Homosexual Marriage

[SVMc]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I came in here and stepped in a hornet's nest of insult and name-calling -- and being buried in pontifications about things I never said. I have not once waivered from my original contentions. I have called no one on this forum any name of any sort, not have I implied any such thing.

And I have not called you or anyone on this forum a name... so, if you think that I have called you a name then please post a refernece, PM me or report me, but I'm sure that I haven't. Disagreeing with your intentionally obfusticated argument is not name calling.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal How many times do I have to say that I have offered no position here whatsoever on gay marriage or civil union???

You have posted no sources what so ever. I am the only one that has posted a link to a source for the Massachusetts case:

In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...rriage.ruling/

The court is saying that the definition of marriage as only between one man and one women is unconstitutional because it denies the rights of gay couples to be married ergo, the legislature needs to change the law to end the discrimination.

My understanding of what you are saying is that to tell the legislature to re-write the definition of marriage because it has been found to be judicially unconstitutional is an act of purjury.

First, you haven't given one shred of evidence as to how this is purjury. I can't even begin to fathom how this is purjury.

Second, obviously if you consider the ruling to be purjury... that is a very strong statement against the recognition of the right to gay marriage by the Massachusetts court.... so what is one to conclude about your position other than you seem to be making an argument against gay marriage?

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I have not only said and resaid exactly what I said in the first place,

That would be the key problem in your argument, you have said and resaid exactly what you said in the first place without offering further explanation, sources, quotes, or any form of proof.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Okay -- you say that " the only way to fairly employ civil unions vs. marriages would be to change the definition of 'marriage' to the status of a non-legally binding religious ceremony...." I don't know what that means... Maybe you left out some words..

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the sentence that you so thoughtfully quoted just before saying that. Changing the definition of "marriage" to the status of a non-legally binding religious ceremony would ensure that "marriage" would become the domain of religious organizations ONLY, "marriage" would be equivilent to baptism or confirmation. It would have no legal significance for heterosexual or homosexual couples. Religions could preform "marriages" on whom ever they like according to their own value system. Conversley all state rights associated with "marriage" would now be issued through "civil unions" to both hetero and homosexual couples. The tax benefits, spousal care and inheritance, custody rights etc.. would be part of a "civil union" that any religious or secular couple regardless of sexual orientation could obtain.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal We have a process for changing the definitions....

And, according to you that would be? More specifically why is finding the legal definition of marriage unconstitutional and judicially ruling that it needs to be changed not the process? It worked in Canada.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I have only argued that the courts have to tell the truth about what the definitions are...

As far as I can see the courts have not lied. They have said that the current definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. They have gone on to say that that definition of marriage is unconstitutional because it does not allow gay couples to marry in effect discriminating against a segment of the population based on sexual orientation, therefore the defintion needs to be changed so that it is not discriminatory. There is no lie there.

Your disagreement seems to be with weather or not the definiton of marriage is unconstitutional... not weather or not the court lied. It seems that you disagree that it is unconstitutional and think that the current definition is fine....

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I'm skipping stuff here that simply doesn't relate to my repeatedly stated position...

You're skipping stuff that doesn't support your argument. Specifically where you argued that we did not make "blacks" "whites" to give black people civil liberties and I countered with two comments one that "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are not legal satasus, and that we are not asking the state to declare unmarried people married... and that since "white" was a status that denoted "full citizenship" the solution to the racial discrimination was to make sure that "black" became as synonomous with "full citizenship" as white thereby making the status of "white" redundant where citizenship was concerned. Likewise allowing homosexual couples to marry would make heterosexualism redundant where marriage is concerned.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Write your Congressperson. Lawmakers can change the laws, including the definitions of terms any way they want within the limits of the constitution.

FYI we did write our MP's and MPP's, and the SC has submitted the judgement that the laws must be changed... they are in most provinces, and it looks like they will be changed federally very shortly.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Judicial interpretation too must be performed within the limits of the constitution -- said limits having no boundaries whatsoever if they can define any and all terms to mean anything they like. If they can redefine something as solidly established as the defintion of marriage being between a man and a woman, then they can redefine anything.

