Marriage Debate

[Ziggurat]

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?

You missed a rather obvious alternative: the state is empowered to make more distinctions than it chooses to make. The constitution does not require that the government exercise its power to the fullest extent possible, nor should we want it to. That the state does not make distinctions it could make (between heterosexual couples who do or don't reproduce, for example) doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to make other distinctions.

 

[Upchurch]

"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.

Are we talking about marriage or sex?

You consider sex and procreation substantive to marriage. Others used to (or perhaps still do) consider the possibility of a mixed race child substantive to marriage.

Could you please justify this assumption that sex is substantive to marriage?

Let me further clarify the question by presenting a contextual situation. In the first case, you have a heterosexual infertile couple who are in a loving committed relationship, who obtain a child through adoption or through alternate scientific fertilization and gestation methods. In the second case, you have a homosexual infertile couple who are in a loving committed relationship, who obtain a child through adoption or through alternate scientific fertilization and gestation methods.

You're telling me the method by which a couple obtains children makes all the difference, but only with gay couples since it is okay for infertile straight couples to use alternate means?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You missed a rather obvious alternative: the state is empowered to make more distinctions than it chooses to make. The constitution does not require that the government exercise its power to the fullest extent possible, nor should we want it to. That the state does not make distinctions it could make (between heterosexual couples who do or don't reproduce, for example) doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to make other distinctions.

On what grounds can the government justify the ongoing restriction on same sex marriage? Please demonstrate who is harmed, and how that harm justifies this restriction.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Okay, what is the difference, then?

 

[Upchurch]

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

Where ever did you get that idea?

 

[Darat]

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

I also included some evidence this was not the case indeed earlier one of my sources that clearly stated marriage was not always between "one man and one woman" was in fact directly from the teachings of the head of the Roman Catholic Church i.e. the Pope!

 

[Ziggurat]

You consider sex and procreation substantive to marriage. Others used to (or perhaps still do) consider the possibility of a mixed race child substantive to marriage.

The race of a child is clearly not, and you and I both agree about that. The existence of the child rather is substantive, isn't it?

Could you please justify this assumption that sex is substantive to marriage?

Oh please. You don't really want to get into THAT argument, do you? If sex has nothing to do with marriage, why don't we just allow marriage between 8 year olds? Or between 50-year-olds and 8-year-olds? Of COURSE sex is substantive to marriage. In this day and age, it's probably even more substantive to marriage than procreation is. You aren't serious with that argument at all. Really, I expected better from you.

You're telling me the method by which a couple obtains children makes all the difference, but only with gay couples since it is okay for infertile straight couples to use alternate means?

Again, you're having trouble following the argument: I didn't say it makes ALL the difference, but yes, it does make A difference.

Okay, what is the difference, then?

That opposite-sex couples can create children through sex, but same-sex couples cannot.

 

[Hardenbergh]

The race of a child is clearly not, and you and I both agree about that. The existence of the child rather is substantive, isn't it?



Oh please. You don't really want to get into THAT argument, do you? If sex has nothing to do with marriage, why don't we just allow marriage between 8 year olds? Or between 50-year-olds and 8-year-olds? Of COURSE sex is substantive to marriage. In this day and age, it's probably even more substantive to marriage than procreation is. You aren't serious with that argument at all. Really, I expected better from you.



Again, you're having trouble following the argument: I didn't say it makes ALL the difference, but yes, it does make A difference.



That opposite-sex couples can create children through sex, but same-sex couples cannot.

Harry Truman couldn't have said it better himself.

 

[Ziggurat]

On what grounds can the government justify the ongoing restriction on same sex marriage? Please demonstrate who is harmed, and how that harm justifies this restriction.

Marriage is a privilege, a contractual relationship in which you gain additional benefits unavailable to others. The state enforces those additional benefits. The question is not simply whether or not the state can justify restricting same-sex marriage, but also on what basis should the state PROVIDE those benefits to same-sex marriages? And is that basis any different from arguments that could be made in favor of providing those benefits to ANY two people, such as two sisters who live together?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Indeed, that would be a benefit. There are still people who need convincing that SSM's can do an equivalent job at child rearing. I suspect that's probably the case, but that's not actually a given, and shouldn't be treated like one either.

So how to find out? Experiment. Allow SSMs. Allow them to easily adopt (or, at least, as easily as anyone else can). Monitor the results. But not allowing the experiement to proceed and then guessing at what the results would be if it *had* been done is neither scientific nor useful.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Marriage is a privilege, a contractual relationship in which you gain additional benefits unavailable to others. The state enforces those additional benefits. The question is not simply whether or not the state can justify restricting same-sex marriage, but also on what basis should the state PROVIDE those benefits to same-sex marriages? And is that basis any different from arguments that could be made in favor of providing those benefits to ANY two people, such as two sisters who live together?

They are two people who want to provide healthcare for one another (as many providers only allow for children and spouses to be covered), file taxes jointly, have communal property, wish to enjoy spousal privilage so they may freely share legal secrets (otherwise, domestic partners could be required to testify in court against their loved ones) and wish to ensure that in the event of the death of one person, the other person is provided for. Why do people with the same plumbing have no right to these legal benfits? Who is harmed if these benefits are extended to them?

 

[Upchurch]

The race of a child is clearly not, and you and I both agree about that. The existence of the child rather is substantive, isn't it?

Existance, perhaps. Origin, not so much.

