Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Isherwood These are based on which standard?

I'm unaware of any other standard except the measurement of success of the institution of marriage in terms of minimal drag on society at large, and maximum benefit to society at large.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name And another thing: I moved from "Snow Cone" to "Melted Cheese"in less than an hour. How do you like them apples?

Don't let your forum post count get to your head

I'm through with this side-discussion. I'm often childish; I don't deny that. I still think you were patronizing us and hope you'll be more respectful of opposing viewpoints in the future. We don't need another Starboy on our hands.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm unaware of any other standard except the measurement of success of the institution of marriage in terms of minimal drag on society at large, and maximum benefit to society at large.

That is impossible to substantiate.

[belverron]

My main contention, I will reiterate, is that the majority of marital benefits have nothing to do with child-rearing. They have to do with protecting the relationship in the eyes of the law. Why is this exclusive to straight couples, Dirty Name? Should we deny a handicapped person equal protection because he cannot contribute to society in the same way that a more physically able person can?

[PatrickHenry]

My opinion, lost in the voluminous sands of the longest thread on Volconvo: Homosexual Marriage

[belverron]

This is why I love PatrickHenry.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name It's almost as though you think that it's merely my opinion that heterosexuals can get pregnant while gay couples cannot. I would argue here that it's a scientific FACT. Oh, and declaring "victory" when you have done nothing but propose a bizarre alternative that serves only to weaken marriage further, while utterly failing (or at least, refusing) to address the scientific fact that gay couples do not experience the hardships of pregnancy that heterosexual couples do, in their attempts to produce offspring and propagate society, serves only to illustrate that you are blind to the truth.

I have not declared "victory". I simply maintain that all your assertions were adequately addressed and that you're repeating old material.

The US Constitution calls for equality, not special rights for married people. It would be inthe country's best interest to navigate toward an egalitarian state first as outlined in the Constitution, then find effective ways of addressing the hardships of heterosexual married life.

Your agrument that the current system "does a far better job of promoting a stable marital relationship " is your opinion. You've provided zero facts to back-up that assertion.

Quote by: Dirty Name ...you can "revisit" the purpose for marriage any time you like, but it will never change the ORIGINAL purpose for marriage - to encourage both sexes to come together in a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship, form a family, and raise children. Changes, alterations and iterations of the original institution have had a profoundly negative impact - there isn't a shred of evidence that any changes which you advocate would be of any help, and there is certainly no reason why the federal government should encourage anything less than the optimal marriage arrangement.

Marriage has had a number of "purposes" over the centuries, depending on what was expedient at the time.

A historically-accurate approach to the "original" form of marriage would describe a business arrangement. Brides were commodities, dowry a deal sweetener, and grooms were pawns in an economic alliance between families. The church wasn't involved at the start. There were no forms, no divorce, and often no romance. Procreation, child rearing, and contract enforcement were to assure orderly transfer of wealth and a repeatable cycle of arranged matrimony. Men had property rights in children and wives who were necessary for labor. If no children were produced, the marriage was often abandoned or the wife met with an unfortunate, er, "accident".

The definition of marriage has been fluid enough to fit whatever was needed. Your description of the "original" purpose of marriage is, well, just plain inaccurate.

But keep on chanting the mantra. You probably won't find even the most staunch conservatives in here agreeing with that position given what history has to say, but I'll defend your right to keep chanting it. :)

And with that, I'll wait quietly until you provide new material to sink my teeth into.

[clarky]

People have the right to do as they wish. It is not wrong.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: belverron Should we deny a handicapped person equal protection because he cannot contribute to society in the same way that a more physically able person can?

Not at all. But you have made my point for me. "Equal protection" applies to individuals, not to couples, and in the eyes of the law, a handicapped person is no less of a person than a gay man or a straight man. The same cannot be said for couples. The Bill of Rights does NOT apply to couples.

[Dirty Name]

PatrickHenry said:
I am not in favor of laws which favor married people over others who are unmarried. I believe that is discrimination and thus unfair.

Would you say the same thing about laws which keep minors from consuming alcohol or voting? Is that discrimination and thus unfair as well? Or is it possible to differentiate between some forms of discrimination that have a purpose, and those which do not?

