You can read about the case here.
Where can I see a list of states with gay marriage bans? Or are they just the 11 who passed bans in 2004?
Serket, you are aware, aren’t you, that interracial marriage was opposed by an even greater percentage of the population than that which opposes homosexual marriage today and the reasons given were similar to yours, except for your curious fascination with a form of intercourse which I’d assume about half of gay people can’t indulge in.
I’d also appreciate a reply to either of my two previous posts, not that I expect one. As I mentioned earlier, when I was in high school, it was made quite clear to me that nerds having sex, or indeed, having any contact with the opposite sex, was gross and disgusting. Speaking as a certified, glasses-wearing, programmer of a nerd, should nerds therefore not be allowed to have sex or marry because it grosses a certain portion of the population out?
CJ
Based on the exerpts you gave us, the only actual opposition to the court case was that three of the justices felt it should have been handled by the legislature and did not propose any reasons to oppose same sex marriage on any ground inherent in same sex marriage.
Regardless of the Massachusetts decision, this thread is discussing whether same sex marriage is appropriate and the decisions of the Massachusetts Court dissenters do not seem to actually address that issue.
The states that have passed constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage are:
Nevada
Montana
Oregon
Utah
Kansas
Missouri
Michigan
North Dakota
Ohio
Louisiana
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Texas
I believe that 39 states have either a constitutional ammendment or a regular specifically banning gay marriage.
I am also obviously losing some skill at comprehension, because I am now not sure what it is you are arguing. While I concur with you that people may mean different “types” of things when they *say * that they are “married,” the substitution of any alternative “definition” to marriage (i.e., your “private vows” couple as one example or your “private religious ceremony” couple as a second) is nothing more than prestidigitation by those attempting to cloud the issue. While both the private vows couple and the private religious ceremony may “feel” themselves to be married, *neither * of those two couples is legally married, and that is the only topic under discussion with regard to SSM. The “other” couples or “methods of marriage,” if you will, are not relevant to this debate, because neither of their “ceremonies” is regulated, endorsed, allowed *or * prohibited by law. To include either in a discussion of “allowing” gay marriage under law serves no purpose but to distract from the central issue - which is whether or not to afford the same legal rights and privileges to same-sex couples through legal (civil) marriage. The rights we are discussing do not attach to either the “private vows” couple or the “private religious ceremony” people, so those types of ceremonies are irrelevant to the discussion.
What you are discussing in this last paragraph is twofold; the former - the difference between how different cohabitating couples view themselves - is a matter only of their perception. How they perceive *themselves * makes no difference whatsoever in the eyes of the law, which, again, is the actual issue that matters to this particular discussion. (They may believe themselves to be “married,” but they’re in for a rude shock in a medical emergency or the case of sudden death. I’m not proselytizing about marriage, here; I’m simply discussing the reality of legal definitions of next-of-kin and “family.”).
With regard to your last statement - that the discussion is convoluted because people are “swapping definitions” - I disagree. You said, two posts ago, that I have erred in including the “fallacy of the Excluded Middle.” The reality is that insofar as “legal marriage” goes, there is NO “excluded middle,” and that’s the problem with getting sidetracked into discussions of private vows or private religious ceremonies. As none of these alternate “definitions” are in any way impacted by legal (civil) marriage, discussing them serves no purpose but to muddy the waters. When it comes to the legal rights appurtenant to marriage, **only ** the civil form of marriage (regardless of whether performed by clergy or a courthouse judge or a JP in Vegas) - the form that comes with a marriage license and a marriage certificate - is entitled to these rights, and **only ** these rights **are ** the rights being sought by SS couples.
To be clear: I don’t disagree with you that some couples may perceive themselves as married, even though they have not participated in a legal ceremony. However, I do not believe for one second that the vast majority of Americans are befuddled by some “alternative” definition of marriage in this context. When religious Americans fight over SSM, they are not arguing that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry *in the Church * (whatever church that may be); they are arguing against affording to gay couples the same legal rights and privileges heterosexual couples receive through civil marriage. The argument is over civil (legal) marriage, **not ** cohabitation (however self-defined and self-perceived) or “private religious ceremony only” marriage.
