Marriage Debate

[Ziggurat]

These questions are being answered and they look very favorable, but I do find it odd to express concern about “How do children of gay couples fare in society?” when that worry is clearly eased by removing the remaining legal disadvantages these families have.

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.

There is a case to be made that children of gay couples will benefit from SSM's, I absolutely agree, but that's the case advocates need to make, NOT one based on non-discrimination, because that's simply not going to be enough. Convince people that the children really do benefit, and I think you'll even be able to get religious conservatives on board.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Proponents of same-sex marriage are still engaging in the sexual revolution, and it has been a social disaster throughout it's political lifespan in the Western world.

Feel free to define "sexual revolution" and then prove that proponents of same-sex marriage are "still engaging" in it. Also feel free to show how your assertion is a valid argument against same-sex marriage.

 

[Ziggurat]

The only difference is genetilia.

Which has a hell of a lot to do with procreation. Or did you miss the sex ed classes when you were a kid? Please don't tell me you need that "birds and the bees" talk with your parents this late in life.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Which has a hell of a lot to do with procreation. Or did you miss the sex ed classes when you were a kid? Please don't tell me you need that "birds and the bees" talk with your parents this late in life.

Procreation has little to do with marriage. Let's not go chasing after that red-herring again.

 

[Meadmaker]

I would be more likely to argue that marriage needs to exist to clearly define ownership and inheritance. The 'love' marriages of today are certainly not traditional.

And that's a perfectly fine argument, but it isn't the one you spoke of earlier. You asked why childless couples can marry but gay ones cannot.


Upchurch didn't like the answer much, but there's a simple answer. There's also the fact that in many cases, a childless couple might not always be achildless couple. See below.

What is the 'capability to have babies without even trying'? A homo couple has to work to have children much harder than a fertile hetero couple.

Exactly. A healthy hetero couple who starts having sex might end up with a baby, whether they want one or not. That isn't the case for homosexuals. That makes the situations different. Among the functions of marriage was to protect the woman from abandonment by "love 'em and leave 'em" sorts, who would also leave behind fatherless children.

It seems so weird to me that in all this search for equality, no one wants to acknowledge this rather basic aspect of the human condition. Sex makes babies, and that causes issues, and laws exist to help prevent fatherless children and abandonned pregnant women. And that system worked imperfectly but fairly well, intil people decided that marriage was all about something called "love", and sex was for pleasure, and babies were a choice. Inconveniently, despite technological advances, babies aren't alwauys a choice, and sex still causes them, and they still take 18 years or thereabouts to raise, and it's still too much work for one person to do it alone, with or without love.

 

[Ziggurat]

Am I on ignore?

No, sorry, the posts just keep flooding in and I've missed a whole bunch of replies. Could you repost the CBO numbers? I think they're buried several pages back now.

 

[Upchurch]

I would note that "equity" is not listed as one of those inalienable rights.

I would note that "equality" is considered even more fundamental to being human that the inalienable rights.

Nor is marriage (or the lack thereof) an issue of liberty (anti-sodomy laws, in contrast, are) - it is an issue of privilege, which is different.

A privilege that is allowed to one group of citizens and not to another.

Furthermore, equity and equality aren't the same thing. As I've already mentioned, equal protection isn't an issue here.

I fundamentally disagree. Equality under the law is absolutely the issue here.

So there's really nothing in the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution, which requires that the state provide SSM's.

Requires? No. But it does set down guiding American principles that are being ignored.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly. A healthy hetero couple who starts having sex might end up with a baby, whether they want one or not. That isn't the case for homosexuals.

So homosexual couples have to plan having a family where-as heterosexuals might have kids when their not ready or prepared for it? Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST same-sex marriage?

 

[Meadmaker]

So homosexual couples have to plan having a family where-as heterosexuals might have kids when their not ready or prepared for it? Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST same-sex marriage?

Speaking from experience, no one is truly prepared.

But the point is that it doesn't matter if you are prepared or not. It might happen.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Speaking from experience, no one is truly prepared.

But the point is that it doesn't matter if you are prepared or not. It might happen.

But is that really a point against same-sex marriage?

 

[bluess]

snip...

Exactly. A healthy hetero couple who starts having sex might end up with a baby, whether they want one or not. That isn't the case for homosexuals. That makes the situations different. Among the functions of marriage was to protect the woman from abandonment by "love 'em and leave 'em" sorts, who would also leave behind fatherless children.

It seems so weird to me that in all this search for equality, no one wants to acknowledge this rather basic aspect of the human condition. Sex makes babies, and that causes issues, and laws exist to help prevent fatherless children and abandonned pregnant women. And that system worked imperfectly but fairly well, intil people decided that marriage was all about something called "love", and sex was for pleasure, and babies were a choice. Inconveniently, despite technological advances, babies aren't alwauys a choice, and sex still causes them, and they still take 18 years or thereabouts to raise, and it's still too much work for one person to do it alone, with or without love.

I'm confused. The quote about 'without trying' was within your paragraph about SSMs being different than yours because they could have children without trying. Did I misread or did you mistype?

 

[Snide]

Was someone trying to convince me that the arguments against gay marriage are not based in hatred?

Well, that particular argument sure seems to fit the hatred bill. Although it could be at least half ignorance I suppose.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would note that "equality" is considered even more fundamental to being human that the inalienable rights.

No, actually, it isn't. Equal protection is a right. Equality is not (and it's pretty vague to begin with). But I've already pointed out why equal protection isn't the issue here, and I do so again below since you seem to have missed it before.

