Homosexual Marriage

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name To accept this statement at face value, one would have to agree that men should be allowed to walk freely into the women's locker room at the local health club, and vice versa.

This is not an issue for the law to address. It's up to the owners of the health club.

[Dirty Name]

You better advise SCOTUS of this, since Lawrence says otherwise.

Lawrence is a privacy case. If you are attempting to argue that privacy laws should apply to same-sex marriages but not to others, I still fail to see how Lawrence could make that distinction, and Scalia, in his dissent, was pretty explicit when he said that laws barring incest, bigamy, etc. were in jeopardy as a result of the court's ruling.

Maybe now that more conservative judges are in place, Scalia's dire prediction won't come true. But one can hardly argue that Lawrence shut the door on these other forms of marriage.

[Dirty Name]

This is not an issue for the law to address. It's up to the owners of the health club.

Then lets make it the locker room at a state park, then. Come on. Surely you are better than to make such petty distinctions.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: italiangm Certainly possible. Each should be argued on their own merit. Quote by: Mr. Perfecto When has merit had anything to do with your arguement. Aside from belverron's STD arguement, this discussion has been about liberty and equality.

LOL. Excellent observation.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Dirty Name Then lets make it the locker room at a state park, then. Come on. Surely you are better than to make such petty distinctions.

Well, I think state parks should be privatized.

So let's make it a federal building.

This is actually a very interesting question. I'm not sure how to resolve it. I guess it's just gonna have to be voluntary in government buildings. "Gentlemen please go this way"...

Anyway, when are you going to go back and answer my original post?

[Dirty Name]

Anyway, when are you going to go back and answer my original post?

In a few hours. I'm heading to bed, but will be back at it in the morning as time permits. I have only skimmed it so far, and because of the length, I will need some time. Today was a bad day because of NFL football...I'm only up now because I fell asleep on the couch while watching the game, laptop was still on, and when I woke up to go to bed, noticed there were a few interesting exchanges that I couldn't pass up.

So bear with me... I will respond.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Scalia, in his dissent, was pretty explicit when he said that laws barring incest, bigamy, etc. were in jeopardy as a result of the court's ruling.

Maybe they are. That's why the individual merits of each case should be heard. I don't agree with your pandora's box theory of law because of its chilling effect on the examination of facts/issues pertinent in each case.

Quote by: Dirty Name Maybe now that more conservative judges are in place, Scalia's dire prediction won't come true. But one can hardly argue that Lawrence shut the door on these other forms of marriage.

No one said it did.

[italiangm]

Quote by: mr.perfecto When has merit had anything to do with your arguement. Aside from belverron's STD arguement, this discussion has been about liberty and equality.

Failing to see merit isn't my problem.

[italiangm]

Quote by: mr.perfecto You have to go into deeper detail because I don't have a clue what you mean. What did the court say?

The legal opinions re: the Nebraska case appear in Boetie's comments throughout this thread.

Quote by: mr.perfecto What happened on Nov 8th?

Texas votes on a constitutional amendment to define marriage between man and woman. The amendment contains language calling into question existing legal rights re: medical decisions, inheritance, property, and parental rights.

The issue is more complicated than "...there's no law against me naming my best friend as the executor or beneficiary of my will..."

[Dirty Name]

Failing to see merit isn't my problem.

But failure to articulate merit IS your problem. I am still unclear on what the MERITS of legalizing gay marriage are, especially those merits that absolutely cannot or should not be granted via legal contract. Please share with us your merit-based argument as to why the state should alter the definition.

[Dirty Name]

The issue is more complicated than "...there's no law against me naming my best friend as the executor or beneficiary of my will..."

This answer is incomplete and does nothing to advance the discussion. Please share those items you believe to be complications. I am not aware of them.

And for the record, boetie was attempting to argue that homosexuals were shut out of the politcal process - a debatable issue that a single, sympathetic federal judge agreed with, but that doesn't make it necessarily true...

So please tell us what is so complicated about this issue that we just don't understand?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name But failure to articulate merit IS your problem. I am still unclear on what the MERITS of legalizing gay marriage are, especially those merits that absolutely cannot or should not be granted via legal contract. Please share with us your merit-based argument as to why the state should alter the definition.

Your inability to accept merit as presented by a number of pro-SSM folks in this thread is not our problem. It's all there.

[Dirty Name]

I've never heard any of it argued as "merit" but rather, as Mr. Perfecto has stated, as a claim for equality.