Well that's just not true. First there must be judicial appeals to change legal terms, those judicial appeals must meet the requirements of the constitution and in Canada, the Charter of Rights. Definitions cannot be changed at a whim... changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples does not equate a slippery slope to being able to for example change the definition of private property, public space, or any other common judicial term. Changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples, simply ensures that the legal definition of marriage does not discriminate against couples based on sexual orientation.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal With apologies again, I am skipping ahead to what you say about that definition:

Just for refernce, you're skipping the part where I argued that your reasons of history and legal prescedence were illogical reasons to oppose the changing definition of marriage. Your third reason as to why the definition of marriage should not be chagned was that it was common "public usage" that marriage is between a man and a woman, to which I argued that if there was not a demonstrated change in the public usage this debate would not exist.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal The debate exists because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court over-rode its constitutional authority to tell the state legisature to rewrite the law, not just to give "fundamental" rights to gay couples but to acknowledge the court's re-invented definition.

The Massachusetts court did not wake up one morning and decide to open this debate by randomly telling the state legislature to change the definition of marriage to be inclusive of gay couples. There have been appeals to courts for decades... other countries are changing their marriage laws... there is a largely increased awareness that homosexuality is not a disease, or a choice that can be "cured" but is a form of human sexuality that hurts no one and should not be subject to legal discrimination.

Writing laws that will give "equivilent" rights to gay couples, yet denying them access to state legislated marriages is the same as the "separate but equal" laws that were found to be discriminatory.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal It is that re-invention which I have opposed here -- and not one single other thing.

And weather or not you like it, opposing the "re-invention" of marriage to include gay couples is taking a position on gay marriage.... if you do not want to take a position, you are always free to opt out of the debate.

[SVMc]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Nothing to do wqith the main subject here -- but I just noticed this line in SVMc's posts: Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around. Forgive me -- can't resist the opportunity to namedrop. As far as I know, the origin of this comment was in a conversation between Andre Veschinski, the USSR Ambassador to the U.S., and Werner Von Braun, Director of NASA -- back around 1960. This source is one I can quote, because Von Braun told me about it shortly afterwards. I was a college student at the time, picked as Von Braun's escort when he was speaking at my university.

I don't think Von Braun is the originator of the phrase since in my poli-sci studies I've seen that and variations of it going as far back as the Bolshevick revolution. Although since it is a favourite quote used by most comparative politics profs (I originally heard it back in my year one poli-sci course longer ago than I care to mention) I'm sure that Von Braun may have used it.

[SVMc]

Quote by: Sasha Anyhow, I guess the point is that its just as easy to take the "right" away from everybody as it is to give it to everybody.

Several people have made that argument to one extent or the other. I place my position as if the definition of "marriage" is so integral to religions then let "marriage" become a non-legal status that is the equivilent of baptism or confirmation.... then each religion and each church can decide if they are going to "marry" homosexual and / or heterosexual couples.

The legal status associated with "marriage" could be transferred to "civil unions" and any couples wanting the state protections and legal treatments currently associated with "marriage" would need to obtain a "civil union" certificate or license or some such thing.

The only problem with these arguments is that while in a legislative and theoretical sense it is just as easy to remove rights as to extend them, in a pragmatic and practicle sense there is always a greater outcry when trying to remove rights then when trying to extend them.

Quote by: Sasha A: Why is marriage a "right" as opposed to a government service?

I guess I would say that that question is splitting hairs rather closely. I'd have to be more familiar with the US law to be able to concretely answer it, however the principle is the same. If it is a right then it needs to be automatically extended for all citizens to equally access regardless of sexual orientation. If it is a service the question is how is the government extending the service to all of it's citizens. The government does not have the right to randomly discriminate against segments of the population for reasons of race, religion ect... etc... The argument is that discriminating based on sexual orientation is a discrimination that is unconstitutional.

Quote by: Sasha It seems to me, with the exception of sexual orientation and religion all of these are inherent traits (granted some people will argue homosexuality is genetic as well

Weather it is genetic, or a psychological disposition, is irrelevant. The fact is that homosexuality like heterosexuality is not an conscious choice. You do not get to choose who and what you are physically and sexually attracted to. Just like if you are heterosexual it would seem completely impossible for you to "choose" to fall in love with and have sex with a person of the same sex, if you are homosexual it is contrary to all your physical and sexual impulses to fall in love and have sex with somone of the opposite gender. Does this mean that someone who is heterosexual will never try homosexual sex - no. Does this mean that social pressue will not highly encourage someone that is homosexual to try a lot to "be" heterosexual... then on top of all of this there are people who are bisexual.

