Marriage Debate

[Upchurch]

There really isn’t any test of sexuality in the obtaining of a marriage license.

When I speak of a homosexual couple, I'm using literal interpretation "same sex", not sexual preference. In that sense, there is, indeed a sexual requirement.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
but praying beats rejection and denial.

Evidence?

None that you will accept.

 

[bluess]

Huntster, GOD had very little to do with our completion of the adoption process. And since I don't pray, no prayers were answered.

[/derail I aided and abetted]

 

[thaiboxerken]

All things are possible with God...........

Then what's your problem with same-sex marriage? If all things are possible, then it's possible that a same-sex marriage can produce offspring. Thanks for defeating your own silly position.

 

[Hardenbergh]

"On June 7, the United States Senate will consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would forever define marriage in America as the union of one man and one woman."

I heard this on my lunch hour. It's from a column by Mike Gallagher:

Ultimately, we’ll need to decide together, as Americans, whether marriage matters.

Sadly, some will consider this position to be a “homophobic” one, an ugly attempt to discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to get married. But that’s just not true. This isn’t “anti-gay”, it’s “pro-marriage.” I hold a majority belief that marriage in our country should be exclusive to one man and one woman. If we don’t officially declare marriage to be this way, there really is no stopping the possibilities.

When Senator Rick Santorum suggested that marriage could be diminished into all kinds of different permutations if we don’t preserve it, he was right. If we call the union between two men or two women a marriage, what stops the bigamist from taking four wives?

If marriage doesn’t mean what we know it to mean, let’s face it: anything goes. Failing to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment might lead to the proverbial slippery slope.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/MikeGallagher/2006/06/02/199561.html
http://www.townhall.com

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
All things are possible with God...........

Then what's your problem with same-sex marriage? If all things are possible, then it's possible that a same-sex marriage can produce offspring......

I will not pray for that.

However, you are certainly free to do so. I welcome any miracles produced in such a fashion, and will take it as a "sign" of God's will.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I will not pray for that.

However, you are certainly free to do so. I welcome any miracles produced in such a fashion, and will take it as a "sign" of God's will.

Listen, jerk-off, you are contradicting yourself. First you say that same-sex marriage is wrong because children cannot be concieved outside of the marriage. Now you've said that all things are possible, but you still think same-sex marriage is wrong. This inconsistency shows that your opposition to same-sex marriage isn't about children at all, it's about your dislike of homosexuality. Thank you for showing your ass to the public.

 

[Upchurch]

1) The state has an interest in promoting and supporting procreation (note the indefinite article is used for "interest" - that's caused confusion before), and can advance this interest through marriage.
2) Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege, with benefits provided or enforced by the state. As such, it does not need to be extended to everyone, or to every possible couple.

{snip}

4) There are costs associated with every benefit provided or enforced by the state, and those costs are borne by people other than the beneficiaries. The state should not place this burden on others unless a state interests is adequately served by doing so.

I did a little googling around and I'm curious about something. How does the government use marriage to promote and support procreation?

From everything I read, tax breaks go to those for whom the child is a dependant, which does not require a marriage nor even being the biological parent. Further, all the pre-natal support and health programs I've found focus on the mother whether or not she is married and irregardless of whether or not she even has a significant other.

So what is this promotion and support of procreation afforded to those who are married?

 

[bluess]

"On June 7, the United States Senate will consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would forever define marriage in America as the union of one man and one woman."

I heard this on my lunch hour. It's from a column by Mike Gallagher:



http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/MikeGallagher/2006/06/02/199561.html
http://www.townhall.com

So, more people wanting to get married and form committed, long-term relationships which are publicly acknowledged and require legal accountability is bad for marriage? What??

Hardenbergh, if you're going to respond, could you please do so in your own words instead of linking to columnist output? What do you personally think will happen to the institution of marriage if more couples who want to get married can get married?

Edited for clarity.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're not talking about a right. We're talking about access to a privilage.

No. I was talking about access to a privilege. You were talking about violating property rights without due process. Different things entirely.

Okay, fine. Let's modify the hypothetical so it is more appropriate: Let's say the city does not allow my wife and I to receive city water in the first place because of how we dance. No contract was made, so none was broken.

Is that a better analogy?

