Homosexual Marriage

[belverron]

Not that that was really the topic. But still.

[Dirty Name]

I feel religious views should have NO role in formation of our laws. Even with empiracal evidence, I feel it should be strongly seperated from any religious ties to ensure allegations couldn't be made tying the decision wasn't influenced by religion.

I would argue that the First Amendment may prohibit the establishment of any specific religion, but certainly doesn't prohibit a general nod toward non-denominational religious principles.

And just to throw a real monkey wrench into this discussion, I posit that atheism is itself a religion.

[belverron]

We've heard that argument so many times it makes me want to gnash my teeth when you present it as a novel idea.

[Jack]

I posit that atheism is itself a religion.

Posit away, it doesn't make it true. Atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs, a lack of acceptance of theism, generally extended to mean a lack of religious belief. It does not speak to what the atheist does believe, nor is it an organized system of beliefs that can be worshipped or "practiced".

[Dirty Name]

OK fine. But isn't it still philosophical in nature?

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
OK fine. But isn't it still philosophical in nature?

I say:
So, what is your point? Even if it IS a religion, what difference would it make. There is no ritual to being an atheist, no churches to be tax free, no congregations to sway and brainwash, no followers to pilfer money from to make them feel better about themselves. Athiest as a religion poses no identifyable traits, to make it a religion, other than one common thread. They don't believe in OTHER religions. What constitutes a religion?

We have freedom of belief, which means freedom not to get religion rammed up our ass through law or political BS. We also have rights to be treated equally under the law, and with Christians having marriage recognized, licensed and tax breaked, it is recognized by law, and therfore illegal.

Lets take away licenses to be married, tax breaks for those who get married, and tax breaks for people who have kids, and you will see just how "popular" marriage is today. Oh wait, that would be a level playing field, and religion doesn't endorse that.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: So, what is your point? Even if it IS a religion, what difference would it make...

There is no legal difference between belief or non-belief, church membership or non-membership. But of course the playing field is not level and obviously Christian types a trying to use the law as sort of a backdoor conversion. It won't be long before those crazy supernaturalists pass laws requiring every American to go and kiss the Pope's pinky ring (or denominational equivalent). :rolleyes:

Rhetoric with no regard for reason. People for the most part do not marry for any state conferred benefits--well maybe there is a large segment of folks doing it to avoid immigration problems. But it is a small part of the married community. Expanding the definition of marriage to the point where any two people could claim to be married would only serve to undermine the purpose of having marriage in the first place. Much the same way some people would argue that expanding the definition of "public use" to include taking from on citizen and giving to another would expand the concept of eminent domain so far as to undermine the reason for having eminent domain domain or protecting property rights in the first place.

[italiangm]

Quote by: mr.perfecto People for the most part do not marry for any state conferred benefits--well maybe there is a large segment of folks doing it to avoid immigration problems. But it is a small part of the married community.

Yet married couples don't refuse those state-conferred bennies. I don't see married couples lining-up to pay another full-cost health insurance premium to cover a spouse. Or refusing to take the full $4850 spousal tax exemption even though they are unemployed or stay at home.

Quote by: mr.perfecto Expanding the definition of marriage to the point where any two people could claim to be married would only serve to undermine the purpose of having marriage in the first place. Much the same way some people would argue that expanding the definition of "public use" to include taking from on citizen and giving to another would expand the concept of eminent domain so far as to undermine the reason for having eminent domain domain or protecting property rights in the first place.

So using your analogy:

Marriage = property which the state has the power to appropriate for its own use without the owner's consent.

State-conferred benefits = just compensation for the state's confiscating of said property.

Hey! I like it! :)

[Dirty Name]

People for the most part do not marry for any state conferred benefits

OK, granted. But just try to take them away.

What is really absurd about the homosexual marriage argument is that it essentially would result in benefits to everyone. Once the state recognizes homosexual relationships, there really isn't a limit to what other forms of relationships should also be granted benefits.

In my opinion, homosexual activists, in order to be consistent, should be arguing to strip all marriage benefits rather than arguing in favor of bestowing them on their particular group. I realize some of you here do argue exactly that, but the gay-rights movement isn't exactly on the same page in terms of what the goals are.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name What is really absurd about the homosexual marriage argument is that it essentially would result in benefits to everyone. Once the state recognizes homosexual relationships, there really isn't a limit to what other forms of relationships should also be granted benefits.