The issue is why would it be right to discriminate against people who are homosexual. Homosexuality hurts no one, it is not a crime or a disease, it is not a pathological problem that needs to be cured. It is a loving act between two consenting adults in the same way that heterosexuality is.

Quote by: Sasha I was woundering what makes it justifyable to discriminate against a choice?

Again, I would argue that homosexuality is not a choice in the same way that choosing a book, a pair of socks, a school, or a career is a choice. It's not something that people "opt" to do... They can "opt" to be closeted homosexuals, but then I would ask why should they be forced to?

Quote by: Sasha Is this simply a matter of your fist hitting my nose?

Not understanding your analogy... do you mean that homosexuality hurts you?

Quote by: Sasha I don't think that is a sufficient answer, that criteria wont hold for veterans benifits or UI.

Veterans benefits and UI are completely different circumstances than extending marriage rights to include homosexual couples.

To receive Veterans benefits, you need to be a veteran (hence the term)... if you were not a veteran you don't get them.... in this instance you are not dealing with every citizen, you are dealing with every citizen who is a veteran.... so if the analogy was that you have a population of veterans, yet veterans benefits were only given to white, heterosexual, male veterans then we would ask what justification would there be for not extending those same benefits to citizens who are veterans but are lets say black, or homosexual or women.

Likewise with UI, you need to be a citizen who has worked enough hours to have contributed into the UI fund to be able to receive UI when you become unemployed. So the ability of the government to discrimnate on which citizens get UI are for logical, legal reasons that do not exclude persons for reasons not pertaining to UI. For example if you are not a citizen, if you are not unemployed, if you have never been employed, if the time that were employed is not sufficient to have contributed to a UI fund you will not receive UI. Again if the government decided that only white, heterosexual men between the ages of 35-49 were able to receive UI... then we would need to examine why gender, sexual orientation, race and not being middle age, were reasonable reasons for discrimination.

On the marriage side of things we do not let minors get married because we do not think they have the economic or social power to make that sort of legal commitment and be held to it at that point.

The marriage analogy is better brought to light when you consider race. At one point a black man could not marry a white woman.... The argument was made that this was discrimination in marriage... people could still make the argument that said black man could marry a black woman... but again this black man did not choose to fall in love with said white woman.... just like a homosexual person doesn't choose to be homosexual.

Quote by: Sasha B: If it is a service why is it unacceptable to provide it only to male/female couples?

Because, the government does not get to discriminate for reasons that are not directly related to the service. They can discriminate between veterans and non vetrans where vetrans benefits are concerned, between employed people and unemployed people where UI is concerned. They cannot discriminate between unmixed couples and mixed race couples where marriage is concerned, they cannot discriminate between couples with the same religious backgounds and different religious backgounds where marriage is concerned. Why should they be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

[SVMc]

Quote by: Heuristic If they want to get married in a religious ceremony, it would be impossible since the Christan Relgion doesn't accept homosexuality.

It would be impossible for them to get married in some Christian churches, since some christian churches don't accept homosexuality. Most notably the Anglican church has ordained a gay bishop. Here in TO, the methodist and united churches both preform gay marriages. There are in fact openly gay methodist congragations for gay people that want an accepting environment. Also religion is not limited to Christianity. There would be nothing stopping any congregation of people from forming their own branch of christianity or any other religion and allowing gay marriage.

Quote by: Heuristic That's the only reason I can think that why it's not happening at the moment.

I agree the only thing that is strong enough to stop gay marriage in the US is the religious right. I don't think it's a good reason to stop gay marriage but it is the principle reason it's not going forward.

Quote by: Heuristic I don't think they should change the rules of christianity just to let homsexuals get married,

They don't need to change the rules of christianity just to let gays get married. There are already secular ceremonies that don't take place in a church and are not recognized by the Christian Chruch... any couple who is not Catholic or any divorced and remarried people are not acknowledged as married by the Catholic chruch... many people who are non-christians get married in their synagogues and mosques etc.. they are not officially recognized by the church...

Religions can be left alone to marry who they want according to their own religious beliefs. Any given religion does not have to be forced to preform gay marriages. But as long as the state is issuing marriage licenses they do should have to issue them and preform secular marriages without discrimination.

Quote by: Heuristic Documents which announce them married, but they are not bound by the church perhaps?

