Marriage Debate

[Upchurch]

In this case, it IS obvious, or at least should be. The state has an interest in promoting and supporting procreation, for the simple reason that bad things happen to states which experience demographic declines, and states have an interest in promoting the welfare of their citizens. I'm not sure how much more basic I have to get than that, and I don't know what piece of that statement you think needs evidence to support it.

I'm not arguing that the state doesn't have an interest in procreation. I'm not aruing that marriage doesn't provide a strong mechanism for the broad definition of procreation. What I'm asking for is some sort of evidence that marriage is what it is because of procreation and, more importantly, that procreation is one of the more/most significant reasons that the government regulates marriage.

After all, corelation does not mean causation.

If you do not, then the state interest is axiomatic: it does not matter for the argument whether that's why any particular group of people chose to enact whatever marriage laws exist, the interest is still there.

The interest, if merely coincidental, is then irrelevent to the gender of the persons getting married.

Sure. And I even pointed out (repeatedly) that there's an opportunity in this to make a counter-argument, but you're still not actually making it, you're just hinting at it.

First, I have no intention of following your script. I can make my own arguments, thank you.

If you agree that SSM couples can participate in procreation and you insist that marriage is government promotion of procreation, which it has an interest in promoting, for what reason should the government not be in favor of SSM?

No, there are sex requirements to the law. There are NO sexuality requirements to the law. That may be a technicality, but the law often hinges upon technicalities.

You are either being intentionally obtuse or ...well, you must be intentionally obtuse, because you are simply not that stupid. I am refering to to the requirement for the sex (or gender, if you prefer) of the members of the marriage.

To restate: This is where we disagree and, really, the heart of the debate. If sexuality were truly irrelevant to marriage law, there would be no sexual requirements to the law. There are sexual requirements, so sexuality is relevant.

And such an interest DOES exist, regardless of whether or not that interest is why the laws in question were established.

I'd love to hear this argued in front of a judge.

I did address that. I pointed out that there's no discrimination between citizens involved, because sexuality is never used as a test. The only claim on discrimination here is to couples, not individuals, but the government is not under any obligation to treat every group of citizens equal protection, only every individual citizen equal protection.

Wow. I mean, wow.

So, what you're telling me is that the state can come in and turn off the water to my house because they don't like the way we dance (or something equally inane) and it's okay because their discriminating against both my wife and I and not just each of us individually? That can't be what you are trying to say.

The ONLY units which have ANY constitutional rights are individuals and states - no other units of citizens have any constitutional recognition.

Religious institutions and the press, for example, might disagree.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

It has not been impossible for gays to "build lifelong couplings with the person they love" through the centuries. They may not have been able to legally marry, just like I can't marry all the collective loved ones in my life (of both genders).

...snip...

Impossible may be too strong a word however when I was born two men living in a house belonging to one of them who engaged in homosexual sex with one another in the privacy of that house could both be prosecuted for that sex act and sentenced to up to life imprisonment.

Just 13 years before I was born one of Britain's, sorry no one of the world's greatest mathematicians had to suffer this:

Alan Turing^WP
...snip..

Turing was a homosexual during a period when homosexual acts were illegal and homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. In 1952, his longtime partner, Arnold Murray, helped an accomplice to break into Turing's house, and Turing went to the police to report the crime. As a result of the police investigation, Turing acknowledged a romantic relationship with Murray, and they were charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 (a law which was in effect in England until 1998). Turing was unrepentant and was convicted. He was given the choice between imprisonment and probation, conditional on him undergoing hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. In order to avoid going to jail, he accepted the oestrogen hormone injections, which lasted for a year, with side effects including the development of breasts. His conviction led to a removal of his security clearance and prevented him from continuing consultancy for GCHQ on cryptographic matters.

...snip...

 

[Earthborn]

Is this social experiment worth the possible failures?

Yes. The expected risks are low, the expected gains are high.

I've already posted information regarding single parent homes.

And there is no reason to suspect that two mommies couldn't do better than one mommy, or two daddies couldn't do better than one daddy, even if there is reason to believe that on average two mommies or two daddies would not do as well as one mommy and one daddy. And we also know that one mommy or one daddy does quite well in a majority of cases.

 

[Meadmaker]

You know we do have “in my culture we have men marrying men and I want it stopped”

I don't recall this one. I recall "We have men having sex with men, and I want it stopped."

and we also have “we caught some men joining in marriage and we had them burned to death”.

That would be the Italians and the Portuguese sailors, right? That document asserted that a small minority of foreigners were engaging in blasphemous acts that deserved death,. It's hardly historical support for the idea that gay marriage has been accepted in some cultures.

We also have poetry, pottery, and so on describing SS unions openly, in cultures where marriage law really only was a matter of personal contracts and a gay male partner would have many more rights than any wife.

Undoubtedly, but he wouldn't be a wife, or a husband, or a spouse, and those words did exist in those cultures. (As far as I know, "those cultures" are Greece, somewhere around the fourth century BC, but there might have been others, too.)

