Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[iNow]

But that case always involved the true definition of "marriage": a CU between one man and one woman.

 

Can you please show us all again where you established that there was a clear and "true definition of marriage" which excluded people of the same sex? I must have missed that through all of these posts.

[Dudde]

But that's exactly what the law does; it treats heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. The current marriage laws apply equally to both groups. Now, it's true that same sexes cannot get married under existing laws, but that condition applies equally to both heteros and homos. If it didn't it would be a blatant case of bigotry.

 

But you're saying (I think) that a gay man doesn't want to marry a woman because she's not the person he loves. He wants to marry the man he loves. Well, in that respect he has a limitation under current laws. But a hetero man is not without a similar limitation: he can't marry his sister, even if she is the one he loves.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem strongly biased against same sex couples. The only people I've seen keep this argument are the ones who don't believe they should be forced to live in a society with gays or lesbians, and while I support your ability to state your opinion...it's ridiculous.

 

The entire argument was already and is still being fought by the Attorney General in the state of California along with several groups of petitioners, but you don't seem to want to read any prior arguments, so I'll break his down - not in exact wording because I don't have time to find it again, but I will if you really doubt me that much.

 

Stating that homosexual and heterosexual people have the same rights is blatantly fallacious. Because a heterosexual man already wants to marry a heterosexual woman, the current laws in no way impede on his right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness as defined in the U.S constitution. A homosexual man however, does not want to marry a heterosexual woman, but wants to marry a homosexual man, which the heterosexual man had no interest in doing in the first place. In this way does the definition differ - stating that one group can do what makes them happy, and the other cannot.

 

If you aren't gay and wanting to be married, I personally see no reason why we're even having this discussion - does this damage your mental or physical well being in some way? Please, we had a pretty interesting debate to which I've linked a few times already, I urge you to skim through to see if you may be repeating what was already argued.

[ennui]

There aren't any good arguments against gay marriage. Case in point: Scrappy starts talking about earthworms of all things when his argument fails. He might as well devise a puppet-show too; anything to divert attention from such a shaky, ill-founded position.

 

Two men should be allowed to marry each other. So should two women. It doesn't hurt anyone, and both parties do so of their own adult consent. Furthermore it means that homosexuals have the same rights and legal opportunities as a heterosexual couple. This is clearly a logical, good thing.

 

To say that two men or two women should not be allowed to marry is silly. Creating some new 'civil unionship' might be progressive, but ultimately falls short of the mark. Imagine the outrage if a government invented a separate marriage-like system for black people but failed to call it a real marriage.

 

I don't understand why everyone can't have the same rights and status. What does it matter if the marriage has two people of the same gender?

 

To invoke analogies of incest is particularly low. It's a cheap tactic. It's like saying "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote. If we let them vote, we might as well let them murder people." It's exaggerating a liberty to a gross and degenerate form for the purpose of polemic deceit.

 

I disagree with the statements about marriage being a religious byproduct. On the contrary, in classical Western Europe marriage was more often than not a financial or secular arrangement. Even if it were a religious entity, I wouldn't hang on to that meaning at all since it's been changed so much in recent years.

 

Let gay people get married, call it marriage. Problem solved. Sure, some religious people won't like it. But I wouldn't change something based upon that reason. Imagine if we applied that thinking to evolution.

Edited March 16, 2009 by ennui

[Pangloss]

Who cares if some fool wants to marry his sister, or brother, or ironing board, or whatever?

[mooeypoo]

Who cares if some fool wants to marry his sister, or brother, or ironing board, or whatever?

Or how it's called.

[scrappy]

When I said it's "no one's business" I meant the government.

So does this mean you want the government out of the marriage business? Or do you want the government to sanction a broader definition of "marriage"? It seems like you're going to both extremes at once, each one canceling out the other.

 

Would you deny such ammendment because that's the spirit of the law, or would you recognize that the social consciousness has shifted in a manner that *revealed* a flaw in that law, which requires an ammendment?

It has? How? What shift? Did I miss it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem strongly biased against same sex couples.

