There is no need to us the word. We can craft a law tomorrow that would afford gay couples all the she rights and privileges.
Since we can grant equal rights without the use of the word, we find common ground with the millions of Americans who believe, for both religious and secular reasons, tht marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am not religious, but I see no reason to jab a thumb in your neighbor’s eye when it is not necessary, when you can get the same thing you claim you want without doing so.
As language progresses, it should get more accurate, more specific, not less. I don’t see any group wanting to erase the words “giggle” and “guffaw” from the vocabulary and because we can all just use “laugh”. I find it particularly odd that we would go from currently having a word that clearly points to the special union that a man a woman can enjoy, a union that has been a cornerstone of society, and move to a place where we don’t even have a word to clearly describe it.
I think that it is in society’s best interest to promote behavior that best benefits society. I think that a traditional home consisting of a married man and woman is the ideal environment in which to raise a child. Perfect always? Hardly. Can a single parent or a gay couple do a terrific job in this regard? Absolutely. I’m not looking to penalize those groups. I simply think that society should have cues laid out for the next generation that guides them into situations that are most beneficial to society as a whole.
The slippery slope argument (which is not always fallacious). If we say that “marriage” no longer means what most everyone knew it to mean, where do we draw the line. If marriage is simply an agreement be loving, consenting adults, why can’t we have polygamy? I’d go as far as to say that the it would be easier to defend polygamy (which I am against, to be clear).
So to spare jaming a thumb into their eye, you cheerfully jam it into mine? And I should be thankful to you for the priviledge?
Calling gay unions and straight unions the same thing is, in fact, a more accurate use of language. Creating different terms for identical things is obfuscatory, not edifiying.
You may believe this as much as you wish, but all the scientific evidence gathered on the subject says that you’re wrong.
Because gay marriage is not polygamy, and the arguments for and against polygamy are distinct from those for and against gay marriage.
We have a constitution that gives every citizen certain rights correct. States also have their own constitutions. If laws are passed that violate either The Constitution , or a states own constitution, then those laws can be legally challenged as to whether they are constitutional or not. IS that also correct? It is our Supreme Courts job to make those decisions based on their interpretation of the law and the constitution is it not? That’s also the any state supreme courts role as well. If the case is presented to them to challenge whether a particular law or ordinance is constitutional or not it is their role and their job description to decide rather than put it up to popular vote.
The question is whether they are deciding “new” rights or simply extending existing rights to all citizens. Was it a new right for women and blacks to vote or was it a striking down of equal rights denied select citizens?
What? It’s easy to just get a judge to hand over any right? What color is the sky in your world? Perhaps you need to revisit the history of civil rights in the US. There has been a process since this country was founded trying to define the line where states and the general public get to declare what rights the majority and the minorities have and over and over again the decision has been in favor of equal rights for all citizens. The majority may temporarily decide we have right X and the minority doesn’t, but inevitably the principle of equal rights strikes it down.
That’s also made clear by the pain and suffering involved in this countries civil rights history. Sometimes the will of the people is wrong and that’s why we have certain principles in law and in our Constitution{s}
I seriously doubt judges are making decisions based only on feelings and I doubt you believe that. I tend to think they weigh legal principles and case law. You seem to think the majority should decide the law based solely on their feelings and uneducated opinions. Again, that’s why we have certain rights built into our Constitution{s}
This ideal does not and will not in the foreseeable future apply to a huge percentage of our population. Facing reality we have people adopting children as well as all the other options, because it serves society as it is realistically .
This nations history is valid for consideration and evaluation but the past is not a standard to uphold in the face of real changes. This nations history also includes some ugly scars we are trying to heal from.
Personally I think the ideal of a family unit that supports and nurtures each other is a fine ideal to have but I’ve seen no evidence to indicate it has to be gender and biologically based. Plenty of biological parents raise fucked up offspring.
