[quote]gtman wrote:
Fuck all of the closet homophobes here. You’re all secretly gay![/quote]
Anyone who doesn’t want gay marriage is a homophobe?
I admit to not liking gay people. They are fucking creepy, like another species.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
[/quote]
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Isn’t it cute how marriage is a right? Where’s that one listed at?
The right to a speedy marriage, after which the right to Government ok’d marriage benefits may be exercised.
I see nothing listed to prevent one from having a priest, or an interior designer, at a private level pronounce one to be wed (by whatever definition of marriage the person and his/her/she-male’s private institution of choice chooses to use).[/quote]
Yes, it’s all very ‘cute’ that the right to marry, procreate, and raise children free from unecessary governmental influence have been held to be fundamental rights. There are a handful of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the Supreme court has held to be fundamental rights. Marriage is one of them.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.
It’s all pure conjecture on forlifes part.
[/quote]
Similar to the downfall and threat gay marriage poses to traditional marriage.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Isn’t it cute how marriage is a right? Where’s that one listed at?
The right to a speedy marriage, after which the right to Government ok’d marriage benefits may be exercised.
I see nothing listed to prevent one from having a priest, or an interior designer, at a private level pronounce one to be wed (by whatever definition of marriage the person and his/her/she-male’s private institution of choice chooses to use).
Yes, it’s all very ‘cute’ that the right to marry, procreate, and raise children free from unecessary governmental influence have been held to be fundamental rights. There are a handful of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the Supreme court has held to be fundamental rights. Marriage is one of them.[/quote]
And they can get married by a ‘religious’ authority or a hair dresser.
Edit: I should have been clearer that I meant a right to a state recognized/rewarded marriage.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Isn’t it cute how marriage is a right? Where’s that one listed at?
The right to a speedy marriage, after which the right to Government ok’d marriage benefits may be exercised.
I see nothing listed to prevent one from having a priest, or an interior designer, at a private level pronounce one to be wed (by whatever definition of marriage the person and his/her/she-male’s private institution of choice chooses to use).
Yes, it’s all very ‘cute’ that the right to marry, procreate, and raise children free from unecessary governmental influence have been held to be fundamental rights. There are a handful of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the Supreme court has held to be fundamental rights. Marriage is one of them.
And they can get married by a ‘religious’ authority or a hair dresser.
Edit: I should have been clearer that I meant a right to a state recognized/rewarded marriage.[/quote]
That doesn’t change anything. You are still at odds with the prevailing view of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is talking about state and federal recognition of marriage and ensuing benefits. Not about hairdressers and ‘religious’ authorities.
The only question is whether a same-sex union can be a ‘marriage’ definitionally or whether witholding benefits is the least restrictive means of satisfying a compelling government interest. Of course, that is if the Supreme Court decided to tackle the issue. And doubtful it will any time soon. It doesn’t want another Abortion debacle.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Isn’t it cute how marriage is a right? Where’s that one listed at?
The right to a speedy marriage, after which the right to Government ok’d marriage benefits may be exercised.
I see nothing listed to prevent one from having a priest, or an interior designer, at a private level pronounce one to be wed (by whatever definition of marriage the person and his/her/she-male’s private institution of choice chooses to use).
Yes, it’s all very ‘cute’ that the right to marry, procreate, and raise children free from unecessary governmental influence have been held to be fundamental rights. There are a handful of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the Supreme court has held to be fundamental rights. Marriage is one of them.
And they can get married by a ‘religious’ authority or a hair dresser.
Edit: I should have been clearer that I meant a right to a state recognized/rewarded marriage.
That doesn’t change anything. You are still at odds with the prevailing view of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is talking about state and federal recognition of marriage and ensuing benefits. Not about hairdressers and ‘religious’ authorities.
The only question is whether a same-sex union can be a ‘marriage’ definitionally or whether witholding benefits is the least restrictive means of satisfying a compelling government interest. Of course, that is if the Supreme Court decided to tackle the issue. And doubtful it will any time soon. It doesn’t want another Abortion debacle. [/quote]
No. I’m saying they already have the ability to marry. It’s government benefits that are really in dispute. In other words even if the state didn’t recognize marriages, or offer benefits, one could still marry without worrying about being thrown in jail. Couldn’t gays get “married” now? Would they, and the performer of the ceremony, be thrown in jail?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Isn’t it cute how marriage is a right? Where’s that one listed at?