There aren't many contractural relationships left. The dog/tree/whatever argument is pure strawman. So are intra-familial relationships. Poly relationships are a different story. They're already being addressed in the courts. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Quote by: Dirty Name In my opinion, homosexual activists, in order to be consistent, should be arguing to strip all marriage benefits rather than arguing in favor of bestowing them on their particular group. I realize some of you here do argue exactly that, but the gay-rights movement isn't exactly on the same page in terms of what the goals are.

It's a question of choosing which battles to fight. Eliminating benefits for married childless couples would be a good -- and quick -- way to test the waters.

IMHO, it makes more sense to get government out of the marriage licensing business altogether, allowing them to focus on handling contract disputes.

[Dirty Name]

It's a question of choosing which battles to fight. Eliminating benefits for married childless couples would be a good -- and quick -- way to test the waters. IMHO, it makes more sense to get government out of the marriage licensing business altogether, allowing them to focus on handling contract disputes.

Both of these proposals weaken marriage - which is exactly what we don't need as a society. And for what? So gay couples can have the same benefits even though they aren't equivalent? That's absurd.

Further, you continue to assert that homosexual couples are equal to childless heterosexual couples. This is totally untrue.

A childless couple still has the potential to experience pregnancy whereas the gay couple does not. A woman who gets pregnant may have to forego a professional career, sacrificing her position within an organization for the good of her future child.

The benefits that are bestowed on married couples by the federal government act as a form of protection for the marriage relationship, acknowledging that pregnancy, childbirth, and the raising of a family result in something positive for society. Federal tax breaks for married couples are a sign of approval by the federal government that it recognizes the benefits to society provided by heterosexual couples and acknowledges the hardships they have to experience in the process of raising a family.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out how homosexual couples benefit society in any way, shape or form - or how homosexual couples could possibly experience the same burdens that heterosexual couple could.

I'll go back to the funeral analogy I linked to earlier. Funerals, like marriage, have some roots as a religious rite. Our government generally extends some benefits and priveleges to those related to the deceased at a funeral - for example, certain traffic laws can be disobeyed, bereavement leave is granted, jury duty can be excused, and there are a number of laws regulating how the deceased is to be treated.

If it is discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to “marry,” is it not equally unfair to deny living individuals the right to attend their own “funerals”? If it makes individuals happy, some would reply, what is the harm?

Only that allowing people to attend their own funerals, drive through traffic lights in motorcades, and be excused from work so they can mourn their own death, would result in a weakening of the ritual we currently call a funeral.

Thus, we as a society believe that a certain requirement must be met before a funeral can be held - namely, that someone must be dead.

Marriage is no different. Before certain priveleges are bestowed upon a married couple, certain requirements must be met, namely, they must be of the opposite sex. There is no difference between requiring a person to be dead at their funeral versus requiring a married couple to consist of two opposite sex partners.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Both of these proposals weaken marriage - which is exactly what we don't need as a society.

You've yet to provide a single fact to back that assertion up. I've seen a number of government edicts, education plans and programs to bolster marriage. Most all have a common theme -- they're directed at the poor and less educated. Which, I believe, is a good thing. However, not one of the programs I've reviewed cites a law claiming marriage was designed to:

Quote by: Dirty Name Promote a stable nuclear family for successful child-rearing Provide special protections to women, who are often required by medical circumstances related to pregnancy to stay at home and forego a professional career. Provide special protections to either spouse should they decide to forego a professional career in order to be a stay-at-home parent.

These programs act to bolster a population subset who find themselves in dire situations. People who need to be better educated on what conditions support marriage and children, and hopefully avoid starting a family until those conditions are met.

Quote by: Dirty Name And for what? So gay couples can feel better about their deviant lifestyle? That's absurd.

Achieving equality is hardly absurd. But I do understand how those with undeserved special interest benefits hate having them taken away.

[Dirty Name]

Achieving equality is hardly absurd.

Please, oh please, just explain to me how on earth a gay couple is equal to a heterosexual couple? It just isn't true. You are attempting to ascribe to gay couples a legal theory meant to apply to individuals.

[Dirty Name]

These programs act to bolster a population subset who find themselves in dire situations.