Except that that group, Catholic Charities of Massachusetts: 1. was not forced to disband, 2. had no issues with Massachusetts’ gay marriage law, and 3. chose voluntarily to cease arranging adoptions due to non-governmental pressure. Like this: CCoM was receiving state funding, a large portion of their adoption program’s operating income, to place children with families. This was done without any more religious aspect entering into it than would happen with any other agency – matching an older child raised in a faith with adoptive parents of that faith who are otherwise qualified is one factor in any adoption agency’s criteria – it’s part of getting a good ‘fit’ between child and parent. But other than that, whether or not parents or child were Catholic had nothing to do with it – much like a church’s soup kitchen where they don’t ask your faith, but feed you because you’re hungry. CCoM was willing to abide by state laws and place children with qualifying gay couples. The Catholic hierarchy, however, was dead-set opposed to this. The state would not fund a program that discriminated against gay couples on the basis of their being gay. CCoM ran the figures and decided that they could not continue to run their adoption program without state funding. And they were under orders from the Archbishop not to agree to place with gay families. So the result is that CCoM regretfully shut down their adoption program – increasing costs to the taxpayer, since their program had been able to do placements at a lower cost than state and other private agencies.
So someone is lying in that Washington Post article.
But IF you want the right to marry in order to gain all the rights marriage affords, there would no longer be the need for marriage. Problem solved, right. Especially since there is no right for a man to marry a man.
But I keep saying ALL of the rights. I’ve, in the past, even showed you how the law could be crafted where it was one set of rights that two groups tap into. You simply put your fingers in your ears and “lalalalala”. Really. It’s not like you to do this, but you do.
So it really is the “easiest route” argument. Finally! Thanks for admitting it.
But that IS my proposal. And it cold very well come to fruition. I certainly think it’s much more likely to be accepted. But let me ask you. If you ran a vote in two similar states, which do you think would get more votes: yours or mine?
Please answer the question at the end of that paragraph.
I find it very odd that these rights are of such dire importance to you that you simply ignore one avenue to getting them. As I said, I think this is a surer route to both the equal rights you want and greater acceptance. That’s because this does focus the argument on “rights”, with no cost to those who oppose changing the definition of marriage, for religious or other reasons. I really don’t get it. I’d understand it much more if you pursued a two-pronged approach even, but for some reason you don’t. Shrug.
The “rights” argument use the equality/moral metric. Since we see that “rights” is not the real argument, that’s off the table. We are left with, as you say, expense, and logic. I think it’s fair to include them. I think under the logic metric we have the question: what sense does it make to piss millions and millions of fellow citizens and neighbors when you can get what you (supposedly) want through other means? I think the answer is "“none”. Let’s look at the expense metric (beyond the social, which the previous sentence alludes to). I don’t see much greater expense. I’m not suggesting we craft a whole new set of laws, just let gays who enter into civil unions enjoy the exact set of privileges and benefits as married couples. It would take like a paragraph. But even if it didn’t, let’s say it took more work to do it your way, surely that’s not a deciding metric by itself.
I’m don’t worry about what you or other SSM extremists think constitutes homophobia, etc. Those opinions affect me as much as some Taliban member calling me evil or a Creationist telling me I’m going to hell. But let’s be clear, what I said in that other thread was that it could “harm” our country—in the long term—by diluting the meaning of marriage. And saying that something may dilute our concept of marriage and having it eventually being perceived as less of a special union to enter into is not homophobic. Whether you believe me to be or not. Polygamy would do the same thing in my opinion, and homosexuality plays no role in that at all, so nice try but no cigar. But I understand your need/desire to try to quash dissent via the ad hominems. It’s telling.
Which is precisely what the debate is ultimately about. Man has no right to marry a man. That’s what you are arguing for. Pretty cool how you just want that to be a given. But it ain’t. Sorry, chum. But please continue to argue along those lines. Such dishonest tactics and flagrantly begging the question are sure to win you converts. Actually, on these boards, on this topic, you’ll probably get pass.
The unanimous answer I get from all my gay friends is that they will not want any of it if no legal rights or priveleges are attached to marriage. Do you really think that they would want it otherwise? You think of gays as having a “homosexual agenda” of “homosexualizing” everything they touch, the way you post. It’s scary.