It's better, but it's incomplete. As it stands now, there are usually specific laws which prevent that sort of thing for utility companies, since they operate as regulated monopolies. But more generally speaking, this gets to the question of interest: namely, does the state have an interest which is connected to the way you dance? If the state had no interest which is affected, then clearly they cannot. If they do have an interest which is affected, then conceivably, but I cannot imagine any such interest.

Again, I ask: how is that not discrimination against the individuals?

Wrong question. The issue isn't whether something is discrimination (because, frankly, discrimination IS legal: that's why blind people can't drive cars). The issue is equal protection.

Let's say the state did not allow a mixed race couple to get married because of what the couple is. Are you saying that is not discrimination because each person is fully capable of marrying someone of their own race?

No, that IS discrimination, but more importantly, that's a violation of equal protection, because the state has no interest in the race of anyone involved, including (in analogy to same sex couples) the race of any children produced. Discrimination on the basis of a factor which the state has no interest in is a violation of equal protection, and therefore is unconstitutional.

Then what, would you say, prevents two men from walking into the local court house and obtaining a marriage license?

Their sex, not their sexuality. It is irrelevant to the state whether those two men are homosexual or heterosexual.

It may have been a nonsensical question, but you didn't answer it. I'll ask again:

If it is a matter of privacy that prevents the government from investigating heterosexuals' ability to have children, why is ability to conceive not a matter of privacy for homosexuals?

Again: sexuality is NOT the issue, and is irrelevant to the state.
Same-sex couples do not have the ability to procreate on their own. There's no privacy involved to be able to figure that one out, so I am baffled that you keep asking it.

There is a SECONDARY question you have brought up, namely why does the state not distinguish between those same-sex couples which can procreate on their own, and those that cannot. There is no single dividing line on that question, though, but a whole bunch of possible dividing lines. And there are a number of reasons why the state might not draw those dividing lines. For some of them, it is difficult and costly to do (tests for fertility). For some, it is an invasion of privacy (women who have had hysterectomies). For some (elderly), it may simply be a matter of the state not bothering to make a distinction it can or should make. The state is not obligated to perform ideally, and it is not a violation of any constitutional principle for the state to extend a privilege farther than it should in any particular direction.

And lastly, of course, there's the possibility that an ADDITIONAL interest is served by allowing such marriages. And that's where I KEEP telling you that you have an opportunity to argue for same-sex marriages, and yet the argument is never made. It really isn't that hard to do, you know.

Now, pay very close attention to this before answering: The point that you missed is that even if it were plainly obvious that a heterosexual couple could not have children, they would still be allowed to get married because it is none of the state's business whether or not they have the ability to have children.

But that simply isn't the only possible answer for why the state allows such marriages, as I detail above.

Now, please answer: Why are homosexuals not allowed the same level of privacy as heterosexuals?

How many times do I have to spell this out for you: there is NEVER a test of sexuality involved at ANY point in this. Jeeze, it's like a broken record at this point.

Given two couples with the exact same capabilities and talents, you would let one get married if they were a heterosexual couple and not let the other if they were homosexual. The only difference is the couple's sexual orientation.​

I don't think you realize what you wrote. Let me give you two example couples which fit your criteria:
Couple 1) a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman.
Couple 2) a homosexual man and a homosexual woman.
Those two couples have the exact same capabilities and talents. The state does not distinguish between them, and will let either couple marry. Sexuality is irrelevant to the state.

Now, here are a few more possible couples:
Couple 3) A heterosexual man and another heterosexual man
Couple 4) A homosexual man and another homosexual man
Couples 3 and 4 both have the same capabilities and talents. The state does not distinguish between them, and will not let either couple marry. Sexuality is irrelevant to the state.

THOSE are pairings of couples which actually fit your OWN criteria that "The only difference is the couple's sexual orientation." And you can see that there is no distinction drawn between them. Sexuality is never used as a criteria, only sex is.

 

[Cleon]

I'm a naturalized citizen, and I happen to be gay. I've been in a long-term relationship with my partner for about a decade. Had my partner been a woman, we would have married, and I would have been eligable for citizenship after three years with a green card. Since DOMA says my relationship with my parner must be sternly ignored in all federal matters, I had to wait five years before I could apply for citizenship.

Why is this fair? What interest of the state is served by this?

ETA: my partner was born a citizen, just to be clear.

I notice nobody has yet responded to this, which only indicates that the "what's the benefit to the state" argument is nothing but hot air.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did a little googling around and I'm curious about something. How does the government use marriage to promote and support procreation?