The right to a speedy marriage, after which the right to Government ok’d marriage benefits may be exercised.
I see nothing listed to prevent one from having a priest, or an interior designer, at a private level pronounce one to be wed (by whatever definition of marriage the person and his/her/she-male’s private institution of choice chooses to use).
Yes, it’s all very ‘cute’ that the right to marry, procreate, and raise children free from unecessary governmental influence have been held to be fundamental rights. There are a handful of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that the Supreme court has held to be fundamental rights. Marriage is one of them.
And they can get married by a ‘religious’ authority or a hair dresser.
Edit: I should have been clearer that I meant a right to a state recognized/rewarded marriage.
That doesn’t change anything. You are still at odds with the prevailing view of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is talking about state and federal recognition of marriage and ensuing benefits. Not about hairdressers and ‘religious’ authorities.
The only question is whether a same-sex union can be a ‘marriage’ definitionally or whether witholding benefits is the least restrictive means of satisfying a compelling government interest. Of course, that is if the Supreme Court decided to tackle the issue. And doubtful it will any time soon. It doesn’t want another Abortion debacle.
No. I’m saying they already have the ability to marry. It’s government benefits that are really in dispute. In other words even if the state didn’t recognize marriages, or offer benefits, one could still marry without worrying about being thrown in jail. Couldn’t gays get “married” now? Would they, and the performer of the ceremony, be thrown in jail?[/quote]
No. What about it? Government benefits ARE all that’s really in dispute. But that’s a huge issue.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No. What about it? Government benefits ARE all that’s really in dispute. But that’s a huge issue.[/quote]
Then it’s a question of if the government, state or federal, can discriminate in any way in offering benefits to consenting adults, in any arrangement of any number. In order to offer such a thing called marriage benefits, government will have define what a marriage is. Defining what a marriage is, will discriminate.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. What about it? Government benefits ARE all that’s really in dispute. But that’s a huge issue.
Then it’s a question of if the government, state or federal, can discriminate in any way in offering benefits to consenting adults, in any arrangement.[/quote]
Sure. And the analysis becomes whether the government has a compelling interest and if denying these benefits is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. A finding that it does not for monogomous same-sex relationships does not mandate a determination that every conceivable arrangment under the sun entails the same treatment. I won’t spend my time rehashing differences that have already been covered on other threads. BUT:
You need to read this piece on polygamy: The Constitutional Paradox Posed By Permitting Polygamy in India by Kinari Patel :: SSRN
You should read other works on polygamy in the U.S. You should read up on incestuous and bigamous relationships. And you should engage in a comprehensive study in strict scrutiny under the Constitution.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. What about it? Government benefits ARE all that’s really in dispute. But that’s a huge issue.
Then it’s a question of if the government, state or federal, can discriminate in any way in offering benefits to consenting adults, in any arrangement.
Sure. And the analysis becomes whether the government has a compelling interest and if denying these benefits is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. A finding that it does not for monogomous same-sex relationships does not mandate a determination that every conceivable arrangment under the sun entails the same treatment. I won’t spend my time rehashing differences that have already been covered on other threads. BUT:
You need to read this piece on polygamy: The Constitutional Paradox Posed By Permitting Polygamy in India by Kinari Patel :: SSRN
You should read other works on polygamy in the U.S. You should read up on incestuous and bigamous relationships. And you should engage in a comprehensive study in strict scrutiny under the Constitution.[/quote]
Then, if we accept that government can legitimately discriminate on who gets “rights” to goverment benefits, I don’t see homosexual marriage (state recognized) having much of a case. If the point is to encourage long term (hopefully lifelong) coupling of the smallest unit capable of naturally procreating and instructing it’s own offspring and our future citizens…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. What about it? Government benefits ARE all that’s really in dispute. But that’s a huge issue.
Then it’s a question of if the government, state or federal, can discriminate in any way in offering benefits to consenting adults, in any arrangement.
