Marriage Debate

[morningstar2651]

Any evidence for these claims?

I offer contradictory evidence. See my earlier post in this thread.

"According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook derived from George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas recorded the marital composition of 1231 societies, from 1960-1980. Of these societies, 186 societies were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry." -- Source

 

[Upchurch]

No, it's not. The Civil Rights advocates sought political as well as social change.

The KKK was a group started as a force reacting to political change (in other words, a guerrilla insurgency).

And how is that any different here? Insert "Pro-SSM" for "Civil Rights" and "Anti-SSM" for KKK.

And, you should really learn your history. That isn't how the KKK started at all.

I believe I do.

I doubt that's true, but please: explain how the Civil Rights advocates "bigotry" is defferent from the KKK's bigotry.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, your argument is that homosexuals can marry anyone they like as long as they ignore they're own prefereces and do it the way the heterosexuals would prefer. Nice.

I hope you're not trying to argue we should all get what we prefer, because there's simply no legal basis for that argument.

Like I said: the constitution does not require that laws be optimal, or even good. Laws against same-sex marriage are not unconstitutional, and if you think they're not good, the remedy is legislative, NOT judicial.

If the tables were flipped, would you find a nice man to settle down with?

I have rather purposefully kept my personal details out of this conversation, because they aren't relevant, and I doubt you actually know them anyways. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

 

[morningstar2651]

Equal protection does not mean the state cannot ever distinguish between people. It can, does, and SHOULD. What the state is NOT allowed to do is make distinctions which have no substance. Gender, in relation to marriage, has significant and rather obvious substance. Race does not. Therefore, you cannot do that substitution without fundamentally changing the issue and the corresponding legal arguments.

I had just as much choice of the color of my skin as my gender when I was born.

 

[Upchurch]

I have rather purposefully kept my personal details out of this conversation, because they aren't relevant, and I doubt you actually know them anyways. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

This is true. My appologies. I'll rephrase:

If your only option was to settle down with someone outside your sexual orientation, would you?

 

[Ziggurat]

I had just as much choice of the color of my skin as my gender when I was born.

You'd have no choice in the matter if you were born blind, but the state can "discriminate" against you when granting drivers' licenses. Same thing with age: we can't choose that either, but we sure as hell can (and should) discriminate on the basis of age. Whether or not the difference is due to choice is irrelevant: what matters is if the distinction has substance. Your gender DOES have substance in the context of marriage. Your race does NOT. You can disagree all you want to about how that substantive difference SHOULD be handled, but that there is a difference is undeniable.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You'd have no choice in the matter if you were born blind, but the state can "discriminate" against you when granting drivers' licenses. Same thing with age: we can't choose that either, but we sure as hell can (and should) discriminate on the basis of age. Whether or not the difference is due to choice is irrelevant: what matters is if the distinction has substance. Your gender DOES have substance in the context of marriage. Your race does NOT. You can disagree all you want to about how that substantive difference SHOULD be handled, but that there is a difference is undeniable.

You're equivocating the word "discriminate". We're clearly using it to mean "unfair restriction based on sexual preference".

 

[thaiboxerken]

You'd have no choice in the matter if you were born blind, but the state can "discriminate" against you when granting drivers' licenses.

Yes, but there is a legitimate reason for that "discrimination."

You have yet to provide one valid reason against same-sex marriage.

 

[bluess]

You'd have no choice in the matter if you were born blind, but the state can "discriminate" against you when granting drivers' licenses. Same thing with age: we can't choose that either, but we sure as hell can (and should) discriminate on the basis of age. Whether or not the difference is due to choice is irrelevant: what matters is if the distinction has substance. Your gender DOES have substance in the context of marriage. Your race does NOT. You can disagree all you want to about how that substantive difference SHOULD be handled, but that there is a difference is undeniable.

Up to fairly recently, the difference between my husband's race and mine would be considered substansive in our marriage. Even now, the difference in our home cultures and religions is considered substansive. I don't see how the genders of the persons involved is so much more substansive as to result in the State preventing SSM unions.