From everything I read, tax breaks go to those for whom the child is a dependant, which does not require a marriage nor even being the biological parent. Further, all the pre-natal support and health programs I've found focus on the mother whether or not she is married and irregardless of whether or not she even has a significant other.

So what is this promotion and support of procreation afforded to those who are married?

The support need not be directly for procreation itself. All the government needs to do is provide AN incentive to potential (or actual) procreating couples to marry, since that alone provides benefit to society (children of married couples do much better than children of unmarried couples). Whether those incentives impact their procreation activities directly or not doesn't really matter - different incentives may be better than current incentives, but the incentives only need to provide SOME benefit to the couple to marry.

 

[Ziggurat]

When I speak of a homosexual couple, I'm using literal interpretation "same sex", not sexual preference. In that sense, there is, indeed a sexual requirement.

I didn't see this clarification before, so I thought you were just being obstinate before. But it's very bad terminology. An individual can be homosexual, but not "same sex". When the term is used for a couple, it is therefore ambiguous whether you mean that as a property of the individual (their sexuality) or the couple (same-sex versus opposite sex). Since that distinction matters for a number of these arguments, terminology which confuses the two should be avoided.

 

[Hardenbergh]

So, more people wanting to get married and form committed, long-term relationships which are publicly acknowledged and require legal accountability is bad for marriage? What??

Hardenbergh, if you're going to respond, could you please do so in your own words instead of linking to columnist output? What do you personally think will happen to the institution of marriage if more couples who want to get married can get married?

Edited for clarity.

It's already been discussed what might happen. The marriage amendment will eliminate the possibility of any of them becoming a reality. SSM advocates say that the U.S. Constitution isn't clear so they're giving them what they want--clarity.

 

[Upchurch]

It's better, but it's incomplete. As it stands now, there are usually specific laws which prevent that sort of thing for utility companies, since they operate as regulated monopolies. But more generally speaking, this gets to the question of interest: namely, does the state have an interest which is connected to the way you dance? If the state had no interest which is affected, then clearly they cannot. If they do have an interest which is affected, then conceivably, but I cannot imagine any such interest.

Given my last post, maybe I'll wait to see if you can explain the state interest in marriage for me.

Wrong question. The issue isn't whether something is discrimination (because, frankly, discrimination IS legal: that's why blind people can't drive cars). The issue is equal protection.

No, blind people can't drive cars because they would pose an immediate danger to ...well, everyone. Gay marriage poses as much of a danger as straight marriage.

Care to try again?

No, that IS discrimination, but more importantly, that's a violation of equal protection, because the state has no interest in the race of anyone involved, including (in analogy to same sex couples) the race of any children produced. Discrimination on the basis of a factor which the state has no interest in is a violation of equal protection, and therefore is unconstitutional.

Again, my answer to this would depend on your being able to show that the state's interest in marriage has to do with actually supporting procreation. I haven't found any evidence to that effect.

Their sex, not their sexuality. It is irrelevant to the state whether those two men are homosexual or heterosexual.

Okay, I've mentioned this several times. When I say the sexuality of the couple, I'm talking about their gender make up, not their sexual preference. Please try to keep that in mind.

Again: sexuality is NOT the issue, and is irrelevant to the state.
Same-sex couples do not have the ability to procreate on their own. There's no privacy involved to be able to figure that one out, so I am baffled that you keep asking it.

There is a breach of privacy involved, its just a very easy test to perform. You still haven't addressed why heterosexual couples who one could determine from sight alone that they would not procreate would still be able to get a marriage license.

How many times do I have to spell this out for you: there is NEVER a test of sexuality involved at ANY point in this. Jeeze, it's like a broken record at this point.

Only because you won't listen to what I'm saying. Pay attention:

1. A "same sex marriage" is linguistically identical to "homosexual marriage".
2. I never said that there was a test for the individuals' sexual preference.
3. Marriage licenses are denied to otherwise qualified applicants based on gender make up of the couple, namely the homosexuality (or "same sex") of the couple. This means that there is, indeed, a test of the sexual make up of the couple.

Got it?

I don't think you realize what you wrote. Let me give you two example couples which fit your criteria:
Couple 1) a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman.
Couple 2) a homosexual man and a homosexual woman.
Those two couples have the exact same capabilities and talents. The state does not distinguish between them, and will let either couple marry. Sexuality is irrelevant to the state.