Shodan, perhaps it might be clearer to you if I pointed out that if you, your wife, and children were transported back in time to Richmond, VA, in, say, 1950, they would deem you not a legal family, and do it according to the accepted custom of the time and the laws passed pursuant thereto. Your belief that that is unjust would hold no merit – the laws of the Commonwealth are what the judges would abide by.
And your personal twist on the Tenth Amendment – that anything you don’t particularly like is classed as a “new right” and is therefore the province of the states, because it is reserved to the states to “grant new rights,” is contrary to the Constitution, including textualist and originalist readings. “Gay marriage” is a form of marriage, as surely as “interracial marriage” is. Marriage has been deemed a basic human right for 40 years now – and while it’s not explicitly spelled out, you may test it by imagining a state completely abolishing marriage, saying that whatever a couple may think, the courts are not required to give any credence to the concept. If this seems ludicrous to you, it does to me as well. Nor, barring a few unmarried and/or sophomoric debaters, does anyone seriously suggest abolishing marriage. The question therefore becomes, are there any legal grounds on which to distinguish between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage that will stand up to heightened scrutiny? I believe not, but you may reasonably differ with that, and if you do, I’d like to see your arguments.
Na Sultainne, I believe you are mistaking your own private and personal concepts of what is self-evident for consensus beliefs. There are some things obvious to everyone – but the assertions you have been making in this thread are by and large not among them. That’s not a personal insult; it’s an attempt to find that common ground which people advocate locating. Try spelling out those basic concepts, so that people can follow your train of thought.
One other point; Yes, the country does as a rule encourage things which are of benefit to society, and discourages those which tend to injure it. However, those are not the grounds on which laws affecting rights are founded. This country has a long history of government by, for, and of the people – individual rights are strongly supported by nearly everyone. You appear to be talking like a Statist, someone who believes people’s actions should benefit the state. I’d refute that, but it seems to me it’s one of those consensus concepts. And you really don’t want to hear my Lee Greenwood imitation!
A man has no right to marry a woman either, or at least he has no inherent to have ir recognized by the federal government and be granted privileges for it. Legal marriage is a privilege granted by the government, not an inherent right. What citizens DO have a right to is equal protection under the law. The state has to treat everybody the same unless it can show a rational basis not to.
As an example, there is no such thing as a right to drive a car. The government grants that license, but there’s no Constitutional reason that it has to. Since the government has, in its wisdom and charity, decided to grant that license, though, it can’t discriminate irrationally in who it grants the license to. For instance, it can’t say that only Asian-Americans can get a driver’s license, or only women or only Freemasons. It CAN discriminate it if can discriminate a rational basis for why a certain group can be excluded. There are good reasons, for instance, why babies should not be allowed to drive, or blind people, or people who have not demonstrated they they have a basic ability to operate a vehicle and understand the rules of the road.
Marriage licenses are like driver’s license. The government has decided to give some out. In order to exclude any group from this privilege, it has to show a rational basis for doing so. For some groups, that’s easy to do (e.g children), but for same-sex couples, court after court has been finding that no rational basis exists to exclude them from the privilege it gives to heteros. Certainly no one in thisthread has been able to come up with any scrap of a reason for why same-sex marriage would hurt society or why the exclusion of same-sex couples confers any benefit.
So I;d like to ask the question clearly: how would society be harmed if the federal government recognized same-sex marriages?
Conversely, how does society benefit from NOT recognizing same-sex marriages.
If you can offer even a minimally persuasive answer to either of those questions, you’ll be the first.
Well, you’re still not making much sense, but you’ve provided some degree of clarity. I’ve realized that you think the state should be in the business of caring why people get married.
Why my wife and I got married is entirely irrelevant to the state. It does not and must not matter to the state. What does matter to the state is that we chose to do so for reasons of our own, and filed the appropriate paperwork.
Why do most marriages result in offspring? It has nothing to do with whether the state thinks we ought to be reproducing or not. It isn’t because the state is encouraging proper behavior. Marriages result in offspring because people are driven to pass their DNA on to a new generation, and marriage is a cultural construct that has a correlation - but not a causal relationship - with the production of offspring. So, yes, in fact, the fact that the majority of marriages result in children is in its way pure luck.