What dire situations are you referring to?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Please, oh please, just explain to me how on earth a gay couple is equal to a heterosexual couple? It just isn't true. You are attempting to ascribe to gay couples a legal theory meant to apply to individuals.

You find a few laws that confirm all you've claimed about the government's "compelling interest in marriage", over and above family law (ie, contract law), and I'll consider your request.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
What is really absurd about the homosexual marriage argument is that it essentially would result in benefits to everyone. Once the state recognizes homosexual relationships, there really isn't a limit to what other forms of relationships should also be granted benefits.

I say:
Exactly the point, and why NO RELIGIOUS ceremony should be given tax break status. It was wrong then, its wrong now.

Dirty Name said:
Both of these proposals weaken marriage - which is exactly what we don't need as a society.

I say:
These proposals that I made, would RE-align the government with the Constitution, as IT SHOULD BE. Whether or not it weakens the religious institution of marriage is IRRELEVANT. What we need as a society are laws that make sense, because they are all derived from the same logic. The Constitution provides this logic, and solid foundation.

It is the last 100+ years of bi-partisan conspiracy that has weakened and re-interpreted the Constitution to the point it is today, a loose idea of what we used to be about. What would strengthen this society would be sensible laws, that provide what is promised in our national claims, liberty and JUSTICE for all, by all, instead of these senseless laws that seek to divide society based on belief.

Dirty Name said:
And for what? So gay couples can feel better about their deviant lifestyle? That's absurd.

I say:
It shows you are one sided on this topic. "Deviant" lifestyle? You mean according to your little corner of beliefs? I don't know if you know it or not, but we are SUPPOSED to have freedom of belief, which is freedom to have different opinions about what is "deviant" and what is not.

As someone else said before.

Your version of right and wrong does not constitute legal or illegal.

And by the way, what is "absurd" is the way you people dictate your beliefs as right or wrong, and project your beliefs on to other people.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. Even the church can't make up its mind, as some are marrying gays and lesbians, so it just shows that even they are split on this issue. Wouldn't it be sort of stupid for the government to pass a law on a religious ceremony, when EVEN THE CHURCH wont do that?

You should be ashamed for trying to remove others rights, because you think they are not worthy, yet you would be the first to cry were you not allowed to express you beliefs, speech, or any other right YOU feel is sacred.

Dissembler is not an honorable tag to wear.

[belverron]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready These proposals that I made, would RE-align the government with the Constitution, as IT SHOULD BE. Whether or not it weakens the religious institution of marriage is IRRELEVANT. What we need as a society are laws that make sense, because they are all derived from the same logic. The Constitution provides this logic, and solid foundation.

Agreed. That's a great post, Osborn.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: italiangm You find a few laws that confirm all you've claimed about the government's "compelling interest in marriage", over and above family law (ie, contract law), and I'll consider your request.

Oh, so now we're playing the "Italiangm is the final authority in this discussion" and no further discussion will ensue until all of Italiangm's demands are met?

That's lame.

[Dirty Name]

Exactly the point, and why NO RELIGIOUS ceremony should be given tax break status. It was wrong then, its wrong now.

There is absolutely ZERO religious requirement for ANYONE to get married. Religion has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the legal recognition of marriage as it exists today. GET OVER IT ALREADY. Screaming about religion is the NUMBER ONE page in the liberal playbook today. That's why the Secular Case Against Gay Marriage is such a shock to you people. You have absolutely no idea about how to deal with it.

Case in point - the quote from Osborn and then Belverron joining him in his opinion - a lame attempt to re-inject religion into the debate and re-cast my position in the light of something more easily attacked. It's absolutely laughable, and not unexpected, but certainly disappointing.

It shows you are one sided on this topic. "Deviant" lifestyle? You mean according to your little corner of beliefs?

No, my misguided friend. According the the dictionary definition of "deviant" which I have provided for you here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deviant

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Oh, so now we're playing the "Italiangm is the final authority in this discussion" and no further discussion will ensue until all of Italiangm's demands are met? That's lame.

It's an honest request. A request which appeals to my personal evidentiary standards, although many people here subscribe to similar standards.

Until you provide credible evidence, your claim re: the government's "compelling interest in marriage" is just an opinion that may or may not have a basis in fact.