Sure. And the analysis becomes whether the government has a compelling interest and if denying these benefits is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. A finding that it does not for monogomous same-sex relationships does not mandate a determination that every conceivable arrangment under the sun entails the same treatment. I won’t spend my time rehashing differences that have already been covered on other threads. BUT:
You need to read this piece on polygamy: The Constitutional Paradox Posed By Permitting Polygamy in India by Kinari Patel :: SSRN
You should read other works on polygamy in the U.S. You should read up on incestuous and bigamous relationships. And you should engage in a comprehensive study in strict scrutiny under the Constitution.
Then, if we accept that government is in the right discriminate in handing out benefits, I don’t see homosexual marriage (state recognized) having much of a case. If the point is to encourage long term (hopefully lifelong) coupling of the smallest unit capable of naturally procreating and instructing it’s own offspring, and our future citizens…[/quote]
The goverment is not in the right to discrimate in handing out benefits when a fundamental right is involved unlesss doing so is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. The burden of proof is on the government.
If the government proves that encouraging lifelong coupling with the goal of promoting the natural procreation and instructing of its offspring is the only purpose behind marriage benefits, then fine. But I’d bet money that if you took a look at the legislative history and congressional record of various benefits that are provided to married couples, Congress was motivated by much more than that and sees benefits to lifelong, monogamous unions that extend well beyond procreation and child-rearing.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. What about it? Government benefits ARE all that’s really in dispute. But that’s a huge issue.
Then it’s a question of if the government, state or federal, can discriminate in any way in offering benefits to consenting adults, in any arrangement.
Sure. And the analysis becomes whether the government has a compelling interest and if denying these benefits is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. A finding that it does not for monogomous same-sex relationships does not mandate a determination that every conceivable arrangment under the sun entails the same treatment. I won’t spend my time rehashing differences that have already been covered on other threads. BUT:
You need to read this piece on polygamy: The Constitutional Paradox Posed By Permitting Polygamy in India by Kinari Patel :: SSRN
You should read other works on polygamy in the U.S. You should read up on incestuous and bigamous relationships. And you should engage in a comprehensive study in strict scrutiny under the Constitution.
Then, if we accept that government is in the right discriminate in handing out benefits, I don’t see homosexual marriage (state recognized) having much of a case. If the point is to encourage long term (hopefully lifelong) coupling of the smallest unit capable of naturally procreating and instructing it’s own offspring, and our future citizens…
The goverment is not in the right to discrimate in handing out benefits when a fundamental right is involved unlesss doing so is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. The burden of proof is on the government.
If the government proves that encouraging lifelong coupling with the goal of promoting the natural procreation and instructing of its offspring is the only purpose behind marriage benefits, then fine. But I’d bet money that if you took a look at the legislative history and congressional record of various benefits that are provided to married couples, Congress was motivated by much more than that and sees benefits to lifelong, monogamous unions that extend well beyond procreation and child-rearing.[/quote]
Then why is there any debate? Why isn’t gay marriage already common? Why isn’t it as old as state recognized marriage itself?
No, I think it’s obvious that the point was to encourage the smallest (2) and naturally productive (man and woman) monogamous unions. Perhaps the state didn’t want to go so far as to making sure individual men and women were capable, but that in general, throughout the entire population, the desired effect would be achieved. That is, the benefit of the propagation and child-rearing by biological parents. And, not to reap the ‘benefit’ of just having people pair up in any old configuration.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. What about it? Government benefits ARE all that’s really in dispute. But that’s a huge issue.
Then it’s a question of if the government, state or federal, can discriminate in any way in offering benefits to consenting adults, in any arrangement.
Sure. And the analysis becomes whether the government has a compelling interest and if denying these benefits is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. A finding that it does not for monogomous same-sex relationships does not mandate a determination that every conceivable arrangment under the sun entails the same treatment. I won’t spend my time rehashing differences that have already been covered on other threads. BUT:
You need to read this piece on polygamy: The Constitutional Paradox Posed By Permitting Polygamy in India by Kinari Patel :: SSRN
You should read other works on polygamy in the U.S. You should read up on incestuous and bigamous relationships. And you should engage in a comprehensive study in strict scrutiny under the Constitution.
Then, if we accept that government is in the right discriminate in handing out benefits, I don’t see homosexual marriage (state recognized) having much of a case. If the point is to encourage long term (hopefully lifelong) coupling of the smallest unit capable of naturally procreating and instructing it’s own offspring, and our future citizens…
The goverment is not in the right to discrimate in handing out benefits when a fundamental right is involved unlesss doing so is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. The burden of proof is on the government.