A privilege that is allowed to one group of citizens and not to another.

We make distinctions between privileges granted to different groups all the time - for example, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we do not extend that privilege to every adult. And marriage is a privilege not granted to certain pairings, but EVERY individual citizen still has the same access to this privilege regardless of their sexual orientation. Nothing in the law prevents a homosexual from marrying. That's what equal protection means: the law does not test for your sexuality when deciding what you can and cannot do.

I fundamentally disagree. Equality under the law is absolutely the issue here.

But the law makes no distinction based on sexuality. Homosexuals are permitted to marry under the same restriction as heterosexuals are: you can only marry someone of the opposite sex. You don't LIKE that restriction, you think it's unfair, but that's a DIFFERENT question than whether or not it's unequal protection.

Requires? No. But it does set down guiding American principles that are being ignored.

That distinction matters quite a bit. The remedy for the former is judicial, the remedy for the latter is legislative.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you have the same reading problem as Ken "I'm always right" the Thai Boxer? (See sig line below........................)

You obviously don't know me very well. I make it a point to fess up when I've made a mistake.

"Group" isn't the only category in the definition.

No, but it is the most pertinent in this situation. There are two groups involved in this debate: homosexuals and heterosexuals.

You are appling the "politics" definition of bigotry to any disagreement whatsoever in an attempt to render it utterly meaningless. If everyone is a bigot, then you are no worse off than anyone else, are you? Look at this next line you wrote:

KKK? Again, while KKK members are bigots, so are their opponents.

"Everyone is a bigot so all positions are morally equivalent." This is basically saying that the Civil Rights advocates of the 1950's and 60's were just as immoral as the KKK.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

 

[Snide]

We make distinctions between privileges granted to different groups all the time - for example, driving is a privilege, not a right, and we do not extend that privilege to every adult. And marriage is a privilege not granted to certain pairings, but EVERY individual citizen still has the same access to this privilege regardless of their skin color. Nothing in the law prevents a black from marrying. That's what equal protection means: the law does not test for your color when deciding what you can and cannot do.

Suppose the topic was whether interracial marriage should be legal. Tell me that the changes I made in bold in your quote don't look ridiculous.

 

[Upchurch]

But the law makes no distinction based on sexuality. Homosexuals are permitted to marry under the same restriction as heterosexuals are: you can only marry someone of the opposite sex. You don't LIKE that restriction, you think it's unfair, but that's a DIFFERENT question than whether or not it's unequal protection.

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.

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

 

[pounce]

Intolerant:



Sorry. It appears to me that both communities are intolerant of each other.

you are hilariously off base. while there are clearly two opinions on the matter, that doesn't make those two opinions equal.

if we were in the situation where ssm was legal, and some were in favor of it and others opposed it - we would be in the simple disagreement you are alluding to. as it is, the less well advanced argument that ssm should be illegal is the case and there is good reason to address that. it's opressive and i too hold the position that it is based on ignorant bigotry.

as such, argument, action, and activism are required to overturn this innapropriately restrictive antiquated attitude. this action by those seeking a more liberated and free and necessary definition of marriage is being described as intolerance. but painting with a broad brush fails to point out the differences here - that arguing for more equal rights and opportunities will be perceived as "intolerance" of those who have poorly reasoned, bigoted, archaic arguments for opressive and outdated defintions of marriage. it has always struck me that in this country, having rights like this should be a given. we can agree or not with those choices and lifestyles, but enjoying this as a diverse and free country is what i was taught to believe it was all about. i am still totally unconvinced that there is any harm in ssm. in a country based on freedom, why isn't this type of cultural diversity and pride in our freedom more important than legislation to limit the rights and freedoms of consenting adults?

intolerance? is that what we are going to have to call actions and arguments against intolerance? i suppose we might have to call it that. and yet these two sides are approaching this issue so dramatically differently. i would think that arguments to assure that some groups of people don't have rights would have to be really logical and clear and palpible, but instead they are weak and tend to show the bias of the anti gay crowd. i submit you are allowed to have your own bigotry, bias, and hate. it just should not be legislated.

 

[Huntster]

You are appling the "politics" definition of bigotry to any disagreement whatsoever in an attempt to render it utterly meaningless....

As far as this debate goes, it is meaningless. This is a political discussion, is it not? Any attempt to sway it towards "hatred" is the "red herring". The goal of the SSM proponents is a change in law (unless I am wrong), which is a political goal.

If everyone is a bigot, then you are no worse off than anyone else, are you? Look at this next line you wrote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
KKK? Again, while KKK members are bigots, so are their opponents.

"Everyone is a bigot so all positions are morally equivalent." This is basically saying that the Civil Rights advocates of the 1950's and 60's were just as immoral as the KKK.

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).

Do you honestly not see the difference?

I believe I do.

How about you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose the topic was whether interracial marriage should be legal. Tell me that the changes I made in bold in your quote don't look ridiculous.

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.

Whether or not the government makes the RIGHT decision on a particular topic is a completely separate issue from whether or not it has the power to make such a decision. The government does not have the power to prevent interracial marriage. It does have the power to prevent same-sex marriages. Your argument SHOULD be whether or not it's the right decision, and if it is the wrong decision, the remedy is legislative, not judicial.

 

[Upchurch]

Suppose the topic was whether interracial marriage should be legal. Tell me that the changes I made in bold in your quote don't look ridiculous.

Snide has a point. What is the compelling state interest in promoting mixed race marriages? Procreation will still occur within the individual races. Why does the state, then, promote intermingling? Why did they decide to abolish the law forbidding it?