Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1183

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
How about this example of the “social progression curve”-

Do you support this kind of behavior forlife?[/quote]

I think I’ve never read a more compelling argument for one legal solution - marriage, recognised by the state and accepted beyond borders - and not two alternative and thus competing legal constructs (marriage and civil union).

Oh, and yeah, defying a court order is a shocking thing and sets a wrong example - of course we can’t support that type of behaviour.

Makkun

1184

If we can discriminate in our tax code and entitlements, why not with who gets marriage benefits?

1186

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If we can discriminate in our tax code and entitlements, why not with who gets marriage benefits?

Objection. Asked and answered. Ad nauseum. While this whole topic is bacially a dead issues, Thunderbolt and forlife and others are at least TRYING to add new dimension and continue the discussion on a high level. [/quote]

That’s pretty weak. If we judge that the state can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation concerning who may recieve government marriage benefits…Why is it ok to discriminate via tax code against people who earn more from voluntary exchanges in the market place? Or, after being taxed, that they can’t collect welfare checks and financial aid (or at least, less) open to those in poverty? Aren’t we supporting class bigotry?

In otherwoods, when someone calls me a bigot over this issue, I’d like to know if they support a flat tax with ALL citizens paying the same percentage.

1187

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If we can discriminate in our tax code and entitlements, why not with who gets marriage benefits?

Objection. Asked and answered. Ad nauseum. While this whole topic is bacially a dead issues, Thunderbolt and forlife and others are at least TRYING to add new dimension and continue the discussion on a high level.

That’s pretty weak. If we judge that the state can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation concerning who may recieve government marriage benefits…Why is it ok to discriminate via tax code against people who earn more from voluntary exchanges in the market place? Or, after being taxed, that they can’t collect welfare checks and financial aid (or at least, less) open to those in poverty? Aren’t we supporting class bigotry?

In otherwoods, when someone calls me a bigot over this issue, I’d like to know if they support a flat tax with ALL citizens paying the same percentage.[/quote]

You damn well know the response so why do you bother asking. Marriage is a fundamental right that definitionally includes the right to choose the gender of the partner. You may not agree but you KNOW that this is response. And the reasons have ALREADY been aritculated and the argument made is this thread many times over. Who gives a damn about class bigotry? There is no fundamental right to be treated equally in economic matters. Not that a flat tax results in equal treatment by any means in the first place.

But if you don’t SEE the difference you’ll never see the difference. Why, unlike other posters in this thread, do you continuously bring up arguments that have no bearing on this issue? And beleabor distinctions that are blatantly apparent to everyone else posting. Plus are apparent enough the the world at large that those most vehementally opposed to gay marriage don’t even bother asking in the real world?

Anyhow go back to to your intellectually stimulating questions about why the government shouldn’t extend benefits to those who marry their dog or toothbrush and pretend this is actually a relevant issue.

1188

If you are going to post, why don’t you engage in a discussion about how and why marriage is definitionally between a man and women and how the scope of the fundamental right of marriage is limited to marriage as traditionally understood? To those of opposite genders. Or how extending benefits to same-sex benefits threatens traditional marriage?

In other words, REAL issues.

1189

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Didn’t you?
[/quote]

Nope. Having sex is different from romantic love, but it doesn’t surprise me you don’t see the difference.

1190

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
…and do I think that it is a moral downward spiral? Only if one thinks that one man sticking his penis in anothers asshole is immoral…you decide for yourself…I already have.
[/quote]

I’m a bad, bad boy.

1191

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If we can discriminate in our tax code and entitlements, why not with who gets marriage benefits?

Objection. Asked and answered. Ad nauseum. While this whole topic is bacially a dead issues, Thunderbolt and forlife and others are at least TRYING to add new dimension and continue the discussion on a high level.

That’s pretty weak. If we judge that the state can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation concerning who may recieve government marriage benefits…Why is it ok to discriminate via tax code against people who earn more from voluntary exchanges in the market place? Or, after being taxed, that they can’t collect welfare checks and financial aid (or at least, less) open to those in poverty? Aren’t we supporting class bigotry?

In otherwoods, when someone calls me a bigot over this issue, I’d like to know if they support a flat tax with ALL citizens paying the same percentage.