You're wrong. I support legalizing same-sex civil unions. But I don't regard that kind of civil union a "marriage." It doesn't fit my definition of the term, and I don't see why it needs to be changed. None of the arguments put forward by gays is compelling.

 

The only people I've seen keep this argument are the ones who don't believe they should be forced to live in a society with gays or lesbians, and while I support your ability to state your opinion...it's ridiculous.

You're leaping to conclusions. I am a liberal untheist who would like to see a lot of changes in our laws. I would like to see pot legalized, prostitution legalized, even strip poker legailzed, but I still fail to see the need to legalize "gay marriage."

 

Stating that homosexual and heterosexual people have the same rights is blatantly fallacious. Because a heterosexual man already wants to marry a heterosexual woman, the current laws in no way impede on his right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness as defined in the U.S constitution. A homosexual man however, does not want to marry a heterosexual woman, but wants to marry a homosexual man, which the heterosexual man had no interest in doing in the first place.

This is not a problem for me to solve. I'm not responsible for what homosexuals choose to do. Why should I change my values to accommodate them? They haven't yet made a good case for themselves. Too bad, too, because the gays might actually succeed if they lost their self-righteous indignation and copped a few good arguments for why "gay marriage" would improve society, especially when many people like me already agree to legalizing gay DPs?

 

If you aren't gay and wanting to be married, I personally see no reason why we're even having this discussion - does this damage your mental or physical well being in some way?

How does denying gays access to legalized marriage do any mental or physical damage to them if they are allowed access to legalized domestic partnerships?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It used to be accustomed that blacks are not citizens, therefore they could not get married properly and did not recieve the rights that went on to heterosexual white couples.

But that's a completely different issue, because that issue ALWAYs carried the accepted definition of "marriage": a CU between one man and one woman.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Scrappy - Do you actually plan to try making an argument for your position, or are you content to continue working with logical fallacies and unrelated anecdote? I think I already know the answer to that question, but I still thought I'd ask. Earthworms? Two brothers marrying marrying one another?

 

If that's all you've got, I think it's time to realize you've lost this argument.

But I still can't marry my sister, even if she's the one I love. And I can't marry a couple of other women I love, either, because the law says I can't. That damn law if really screwing up my life and my pursuit of happiness. And my dog, well, never mind, he's a male dog and I don't want to go there.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Two men should be allowed to marry each other. So should two women.

Why not three men or three women?

[iNow]

You're wrong. I support legalizing same-sex civil unions. But I don't regard that kind of civil union a "marriage." It doesn't fit my definition of the term, and I don't see why it needs to be changed. None of the arguments put forward by gays is compelling.

You don't find equality a compelling argument? That is rather telling, and explains a lot about your posts here.

 

 

You're leaping to conclusions. I am a liberal untheist who would like to see a lot of changes in our laws. I would like to see pot legalized, prostitution legalized, even strip poker legailzed, but I still fail to see the need to legalize "gay marriage."

You fail to see it because same sex marriage is already legal. You have not established that it was ever illegal. My point proves itself because there are people right now, at this very moment, working to change constitutions to make it illegal and to ban same sex marriage. For this reason, your continued presumption that it is currently illegal is nothing more than a false premise informing your incorrect conclusions.

 

 

Why should I change my values to accommodate them? They haven't yet made a good case for themselves.

You don't have to change anything about your values. This has been pointed out to you more than once already. The thing is, the laws and their broad application are, in no way, impacted by your personal values. Also, again, the "good case" for allowing same sex marriage is equality under the law and constitutionally protected human rights, informed and supported by the 14th amendment, the establishment clause, the fair faith and credit clause, the enumeration clause, as well as the countless SCOTUS decisions striking down laws which are inequitable, discriminatory, or bigotted.

 

If you were not blinded by your own biases, you would see that ALL of the favorable arguments rest with those in favor of allowing same sex marriage, in favor of calling it by what it is and using the term marriage, and that the lack of a "good case" is actually describing those who wish to prevent same sex marriage or who wish to mandate that we call it something different with a "separate, but equal" mentality.