Sounds like a secular marriage.

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: Heuristic If they want to get married in a religious ceremony, it would be impossible since the Christan Relgion doesn't accept homosexuality. That's the only reason I can think that why it's not happening at the moment. I don't think they should change the rules of christianity just to let homsexuals get married, as other methods could easily be put into place. Documents which announce them married, but they are not bound by the church perhaps?

Actually, Heuristic, it's not impossible because there are even gay Christian churches, and we have at least one gay Christian Bishop in this country (NH -- Episcopal). I also know gays who are devout believing Christians. Some agonize over the conflict between their personal drives and the views of mainstream Christianity. Others have found ways to resolve any inner conflict -- much in the same way as the rest of us who know that none of us are really good enough to deserve the goodness of a loving God -- wre simply trust in his mercy.

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: SVMc And I have not called you or anyone on this forum a name... so, if you think that I have called you a name then please post a refernece, PM me or report me, but I'm sure that I haven't. Disagreeing with your intentionally obfusticated argument is not name calling.

Your point?? Do you want a character reference?? I'll be glad to tell anyone that you haven't called anyone a name. Odd though *looking around* .. I don't see anyplace in here where anyone has suggested you have called names..... certainly not me. :)

You weren't the one who called me "stupid" or a "weasel" or "dishonest". Heck, you're the moderator... You wouldn't do that. Trouble is :rolleyes: you also didn't stop the guy who kept at it...

May I ask a question? Have we ever met? Do you know anything about me? Your line about my "intentionally obfusticated (sic) argument" indicates that you know what my intentions are. Well, if you're right, shame on me! I promise to give myself a good talking to about that. Also, if your right about my intentionally obfuscating my argument, then it is certainly not your fault that you didn't understand much of it. I apologize.

You are most definitely right to say that disagreeing with me is not name calling. And I am sure you saw that I actually listed the names someone called me when I said he was name-calling. You saw that, didn't you, and also when he posted back and called me another name? You were probably going to tell him not to do that weren't you? After all, you're the moderator. You surely wouldn't have held back simply because he was on your side of the argument. What kind of a moderator would that have made you?

Quote by: SVMc You have posted no sources what so ever. I am the only one that has posted a link to a source for the Massachusetts case:

Again, your point?? Your saying "no sources what so ever (sic -- that's twice now)" implies that I claimed that I did post sources. On the contrary, I have said that I didn't, and explained why I didn't.

To rehash that explanation, a source would be appropriate if I had introduced a factoid that would be the slightest news to anyone. I didn't. My first post was my opinion about a fact that everyone knew and not one person here has disputed. That fact is that the Massachusetts SJC decision presumed a definition of "marriage" that would or could apply to same sex marriages. Not only has no one disputed that, most jumping on me offered reasons in support of that!

Based on that fact. I then presented my thesis, my opinion, that the court actually gave false witness in the matter of a known definition. It was this opinion that was the new element here and the source of this opinion, folks :p was ME!! Yep, I am the source of my opinion.

Okay, now let's get very serious. I have not varied one iota from what I first presented here. I absolutely did criticize public figures, and harshly; but I also spelled out why in detail. I do not have the slightest interest in leading people by the hand to those details. This is not to claim my argument was better than counter-arguments, just that I did provide them despite astonishing claims to the contrary.

Not once did I call names or imply the slightest inappropriate motives or intentions to anyone else here -- other than straightfoward requests that they stop doing that to me. When I did that, I addressed those people directly and politely asked them not to do that.

I also repeatedly said I would not be drawn off the track of my original thesis that the Court had gone beyond its Constitutional bounds -- not in finding that gay couples were denied rights they should have, but in betraying fidelity to the meaning of language in fulfilling their Constitutional role as interpreters of the law. In other words, except for re-inventing marriage, they could indeed have ordered legal recourse in the form of granting all rights to gay-unions as presently enjoyed in those heterosexual unions called "marriages."

Here's my beef, SVMc. We've definitely got a problem here with a defintion, but it is not the definition of "marriage". It is the definition of the word, "moderator." I offer in evidence of that, the rest of your rambling post to me below.

