Homosexual Marriage

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: 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

Which two are pointless to contrast? Men and women? Ordained by god and legitimized by law? Constitutional and unConstitutional? Subjective morality and objective logic? Help me out here.

As always, you are welcome to your opinion. But "ordained by God" is not an argument in a legal debate.

[againstthewind]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Which two are pointless to contrast? Men and women? Ordained by god and legitimized by law? Constitutional and unConstitutional? Subjective morality and objective logic? Help me out here. As always, you are welcome to your opinion. But "ordained by God" is not an argument in a legal debate.

Because we are talking about 2 men or 2 women marrying, not the prohibition of marriage between a man and a woman solely on the basis of race. The perspective of marriage has went down because we have gotten away from our BIbles and started thinking we can be gree from God.

Subjective morality is flawed, God is the only consistent moral point of reference. He is the author of all morals and no matter what his morals are always imposed no matter who believes in it or not

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: againstthewind Because we are talking about 2 men or 2 women marrying, not the prohibition of marriage between a man and a woman solely on the basis of race. The perspective of marriage has went down because we have gotten away from our BIbles and started thinking we can be gree from God. Subjective morality is flawed, God is the only consistent moral point of reference. He is the author of all morals and no matter what his morals are always imposed no matter who believes in it or not

Then why don't we agree that I'll follow my morals and burn in hell, and you can follow your morals and live forever in Heaven? And our laws can follow the moral framework created by the Constitution. Deal?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: fushigi 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.

The flaw here is that there is no right to sex, and thus the right to sex was not redefined to include homosexuality as there wasn't even a heterosexual right to sexual intercourse. We didn't have a right to have sex with a person of the opposite sex, it just didn't have any legal prohibition at the time.
Instead, sexual activity was later grouped under the right to privacy without redefining what privacy was: it was stretched to include other aspects of privacy.

IMO, the right to privacy is the most convoluted, retarded right in our history. It has been stretched and distorted so much that it's disgusting, with people using the right to privacy to encompass more and more "private" actions. This does not, I stress, redefine what the right to privacy is in its fundamental nature, it just clarifies what actions or behaviors constitute "privacy." For marriage, this would be akin to clarifying "opposite sex" to additionally constitute "same-sex," which of course anybody can see can't possibly work.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint 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. 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?

Yet again...the voting age change did not redefine what the right to vote was, it simply applied it to an additional group of people. Redefinition and additional application are two completely different things, as the latter has basis in the Equal Protection Clause while the first does not have such justification, but will if we start redefining laws based on constitutionally arbitrary criteria.

The anti-miscegenation laws did not redefine marriage, they placed legal restrictions on the use of the right for couples of different races. This was a flagrant violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the people's right to marry, and I'm glad we got rid of those discriminatory laws.
For gay-marriage, however, you are seeking a redefinition of marriage; rather than abolishing legal restrictions on a right they already have, you're redefining that right in a way that lets gays use it in a preferrable way.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fangrim The flaw here is that there is no right to sex, and thus the right to sex was not redefined to include homosexuality as there wasn't even a heterosexual right to sexual intercourse. We didn't have a right to have sex with a person of the opposite sex, it just didn't have any legal prohibition at the time. Instead, sexual activity was later grouped under the right to privacy without redefining what privacy was: it was stretched to include other aspects of privacy.

What an absurd statement. Speaking of inalienable rights, rights defined by our nature, what could be more defined by our natures than sex. Of course, you deny that age old concept so central to our Republic and Constitution, even as you claim slavery is a right.

Quote by: Fangrim IMO, the right to privacy is the most convoluted, retarded right in our history. It has been stretched and distorted so much that it's disgusting, with people using the right to privacy to encompass more and more "private" actions. This does not, I stress, redefine what the right to privacy is in its fundamental nature, it just clarifies what actions or behaviors constitute "privacy." For marriage, this would be akin to clarifying "opposite sex" to additionally constitute "same-sex," which of course anybody can see can't possibly work.

Speaking of convoluted and retarded. I see your prejudices, but no coherent argument.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: RickSp What an absurd statement. Speaking of inalienable rights, rights defined by our nature, what could be more defined by our natures than sex. Of course, you deny that age old concept so central to our Republic and Constitution, even as you claim slavery is a right.

Thanks for calling my statements absurd again...

No, we didn't have a legally recognized right to sexual intercourse before it was grouped under privacy.

And I've already stated that I wished I had titled that thread differently, perhaps as "Liberty is not an inalienable right," or more preferrably, "People can be Property."

Speaking of convoluted and retarded. I see your prejudices, but no coherent argument.

If you don't see a coherent argument, than ask me what's troubling you about its coherence and I will try to restate it in a better fashion.
As to prejudices, I don't know what I'm supposed to do about that, since I suppose anybody can "see" whatever they want in another's posts.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Fangrim No, we didn't have a legally recognized right to sexual intercourse before it was grouped under privacy.

