Serket seems to have given up on this thread (though he may return). In the interim, regarding the question I asked earlier, this comment:
Loving v. Virginia did define marriage as a “fundamental right.” Granted, this was in the context of whether a law prohibiting interracial marriages withstood Constitutional muster. But the definition was not in the specific context of racial discrimination, but something of a dictum referencing the institution of marriage as a social concept.
Given that, I’d find it hard to see a law explicitly prohibiting gay marriages withstanding a Fourteenth Amendment test. Even the “gimme” nature of the “rational basis” test. It’s also interesting to reflect on the principle underlying Romer v. Evans, where Colorado’s Amendment II failed the rational basis test because it discriminated against homosexuals for no other reason than that they were homosexuals.
While same-sex marriage is, legally, not identical to the idea of “letting gay people marry,” but rather a right available to all (or not), it’s quite disingenuous to not realize that the overwhelming majority of people who would contract a legal same-sex marriage would not be gay people. There seems, therefore, to be a nexus between the Romer decision and the same-sex marriage issue.
Maybe they’re still in a state of quantum indeterminacy, like Schrodinger’s cat. The waveform will resolve into either Alsharptonitude or non-Alsharptonitude, but has not yet done so.
My take on this. Whether or not this affects you personally is not a valid reason to be for or against this law. The fact of the matter is that this law will affect homosexuals and therefore all of humanity should make a choice based on the facts for our fellow people. I strongly believe in taking a hard look at both sides of the situation and this should be no different. There is not an easy answer like some people make it out to seem. First off, it is completely unacceptable for anyone to discriminate based on anyone being gay. This is incredibly ignorant and should not be accepted.
Now the reason for people being against same sex marriage is simple. Take for example the law against drugs. We simply do not want to condone behavior that brings humanity down or it hurts people. There are obvious consequences of drug use and therefore, we have a law against drug use. Now, IF (emphasis on if), homosexuality is wrong, then we should not condone same sex marriage. The problem comes at deciphering whether homosexuality is “wrong”.
There are two main ways to look at this problem.
Whether or not homosexuality is wrong. This is incredibly hard because it relies on peoples circumstances and beliefs. Something like murder is an easy answer. Something like homosexuality is incredibly difficult. My viewpoints are undecided since I simply have not looked enough into the science of homosexuality and the reasons why this would be considered an immoral act.
Whether or not making a law against same sex marriage will spread discrimination against gays. Discrimination against gays is one of the last existing discriminations in the United States. This is obviously not acceptable. My viewpoint is that equality for all people should be upheld before an act that is on the border of “okay” and “wrong” is held against them.
Essentially what I am valuing is equality for all over the value of “right” and “wrong” that is subjective in this case.
To clarify what I mean. The reason we should justify valuing equality for all over right and wrong, in this case, is because we do not have an even close to precise definition of what is right or wrong in this example. I personally consider the times I have lied in my life to be the same wrong as the person who is gay. I do not judge them based on this but at the same time I do not necessarily think it is the intended way to be because I have known people who were gay, but became straight through understanding themselves and God. Therefore, I would count on the individual person to be genuine with themselves on the reason they are the way they are whichever reason that leads to.
Harming other people? Not really. Harming themselves? It’s at least a possibility. My point is that this particular area of reasoning breaks down to circumstances and beliefs. I believe in God. Therefore I believe that heterosexual marriage is the intended way. Without belief in God, this could be extremely subjective. The problem comes down to when people judge other people. This is particularly easy with people who do not generally follow the teaching of their religion in the intended way. It’s in this sense that I completely agree with you on your disgust with religion. Since this area is subjective, equality and non judgemental thinking should be valued more is my point.
Not at all. What I mean is that discrimination against gays does not have the same backlash as other ways of discriminating. Discrimination against blacks, for example, has dramatically decreased. The three most apparent ways of discriminating, at least in my life, seem to be against gays, jews, and larger people. Then after we get rid of that ignorant thinking, we will have to try and eliminate the discrimination of good/bad looking people. I seriously doubt that discrimination will ever completely disappear, but that does not take away from the difference it makes to teach equality for all.
Um…no. The Mass. Court made a decision based solely on the Mass. State Constitution. You are misinformed. As to the dissenters, I will not make judgements on personal character based on how different judges interpret Constitutional law as it is not necessarily an indication of personal philosophy.
Thank you for using a cite to argue against point 3. What about the second part, “having a parent of the same gender as you can help you with gender specific issues”?
I realized that as I was falling asleep last night, actually, but I forgot to correct the record. In my defense, I’ll lie and say that I was just trying to give my Internet stalkers something to throw back in my face next time I attack someone’s statistics :).
Polycarp’s theory is also good. There’s also the possibility that Sharpton’s lair contains a couple hundred thousand clones ready to be activated in the case of his demise.
You first. If “evolution” is your evidence that certain behaviours are “meant to be”, then a gay man who periodically made donations to a local sperm bank would be just fine, as he is acting to spread his DNA. For that matter, at least one of the cowboys in Brokeback Mountain has children (I haven’t seen it, myself) so they’re doing their part to contribute to the evolutionary chain and they’re gay. There’s no contradiction. The act of reproduction (for males at least) can involve a fairly minimal amount of time and effort. The remaining 99.95% of one’s life can easily be spent on other things.
Further, does a step-parent have any incentive to help raise the children of one’s spouse? The step-parent has no genetic contribution invested. It would be more logical to simply kill the step-children to prevent the spouse from wasting resources on them, and produce new ones. Lions and other cats do this pretty casually, in the process of evolution.
Evolution also extends beyond simple genetics. One’s actions can influence the surrounding society. Raising your step-children or adopted children a particular way (or for that matter, influencing society in general through invention, art or politics) will contribute to human “evolution” in ways that don’t involve DNA.
Using a mangled idea of “evolution” as a guide is identical to decrying gay relationships because they produce no children. Well, neither do straight relationships where one or both members is infertile or steps are taken to prevent pregnancy. You haven’t addressed this adequately, so I have no illusions you’ll do so now. I just object to flippant misuse of important scientific concepts.
Reproduction is an incidental result of heterosexuality, not the cause of it. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Nothing in evolution or biology has a “purpose.” It’s all just incidental results.