NOTE: It turns out that I can't do that. I have to delete it to meet the space requirements. Just got an automatic message that I have to shorten this post

It is not the speech of a moderator, but that of a totally immersed protaganist. You did nothing to stop the assaults, and even after my pleadings for kindness and civility, and for not going down all these side routes about positions I never ever took, you plunge ahead making your case ad nauseum, trailblazing endless paths to nowhere... .

For the record, I am a sociologist who was actually Executive Director of a Massachusetts Criminal Justice Planning Region with the SJC Chief Justice as the President of my board. I reacted with all the restraint I could muster to your pontificating about social versus legal distinctions from restroom behavior to the evolution of the gay marriage issue. You were up to your ears in pure fantasy in both areas of my professional expertise (sociology and the legal system) and I held back, but -- frankly -- the load here is too much to bear..

Quote by: SVMc The court is saying that the definition of marriage as only between one man and one women is unconstitutional because it denies the rights of gay couples to be married ergo, the legislature needs to change the law to end the discrimination. .......DELETED TEXT...... LOTS OF DELETED TEXT (happily) y that hurts no one and should not be subject to legal discrimination. Writing laws that will give "equivilent" rights to gay couples, yet denying them access to state legislated marriages is the same as the "separate but equal" laws that were found to be discriminatory. And weather or not you like it, opposing the "re-invention" of marriage to include gay couples is taking a position on gay marriage.... if you do not want to take a position, you are always free to opt out of the debate.

Are ya done, Mr Moderator?? I am definitely outta here...

[SVMc]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I don't see anyplace in here where anyone has suggested you have called names..... certainly not me. Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Feb-24-05 I came in here and stepped in a hornet's nest of insult and name-calling -- and being buried in pontifications about things I never said. I have not once waivered from my original contentions. I have called no one on this forum any name of any sort, not have I implied any such thing.

Since the rest of the post was directed at me, I felt compelled to answer that I have not called you any names.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal You weren't the one who called me "stupid" or a "weasel" or "dishonest". Heck, you're the moderator... You wouldn't do that. Trouble is you also didn't stop the guy who kept at it... You are most definitely right to say that disagreeing with me is not name calling. And I am sure you saw that I actually listed the names someone called me when I said he was name-calling. You saw that, didn't you, and also when he posted back and called me another name? You were probably going to tell him not to do that weren't you? After all, you're the moderator. You surely wouldn't have held back simply because he was on your side of the argument. What kind of a moderator would that have made you? Here's my beef, SVMc. We've definitely got a problem here with a defintion, but it is not the definition of "marriage". It is the definition of the word, "moderator." It is not the speech of a moderator, but that of a totally immersed protaganist. You did nothing to stop the assaults, and even after my pleadings for kindness and civility, Are ya done, Mr Moderator?? I am definitely outta here...

I have sent you a PM to demonstrate the most common way that we ask people here on Volconvo to cease and desist behaviour that lowers the level of the debate.

Just in case you don't read that, FYI Starboy has received warnings form the moderating staff, he alluded to that himself, but at this point it has not reached a level where people have asked for him to be banned (Starboy, please don't take this as an invitation to obtain that level).

If you feel you are being treated unfairly by me or any other moderator on this board you are able to report us to the other moderating staff, or to Sean.

Generally we do not delete posts or edit them, and we will only move a thread into flame fest when the thread has degenerated entirely. I feel that you, and I, and Sasha, and Heuristic are conducting a reasonable debate. I don't currently feel the need to move the thread, if you would like to appeal that, please feel free to do so.

[SVMc]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Your line about my "intentionally obfusticated (sic) argument" indicates that you know what my intentions are.

When I say that you are intentionally obfusticating your argument, I mean that you are intentionally not posting or making sources acessible. You claim to have a great deal of familiairty with the case but do not post any articles, links or books that would make that case more accessible for the rest of us.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Again, your point?? Your saying "no sources what so ever (sic -- that's twice now)" implies that I claimed that I did post sources.

For clarity I am simply stating that you have not posted any sources. This does not imply that you have claimed to post sources when you have made no such claim. It states that I have repeatedly asked for sources and you have posted none.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I have said that I didn't, and explained why I didn't.... My first post was my opinion about a fact that everyone knew

I think I have been clear that not everyone here is from Mass. and more specifically not all of us are American. Consequently we do not all receive or review large amounts of American news. I have specifically said I am not familiar with the case that you are refering to and I have asked you to provide sources. When you didn't I googled it, but have only found a few news clippings, and have not found court documents or any comprehensive material. You are expecting people (or at least me) to display a level of knowledge on a case that you claim to be familiar with, and are intentionally refusing to provide any supporting information that may help the level of debate. If you are convinced of your argument, how would backing it up with sources hurt your arugment?