I agree, privacy rights CAN go too far. Remember the case in Germany where the two men entered a consensual agreement to have one cut off the other's penis, fry it, and eat it? Or the other recent case (also in Germany) where a brother-sister couple sued the state for the right to continue their consensual sexual relationship? In both cases the defendants claimed they should be exempt from criminal litigation under the premise that their actions are protected by their rights to privacy.

But these are extreme examples, Fangrim. Further, they've never been accepted according to privacy laws. The fact that the right to have sex WAS grouped under privacy DOES make it a recognized right, no?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim Yet again...the voting age change did not redefine what the right to vote was, it simply applied it to an additional group of people. Redefinition and additional application are two completely different things, as the latter has basis in the Equal Protection Clause while the first does not have such justification, but will if we start redefining laws based on constitutionally arbitrary criteria. The anti-miscegenation laws did not redefine marriage, they placed legal restrictions on the use of the right for couples of different races. This was a flagrant violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the people's right to marry, and I'm glad we got rid of those discriminatory laws. For gay-marriage, however, you are seeking a redefinition of marriage; rather than abolishing legal restrictions on a right they already have, you're redefining that right in a way that lets gays use it in a preferrable way.

Now address the other examples: segregation and "separate but equal," the right to bear arms, income tax. As I understand it, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet people are not allowed to have any arms they desire. That is a contradiction which is either unconstitutional (which would make the NRA very happy, I'm sure) or signifies a redefinition of the right as technology advanced. I see it as a redefinition, and yet our world has not collapsed around us. So why would it happen if we did redefine marriage?

But if we take your point of view on this: The anti-miscegenation laws did redefine marriage because before that marriage had been defined as the union of two people of the same race, and afterwards it was the union of two people of any race. That is a redefinition. If it is not a redefinition, then neither would it be a redefinition to include another group, the homosexuals who wish to marry someone of their own gender.

I ask you yet again: where in the Constitution does it define marriage? If marriage was defined by judicial fiat, as indicated by your case law example, then it can be redefined just as easily, without changing the fundamental rights. I believe that marriage as a concept has always permitted the inclusion of homosexuals, and so it would not in any way be changing the basic rights now to legitimize their marriages under the law.

[againstthewind]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Then why don't we agree that I'll follow my morals and burn in hell, and you can follow your morals and live forever in Heaven? And our laws can follow the moral framework created by the Constitution. Deal?

I will pray for you, I can't make such a deal CoffeeSaint.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: againstthewind I will pray for you, I can't make such a deal CoffeeSaint.

How about this deal: you don't pray for me, and I won't curse your name. Is that more acceptable?

The arrogance it takes to presume that I need saving, and that you can save me despite myself, is staggering.

But let us try to stick to the topic, rather than making bold and offensive statements of our personal beliefs. Whether you agree with it or not, the issue here is not the morality of homosexual marriage, but rather the legality of homosexual marriage -- and the laws in this country are not based on the Bible.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Fangrim Yet again...the voting age change did not redefine what the right to vote was, it simply applied it to an additional group of people. Redefinition and additional application are two completely different things, as the latter has basis in the Equal Protection Clause while the first does not have such justification, but will if we start redefining laws based on constitutionally arbitrary criteria. The anti-miscegenation laws did not redefine marriage, they placed legal restrictions on the use of the right for couples of different races. This was a flagrant violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the people's right to marry, and I'm glad we got rid of those discriminatory laws. For gay-marriage, however, you are seeking a redefinition of marriage; rather than abolishing legal restrictions on a right they already have, you're redefining that right in a way that lets gays use it in a preferrable way.

What is wrong with redefining marriage. I would like to remind you that it has been done before. Marriage was a means of ownership, a contract between the father of the bride and the husband to be. Man and woman aside, the very MEANING of marriage has been changed from ownership to union. I would say that is a redifinition, the parties entering the contract have changed (father of bride+groom to bride+groom).

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Heather, the oddly odd girl 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.

Sorry I've been gone so long, my email notifications don't seem to be keeping up with the posts...

Had I known gay rights activists were in here running wild and advancing all sorts of misguided theories, I would not have been so passive.

Heather, your thoughts about experimentation for the sake of potential progress is valid - in many instances. However, when we are talking about the very foundation of our society - the nuclear family - I really don't think that's something we need to monkey around with unless you can demonstrate a valid need to do so.

I think before you set about flipping switches, twisting dials and yanking levers on the control panel of society, you should at least be able to define your goal.

So tell me, what do you consider "progress" when it comes to protecting the backbone of our society - nuclear family?

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Can you give me a reason why man-dog marriages and man-rock marriages would be a bad idea?

