Why should homosexuality be an identity category recognized by the law at all?
non-sequitur. I am sure some people are hypocrites and some are living by their ideals. For me the greatest thing I miss about being single is fornication.
Again, why should the government even recognize homosexuality as a legal status by which they can determine equal protection?
Right, nothing about sexual mores in either direction. The liberty bits are referring to being owned by another person, not to being able to do anything you want and have the government not only allow it but reward it. Homosexuals are not being stopped from being homosexuals, they are just being stopped from being married, that is they are being stopped from having those relationships legitimized by the government.
LOL…good one… We already have separation of church and state as a reality not an ideal. What you want is to ideologically exclude people from the process. You want your ideological views to be DOMINANT over another’s religious views. It’s a loophole where your particular views are given precedence over another because you define them as not being religious. It’s a clever semantic trick and it’s working quite well.
That some of your fellow Americans are being denied a right given casually to others should be offensive to someone who views the United States as a bastion of individual rights and liberty, I would think.
You make it sound like the only way to gay males can raise a child is if one knocks up a woman, then gets into a committed gay relationship. IVF? Surrogate mother?
Yes, I’m aware of that. That’s just my point. Procreation isn’t a necessary condition for heterosexual marriage, so I don’t see why it should be for gay marriage (I know this was argued back around page 8 or so, but I never saw a satisfactory answer).
I’m not sure how to respond to this right now. Hopefully someone with a more agile tongue will assist me here. By your standards, why should any group be treated with equality?
But they aren’t being denied a right being given to others. You have yet to establish ‘rationally’ why sexuality should be a recognizable identification term by the Government.
A woman gets ‘knocked up’ in every one of those. A woman’s womb is required, period.
The reason for that is because it would take special methods that are invasive to heterosexual marriage. You’re trying to establish that it’s the same and putting the burden of proof on me. It’s your turn, PROVE that it’s the same. PROVE that your position is rational and not emotional.
You guys keep throwing ‘rational’ around like a buzzword, and yet you cannot without special pleading establish why we should view heterosexuality and homosexuality as equivalent. I have already established, ‘rationally’, why they are NOT equivalent. So, if your side is more ‘rational’ it should be easy for you to do this right?
I believe that all people should be granted the same privileges and opportunities, except in such cases where the state has a compelling interest to the contrary. This includes instances in which other citizens’ life and/or liberty are placed in jeopardy.
Well you must have contributed dozens of responses in this thread, so why don’t I just take the most recent:
This is purely based on your biases. Utterly without reason you simply claim by fiat that marriage will be less special if children grow up knowing gays can marry.
First off, you have no foundation for that. If you want to argue it, fine, but it’s completely bereft of thought. For your claim to be true, there must be something unsavory about homosexuals. The child must think, “Well I’d like to marry Jane, but marriage is such a silly institution, I mean they even let goddless ass-fucking fags do it. Getting married would be like going to school in a ghetto… no thanks!”
Think:
Children grow up knowing homosexuals can marry.
The stigma against homosexuals lessens.
Children have homosexual friends and acquaintances.
Homosexual marriage is seen just like heterosexual marriage.
Your argument requires that children find marriage less special when they take into account that homosexuals can marry. Aside from bigotry, why would that be the case?
To remind you, it’s been brought up many times how heterosexual couples can marry if they are unwilling or unable to have children. And the number of childless heterosexual couples will likely be higher than the number of childless homosexual marriages.
But they ARE granted the same privileges. What you are saying is that everyone should be granted a NEW set of rights in addition to the ones they already have.
As it is contract law covers much of it. You can setup a will that gives all of your things to your partner, you can purchase health insurance privately through things like the Freelancer’s Union (which is where we get our insurance). You can create a living will and name your partner in it.
Establish why having sex with another man is the equivalent of a potentially procreative match between a man and a woman.
It already is, I thought, in various laws and statutes banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If such laws didn’t already exist, the U.S. wouldn’t be at this stage.
So you are married? When you filed your paperwork, did a clerk ask how many children you and your spouse intended to have? Were you required to apply for permission to have recreational sex? Is it anyone’s business how much recreational sex you have? It’s not a non-sequitur if you’re reserving certain rights to yourself while seeking to deny them to others.
It already does, doesn’t it, at least on the Federal level. I understand state law varies.