 

 

...the gays might actually succeed if they lost their self-righteous indignation and copped a few good arguments for why "gay marriage" would improve society

It's really time for you to go find the definition of these two words:

* Equality

* Bigotry

 

 

How does denying gays access to legalized marriage do any mental or physical damage to them if they are allowed access to legalized domestic partnerships?

A better question is, "How does calling it a marriage do any mental or physical damage to you, your existence, or your nation?" The answer is, it does not. The only reason to call the loving union of two same sex partners by something different is so you can treat them differently. It is still a marriage, and it does nothing to harm you or your family or your neighbors. There is no relevant secular constitutional reason to build into the laws this uneccessary and unuseful distinction. Further, by mandating that they be treated and named differently, you are actually harming and causing serious damage to the underlying principles of equality for which our founding fathers bled.

 

 

But that's a completely different issue, because that issue ALWAYs carried the accepted definition of "marriage": a CU between one man and one woman.

Since you seem to have missed it the last four times I asked, I will ask now for a fifth time. Please show where you demonstrated that the definition of marriage in our laws EVER limited it to one man and one woman at the exclusion of same sex couples.

 

I state that you CANNOT, and I DARE you to prove me wrong. You continue to appeal to incredulity, appleal to popularity, and argue through equivocation, slippery slopes, and unrelated anecdote. You have CONSISTENTLY failed to support your case with anything more than the waving hands of a myopic, uninformed, and discriminatory personal opinion.

 

If you want to argue that our laws always defined marriage as between one man and one woman, at the exclusion of same sex couples, then you MUST prove it using references, citations, and evidence. You have NOT done this, nor do I think you have the academic integrity to even try. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

 

Until that time, you should really stop accusing those in favor of same sex marriage as "failing to make a good case" or "offering no good arguments," and take a moment to look back and re-read your own posts as a point of comparison so you can see just how preposterous you appear when saying so. Hello, pot? Meet the kettle.

Edited March 16, 2009 by iNow

[scrappy]

If you want to argue that our laws always defined marriage as between one man and one woman, at the exclusion of same sex couples, then you MUST prove it using references, citations, and evidence.

Ah, really? I'm not at all clear why I need to prove anything. Isn't that the job of those who want to change existing laws? Besides, proof isn't even an active ingredient in this silly pudding. It's ALL about opinion. There are no facts here, other than what can be determined to be constitutional by either a state supreme court or SCOTUS. But not even that would be good enough you, because if SCOTUS were to support an affirmative ruling on Prop 8 you and your ilk would not accept it. And by doing so, you and your ilk would be practicing bigotry.

[iNow]

Ah, really? I'm not at all clear why I need to prove anything. Isn't that the job of those who want to change existing laws?

 

Again, the only ones trying to change existing laws are those trying to legislate a ban. You can keep repeating yourself about "changing existing laws" all you want, but you've consistently failed to address that those laws say what you suggest they do. Until you prove that they do, in fact, state what you keep asserting they do, you're arguments are baseless.

 

I understand if you do not wish to prove your assertion about this original meaning, but that doesn't speak well of your academic integrity. You'd be better off acknowledging that you cannot prove any such thing, and that you are merely stating an opinion.

[scrappy]

You'd be better off acknowledging that you cannot prove any such thing, and that you are merely stating an opinion.

I do acknowledge what you say. There are no proofs on either side of this argument, only OPINIONS.

 

Soon, iNow, you will have to face what you fear most: public opinion, and even worse state supreme court opinion, or maybe even a SCOTUS opinion. Will you abide with their decisions? Or will say that you know more about the Constitution that any supreme court does?

[jackson33]

Anything not legal, cannot be legalized by entering into a contract. That is if illegal by nature, the contract cannot be valid. Until 2003, Sodomy was questionable or illegal in most all US Jurisdictions. Same Sex Unions or any other similar relationship would/could not be addressed. This holds true for other laws today, including retardation, statutory incest or a number of the various State requirements for marriage/unions, age of consent etc...

