Alive, human, of legal age, willing to marry you: these all go to consent. There is a strong government interest in ensuring people are not compelled into marriage.
Not already married to someone else: polygamy, as mentioned above, has a strong correlation with abusive situations; the government has a strong interest in preventing abuse. Moreover, the benefits/responsibilities attached to marriage do not appear simply transferable to polygamous situations.
Not a close relative: incestuous relationships, as mentioned above, have a strong correlation with abusive situations; the government has a strong interest in preventing abuse.
Such government interests simply don’t exist with SSM. There is no legitimate rationale for the government not extending equal treatment to homosexuals, and recognizing SSM.
What if there is no abuse?
Shouldn’t the burden of proof lay with the governemnt?
Would you require proof-of-no-abuse for all marriages?
Why do you discriminate?
“Not Simply transferable” should mean nothing in this context. Are you going to justify discrimination due to administrative issues?
Where did this come from? Sheesh, marriage has a strong correlation with abuse. Are you seriously proposing that the real reason we don’t allow polygamy is fear of abuse? And the same for incest? I’m not buying that.
Don’t like Gay marriage? Don’t have one. Other than that, maybe we should keep our big noses out of people’s personal lives.
Who marries whom, unless I have designs on one of the people involved is really none of my business. If two guys or two gals want to tie the knot, more power to them.
In reality-land, a lot of laws exist based on preventive logic. For example: speeding. Speeding itself isn’t the problem, of course; the problem is that excessive speeding is strongly correlated with accidents and property damage and death. So, to avoid such things, we make speeding illegal. Drunk driving is illegal for the identical reason.
So your protest here has no basis whatsoever in reality. I don’t know if you consider that a problem or not.
And of course if you could show a marked tendency for gay marriages to be abusive, they could be restricted for similar reasons. You can’t though, and you know it, because you know that there is no good reason not to allow gays to marry. Just bad reasons, and evil reasons.
Not that simple - to fix it you’d have to change the rules. To retain equal protection, you’d have to change them for everyone. And unlike instituting gay marriage, this would have a high probability of impacting everyone’s marriage, which creates justifiable inertia against it.
Though if it weren’t also deemed to be a situation with a high risk of abuse, people might give it the second look it would take to rectify these difficulties. That’s not the case though.
And of course, gay marriage would not effect anyone’s straight marriage in the slightest, as you know, so there is no similar justification along these lines for opposing it anyway.
Actually, while it is clear that you are no historian, you appear to be attempting to enforce an error of perception as “obvious.” If the Southern states had failed to recognize interracial marriage as marriage, then Loving v Virginia would have had to take a different course. (And, of course, my point that interracial marriage was never universally condemned, stands. The whole notion that interracial marriage was wrong only arose in the late seventeenth century and was never embraced by as much as half of the nations following on British Common law and does not appear to have ever gained traction among other nations, at all.)
Where interracial marriage was considered “wrong,” it was clearly recognized as possible, otherwise there would have been no reason to legislate against it. In contrast, no one bothered to write laws forbidding persons of the same sex from marrying because the understanding, universally held until around 1975, was that marriage was a union of persons of different sexes.
Not really, in the context of the current discussion. Throughout the entire period from antiquity to the present, marriage has consistently provided a legal framework inwhich to raise children and bestow inheritance. Despite all the various permutations to which one can point, those traits were always present–and always in the context of a male/female union. If one wishes to invoke the adjective “silly,” it is much more appropriate to employ it in a claim that there has ever been a same sex meaning associated with it before around 1975. 6,000 years of history vs 30 years of controversy simply does not lay the burden of change upon the older tradition.
Nah. You’re just too involved with your position. You may now acknowledge that we need to make changes, but many of the arguments you and others have presented in this thread have amounted to a claim that no changes are needed beyond a admission by the High Court that the rights already exist.
I support SSM. However, we do need to take active steps to bring it about. Claims that existing law and language already support a judicial change, based on the Fourteenth Amendment, are in error at this time. Given a few more years for the language to change, it may be a viable argument before SCOTUS, but the current definition of marriage does not support that plea at this time.
Ranting on that the right already exsts, as though no further change in culture or law is required is counterproductive, because it is so patently erroneous that it simply feeds into the hands of those who oppose SSM. Claiming that marriage has had “lots of meanings” as if any of them ever included same sex unions is simply erroneous.