That's why I'm asking you to shed some light on the subject. Your debate style, since I have been here, is to always allude to things, but rarely to cite a real argument yourself.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name I've never heard any of it argued as "merit" but rather, as Mr. Perfecto has stated, as a claim for equality. That's why I'm asking you to shed some light on the subject. Your debate style, since I have been here, is to always allude to things, but rarely to cite a real argument yourself.

Nonsense. As others have stated, I won't repeat myself. Asking for endless restatements is characteristic of your debate style.

The detail is in this thread. You don't have to agree with the opposing POV to understand it. If other people "get it", I'm pretty confident you "get it" too, despite your tactics.

[Dirty Name]

Nonsense. As others have stated, I won't repeat myself. Asking for endless restatements is characteristic of your debate style. The detail is in this thread. You don't have to agree with the opposing POV to understand it. If other people "get it", I'm pretty confident you "get it" too, despite your tactics.

Leave if you don't want to debate. Constant referrals to posts that are either old or debunked are meaningless. I am asking you for specific clarification on exactly what the MERITS are to gay marriage. Tell us how the recognition of gay marriage will benefit society as a whole. That's all I'm asking for here. Either you can articulate it, or you can't.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Leave if you don't want to debate. Constant referrals to posts that are either old or debunked are meaningless. I am asking you for specific clarification on exactly what the MERITS are to gay marriage. Tell us how the recognition of gay marriage will benefit society as a whole. That's all I'm asking for here. Either you can articulate it, or you can't.

I'll debate anything that's worthy of debate, not your old, warmed up hash that's already been debunked and equally meaningless. You've added nothing new to the debate in over a month. Nothing.

You should take your own advice.

[Logjam]

Quote by: italiangm Legalizing same-sex marriage does not change the existing arguments for or against incest or multi-partner marriage. You already know this.

Are you sure? If homosexual marriage becomes commonplace folks who have other erstwhile illegal marriage plans would believe that since the old definitions of the institution can be changed then it can also be changed to fit their needs.

I believe that first we'd see multiple marriage raising it's ugly head. Then marriage between men and boys....an obvious extension of the homosexual marriage arrangement. Eventually any union would be accepted.

Just saying that the above isn't true, doesn't make it so. Certainly those who want to have pologomy accepted are just as dedicated to their cause as are the homosexuals.

Our weakened culture cannot stand such an onslaught. Marriage has been a foundation of our society. It should not be messed with. If the Left destroys marriage what's next?

[Dirty Name]

Don't bother debating Italiangm... all you'll get is eye rolling and snide comments. There's never any real debate...

There are others, such as Belverron, who, though a vocal gay marriage advocate, is at least intellectually honest in his examination of the issue.

[Dirty Name]

You've added nothing new to the debate in over a month.

That's because I've laid all the cards on the table since day one, and you have no answer for any of it except your snide, unsubstantiated dismissals. Why on earth would I need to offer a new argument if the original one holds up under scrutiny? I've said time and again that if you could prove me wrong, I'd admit it, and I've done so on at least one occassion on these forums, but not on this issue.

This is a debate forum. So either answer the questions I've asked, ask a question, make a statement, or just go away quietly. Your constant banter is useless and irritating.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Logjam Are you sure? If homosexual marriage becomes commonplace folks who have other erstwhile illegal marriage plans would believe that since the old definitions of the institution can be changed then it can also be changed to fit their needs.

They'd have to convince legislators to change the law or the courts to overturn the law.

Quote by: Logjam I believe that first we'd see multiple marriage raising it's ugly head. Then marriage between men and boys....an obvious extension of the homosexual marriage arrangement. Eventually any union would be accepted. Just saying that the above isn't true, doesn't make it so. Certainly those who want to have pologomy accepted are just as dedicated to their cause as are the homosexuals.

First, these aren't logical extensions of SSM. Polygamy cases have been challenged successfully in the past. Are you saying the state will suddenly realize it has no compelling interest to restrict polygamy? If so, then polygamy should be legal.

In a manner of speaking, boys are already "married" to their parents until they reach the age where they can marry without permission. I've heard minor emancipation cases actually referred to as "obtaining a divorce from one's parents". This man/boy argument holds no water.

Quote by: Logjam Our weakened culture cannot stand such an onslaught. Marriage has been a foundation of our society. It should not be messed with. If the Left destroys marriage what's next?

I see lots of hand-wringing, but no solid evidence that SSM changes OSM in any way.