 

[Hardenbergh]

You'd have no choice in the matter if you were born blind, but the state can "discriminate" against you when granting drivers' licenses. Same thing with age: we can't choose that either, but we sure as hell can (and should) discriminate on the basis of age. Whether or not the difference is due to choice is irrelevant: what matters is if the distinction has substance. Your gender DOES have substance in the context of marriage. Your race does NOT. You can disagree all you want to about how that substantive difference SHOULD be handled, but that there is a difference is undeniable.

I agree that there's a huge difference between race and gender in the marriage debate. I don't even know why people compare them.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're equivocating the word "discriminate". We're clearly using it to mean "unfair restriction based on sexual preference".

That's nice, but it's not the only or even the most basic meaning of the word:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discriminate
1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object
intransitive senses
1 a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b : to use good judgment
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

Definitions 1 (transitive and intransitive) are the most basic meanings of the word, and neither has anything to do with unfairness.

It's rather easy and unambiguous to determine when the state is making a distinction between people, and thus discriminating. It's takes a lot more to determine whether that distinction is unfair, and we're not all going to agree on that. And even if unfair, such discrimination is not automatically unconstitutional either.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree that there's a huge difference between race and gender in the marriage debate. I don't even know why people compare them.

Let me spell this out very clearly. Gender and race are accidents of birth. In this country, we have accepted that whatever the circumstances of a person's birth are, they are entitled to the same opportunities, and no right or privilage ought to be denied anyone without overwhelmingly good cause. It's up to same sex marriage opponents to prove that the sky will indeed fall if Bob and Tom raise a child.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's nice, but it's not the only or even the most basic meaning of the word:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/discriminate
1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object
intransitive senses
1 a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b : to use good judgment
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

Definitions 1 (transitive and intransitive) are the most basic meanings of the word, and neither has anything to do with unfairness.

It's rather easy and unambiguous to determine when the state is making a distinction between people, and thus discriminating. It's takes a lot more to determine whether that distinction is unfair, and we're not all going to agree on that. And even if unfair, such discrimination is not automatically unconstitutional either.

Thank you for admitting that you are exploiting the ambiguity of the english language to weasel your way around the subject. That is the very essence of equivocation.

 

[Upchurch]

Your gender DOES have substance in the context of marriage. Your race does NOT.

There are those in history who would argue with that second sentence. Heck, there are those in history who would argue with the first.

You don't feel that race matters in marriage (which I agree). I don't feel that gender matters in marriage.

You can disagree all you want to about how that substantive difference SHOULD be handled, but that there is a difference is undeniable.

Not true. I deny it. Please show evidence that specific genders are a requirement for marriage in a way that is any different from the time when specific races were a requirement for marriage.

 

[Ziggurat]

Up to fairly recently, the difference between my husband's race and mine would be considered substansive in our marriage.

"Considered" substantive? Perhaps. Was it ever substantive? No, never. Is sex really simply "considered" substantive now? No, it isn't merely "considered" substantive, it IS substantive. Two people of the opposite sex who engage in sex with each other are capable of conceiving a child. Two people of the same sex who engage in sex with each other are not. That's a substantive difference, it is NOT merely a matter of perception, and it will not go away regardless of how social perceptions change.

I don't see how the genders of the persons involved is so much more substansive as to result in the State preventing SSM unions.

One difference has substance. Another difference has none. That's a rather critical distinction. Whether or not the state is responding appropriately (or even whether or not it should respond at all) to that difference is a SEPARATE question from whether or not the state is empowered to respond. In the case where the difference has no substance (race), the state is not empowered to respond. In the case where the difference has substance (same-sex versus opposite sex marriage), the state is empowered to respond, and nothing in the constitution requires that the state's response needs to be the best response. Without a constitutional requirement, the ONLY appropriate remedy is legislative, as I've been saying all along. Nothing about my argument in this post means that the legislature should not respond and legalize same-sex marriage.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, it's not. The Civil Rights advocates sought political as well as social change.

The KKK was a group started as a force reacting to political change (in other words, a guerrilla insurgency).

And how is that any different here? Insert "Pro-SSM" for "Civil Rights" and "Anti-SSM" for KKK.

I need clarification here:

Are you accusing "Anti-SSM" people with murder, lynching, cross burning, night rides, and general guerrilla insurgency?

And, you should really learn your history. That isn't how the KKK started at all.

Get a clue, zealot:

"Ku Klux Klan" is the name of a number of past and present terrorist and, more recently, fraternal organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism; and in the past century, anti-Catholicism, and nativism.

