to decide if we still want homosexual marriage if it ends up bastardizing rights protection.

Can you tell me what actual HARM to ANYONE would result from allowing same sex couples to marry?

How is it going to do any damage to anything?

Again, it's just a group of people saying "we don't like the way you live, so we are going to treat you like second class citizens".

Bigotry folks, that's ALL it is.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Fangrim The fact that you maintain that I have plagiarized these ideas only reveals the fact that you don't even understand them. I did not, in fact, "steal" them. I provided a constitutional analysis as to why they are valid, rather than a ridiculed "slippery slope" fallacy. My arguments are not the slippery slope, they are a constitutionally asserted claim concerning rights protection. My arguments are not a moral diatribe about the protection of marriage, they are a plea for the defense of the Constitution and the protection of our rights that make the United States what it is. My rights are not a bigoted attempt to thrash on anti-gays and anything against conservatism, they are a well-minded and gay-sympathetic analysis as to why we still cannot redefine marriage to allow a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman. Maybe if you didn't continually resort to ridicule of my posts, if you didn't constantly ignore your burdens to provide evidence, this debate could go somewhere. As it is, you do nothing but superficially attack the words of what I write without addressing the underlying principles, of the Constitution, of rights protection, of the bastardization of anything the government can do to regulate our rights and protect them from those who would seek to destroy them in the future with "equal rights" this and "equal rights" that. Just because I recognize the threat to our Constitutution and the very foundation our rights and of the United States and you do not does not exempt you from forming your arguments coherently, thoughtfully, and with a logical basis.

Please guide us to the part of the constitution that mentions "marraige".

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Please guide us to the part of the constitution that mentions "marraige".

The fact that you're even asking me this indicates you didn't read my previous posts. I suggest you move up or into a past page where I gave links to why redefining rights bastardizes the protection of those rights.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Can you tell me what actual HARM to ANYONE would result from allowing same sex couples to marry? How is it going to do any damage to anything? Again, it's just a group of people saying "we don't like the way you live, so we are going to treat you like second class citizens". Bigotry folks, that's ALL it is.

I've tried to show how I don't promote bigotry so many times that seeing this post makes me just a little sadder that my attempts fall upon deaf ears.
Again, read the posts, and you'll understand what kind of harm I'm talking about.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim My rights are not a bigoted attempt to thrash on anti-gays and anything against conservatism, they are a well-minded and gay-sympathetic analysis as to why we still cannot redefine marriage to allow a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman.

It isn't gay-sympathetic. I don't think you are bigoted by any means, but this is most definitely showing a certain emotional detachment from the wants and needs of homosexuals.

Quote by: Fangrim Maybe if you didn't continually resort to ridicule of my posts, if you didn't constantly ignore your burdens to provide evidence, this debate could go somewhere. As it is, you do nothing but superficially attack the words of what I write without addressing the underlying principles, of the Constitution, of rights protection, of the bastardization of anything the government can do to regulate our rights and protect them from those who would seek to destroy them in the future with "equal rights" this and "equal rights" that. Just because I recognize the threat to our Constitutution and the very foundation our rights and of the United States and you do not does not exempt you from forming your arguments coherently, thoughtfully, and with a logical basis.

I don't understand why the redefinition of marriage would be the death knell of every social institution; that was why I asked what would be wrong with man-dog and man-rock marriages. Are you saying that no right guaranteed by our laws has been reinterpreted and redefined? What about the income tax? What about the right to bear arms? For that matter, what about every single amendment to the Constitution? Don't those, by definition, redefine or clarify rights, and thus change the institutions associated with them?

If the amendment setting the voting age at 18 instead of 21 didn't ruin the country, why would a redefinition of marriage meant to include homosexuals? You said that the anti-miscegenation laws were unfair local misinterpretations of the right to marry, but I don't understand the difference between those laws defining marriage as only within a single racial group and laws saying that marriage should be defined as a man and a woman. If the case law you cited defined marriage as such, why can't we see that as a local, unfair, minsinterpretation of marriage? Why does marriage as between one man and one woman have to be rock-solid immutable precedent, but between a white man and a white woman was wrong?

As Mozart pointed out, what fundamental Constitutional principle was based on the one man/one woman definition? If it is only judicial fiat, why couldn't we change it without risking the collapse of the Constitution?

[fushigi]

Quote by: fushigi 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.

Quote by: Fangrim We'd need to see the actual legal words that would indicate what the definition of those rights were at the time. Otherwise, this part of the discussion is pointless.

Eisenstadt vs. Baird (1972) established that an unmarried person has the right to privacy when it comes to sex--so long as their partner is a member of the opposite gender. Bada-boom, bada-bing, unmarried, gay men and women (and straight ones too) could legally have sex too (just not with each other). Even anal sexual intercourse was permitted in most states--including Texas--with members of the opposite gender. However, Chapter 21, Sec. 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, designated same-sex anal intercourse as a Class C misdemeanor.

Why talk about Texas? Lawrence vs. Texas (2003), of course. The Supreme Court ruled that sexual acts could not be prohibited for persons of the same gender on the grounds that the restrictions targeted a group, not an act, and was therefore discriminatory.

However, this ruling doesn't gel with your argument that gays DO enjoy equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as they can marry members of the opposite sex. Again, if the solution to the legal conundrum of gay marriage were that simple, Lawrence vs. Texas would have never had the legal grounds to stand on, as it specifically stated that gays should enjoy the rights to practice sex--with members of the same gender--just as heterosexuals do with members of the opposite gender.

fushigi
p.s. I agree that Rick is just being argumentative for argumentation's sake, and would prefer to advance this debate without all the insults.

[RickSp]

The underlying problem here is that Fangrim's argument, if one would deign to call it such, that "equal protection of the laws only protects rights as they are; it does not change rights," is as patently nonsensical as DN's claims that gays have full rights to marry, so long as they do not marry those who they care for.

Claiming that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not "change rights" completely ignores history. The previously cited Loving v. Virginia, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence vs. Texas, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and on and on, are each examples of how rights can and have been defined and redefined in full accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

This silly assertion ranks up there with his previous claim on another thread that banning segregation is unconstitutional even though it has been ruled to be constitutional at least thrice by the Supreme Court, which, after all, determines what is or is not constitutional, by definition.

[againstthewind]

marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of race. It is ordained by God as a man and a woman. The two are pointless to contrast