 

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/161044

 

Gives you an idea on States attitudes over the years and the final nail on Sodomy acceptance, though still argued in the courts...

 

This however is not the point of this thread, which interest me. If the changing of the simple word 'marriage' was changed to accommodate individuals rather than any particular classification, for all recognition, benefits and obligations to the Federal Government, the end result would go to States and where I feel the issue belongs...

 

Frankly iNow, you or any proponent of SSM should be all over this idea. If the matter is addressed by Congress, attempting to make it a Federal Obligation, in todays climate would end up Amendment #28, Limiting Recognition to one and one and would be ratified by 38 States IMO...

[Pangloss]

Why not three men or three women?

 

Why not? How does this hurt me?

[iNow]

I do acknowledge what you say. There are no proofs on either side of this argument, only OPINIONS.

You're obviously not paying attention. There are also laws and SCOTUS precendent, of which I've cited several. What have you cited?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

SCOTUS were to support an affirmative ruling on Prop 8 you and your ilk would not accept it. And by doing so, you and your ilk would be practicing bigotry.

 

Can you please clarify for me who are my "ilk?" Are those the ones fighting for equality, constitutionally protected rights for all citizens, removal of bigotry and religious imposition of morality from our laws, and standing up for the founding principles of our nation? Or, as I suspect is much more likely, do you think I'm homosexual? Not that it matters either way, but I wanted to give you enough rope to...

Edited March 16, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[scrappy]

Can you please clarify for me who are my "ilk?" Are those the ones fighting for equality, constitutionally protected rights...

What constitutional rights? Did either the SCOCAL or the SCOTUS rule on same-sex marriage without me hearing about? And if either or both rule against SSM, what then? Will the Constitutional Republic of the United States of American be wrong? Something like Hitler's Germany?

[ennui]

Why not three men or three women?

 

I didn't argue against three men or three women, did I? In fact I only wish to discuss same-sex marriages. If there's a thread started for polygamous marriage I'll happily contribute. But for now let's stick to the one issue, shall we?

 

There's no strong argument against same-sex marriage. I suspect that's why you deflected to the issue of polygamous marriage.

 

Some people have insightfully highlighted that it would be easier to first introduce civil unions which grant the full legal status of marriage, but lack the terminology. Also, there's another argument floating about in the thread saying that it appears to be the "people's will" that marriage should be defined to a certain traditional way.

 

Although these points can be reproached (I've seen a lot of good argument/counter-argument surrounding them), you can see how this line of discussion is of a higher quality than taking leaps of imagination.

 

I always think it mars a discussion when people start using devices such as hyperbole to make a point: "So you're gonna let two guys marry? Well why not let a guy marry a table? Why not let a guy and a dog marry? You think it's okay to let a guy marry a dinosaur!?"

 

Please, please just stick to the topic at hand. Discuss the pros and cons of same-sex marriage first. Launching into alternative scenarios doesn't say anything about the subject. Asking "why not three men or three women?" doesn't say anything about gay marriage.

 

If you were to say "I don't agree with gay marriage, because I believe it will lead to polygamous marriages" then you'd have to first say why polygamous marriage was bad, and then prove that it would.

[Dudde]

Ah, really? I'm not at all clear why I need to prove anything. Isn't that the job of those who want to change existing laws?

 

You are the one wanting to change the existing laws - as pointed out before, they already support same-sex marriage

 

Also, this thread was definitely not created to discuss same sex marriages, but the discussion of whether or not the government should drop the word 'marriage' legally or not. I don't see a logical reason why they should.

 

Ah, really? I'm not at all clear why I need to prove anything.

 

I don't see a point in continuing this debate if that's your standpoint, why do you keep posting nonsense if you don't want to prove anything?

 

. But not even that would be good enough you, because if SCOTUS were to support an affirmative ruling on Prop 8 you and your ilk would not accept it.