And of course, the fact that he had "more rights" is proof that he wasn't married. When you get married, you lose rights. I don't have the right to sleep with anyone who isn't my wife. Before I got married, I did have that right.

In some ways, it doesn't matter, because we don't have to follow ancient example, but if we do cite ancient example, let's get it right.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wrong, it's not disengenuous at all. If the government is going to give priviledges to a heterosexuals just for being heterosexual, that's wrong. The government should give the same privies to people of all sexual orientation.

It strikes me as disingenuous. If you don't like the existence of those "privileges" (I use quotes because I see a lot more restrictions than privileges) then argue against the contraction of those privileges, not against their expansion.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
...snip..

It has not been impossible for gays to "build lifelong couplings with the person they love" through the centuries. They may not have been able to legally marry, just like I can't marry all the collective loved ones in my life (of both genders).

...snip...

Impossible may be too strong a word however when I was born two men living in a house belonging to one of them who engaged in homosexual sex with one another in the privacy of that house could both be prosecuted for that sex act and sentenced to up to life imprisonment.....

I agree that was the case within many of our lifetimes, and that was unacceptable. It is no longer the case in much of the West, and I'm glad for that.

However, I also don't think it is prudent to rush headlong into SSM. Social and cultural pendulum swings can be dangerous things when they have too much momentum.

At the present time in the United States there has been a legal and judicial push from the homosexual community for SSM. Opponents pushed back legislatively with the passage of laws. The initial push by the homosexual community was culturally premature, and was a poor political decision.

I think the same will end up true in Canada, even though SSM has been legalized. I believe it will cost the liberals dearly.

 

[Meadmaker]

In this case, it IS obvious, or at least should be.

Just wanted to say, Zig, I feel your pain. Been there, done that.


If they start saying you are secretly a fundamentalist Christian, then you know you're getting somewhere.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow. I mean, wow.

So, what you're telling me is that the state can come in and turn off the water to my house because they don't like the way we dance (or something equally inane) and it's okay because their discriminating against both my wife and I and not just each of us individually? That can't be what you are trying to say.

Of course it's not what I'm saying. How you arrived at that absurd conclusion is quite beyond me. In the case you cite, they are discriminating against the individual owners/inhabitants of the house, and the relationship between the owners/inhabitants of the house is immaterial. It's absurd because nothing about my argument suggests that a grouping of citizens can DEPRIVE them of any rights they hold individually, which is what your scenario requires in order for the police to act that way.

Religious institutions and the press, for example, might disagree.

They can disagree all they want, doesn't make them right. Churches have special tax status as a matter of law, not as a matter of constitutional right. But churches have no freedom of religion that is not granted separately, on an individual basis, to each and every member of the church, AND to each and every person not a member of that church. Freedom of religion is a freedom granted to individuals, NOT to groups. Similarly with "the press": there is no constitutional definition for an entity to be "the press": it is considered an activity, and it is an activity which can be engaged in by any individual, irrespective of his membership in any group. In fact, the constitution prohibits any definition of "the press" in this regard, because any such definition is necessarily exclusive (meaning, it excludes people) and therefore restricts freedom of the press.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Very efficient.

Is that what marriage is about, efficiency?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it should have an interest, it does have an interest.

The government should ensure the people do not starve in the USA. Does this mean that no people are starving in the USA?!

That's what an interest means in this context. You're asking for evidence of something that's a question of definition, not of fact, which is why I've been ignoring you. It's a very different question if you want to ask if any politicians are interested in the issue, and for that I make no claim, nor does my argument depend on the answer to that question.

Actually, I'm just trying to see if you have evidence to support your assumption that marriage is about procreation and that the state has an interest in that. So far, you've failed.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Nope. And when folks feed me BS, I spit it out. Don't like the taste too much.

What did I post that was not true (that is what you call BS, right?)?

I believe it may very well promote any children exposed to it to behave gay, yes.

The research I’ve seen shows kids in these families are more open to the idea that they may be bisexual while they are in puberty, but no statistical difference has been found in their propensity to be homosexual as adults. They consider it more and have a slightly elevated instances of one time experimentation (hard to say though because kids of straight people are less likely to admit to such a thing), but end up sticking with their innate nature, heterosexual just as often as the general public. Consider, until recently, all gays came from heterosexual couples, and no one is claiming having straight parents make kids gay.

What's that supposed to mean? This thread literally drips with people claiming that homosexual parents are absolutely wonderful, caring, and near perfect. Do you now claim otherwise?

I’m giving you BS?

You must know what it’s supposed to mean and you know what I’m claiming. Women deserve men who love them in all ways, men who are intimate with them, and men who instinctually know and act like their relationship is a natural relationship. Children need their parents committed to each other. They need them working as a loving couple, not two emotional strangers together because it looks good for the neighbors.

