Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

No, he is not.

Hmmph. He's already admitted he was. So how do you like that?

[Dirty Name]

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

That all depends on who's sitting on the bench these days, doesn't it? I like my chances. :)

[ibm]

let's limit the scenario to friends and not go to mother-sister, brother-brother or brother-sister just yet. john and david, or mary and susan of different families marry each other. can someone make a case that this is harmful to others and the society as a whole?

i personally dispise gay marriage. but it still should be legal and people of same-sex marriage should be equally protected by the law.

[Dirty Name]

This is not what the Constitution says.

I'm fairly certain the US Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. Meaning that the next Supreme Court is going to be fairly likely to rule that marriage is a state issue, and the recent state sponsored Defense of Marriage Acts are going to stand.

Your best hope is to pursue the angle that ALL federal marriage benefits be stripped, rather than wish to be included as somehow "equal" in a society that just doesn't see it that way.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Care to point me to the relevant passage from the Constitution?

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[belverron]

You are right that I do not have a perfect response to you, Dirty Name. I will give you the best I can.

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

I agree with none of these restrictions. Clearly I do desire the right to marry a same-sex... special friend, yes. As for family members, I would hope that decency and body chemistry would preclude most such relationships*, but, no, I do not believe it should be legislated. I have nothing against polygamy, though I doubt its practicality.

*The decency part is obvious. I'll elaborate on the body chemistry part.... Actually, I'll let this link do it for me. I'll post links for the studies in mice and humans when I get back from work.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm fairly certain the US Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. Meaning that the next Supreme Court is going to be fairly likely to rule that marriage is a state issue, and the recent state sponsored Defense of Marriage Acts are going to stand..

Nope. SCOTUS is finally starting to shed it's New Deal influence and focus on liberty. In Lawrence v Texas, SCOTUS recognized their error by allowing unfair restriction of personal liberty and overturned their original decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.

You're way off base.

[Dirty Name]

let's limit the scenario to friends and not go to mother-sister, brother-brother or brother-sister just yet. john and david, or mary and susan of different families marry each other. can someone make a case that this is harmful to others and the society as a whole?

A case can be made which shows that forcing the legal recognition of gay marriage is in fact harmful to business owners and/or their employees.

A case can be made that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage in the long-run.

A case can be made that the state has no compelling interest in elevating homosexual couples to the same status as heterosexual couples.

Whether or not you agree with all of these cases is up to you. But to assume that no case can be made would be a huge mistake.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name That all depends on who's sitting on the bench these days, doesn't it? I like my chances. :)

Actually, I'd prefer a conservative decision, given the shift toward recognizing liberty. What you're depending on is SCOTUS attempting another Bowers fiasco, which they already admitted was wrong. Given the shift, I don't think that's gonna happen. :)

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name A case can be made which shows that forcing the legal recognition of gay marriage is in fact harmful to business owners and/or their employees. A case can be made that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage in the long-run. A case can be made that the state has no compelling interest in elevating homosexual couples to the same status as heterosexual couples. Whether or not you agree with all of these cases is up to you. But to assume that no case can be made would be a huge mistake.

These arguments unfairly restrict human liberty. They won't stand.

[ibm]

Quote by: Dirty Name A case can be made which shows that forcing the legal recognition of gay marriage is in fact harmful to business owners and/or their employees. A case can be made that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage in the long-run. A case can be made that the state has no compelling interest in elevating homosexual couples to the same status as heterosexual couples. Whether or not you agree with all of these cases is up to you. But to assume that no case can be made would be a huge mistake.

before i say i agree or disagree, can you actually make the case first?

[Dirty Name]

Lawrence v Texas, SCOTUS recognized their error by allowing unfair restriction of personal liberty and overturned their original decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.

Lawrence v Texas was an invidivual rights/privacy rights case. It has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Lawrence v Texas was an invidivual rights/privacy rights case. It has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

If you actually believe the scope of Lawrence, and its overturned Bowers companion, was that narrow in scope, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But you'd still be wrong. Just read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence for proof.

[Dirty Name]

Actually, I'll let this link do it for me. I'll post links for the studies in mice and humans when I get back from work.

I'll wait until then. After clicking the link, I learned more about heterozygosity and the stimuli on the universal loci than I ever cared to. Hopefully, we can discuss human beings rather than the offspring of fish.