The entire **point ** of the SSM debate is that self-perception (of one’s relationship) is irrelevant - only what is recognized under LAW matters when it comes to family, inheritance, taxes and so on. Ergo, discussing any type of self-constructed perception of marriage that is not legally consummated really serves no useful purpose in this particular analysis.
Peanut50
I have absolutely no disagreement with you on the fact that what is appropriate for debate is the legal construct of marriage.
The point I was getting at is that human beings are not purely logical entities, but invest terms with emotional connotations, etc. And those on the “anti” side nationally, even if not in this thread, are swapping their ideas of what a proper marriage before God should be. The third item, that of a couple’s self-perception, is also important, as it’s the bottom line on which the other two depend. It’s in their honoring that commitment between themselves that legal and churchly marriages find their validity. And you will find gay couples deeming themselves “married” even though they cannot formalize that as a legally recognized state. That’s why I went through that entire excursus: what the law means by marriage may not be what Deacon Daniels means or what Bruce and Timmy mean.
Agreed, absolutely; in particular, the ability of humans to utilize critical thinking about sensitive topics seems to be increasingly in danger of extinction, along with a scary trend toward an inability to distinguish between fact and opinion.
I further agree that it is the investment of the couples themselves in which marriage finds its ultimate validity, civil, churchly or otherwise. The excursus was indeed welcome; it is always valuable to examine the issue from different perspectives.
Thus far, I am *really * liking this forum; finding rational discussion is a real treat.
Peanut50
Gay marriages encourages stability and fidelity, decreasing the chances of promiscuity and working to hinder the spread of STDs amongst the gay community, which inevitably bleed over into the straight community. Gay marriage helps protect the children of gay couples, provides them with a more solid base of support. Gay marriage links couples into each other’s health insurance programs, thus lowering the chances that costs of a major medical problem will end up falling back on the public at large.
Gay marriages are substantively no different than heterosexual marriages. Everything that straight marriage does that is positive for the community as a whole gay marriage also does.
Why should your child receive the benefits included in having parents who are married, but mine should not?
How do you know they did?
I have heard about gay cows. What about other animals?
Perhaps you can open up a GQ on the topic of why those became law.
Only one of my 4th great grandparents was born in the South (Alabama) so there is a pretty good chance I would have been against slavery had I lived at the time.
Neither of those were put in the Constitution, but yes I would support the process. And again later if a new amendment reversed the first one.
So which things are not allowed to be amendments?
We know that homosexual couplings have existed for as long as we have records of such things. We also know that homosexuality is present in all primates, and Neanderthals were primates. What evidence is there that they wouldn’t have gay pairings, just like every society in history?
Homosexuality is present in all primates, in virtually all mammals and is very common amongst birds.
So you would support whatever is the broad public will? That’s absurd. The Jim Crowe laws were pure evil, and no decent person could possibly support them, for any reason at any point. The same goes for opposing equality for gays and lesbians.
It doesn’t work like that. Answer Miller’s question. I assume you believe women have the right to vote and that segregation is wrong, so why do you believe that one should change the law to grant rights in those cases, but not in the case of gay marriage?
Someone else will have to address this, but I think studies have shown that protection of other people can indirectly pass on genes or help the human species survive.
Perhaps, but why is there a penis? What does it do?
**Serket ** - Your OP asked for the argument in favor of gay marriage, specifically arguments supporting the legalization of gay marriage. A number of posters have provided arguments based on equal treatment under the law and simple fairness. You provided a list of personal opinions and feelings that most posters have found to be, shall we say, insufficient. Do you think that there is an argument based on the constitution and legal traditions of the US that supports forbidding same-sex marriage? I’m not categorically denying that such a thing exists, but I would appreciate it if you would make an attempt to articulate it.
It does several things. You cited evolution, and several posters have correctly stated that evolution describes processes and results, not intent. There are religious arguments that involve intent, but not evolutionary ones.
I think the strongest reason is that SSM is not a Civil Rights issue. The next strongest reason is that people who support SSM, but are opposed to incest, are hypocrites.