Now, here are a few more possible couples:
Couple 3) A heterosexual man and another heterosexual man
Couple 4) A homosexual man and another homosexual man
Couples 3 and 4 both have the same capabilities and talents. The state does not distinguish between them, and will not let either couple marry. Sexuality is irrelevant to the state.

No, I understood what I wrote, but I did make one mistake. I should have said the "couple's sexual make up" not the "couple's sexual orientation". My mistake.

Care to try to address the question again, given the correction?

 

[Upchurch]

The support need not be directly for procreation itself. All the government needs to do is provide AN incentive to potential (or actual) procreating couples to marry, since that alone provides benefit to society (children of married couples do much better than children of unmarried couples). Whether those incentives impact their procreation activities directly or not doesn't really matter - different incentives may be better than current incentives, but the incentives only need to provide SOME benefit to the couple to marry.

But that's what I'm asking. What is the incentive?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

All things are possible with God...........

Hunster, that's a fairytale. You're quoting a book that features talking shrubbery. Enough. Please, provide some facts here.

 

[Cleon]

Hunster, that's a fairytale. You're quoting a book that features talking shrubbery. Enough. Please, provide some facts here.

NI!

 

[bluess]

It's already been discussed what might happen. The marriage amendment will eliminate the possibility of any of them becoming a reality. SSM advocates say that the U.S. Constitution isn't clear so they're giving them what they want--clarity.

No, what you've presented is conjecture. A number of the points you specifically presented have been contradicted or you have been requested to further define what actually would happen. Blanket statements such as 'the adoption process will collapse' need further definition.

The marriage amendment will not prevent the ongoing collapse of civilization as perceived by the religious right. The only marriages out there are heterosexual. Yet we still have divorce, abandonment, single parenthood (not related to the death of one partner), sex outside of marriage, abortion, rape and sexual abuse within families.

I am astonished that any group would consider it appropriate to use an amendment to NARROW constitutional rights. Your snide comment regarding giving 'THEM' emphasizes to me that your only reason for denying SSM is related to your judgements about homosexual and lesbian relationships.

With the exception of Ziggurat, who has stated that he/she is playing devil's advocate and presenting as strong a case for one anti-ssm reason, none of the proponents against single-sex marriage have presented a argument that is not based on their religion's stance against such relationships.

Sorry, that's not good enough for me. Especially when you say that you want to change our Constitution to address your particular religious hangup.

As a note, in the other thread on this topic, someone (sorry, whoever you are, I didn't applaud when you presented this argument originally) presented a reasoned argument against multiple-partner marriage. After reading that argument, I changed my mind about allowing such marriages. The argument was based on the affect on a variety of laws if multiple partners were involved. That poster noted that with the exception of printed forms, the whole legal structure surrounding marriage would be able to move forward INTACT if ssm was allowed. That structure would require dramatic changes to allow multiple partner marriage.

My point is that I am open to argument. Can anyone in the anti- group provide me with a reasoned argument against that does not rely on 'my holy book says so'?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, blind people can't drive cars because they would pose an immediate danger to ...well, everyone. Gay marriage poses as much of a danger as straight marriage.

You missed my point. My point is that discrimination is legal, provided the state has an interest in the differences involved. In the case of blind drivers, it's safety. That interest need not be safety for other forms of discrimination.

Again, my answer to this would depend on your being able to show that the state's interest in marriage has to do with actually supporting procreation. I haven't found any evidence to that effect.

States have an interest in ensuring that there are a continual supply of new and capable citizens - I've termed this procreation, meaning people must have and raise children in order for society to survive. Therefore the state has an interest in procreation. Do you dispute any part of that?

Children raised within the context of marriage perform much better than those who are not. More productive citizens provides a benefit to society. Therefore the state has an interest in promoting marriage for the purposes of supporting procreation. Do you dispute any of that?

You keep asking for evidence, but you haven't disputed any of those points yet.

Okay, I've mentioned this several times. When I say the sexuality of the couple, I'm talking about their gender make up, not their sexual preference. Please try to keep that in mind.

Yes, I saw that already. But it's VERY bad terminology, precisely because it is non-standard and introduces this very ambiguity.

There is a breach of privacy involved, its just a very easy test to perform.

Your sex is not considered private information. Neither, really, is any information that appears on your birth certificate.