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal That fact is that the Massachusetts SJC decision presumed a definition of "marriage" that would or could apply to same sex marriages.

I would be most obliged if you would post a source for the above statement of fact.

The sources that I have found indicate that the Massachusetts court ruled that the current definition of "marriage" as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional and the subsequent action they took was to direct the state legislature to change the definition of marriage to be inclusive of gay couples.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I then presented my thesis, my opinion, that the court actually gave false witness in the matter of a known definition.

I understand that the above is your opinion and your statement. What I don't follow is how you reason that the court ruling that the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional because it is not inclusive of gay couples would constitute in any leagal sense or rational sense bearing "false witness" or "purjury".

I cannot see any lying or false witness or purjury. They are saying that the legal definition of marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates against the inclusion of gay couples. They are ruling that it needs to be redefined. They are not saying that it is redefined, they are saying it is not, and that is the problem that needs to be fixed.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal It was this opinion that was the new element here and the source of this opinion, folks was ME!! Yep, I am the source of my opinion.... I do not have the slightest interest in leading people by the hand to those details.

You are of course free to metaphorically yell your opinion from the rooftops until you can yell no more. There is nothing to compell you to tell me how you reached your opinion or by what means. However it does not provide for a very constructive debate... it is the equivelent of you yelling "Blue! Blue!" and me yelling "Red! Red!" without rhyme or reason. Neither will convince the other of anything as long as the competition grounds are who can state their opinion more times. Not, who can provide the better rationale for the opinion that is held.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal the Court had gone beyond its Constitutional bounds... in betraying fidelity to the meaning of language in fulfilling their Constitutional role as interpreters of the law.

So, are you arguing that the court cannot find the definition of "marriage" unconsitiutional because it is a "pre-set" definition? What rationale is there for this? How would this be unlike the courts making the definition of citizen inclusive to blacks?

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal In other words, except for re-inventing marriage, they could indeed have ordered legal recourse in the form of granting all rights to gay-unions as presently enjoyed in those heterosexual unions called "marriages."

It sounds like you are saying that you are fine with gay people getting married, as long as the courts don't call gay marriages "marriages" they could extend other legal recourse to gay couples such as "gay-unions".... I cannot see one iota of differnce between this argument and the "civil-unions" argument. And, I think I have presented several reasons why "separate but equal" statuses fail to be inclusive.

So, Are you done? Are you outta here? Are you going to back up your argument? Or, are you just more interested in building a straw man by calling me a bad moderator, because you can't back up your argument?

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: SVMc So, are you arguing that the court cannot find the definition of "marriage" unconsitiutional because it is a "pre-set" definition? What rationale is there for this? How would this be unlike the courts making the definition of citizen inclusive to blacks?

Yes, that is what I said in my very first post. Like I said, I have not changed what I have been saying. Not only that, I spelled out the rationale in my first post -- whether anyone here thinks it is a sound rationale or not.

Here's the same thing said just a little bit differently. In the United States, our Constitution stipulates a balance of powers among three branches of government. The Legislature writes the laws, the Executive Branch carries them out, and the Judicial Branch INTERPRETS them. Interpreters cannot make up their own definitions of things. When the court does that it completely robs the elected lawmakers of their lawmaking function. That single thing undermines the Constitution itself. It is far more important than the issue of gay marriage.

Quote by: SVMc It sounds like you are saying that you are fine with gay people getting married, as long as the courts don't call gay marriages "marriages" they could extend other legal recourse to gay couples such as "gay-unions".... I cannot see one iota of differnce between this argument and the "civil-unions" argument. And, I think I have presented several reasons why "separate but equal" statuses fail to be inclusive.

By jove, you've GOT it! My whole point here is that it is NOT the courts that have the right to call a gay union a "marriage" -- unless the LAWMAKERS change the definition of marriage. I have talked about nothing but jurisdiction from my first post! I have not uttered one word about the merits of same-sex marriage versus civil unions -- because that has never been my argument. I am not in that debate and will not be drawn into it.