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Not at all. But you have made my point for me. "Equal protection" applies to individuals, not to couples, and in the eyes of the law, a handicapped person is no less of a person than a gay man or a straight man. The same cannot be said for couples. The Bill of Rights does NOT apply to couples.

But every individual, I believe, has the right to marry the person of their choosing.

[Dirty Name]

I have not declared "victory". I simply maintain that all your assertions were adequately addressed and that you're repeating old material.

First off, your assumption that you have adequately addressed my assertions is akin to declaring victory. But no matter. I'm only repeating "old material" because you have failed to "adequately address my assertions" despite your claims to the contrary. Case in point: you continue to assume that gay couples are somehow equal - even to childless couples. This is far from true. Childless couples still have the potential to produce offspring - and it would require a fertility test (and thus an invasion of privacy) to filter out those couples who are utterly incapable of conception (a condition which is subject to change, by the way).

In EVERY case, a homosexual couple cannot possibly conceive a child between them. This couldn't be more obvious.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: belverron But every individual, I believe, has the right to marry the person of their choosing.

Again, you are incorrect. Neither you nor I have the RIGHT to marry same-sex friends, or family members, or already married people, etc.

Individuals only have the right to marry a person of the opposite-sex, provided they are not too closely related, and provided that all other legal restrictions are observed.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm only repeating "old material" because you have failed to "adequately address my assertions" despite your claims to the contrary. Case in point: you continue to assume that gay couples are somehow equal - even to childless couples. This is far from true. Childless couples still have the potential to produce offspring - and it would require a fertility test (and thus an invasion of privacy) to filter out those couples who are utterly incapable of conception (a condition which is subject to change, by the way).In EVERY case, a homosexual couple cannot possibly conceive a child between them. This couldn't be more obvious.

You keep railing about equality, something I don't have to prove. The Constitution already states as much. I'm simply making sure the existing inequality is corrected. I've already described two ways this can be accomplished.

Again, repeating old material won't make it magically become right. Neither does it advance the debate.

[Dirty Name]

The Constitution already states as much.

Care to point me to the relevant passage from the Constitution?

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Again, you are incorrect. Neither you nor I have the RIGHT to marry same-sex friends, or family members, or already married people, etc. Individuals only have the right to marry a person of the opposite-sex, provided they are not too closely related, and provided that all other legal restrictions are observed.

You are right. We do not have that right. I should have said I believe every individual should have that right.

[belverron]

No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I do believe that is the portion of the Constitution to which italiangm refers. Before you respond, yes, you can make a fair argument that it doesn't apply to this issue. We just happen to believe that it does.

[Dirty Name]

I should have saide I believe every individual should have that right.

OK. I'll argue against that too. I'm not even sure YOU believe it. For starters, are you going to limit that blanket statement in any way, or just let people do whatever they wish under it? Because I can imagine a host of scenarios where society's interests are not served by allowing people to marry whomever they wish.

So, I'll be here, awaiting whatever limitations you wish to impose, and then I'll promptly ask you what the difference is between your own restrictions and the current restriction on homosexual marriage.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Again, you are incorrect.

No, he is not.

Quote by: Dirty Name Neither you nor I have the RIGHT to marry same-sex friends, or family members, or already married people, etc.

Strawman.

Quote by: Dirty Name Individuals only have the right to marry a person of the opposite-sex, provided they are not too closely related, and provided that all other legal restrictions are observed.

This is not what the Constitution says. The fact such laws exist don't make them right or constitutional. The problem with laws that restrict marriage to opposite sex couples is that it restricts the liberty of a class of citizens. When one of these cases finally reaches SCOTUS, the government will be held to a specific standard -- to provide a compelling interest as to why marriage must be restricted to opposite sex couples. That's when the house of cards comes tumbling down.

All the "compelling interest" arguments simply aren't compelling from a constitutional perspective! :)

[Dirty Name]

Before you respond, yes, you can make a fair argument that it doesn't apply to this issue.

I'm just happy that your willing to concede that there is more to the opposition of homosexual marriage than the "morality" angle.