[Dirty Name]

Just read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence for proof.

Scalia's opinion is that the court went too far. My point would be that Scalia, while in the minority in Lawrence, will almost certainly be in the majority in future rulings (assuming Bush appoints a Scalia-clone, as he promised). And if that is indeed the case, then one can bet that Scalia and others will INDEED limit the scope of similar rulings in a manner that does NOT favor homosexual marriage advocates.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: 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?

Well, let's see. I don't know of ANY laws which prevent minors from consuming alcohol. The prohibiton is against purchasing alcoholic beverages, isn't it? An important distinction, because many parents allow their kids to have a sip or a small glass of wine at times. I wouldn't call these folks lawbreakers, would you?

With voting, it is a social judgement on a mass scale as to who is capable of making decisions to select representatives for the republic. Take the voting age down far enuff and a kid just does what Mama tells him to. I guess eighteen is a fair compromise on the age issue.

Discrimination by the government, regarding who may marry is not a particular concern of mine, either way. I am apprehensive about the many OTHER changes to the social structure. I don't think a license to marry should be one of government's functions. In fact I am opposed to many forms of licensing, unless it can be shown that such licenses are necessary for the public good. I am not convinced on the marriage license issue. Not convinced at all. I think if two people can get a minister to marry them, they are married, regardless of what the government says. If Jim and Bill tell me "We are married to each other", I will just raise my eyebrows and go on about my business. It doesn't rock my world. I might snicker about it later. But what the hey, that way the government isn't sanctioning something I think is unholy, and Jim and Bill's "marriage" isn't being discriminated against, either. Do away with government licensing for marriage, and the whole issue dissolves into smoke.

[Dirty Name]

before i say i agree or disagree, can you actually make the case first?

The secular case against gay marriage:
Homosexual Marriage

Another secular argument against gay marriage can be found here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Here, a liberal author takes issue with Italiangm's argument that gay couples are the legal equivalent of infertile couples, and instead likens gay couples desiring marriage to a living man desiring to attend his own funeral.

Here is the article:

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/arc.../article1.html

Enjoy. I'll be back later tonight.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Do away with government licensing for marriage, and the whole issue dissolves into smoke.

Your libertarian approach basically defines all marriages as "equal" in the eyes of the law, and I'm here arguing that all marriages are NOT equal, as is evidenced by the amazing phenomenon of conception and childbirth...something gay couples can never experience within their relationship - yet under your view, the gay lover of one of my employees is as equally deserving of health coverage as an employee's wife who cannot work because she is pregnant.

The point is, all couples are NOT equal in terms of needs or benefit to society. And it would be dangerous to label them as such, especially if you did so simply because you don't personally give a crap.

[ibm]

“In short, homosexual couples do not benefit society as much as do heterosexual couples, they do not experience the same pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing hardships as heterosexual couples, and thus do not have the same legal needs as heterosexual couples.”

so, it says because homos can’t ever reproduce, they don’t have the legal needs as we the normal.

is my summarization fairly accurate?

what about those heteros who can’t reproduce? should they be excluded as well?

so john and mary adopt a child and get a tax break. but david and mike can’t or shouldn’t. eh?

one of the most illogical and absurd arguments i’ve ever seen.

i will look at other “cases” later.

[Chalk]

I don't see marriage as religious for some reason. Perhaps that's because most people around north-west England can't afford white weddings and I walk past a registary office most days on my way to the town centre, where there's normally a ceremony going on. If two people are in love, and want to publicly express their commitment to one another in a formal ceremony, why not? I know a lot of people who happen to be gay, and I run into people from school all the time with their girlfriend- I didn't know they were bi/gay/lesbian when we were 14, but it isn't going to affect how I view them at all. Marriage is, in my opinion outdated anyway, but if it has a purpose, then it is to express the desire to commit to one partner for life. Why are gay couples not allowed to do this, if heterosexual couples can? Same underlying principle. I don't think in modern society the 'marriage = procreation!!!!!!!!!' argument stands up- so many single parents, unmarried couples raising kids- and gay couples wanting to engage in monogamy. Denying marriage to homosexual people isn't going to stop them having an intimate relationship, just as a man and a woman will, so just accept it as normal, which it is.