Think of what an interpreter does. If he knows the meaning of a word and represents it as something else -- even changes it as a matter of conscience -- he is still lying. I didn't event the word "lying" -- that is what it is. Courts are established to get at the TRUTH and it is vital to democracy that they stay faithful to their job.

Quote by: SVMc So, Are you done? Are you outta here? Are you going to back up your argument? Or, are you just more interested in building a straw man by calling me a bad moderator, because you can't back up your argument?

I regret implying that you are a bad moderator -- but I was unaware of your efforts off-forum to get the other guy to curb his mischief. I felt ganged up on and was defending myself, but I did it in an above board and honest way -- i.e., no straw man strategy. But I have in fact backed up my argument with the same logic I offered here, simply restated.. And yes, I am done ... having no idea as to how anyone here could possibly stand to have me repeat myself still another time.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: RickSp Are you suggesting that libertarians need be bigots? I don't understand. I still haven't yet seen a coherent explanation of how letting homosexuals get legally married is in any way a threat to me as a happy married heterosexual, with kids no less. An assault on the family? Whose family? My family isn't under attack. Is anyone attacking yours? My marriage isn't threatened if homosexulas are treated fairly under the law any more that it would have been threatened in 1967 when inter-racial marriages were made legal. I am a libertarian and suggesting that everyone doesn't deserve the same rights makes less than no sense to me.

How about this...someone explain how something where the standards are the same for every single individual amounts to discrimination.

Basically, it's about being clear and sticking to principles. If you don't believe in taxes and want them all eliminated, you don't complain about Pres. Bush's tax cuts being only for "the rich." And you certainly don't suggest that people who don't even pay taxes are being treated unfairly under the law because they won't be receiving a tax refund check like some people will.

[RickSp]

Quote by: mr.perfecto How about this...someone explain how something where the standards are the same for every single individual amounts to discrimination. Basically, it's about being clear and sticking to principles. If you don't believe in taxes and want them all eliminated, you don't complain about Pres. Bush's tax cuts being only for "the rich." And you certainly don't suggest that people who don't even pay taxes are being treated unfairly under the law because they won't be receiving a tax refund check like some people will.

Well that is wildly off topic.

Anyone who thinks that Bush's deficit spending is "cutting taxes" either isn't paying attention or doesn't understand economics. Ultimately the amount of taxes paid is equal to the amount spent. All Bush is doing is deferring taxes into the future.

If Bush were cutting spending while cutting taxes, a case might be made for his so called cuts. While he continues to spend like a drunken sailor and cuts taxes only to those in the upper income brackets, all he does is perpetuate the system. And to return to the principle of equality under the law without regard to sexuality - under Bush, we all get screwed.

[Chris]

I have never read this thread, and I am not going to start but, HOLY SHIT I can't believe there are 551 posts about this non-issue.

Boggles the mind.

[bishop]

Quote by: |Chris| I have never read this thread, and I am not going to start but, HOLY SHIT I can't believe there are 551 posts about this non-issue. Boggles the mind.

heh... i think i said the same thing about 200-400 posts ago.

it definitely is.. the whole issue pretty much revolves around states rights vs. equal protection..

[lobeworm]

The reason Homosexuality is opposed is because of a few words in Levi something in the bible. To base a opinion on these passages is stupid as it would seem that this whole passage is out of date. We no longer stone people for touching the skin of a pig and it would seem that you are no longer condemmed to hell by the cutting or trimming of the hair on the sides of ones head (levi 19:27). For people to base their objection to Homosexual marrige on a very outdated text from the bible seems wrong, and the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that people are biased against homosexuals and bar Homosexual marriges as a way to control them and make being gay worse.

[bishop]

The reason Homosexuality is opposed is because of a few words in Levi something in the bible.

it's a bit more involved than that i'm afraid... the chinese, for example, have no background in christianity whatsoever.. however, their background stipulates that the foundation of society is the family - consisting of a man and a woman and their children. that is not to suggest that the objection against gay marriage isn't being advocated by christian fundamentalists, but your statement is somewhat incomplete.

even more, some christians seem ready to accept homosexuality as a natural part/lifestyle of the human condition. as it is, homosexuality has been a part of human life hundreds of years before the birth of christ. in that context, my previous statement about the chinese social order certainly applies.

the objection against homosexual marriage is a revulsion against public acceptance of male-male love that's continued over many centuries now...


imo, let's get