If the government proves that encouraging lifelong coupling with the goal of promoting the natural procreation and instructing of its offspring is the only purpose behind marriage benefits, then fine. But I’d bet money that if you took a look at the legislative history and congressional record of various benefits that are provided to married couples, Congress was motivated by much more than that and sees benefits to lifelong, monogamous unions that extend well beyond procreation and child-rearing.
Then why is there any debate? Why isn’t gay marriage already common? Why isn’t it as old as state recognized marriage itself?
No, I think it’s obvious that the point was to encourage the smallest (2) and naturally productive (man and woman) monogamous unions. Perhaps the state didn’t want to go so far as to making sure individual men and women were capable, but that in general, throughout the entire population, the desired effect would be achieved. That is, the benefit of the propagation and child-rearing by biological parents. And, not to reap the ‘benefit’ of just having people pair up in any old configuration. [/quote]
You’re wrong. In addition to family FORMATION, 1. REARING of children, and 2. providing a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society are almost invariably touted as key benefits of marriage. Why do these still not hold true for gays? The government would have to answer that and much more.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
You’re wrong. In addition to family FORMATION, 1. REARING of children, and 2. providing a stabilizing influence that benefits the whole society are almost invariably touted as key benefits of marriage. Why do these still not hold true for gays? The government would have to answer that and much more.
[/quote]
Because rearing of children within a biological family formation provides the stabilizing influence for the whole of society.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then why is there any debate? Why isn’t gay marriage already common? Why isn’t it as old as state recognized marriage itself?
No, I think it’s obvious that the point was to encourage the smallest (2) and naturally productive (man and woman) monogamous unions. Perhaps the state didn’t want to go so far as to making sure individual men and women were capable, but that in general, throughout the entire population, the desired effect would be achieved. That is, the benefit of the propagation and child-rearing by biological parents. And, not to reap the ‘benefit’ of just having people pair up in any old configuration. [/quote]
Gay marriage isn’t common because of Christians and the inherent bigotry of organized religion. Pretty simple answer, although no doubt I’ll get attacked for saying it. Let’s be honest here, if we really had it your way everyone would be Christian and follow scripture to the letter.
Thankfully there are people who can think for themselves.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Then why is there any debate? Why isn’t gay marriage already common? Why isn’t it as old as state recognized marriage itself?
No, I think it’s obvious that the point was to encourage the smallest (2) and naturally productive (man and woman) monogamous unions. Perhaps the state didn’t want to go so far as to making sure individual men and women were capable, but that in general, throughout the entire population, the desired effect would be achieved. That is, the benefit of the propagation and child-rearing by biological parents. And, not to reap the ‘benefit’ of just having people pair up in any old configuration.
Gay marriage isn’t common because of Christians and the inherent bigotry of organized religion. Pretty simple answer, although no doubt I’ll get attacked for saying it. Let’s be honest here, if we really had it your way everyone would be Christian and follow scripture to the letter.
Thankfully there are people who can think for themselves.[/quote]
In it’s own way, you do make my case. The intent was for the naturally productive and smallest unit to marry. I won’t attack you for saying it, by the way. I am a bigot.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In it’s own way, you do make my case. The intent was for the naturally productive and smallest unit to marry. I won’t attack you for saying it, by the way. I am a bigot. [/quote]
So what you’re saying is that we should allow one religion to dictate how everyone lives.
Ok.
Gotcha.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Except that, apparently, it reduces the incidence of gay partnerships…
Why would it? Are there really homosexuals in society that would be in a partnership but aren’t because they have no access to marriage?
Be serious.
[/quote]
Again, your own logic. We don’t give marriage benefits to homosexual couples lest we see more of them.
I’m not sure I follow your logic exactly. I mean, I suppose it does increase the available pool of potential adopters to allow homosexuals to adopt… but I don’t see that having so significant an effect.
I generally tend to think that a couple will either keep their child or give it up for adoption, regardless of if gay couples are allowed to adopt.
But this is actually getting a bit off topic…
It’s starting to sound like you think the solution to get more kids being raised by their biological parents is to eliminate or restrict other arrangements as much as possible. I think this is faulty logic.