Why didn't your gay uncle have a family?

Because his marriage was a sham, forced on him by his father and brothers who would have disowned him otherwise (Ironically enough the his older brother, my grandfather, after realizing what they had done to his brother and his wife, became one of the most important and supportive persons in my life). Without the innate attraction, my uncle and his “wife” were just two people living in the same house for the sake of appearances. Though he was coerced, he made his choice to hide who he was and I think that was a wrong choice, but she certainly deserved better.

Really, would you wish the daughter of your worst enemy to marry a gay man?

It's very clear to me, and I'm very happy for that fact.

At last we agree… ( Well we have in the past, I guess)

I've been a very hard drinker in my life, and have also suffered (like both my parents, and a lot of other people) with depression. I think I have a clue.

Then why did you seem to suggest the two were unrelated? Or did I misunderstand?

I freely and often profess how my family, and my responsibilities to my wife and children, has likely saved my life numerous times.

The same goes for gays too. You want to take any person and make him a more productive member of your culture, promote and encourage him to have his family; they will fight to their death by your side for such a culture.

It has not been impossible for gays to "build lifelong couplings with the person they love" through the centuries. They may not have been able to legally marry, just like I can't marry all the collective loved ones in my life (of both genders).

Gosh, fine, you could do if you were willing and able to live outside society geographically, or risk incarceration, or death a couple centuries or so ago (that’s a “lifelong” coupling I guess…). And I’m sure you know there is something special about your relationship with your wife as opposed to “all the collective loved ones in [your] life (of both genders)”; friends are not Family.

edited for clarity
[I think I'm gone for the day, good night all]

 

[Ziggurat]

The government should ensure the people do not starve in the USA. Does this mean that no people are starving in the USA?!

The government's interest means the government is justified in using tax money to feed the hungry (in other words, taking money from one group and giving it to another group), which it does do. That it may not do so completely or optimally, or even that the government SHOULD do something when it doesn't, does not make an interest disappear.

Actually, I'm just trying to see if you have evidence to support your assumption that marriage is about procreation and that the state has an interest in that.

Marriage isn't "about" anything - that's a meaningless statement. We can define what marriage IS (namely, a particular contractual relationship with specific benefits and obligations), but there's no way to define what it's ABOUT. Individuals have motives for entering into marriage, and what those motives are is irrelevant. The state has an interest in promoting marriage, for the reasons I gave, and it is again irrelevant whether those interests coincide with individual motivations, or even with the motivations of lawmakers who signed marriage laws into existence. And for exactly the same reason, if the state DOES have an interest in promoting same-sex marriage, that interest exists regardless of whether or not the state ends up allowing same-sex marriage.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The state doesn't have an interest in promoting marriage for procreation. I say this because there is no evidence that it does.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Very efficient.

Is that what marriage is about, efficiency?

With regard to procreation and child-rearing, yes.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

Let's begin here:

PARIS, February 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A government commission set up at the request of the President of the French National Assembly has concluded that homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples, and medically assisted procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted by law. The decisive factor to the report's conclusions, after an investigation of more than a year, was the commission’s decision to act “to affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of those rights over adults’ aspirations.”.....

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

More:

...Judith Bowers, the lawyer for the federal government, described heterosexual procreation as a "naturally-occurring phenomenon" and went so far as to say that “the survival of the human race depends upon” excluding same-sex couples from marriage. (Apparently, EGALE and the couples are seeking nothing less than total global annihilation!). She also indicated that a potential downside of letting same-sex couples marry is that it might “devalue heterosexual marriage” and went on to say that legalizing same-sex marriage might lead to consequences that are "so profound that they cannot be foreseen"....

 

[bigred]

after reading some of them, some gay marriage advocates may be convinced that things may be better off left alone (maybe).

Sorry but that has to be one of the most naive things I've ever read here. Maybe anywhere.

Gays, like most people or groups really, want to get as many "rights" as possible and really don't give a flip about opposing arguments, no matter how good they may be. When/if necessary, they will rationalize any such opposition to death.

Family unit, we hardly knew ye......

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

Try this.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

The President's Council on Bioethics:

B. The Limits of Liberty

As we noted earlier, few policy makers or opinion leaders argue openly in favor of sex control. Rather, the assumption is made that our most cherished ideals of individual autonomy and the right to choose preclude an unambiguous condemnation of sex control or anti-sex control public polices. In our view, this assumption is wrong.

Our society, to be sure, deeply cherishes liberty and rightfully gives a wide berth to its exercise. But liberty is never without its limits. In the case of actions that are purely self-regarding – i.e., actions that affect only ourselves – society tends to give the greatest protections. But as we move outwards, away from purely self-regarding actions to those actions that affect others, our liberty is necessarily more liable to societal and governmental oversight and restraint. Sex control clearly does not belong in the category of purely self-regarding action. The parents' actions (their choice of a boy or a girl) are directed not towards themselves but towards the child-to-be.