The Klan's first incarnation was in 1866. Founded by veterans of the Confederate Army, its main purpose was to resist Reconstruction, and it focused as much on intimidating "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" as on putting down the freed slaves. It quickly adopted violent methods. For example, during Reconstruction, Klansmen killed more than 150 African Americans in a single county in Florida.[The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida, by Michael Newton ISBN: 0813021200]

Keep it up, pal. Associating those who have genuine political and social reasons for opposing same-sex marriage with terrorists only hurts your cause.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

"Considered" substantive? Perhaps. Was it ever substantive? No, never. Is sex really simply "considered" substantive now? No, it isn't merely "considered" substantive, it IS substantive. Two people of the opposite sex who engage in sex with each other are capable of conceiving a child. Two people of the same sex who engage in sex with each other are not. That's a substantive difference, it is NOT merely a matter of perception, and it will not go away regardless of how social perceptions change.



One difference has substance. Another difference has none. That's a rather critical distinction. Whether or not the state is responding appropriately (or even whether or not it should respond at all) to that difference is a SEPARATE question from whether or not the state is empowered to respond. In the case where the difference has no substance (race), the state is not empowered to respond. In the case where the difference has substance (same-sex versus opposite sex marriage), the state is empowered to respond, and nothing in the constitution requires that the state's response needs to be the best response. Without a constitutional requirement, the ONLY appropriate remedy is legislative, as I've been saying all along. Nothing about my argument in this post means that the legislature should not respond and legalize same-sex marriage.

Ziggurat, some heterosexual couple chose not to have children, or are unable to do some. The same is true of homosexual couples. The state does not require heterosexual couples to reproduce. Therefore, the state has no grounds to prohibit marriages between homosexual couples. Honestly, how many times do we need to say this?

 

[Ziggurat]

Not true. I deny it. Please show evidence that specific genders are a requirement for marriage in a way that is any different from the time when specific races were a requirement for marriage.

It's got nothing to do with what's required. I don't know why I have to keep spelling this out for you, but you continually misunderstand my argument. Specific genders are not required for marriage, and I never made ANY claim that they were required for marriage, so I'm not sure why you think that has anything to do with my claim. My claim is that specific genders make a DIFFERENCE (and you haven't argued to the contrary). Because they make a difference, the state has the power to make distinctions. Whether or not the state makes the right distinctions is beside the point to that argument.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

That is indeed one of the ironies of the situation. And I suggest advocates of SSM's apply as much leverage to that crack as they can, because that's their best option for opening up this issue. They need to convince people that gay marriage can reinforce traditional family values, and NOT just lead to San Francisco-style gay pride parades in downtown Des Moines. I want to make it very clear to some of the other posters that I'm not worried about the latter scenario, but in another irony of this whole issue, gay rights has come to be commonly associated with advocating promiscuity (I say it's an irony because I think the promiscuity went hand-in-hand with the inability to form public long-term relationships), and gay rights advocates won't get any traction with middle America until that view changes.

Yes, exactly! I’m glad to hear this from someone outside the gay community.

In my experience, those gays least likely to be in a monogamous long-term relationship are those without the support of family and their surrounding society.

In this way, Huntster has a point about the harm the sexual revolution caused. The explosion of AIDS was a testament to what happens when you take a group and take away their family support, still discourage public acknowledgement of their couplings, but “liberate” them from most all sexual norms because they are outside of a single norm.

Funny, because the push for same-sex marriage rights and responsibilities is really part of the backswing of that pendulum. Many gays are seeing they want a monogamous life; they want stability, family and so on; not promiscuous sex and a string of lovers. I grew up as the AIDS scare hit it’s maximum, and have always had the love and support of my family, and, I think, thusly have been monogamous with only one person my entire life. It’s really not about sexual freedom, or the sexual revolution; it’s a counter movement to it.

 

[Hardenbergh]

There are those in history who would argue with that second sentence. Heck, there are those in history who would argue with the first.

You don't feel that race matters in marriage (which I agree). I don't feel that gender matters in marriage.

Not true. I deny it. Please show evidence that specific genders are a requirement for marriage in a way that is any different from the time when specific races were a requirement for marriage.

We're becoming a nation where nothing matters and therein lies the problem.