You will note, however, that those states have eachbased their decisions on state constitutions with rather different wording than the language found in the U.S. Constitution as amended. There have also been state courts that found in the other direction, so the matter is hardly clear cut.
I have pointed out on several occasions that the language is in flux. I simply decline to follow your error in thinking that some changes in some places indicates that a universal shift has already occurred.
There is nothing imperious about my position,. I can support my statements with facts, unlike those, (on both sides of the question), who prefer to ignore facts for the sake of holding emotional beliefs to themselves and chanting “la la la lal la la” when facts are presented.
I’m confused - how will allowing gays to marry change the institution from being one that consistently provides a legal framework in which to raise children and bestow inheritance?
Bear in mind that childless married couples have almost certainly existed for 6000 years of history.
No further change in law is required because the gender of the married couples is already irrelevent under the law, and nothing else of note would be effected. (Again, keep in mind that the law has survived the existence of childless couples since antiquity.)
No further change in culture is required because we don’t require people to like the idea of equal protection before we decide to extend the law to them. Justice > culture; culture can just suck it up.
And the meaning of the word already includes the idea of same-sex marriages - note how the term is not nonsensical, and we can easily visualize and comprehend the concept it describes. Cases where word meanings are incompatible with concepts do not have this property; example: “square triangle”.
So the language has “changed” (actually of course the term was never that narrow; polygamy could not exist if it was), and so you are incorrect that there is some meaningful reason not to apply the word to same-sex couples. In fact you’re flatly incorrect about a lot here.
Sadly, and in deference to your mod hat, I suggest you learn a little bit about what you are talking about. Under at least some of the laws (again I’m not a lawyer) you couldn’t get married. The actual ceremony and recognition wasn’t allowed.
Again you talk about what you do not understand. Same Sex marriage is considered by some to be wrong. And it is clearly recognized as possible. Seriously, think about what you’re writing about before typing.
Again there were thousands of years of women being oppressed before they had the level of rights today. The fact that it hasn’t been done before has utterly nothing to do with what’s right. Blacks and women couldn’t vote in America until they could. But they always deserved it.
Not true. I think they may have to change laws as I said before. But I’m saying they should change them and the only arguments against it are from people who find homosexuals distasteful.
Again you’re swinging at ghosts. They deserve it now. I fully understand that we’d need to change current laws.
In your rush to pontificate you’ve set off before understanding your opponent.
Marriage has had lots of meanings. As recently as the 60s in the American south it meant “opposite sex, same race, over age X, and no first cousins (with varying degrees of success on that one :D)”
What my argument about the many meanings is about is showing that Magellan’s gibberish about the meaning of marriage is completely without merit. If Magellan likes the traditional meaning of marriage so much, he should throw a goat and a bolt of rough fabric in with his daughter when he assigns her a husband at the ripe old age of 12.
Here’s a question for Yorick73 or whomever would like to jump on it.
American law no longer restricts my choice of spouse based upon the fact that I am black.
My choice of spouse is not restricted based upon my religion. Nor my place of dwelling. Nor my class or economic status. Nor my intelligence or intellectual capacity. Nor by ability to procreate.
However, my choice of spouse is restricted based upon the fact that I am a woman.
I think we can all agree that your happiness is less important than potentially pissing off people who think homosexuals are gross.
Actually, I’d like to hear that answer too. Though I expect Yorick would say you want a special right that he doesn’t have. Which is, of course, completely silly.
Your speeding point is a good one and shows what you mean.
What about if you clearly show that there is no abuse at all you can marry?
Somebody being murdered in Ceuta doesn’t affect me at all and I can still be against it. Is the yardstick of morality that it affects me or either I get no voice?
You can voice all you like about your morality. I thought the OP was asking about people who act based on ignorance in a manner that harms others, when not doing so enables no harm at all.
You are confusing naturally occurring with normal. There are all manners of sexual behavior that occur in a society. That does not make them normal. We are a heterosexual species and the normal sexual behavior is to be attracted to the opposite sex. You can make a case for whatever variation you want but it will not fit the normal behavior represented in marriage.
Marrying 3 people, a tree or a carton of tofu wouldn’t bring harm to others if that is the argument. It changes the meaning of marriage, which is what people object to.