Yes, easily. For the same reason that man-man and woman-woman marriages would be a bad idea...

Why should we give the same tax breaks and legal protections to a guy who claims he is married to a rock? A dog? Another man?

It makes no sense and dilutes the tax breaks we give to REAL married couples.

If you are going to make marriage benefits available to anyone who claims he / she is married (to any physical object whatsoever), only the dumbest idiots in the nation wouldn't sign up for the free money.

So the question becomes, where do you draw the line?

And the simple answer is that you draw it where it makes the biggest impact, makes the most sense, and does so with the least intrusion on privacy.

Clearly, that line should be drawn where it is right now - with one man and one woman. It currently doesn't require anything more than a glance at the person (worst case, perhaps a driver license), doesn't require fertility tests, doesn't require any declaration of sexual orientation, nor any declaration of intent to procreate, nor any actual procreation, nor any of the other stupid ideas you people have suggested.

Quote by: Nikkums What is wrong with redefining marriage.

That's a pretty open ended question, Nikkums. Why don't you first propose a new definition, and THEN I'll tell you what is wrong with that definition.

This should be fun. I can't wait to point out one of two potential flaws with your definition:

Either:
a) It discriminates against other forms of marriage (incest, polygamy, etc.)
or
b) It dilutes marriage benefits so dramatically that current marriage benefits become pointless, thus harming the institution as it exists today.

Choose now.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name Sorry I've been gone so long, my email notifications don't seem to be keeping up with the posts... Had I known gay rights activists were in here running wild and advancing all sorts of misguided theories, I would not have been so passive.

Yeah, don't you hate that when agenda-minded activists spread misinformation in order to further their political goals?

Quote by: Dirty Name Yes, easily. For the same reason that man-man and woman-woman marriages would be a bad idea... Why should we give the same tax breaks and legal protections to a guy who claims he is married to a rock? A dog? Another man? It makes no sense and dilutes the tax breaks we give to REAL married couples. If you are going to make marriage benefits available to anyone who claims he / she is married (to any physical object whatsoever), only the dumbest idiots in the nation wouldn't sign up for the free money. So the question becomes, where do you draw the line? And the simple answer is that you draw it where it makes the biggest impact, makes the most sense, and does so with the least intrusion on privacy. Clearly, that line should be drawn where it is right now - with one man and one woman. It currently doesn't require anything more than a glance at the person (worst case, perhaps a driver license), doesn't require fertility tests, doesn't require any declaration of sexual orientation, nor any declaration of intent to procreate, nor any actual procreation, nor any of the other stupid ideas you people have suggested.

Prove that the money as it is spent now has an impact, and I might be willing to concede that some of the other ideas you mention are stupid. If you can't prove it, then please, just shut up. All you seem to be able to do is repeat the same tired crap, with the use of words like "clearly" and "simple" for your ideas, and "stupid" for your opponents', as your only support.

Aren't you tired of typing the same thing? I know I am. Lucky for me, I'm right -- you have no proof, and so your argument simply, clearly doesn't hold up, despite your ever so convincing rhetoric.

Quote by: Dirty Name That's a pretty open ended question, Nikkums. Why don't you first propose a new definition, and THEN I'll tell you what is wrong with that definition. This should be fun. I can't wait to point out one of two potential flaws with your definition: Either: a) It discriminates against other forms of marriage (incest, polygamy, etc.) or b) It dilutes marriage benefits so dramatically that current marriage benefits become pointless, thus harming the institution as it exists today. Choose now.

B. Oh, and prove that the institution as it exists now actually serves some purpose, actually has some tangible effect on our lives. I know how you love claiming that the nuclear family is the foundation of our society, but without proof, you're just talking through your hat, whistling in the dark, whizzing into the wind -- pick your metaphor for wasting your time without saying anything of value.

[fushigi]

It all comes down to one simple fact: oftentimes, the people in power don't like to share. When one group has powers that another doesn't enjoy, the power group is destined to fracture into two groups: those who believe in offering equality to the powerless, and those who want to continue the status quo.

The problem with Dirty Name's argument is that it rests on two fallacies: appealing to tradition and begging the question. It appeals to tradition in that it claims, "marriage laws were made for one man and one woman only, and therefore gays need not apply." It begs the question in that it assumes this argument is correct, and cites current legal restrictions and problems that would complicate a redefinition to eschew any changes to the institution.

Basically, Dirty Name's argument boils down to, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problem is, WE on the other side believe that is IS broke.

fushigi

[fushigi]

Hey, took a page out of your book, Dirty Name, used time travel and substitution to question your argument.

NARRATOR: We're now going to take a look at Dirty Name in 1854, a southern slave-owner and congressman who is arguing against the abolition of slavery and acknowledgment of blacks as people.