Yeah… why is that, exactly? What purpose does such prevention serve? I get that you want the prevention, but want alone has never been enough in a country that strives to be one of laws, not men.
I think you’re progressing in that direction, though there have been a number of setbacks since 1981. A sign of major progress will be when a presidential candidate’s religious views are of no interest to the electorate.
Ideally, I would think, a religious view would never be dominant in a nation with a separation of church and state. The view would have to demonstrate itself to have secular value. What I’d prefer be DOMINANT is the American ideal of individual rights and liberties, as spelled out in your own key documents.
I wasn’t aware referencing the first and fourteenth amendments was a trick.
I’ve a question from this; it stems from the basic curiosity of “Which arguments then, if not totally convincing, are those you include when you judge this issue”, but it would be an interested route to go down. The vast majority of this thread now is focused on your arguments and attempts at supporting or refuting them, which is pretty much expected when it’s countless odd people against one (or two). Instead of everyone’s views on your arguments, i’d like to hear your views on the arguments of others, if that’s reasonable - I sort of get the feeling that I understand why you feel the cons to gay marriage mount up, but not whether the pros don’t, if that makes sense. I get why you think the arguments against are sound ones, but not why the arguments for aren’t, to the extent that some aren’t.
Isn’t that what you are saying? I’m likely much stronger than you. Why should you have rights that equate to mine?
Oh, right, we don’t discriminate as a culture based on how much a person can bench press. So even though we aren’t equivalent, you can still have all the rights I have.
How utterly self-evident and painfully obvious. :smack:
You have the right to marry someone you are sexually compatible with. Homosexuals do not. Shame on you for lording your womb over them as a reason to keep rights from them.
Okay, that’s three steps. Aren’t there about hundred others that married couples get automatically? Is it even possible to create an omnibus contract that perfectly simulates marriage? How do you gaurantee that third parties will recognize it? Will a hospital be required to accept the decision of the person holding the living will if it conflicts with the patient’s entire immediate family? Can a same-sex contract-partner adopt the biological child of his/her partner and thus take on parental rights and responsibilities?
Why does it have to be? There’s no marital requirement for procreation now, why create one?
I am not legally married. In my first marriage though, no, no one asked me about procreation.
Again, you are equating the sexual relationships as though they are OBVIOUSLY equivalent. Certainly homosexuality should be irrelevant to getting a job, but why should they be able to get married? Marriage is for helping to encourage procreation, it’s not a perfect system, but if you are CERTAIN it cannot work then why do it? Also, in prior times barren women and sterile men WERE stigmatized.
Right, and marriage is recognized at the state level, which is where the fight is occurring.
Right, but you are seeking to redefine those laws. You use rhetoric as though your side is the default and that the status quo is the radical one. It’s clever language, but you are on the side seeking a change in the laws of the land.
So what you are saying is that the religious should not be represented then?
The problem with this is that we see a difference between ideology and religion. This distinction benefits you of course because you are able to claim a sort of unbiased ideological purity that is not ‘tainted’ by religion. In reality it’s one belief system vs another. IE, your religion is winning. There is no difference between ideology and religion, but it is helpful for one side and hurtful in the other.
No, defining yourself as not being religious allows you to claim an ideological purity and to exclude the religious from the process for not being part of the ‘areligious’ religion.
No one is denied the privilege of marriage as defined as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. The argument here is that two men marrying ISN’T marriage.
Because that is traditionally what marriage is about. Your argument thus far consists of, “Well because there is a loophole that heterosexuals exploit that is essentially unenforceable, homosexuals should be able to exploit it as well.”
I don’t think it was an ad hominem. And Special pleading requires that I ask for an exception to the ordinary. You’re the one with the special pleading. You have the right to marry someone you’re sexually attracted to. And you want to deny that right to homosexuals because they can’t procreate. Even though you allow it to heterosexuals that can’t procreate.
Isn’t that what civil unions are supposed to do? But if there is a legal contract and the hospital is violating it that’s illegal in the face of the law. The law enforces contracts.
You are arguing that because a loophole is unenforceable that we should expand it.
We already have separation of church and state as a reality not an ideal. What you want is to ideologically exclude people from the process. You want your ideological views to be DOMINANT over another’s religious views. It’s a loophole where your particular views are given precedence over another because you define them as not being religious. It’s a clever semantic trick and it’s working quite well.