Oh please. You don't really want to get into THAT argument, do you? If sex has nothing to do with marriage, why don't we just allow marriage between 8 year olds? Or between 50-year-olds and 8-year-olds? Of COURSE sex is substantive to marriage. In this day and age, it's probably even more substantive to marriage than procreation is. You aren't serious with that argument at all. Really, I expected better from you.

I never said that sex had nothing to do with marriage, but the level of significance you're putting on it is very equivalent, to my eye, to the significance that racists put on race in marriage half a century ago (give or take a century).

In other words, I see the gender of the couple as arbitrary as their race.

Again, you're having trouble following the argument: I didn't say it makes ALL the difference, but yes, it does make A difference.

Ah. So it isn't the definitive factor, then?

That opposite-sex couples can create children through sex, but same-sex couples cannot.

How is that any differnt from saying:

That white couples can create white babies, but mixed race couples cannot.

? You haven't presented anything that isn't just an arbitrary line in the sand justification for discriminating against a specific class of people.

 

[Snide]

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 think we're getting somewhere. It seems, then, what we disagree on is what is "significant and rather obvious substance" in regards to marriage. Here's just a short list of what I think is NOT "significant and rather obvious substance:"

Skin Color
Sexual Orientation
First Cousin Relationship
Height
Weight
Eyesight
Political Party Affiliation

On which of these do you disagree?

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.

I see no need to respond to this until we get past the first part.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

The state has the power to make any arbitrary distinction. It can dinstinguish between people of different (arbitrarily defined) races, sexes, genders, eye colour, skin colour, hair colour... It might even make it mandatory that when a child is born a coin is tossed and restrict the marriage rights of them later in life so that "tails" can only marry "heads" and "heads" can only marry "tails".

What this shows is that government power is not a very good justification for specific policies. It also shows that differences between people do not automatically give the state the power to distinguish between people. The state already has that power, whether the difference exists or not.

The question is not simply whether or not the state can justify restricting same-sex marriage, but also on what basis should the state PROVIDE those benefits to same-sex marriages?

For the exact same reasons it provides those benefits to different-sex couples.

And is that basis any different from arguments that could be made in favor of providing those benefits to ANY two people, such as two sisters who live together?

That depends on what you think the reasons for providing marriage are.

 

[Ziggurat]

I never said that sex had nothing to do with marriage,

No, you just challenged me to prove what you already knew to be true.

Ah. So it isn't the definitive factor, then?

I made no claims in this regard, because it isn't important for my argument whether or not the ability to have children is "the definitive factor", whatever you take that to mean and however you want to decide that question.

How is that any differnt from saying:

That white couples can create white babies, but mixed race couples cannot.

Because the "white" label on the baby is irrelevant to the state. Take that word out and the statement doesn't even make sense. Now try that with same-sex versus opposite sex couples:

Opposite sex couples can create babies, but same-sex couples cannot.

Is there an irrelevant qualifier in that sentence which can be removed? No, there isn't. There's no irrelevant qualifiers in there, and the sentence is still correct, in contrast to your statement. THAT'S the difference. And I suspect you even knew that.

 

[Ziggurat]

The state has the power to make any arbitrary distinction.

Wow, someone got this question wrong in the opposite direction from previous posters like Upchurch.

No, actually, the state CANNOT make arbitrary distinctions. Doing so violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

For the exact same reasons it provides those benefits to different-sex couples.

If you think the reason the state provides those benefits is to encourage and support procreation, then you can't just state that they should do it for same-sex couples for the same reason and be done with it. You need to go quite a few extra steps to make that connection.

That depends on what you think the reasons for providing marriage are.

Well, yes. A point you seemed to ignore above.

 

[Upchurch]

I need clarification here:

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

No. Pay attention. Here is what you said:

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).

Here's what I said:

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

And since you couldn't put it together the first time, let me spell it out for you:

The Pro-SSM advocates sought political as well as social change.

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

Admittedly, I wasn't referring to the guerrilla insurgency part, but I can understand how you drew that conclusion. However, if you don't think there are anti-gay folks out there who can get violent: learn to google.

Get a clue, zealot:

You are correct. There was an earlier version of the KKK.

I was thinking of modern incarnation of the KKK, which was started as political movement and had very little to do with the first version aside from the name and general social outlook. Just so there is no more confusion, when I'm refering to the KKK, I mean the modern KKK.

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

Well, I can't help what erroneous assumptions you make.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think we're getting somewhere. It seems, then, what we disagree on is what is "significant and rather obvious substance" in regards to marriage. Here's just a short list of what I think is NOT "significant and rather obvious substance:"

Skin Color
Sexual Orientation
First Cousin Relationship
Height
Weight
Eyesight
Political Party Affiliation

On which of these do you disagree?

I find myself disagreeing about the first cousin relationship - that creeps me out.

But I suspect the factor you're interested in is "sexual orientation". The government should make no distinction based upon sexual orientation of the person, I agree with you on that. But that's not actually the legal issue here. The legal issue is whether or not the government can make a distinction based upon your sex, NOT your sexual orientation, and I note that you didn't include sex in your list.

The decision the government has made impacts those of a particular sexual orientation rather more directly than those of another orientation, but that's still not the basis upon which the distinction is made, and from a constitutional perspective that difference matters.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I find myself disagreeing about the first cousin relationship - that creeps me out.

Then don't marry your first cousin. If you have a problem with people getting married to those of their same sex, don't marry a person of your own sex. On what basis do you feel the government is justified in denying marriage rights to same sex couples?

 

[Darat]

I think one of the little red herrings here is the use of the term "same-sex marriage".

What is really being discussed here is whether you have the right to marry another adult of your choice.