We've made the following substitutions:

• slaves for homosexuals
• personhood for gay marriage rights
• horses and rocks for polygamy and incest

Please enjoy out presentation. I believe it might shed some light on how narrow-minded thinking and objections based on an appeal to tradition can be.

Quote by: Dirty Name in 1854 I think before you set about flipping switches, twisting dials and yanking levers on the control panel of society, you should at least be able to define your goal. So tell me, what do you consider "progress" when it comes to protecting the backbone of our society - slavery? Why should we give the same tax breaks and legal protections to a slave who claims to be a man? It makes no sense and dilutes the rights we give to REAL people. If you are going to make personhood available to anyone who claims he / she is a person, only the dumbest idiots in the nation wouldn't sign up for benefits. So the question becomes, where do you draw the line? What's next? Personhood for horses? Rocks? And the simple answer is that you draw it where it makes the biggest impact, makes the most sense, and does so with the least intrusion on privacy. Clearly, that line should be drawn where it is right now - with whites being the only real people. It currently doesn't require anything more than a glance at the person (worst case, perhaps a driver license), doesn't require fertility tests, doesn't require any declaration of sexual orientation, nor any declaration of intent to procreate, nor any actual procreation, nor any of the other stupid ideas you people have suggested. Either permitting slaves to become legal persons: a) Discriminates against other forms of personhood (horses, rocks, etc.) or b) It dilutes personhood benefits so dramatically that current personhood benefits become pointless, thus harming the institution as it exists today. Choose now.

[Fangrim]

A nice post fushigi. The perspective shift is...interesting, to say the least.



My major qualm:

Personhood was not redefined. It was reapplied to blacks. Nothing about the rights of personhood changed in the transition from whites only to all ethnicities.

Marriage would be redefined, from marrying a person of the opposite sex to marrying anyone (aside from other limits, like incest and polygamy), thus bastardizing rights protection. The "slippery slope," if you need to call it that.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Now address the other examples: segregation and "separate but equal," the right to bear arms, income tax. As I understand it, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet people are not allowed to have any arms they desire. That is a contradiction which is either unconstitutional (which would make the NRA very happy, I'm sure) or signifies a redefinition of the right as technology advanced. I see it as a redefinition, and yet our world has not collapsed around us. So why would it happen if we did redefine marriage? But if we take your point of view on this: The anti-miscegenation laws did redefine marriage because before that marriage had been defined as the union of two people of the same race, and afterwards it was the union of two people of any race. That is a redefinition. If it is not a redefinition, then neither would it be a redefinition to include another group, the homosexuals who wish to marry someone of their own gender. I ask you yet again: where in the Constitution does it define marriage? If marriage was defined by judicial fiat, as indicated by your case law example, then it can be redefined just as easily, without changing the fundamental rights. I believe that marriage as a concept has always permitted the inclusion of homosexuals, and so it would not in any way be changing the basic rights now to legitimize their marriages under the law.

You are correct, Coffee.

The right to bear arms is one of the only rights that is undergoing redefinition, or attempts at redefinition, much to the horror of many conservatives.

Just to speed things up:
Other rights that are being redefined, or have the distinct possibility of doing so are the right to privacy and states rights. States rights, however, has always been under redefinition, and is a continual battleground between the federal government and the states. They did, in fact, fight a war over it (read: the Civil War, the War Between the States; personally, I prefer the Second War of Independence).

The right to privacy is as we speak being bastardized. I don't think I need to elaborate; I'm sure you're aware of how much "privacy" is being redefined, how it's boundaries are growing to incredible realms. It mostly gained speed with Roe v. Wade.

As to the right to bear arms specifically, the government is fully allowed to regulate the right to bear arms. That's quite good, since otherwise, people in a rage could buy a fire arm the day of their anger, or people could own bazookas and machine guns and even heavier weaponry. I seek to protect the government's capability to regulate our rights, as in the case of the right to bear arms. If marriage is redefined, the crisis of rights bastardization will spread to one more area of our lives, and rights bastardization, and corruption of the Equal Protection Clause, will only worsen.
==
I've already addressed racial marriage laws. They were unjust. They ignored the definition of marriage for the sake of discriminating against minorities. The definition of marriage allows a man to marry a woman, regardless of race.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Fangrim You are correct, Coffee. The right to bear arms is one of the only rights that is undergoing redefinition, or attempts at redefinition, much to the horror of many conservatives. Just to speed things up: Other rights that are being redefined, or have the distinct possibility of doing so are the right to privacy and states rights. States rights, however, has always been under redefinition, and is a continual battleground between the federal government and the states. They did, in fact, fight a war over it (read: the Civil War, the War Between the States; personally, I prefer the Second War of Independence). The right to privacy is as we speak being bastardized. I don't think I need to elaborate; I'm sure you're aware of how much "privacy" is being redefined, how i