 

an affirmative ruling dictates a re-writing of the California constitution, which necessitates a lot more than a majority vote of the state's citizens - an affirmative response would be a disappointment for the entire country.

 

Also, ilk? surely you can come up with better than that, based on your previous analysis and breakdown of the constitutionality of the current topic

[Sayonara]

This thread was temporarily locked due to "that" argument which occurred earlier.

 

The offending posts have been moved for inspection.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Sayonara³
Thread locks released. CLONK!

[iNow]

I don't see a point in continuing this debate if that's your standpoint, why do you keep posting nonsense if you don't want to prove anything?

 

Good question, but you probably already know the answer.

[mooeypoo]

Scrappy, it's the fourth time already that you're nitpicking through arguments and choosing what to answer.

 

I have made points you neglected to address that countermand some of your "counter" points. This isn't the first time, either, and wasn't only done to me.

 

Please stop. We're making points for a reason, and you're not here to lecture; address our points fairly, as we do yours.

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

If anyone is here to lecture, for the record, your thoughts are probably more appropriately inscribed in blog format.

[Mr Skeptic]

You fail to see it because same sex marriage is already legal.

 

That is begging the question. I should point out that you have not shown that same-sex marriage is legal -- this is what is under dispute. The ban certainly does make it clearly illegal.

 

You have not established that it was ever illegal.

 

It was illegal before about 1970 (due to anti-sodomy laws, not necessarily because of the definition of marriage. But the anti-sodomy laws were struck down.) Just to be a pest, it is illegal in California right now. More to the point, California far from the only state that currently bans gay marriage in its constitution.

 

My point proves itself because there are people right now, at this very moment, working to change constitutions to make it illegal and to ban same sex marriage. For this reason, your continued presumption that it is currently illegal is nothing more than a false premise informing your incorrect conclusions.

 

But while it is clearly illegal after the ban, you have not demonstrated that it was legal before the ban.

[Sayonara]

It was illegal before about 1970 (due to anti-sodomy laws, not necessarily because of the definition of marriage. But the anti-sodomy laws were struck down.)

I'm not sure I see the connection between sodomy and marriage.

[mooeypoo]

iNow, how is same sex marriage legal if two lesbians who want to get married cannot get married? Even if they sign a common-law contract, half of the legal rights that actual married couples have they do not share.

 

First off, civil union only exists in a handful of states, and is not recognized federally. Unlike marriage. That affects all the federal rights that married couple recieve and civil-union / common-law couples do not get.

 

Another example would be immigration. A heterosexual woman can sponsor her husband to receive a green card. LGBT couples cannot, whether they're recognized as civil-union or not.

 

This is a useful resource to summarize some of those lacking rights: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

And they're taken from here: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf as far as I could read.

 

 

 

They fact same-sex couples can live together does not mean they can take the next step *LEGALLY* that is allowed to their heterosexual counterparts.

[DrDNA]

This thread was temporarily locked due to "that" argument which occurred earlier.

 

The offending posts have been moved for inspection.

 

I always miss the good stuff.

[iNow]

That is begging the question. I should point out that you have not shown that same-sex marriage is legal -- this is what is under dispute. The ban certainly does make it clearly illegal.

 

Actually, if you take a moment to review my arguments more carefully, you will notice that I am not, in fact, begging the question. There is a reason why I brought up the Ninth Amendment when responding to the constitutionality and equality issues being discussed:

 

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First off, civil union only exists in a handful of states, and is not recognized federally. Unlike marriage. That affects all the federal rights that married couple recieve and civil-union / common-law couples do not get.

This too is addressed by my arguments grounded in the constitution. Since same sex couples can be married in some states, the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, as well as the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, mandate that those marriages be accepted in all states.

 

I don't deny that same sex couples are lacking in rights in our current misguided system. My point is that any law preventing them from being treated as equal to opposite sex couples has always been unconstitutional from the start, and hence was never a valid law, essentially null and void. Another point is that the marriage laws did not explicitly exclude same sex marriage, ergo same sex marriages were implicitly allowed.

Edited March 17, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.