(bolding mine)
No, that’s not even remotely what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that two otherwise unrelated same-sex people who choose to form a household together - whether their relationship has a sexual component or not - deserve the right to have that relationship formally recognized as a marriage in the exact same way that two opposite-sex people who choose to form a household together - whether their relationship has a sexual component or not - are able to do.
Speaking only for myself - the only person for whom I am entitled to make such decisions - I believe that a marriage should be based on love and commitment, and that a sexual component is a vital part of a loving and committed relationship. I think this is a widely-held belief, and it is certainly possible for a gay couple to have a loving and committed relationship. That you (and you alone, in this thread) choose to attempt to trivialize gay relationships by characterizing them as solely sexual relationships does not actually make it so.
Again, marriage is in no way, shape or form necessary for childbearing, nor does marriage automatically include a presumption of childbearing.
Reproduction is a biological imperative. It will happen whether it is encouraged or sanctioned by the state or not. Allowing or prohibiting gay couples to marry will ultimately have exactly zero effect on whether straight couples marry and/or reproduce.
Many things that are not strictly necessary to society are allowed, encouraged or considered fundamental rights. Many things that are, in fact, beneficial to society are not absolutely necessary. Human civilization survived for thousands of years without it occurring to anyone that representative government or freedom of speech might be beneficial. Just because it’s not necessary doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed.
Don’t forget that in a broader sense, “to marry” means to connect or link up. We can talk of “marrying” two devices, for example. So to say that gays can’t marry is to say that they can’t really marry is to say that they’re incapable linking up, that is, of forming romantic relationships that are permanent.
So one question I want to ask of gay marriage opponents is, are you denying that gay couples are incapable of forming romantic/sexual relationships that are permanent?
I can’t tell if you’re playing devils advocate for fun or serious but no matter. This is still utter crap. It clearly isn’t only about what benefits the state since marriage isn’t necessary to bear children. Why not selective breeding if that’s the justification? Consider all the changes in Nazi Germany to encourage more superior offspring for the sake of the state. Consider the history of civil rights in this country. Was that about what benefited the state or about human rights?
You’ve also argued there is no detriment in allowing non child bearing couples to marry so this argument fails right out of the box. Obviously, gay couples can and do have children through non traditional means which are every bit as valid, so the argument fails again. There is non reason to assume a gay marriage won’t result in healthy new citizens in the modern world.
This disregards the humans rights issue. Gay relationships are a reality society must deal with. We could with effort construct a society where marriage was not necessary for childbearing and new citizens. We can and have constructed societies where minorities were property and women were not fully citizens. Is that the future or the past?
I maintain that the pursuit of human rights benefits not only the minority but , in the long run, society as a whole. I assert that history has shown this to be true and the natural course of mankind’s efforts. If you’re really concerned about what benefits society then get with the program Sparky.
No, you say, “All of the rights, EXCEPT marriage.” I’m not willing to settle for that.
And it was shown to you, repeatedly, why that solution would leave gay relationships vulnerable to narrowly crafter, discriminatory legislation.
Where have I ever said otherwise?
Right now? Yours. What does that prove? I’m not saying that civil unions are not something we can do as temporary measure. If we could get a civil union law passed in, say, Alabama, that would be a great victory. Even if it only had half the rights associated with marriage in that state, it would still be a great step forward, considering how backwards gay rights are in that state at the moment. But it wouldn’t be the end of the battle, it would just be another step towards the eventual recognition of gay marriage. Just like in California, where we already have your solution, and we’re now pressing to get back our marriage rights.
In point of fact, giving gays marriage rights is also of no cost to people who oppose it. This is, I believe, that “victimization ideology” that mswas earlier referred to, no? The fact that there’s a law being passed that you don’t like is being equated to something being taken away from you? Hogwash, of course, but I doubt we’ll see mswas calling you on it.
I do support a two-pronged approach. I always have. It’s not necessary in California, which is the context in which most of my gay marriage arguments have been made, because one prong has already achieved its objectives - we have civil unions that are mostly equal to marriage. Now, in this state, it’s time to work on the other prong, which is abandoning the ludicrous distinction between straight and gay marriages and uniting them under a single body of law.
That’s a lie.
What I want is marriage. I thought this had been made clear to you? Civil unions are not marriage. They will not convey all of the rights and protections of marriage. By the very fact of them being a separate institution, they are more vulnerable than straight marriages, and therefore, inherently unequal.
My solution would take a single word.
No, it’s not, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. I listed out the previous metrics in my previous post.
Equality is not an extremist position.
You know, for someone who goes on at such lengths about how “words mean things,” you seem to be pretty cavalier when it comes to redefining the word “homophobe.” You think that letting homosexuals marry would harm the country. That’s an inherently homophobic belief. I can’t even concieve of how anyone could argue other wise. And I say that after having spent years watching you attmept to do just that.
Did you miss the part earlier where I pointed out myself that homosexuality and polygamy are two unrelated subjects? So why do you think that declaring you’re opposed to polygamy is going to prove anything about your oppositition to polygamy?
This, from the guy who called me an extremist, and compared me to the Taliban?
Judging by events in Vermont and Iowa, yeah, these tactics seem to be working quite nicely. Probably work again in California in 2010, when we drag your assinine prop 8 kicking and screaming out of our constitution and shoot it in the street like a dog.
Enjoy the ashheap of history, mags. You’ll have lots of company.
Because the point of those sort of proposals is not to create a separate but equal pseudo-marriage for homosexuals, but to shove them off into an inferior ghetto version. That’s what separate but equal proposals always are; an attempt to make bigotry into law while pretending to be fair.
In my opinion, the one and only reason people oppose marriage for homosexuals is bigotry. Everything else is misdirection and false justifications designed to hide that basic fact. There’s no difference between the bigots of the past who opposed interracial marriage and the bigots of today who oppose same sex marriage.
I can’t see what he posts, so I’ll ask you…has he started in on the “better be nice to us or we’ll make you second-class citizens out of spite”, yet? Or was that Shodan? I don’t remember now.
Plenty, but not here. This is a matter of good versus evil, and the anti-same-sex-marriage people are firmly on the evil side. It is a position of sheer bigotry, and nothing else.
Can you give us a rational reason for opposing it? Note that appeals to tradition, religion, and childbearing (as we’ve seen with NaSultainne’s endless blather) are not rational reasons.
Oh, that thing that exists in your mind? That thing that you’re trying to convince others is real by simply repeating it? Gotcha. Something tells me you might find this edifying.
No. You CHOOSE to perceive it that way. You don the garb of the poor little victim. It’s all about you, isn’t it? Nothing else matters. How dare someone have an opinion that might result in Miller not getting his way!!! Everything that results in Miller not conform to the world as he thinks it should be due to some law shall hereby be equated to someone attacking him. That’s some powerful persecution complex you got there, Miller.
Also, the status quo is what it is, no one is jabbing anything. You’re the one who wants to change things. And if if the result of setting the world back on its axis an passing things like Prop 8 result in you feeling slighted, it is only in your imagination that I do so “cheerfully”. :rolleyes:
If you’re referring to a relationship that is marriage-like, they’re not the same thing. If they were, we wouldn’t be discussing this issue. Take ten couples of each type drop them on completely isolated islands and come back in 100 years. Which islands do you think might have life on them? So, no, they’re not the same thing.
If there was significant/adequate research done, by unbiased groups, you might have a point. But it doesn’t exist, so you don’t. And again, to be clear, the point is that a married man and a woman can provide the “ideal” environment for raising child. That doesn’t mean other situations can’t be better than some traditional households. Many single and same-sex couples provide much better environments than even the norm. Some provide absolutely wonderful environments. But they will all fall short of the best of traditional situations. I just roll my eyes whenever you or others dispute this. A married couple can provide a child with everything a same-sex couple can provide, but a same-sex couple cannot provide all that which a heterosexual couple can provide. Sorry, but thems the facts. Don’t like them, talk to Evolution or God, whomever you think responsible.
You don’t say. Which is why I didn’t say that one would automatically lead to the other, but that it created a slippery slope: the allowance of one helps the argument for the allowance of the other. You’ve admitted as much in another thread, if I recall correctly.