You damn well know the response so why do you bother asking. Marriage is a fundamental right that definitionally includes the right to choose the gender of the partner. You may not agree but you KNOW that this is response. And the reasons have ALREADY been aritculated and the argument made is this thread many times over. Who gives a damn about class bigotry? There is no fundamental right to be treated equally in economic matters. Not that a flat tax results in equal treatment by any means in the first place.

But if you don’t SEE the difference you’ll never see the difference. Why, unlike other posters in this thread, do you continuously bring up arguments that have no bearing on this issue? And beleabor distinctions that are blatantly apparent to everyone else posting. Plus are apparent enough the the world at large that those most vehementally opposed to gay marriage don’t even bother asking in the real world?

Anyhow go back to to your intellectually stimulating questions about why the government shouldn’t extend benefits to those who marry their dog or toothbrush and pretend this is actually a relevant issue. [/quote]

If marriage is a fundamental right why can’t we all marry who and however many we want, eh? I suppose you would support such a free exercise of our fundamental right.

Equal treatment by the government was never a consideration as far as taxes go? So a progressive income tax, discriminating between incomes, was less of a concern to our founders then, say, gays being able to marry too! Or, that our government could tax the hell out of one group of citizens to provide entitlements to others. Nah, equal protection shouldn’t cover that! Discrimination is bad, unless it involves redistribution of wealth, I guess.

1192

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

You damn well know the response so why do you bother asking. Marriage is a fundamental right that definitionally includes the right to choose the gender of the partner. You may not agree but you KNOW that this is response. And the reasons have ALREADY been aritculated and the argument made is this thread many times over. Who gives a damn about class bigotry? There is no fundamental right to be treated equally in economic matters. Not that a flat tax results in equal treatment by any means in the first place.

But if you don’t SEE the difference you’ll never see the difference. Why, unlike other posters in this thread, do you continuously bring up arguments that have no bearing on this issue? And beleabor distinctions that are blatantly apparent to everyone else posting. Plus are apparent enough the the world at large that those most vehementally opposed to gay marriage don’t even bother asking in the real world?

Anyhow go back to to your intellectually stimulating questions about why the government shouldn’t extend benefits to those who marry their dog or toothbrush and pretend this is actually a relevant issue. [/quote]

Sloth’s question is perfectly legitimate - it speaks to “equal” treatment.

“Equal Protection” under the law doesn’t distinguish “economic” and “social” spheres. Why are classifications according to “economic” standards completely left to the whim of the democratic arena, why “social” ones get added protection? You don’t have a principled answer, only “it just feels like the right thing to do”.

Sloth’s point is well-taken - if we keep inventing new and “modern” protections in the guise of Equal Protection, what others can we find if we look hard enough? And who gets in, and who gets left out?

It’s not just a relevant issue - it is the that you bump against when “discovering” all kind of new political preferences that suddenly matriculate into “rights”.

1193

[quote]forlife wrote:

Nope. Having sex is different from romantic love, but it doesn’t surprise me you don’t see the difference.[/quote]

Now your story is that you were never in love with your former wife that bore you children - that the entire episode was about sex?

1194

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

You damn well know the response so why do you bother asking. Marriage is a fundamental right that definitionally includes the right to choose the gender of the partner. You may not agree but you KNOW that this is response. And the reasons have ALREADY been aritculated and the argument made is this thread many times over. Who gives a damn about class bigotry? There is no fundamental right to be treated equally in economic matters. Not that a flat tax results in equal treatment by any means in the first place.

But if you don’t SEE the difference you’ll never see the difference. Why, unlike other posters in this thread, do you continuously bring up arguments that have no bearing on this issue? And beleabor distinctions that are blatantly apparent to everyone else posting. Plus are apparent enough the the world at large that those most vehementally opposed to gay marriage don’t even bother asking in the real world?

Anyhow go back to to your intellectually stimulating questions about why the government shouldn’t extend benefits to those who marry their dog or toothbrush and pretend this is actually a relevant issue.

Sloth’s question is perfectly legitimate - it speaks to “equal” treatment.

“Equal Protection” under the law doesn’t distinguish “economic” and “social” spheres. Why are classifications according to “economic” standards completely left to the whim of the democratic arena, why “social” ones get added protection? You don’t have a principled answer, only “it just feels like the right thing to do”.

Sloth’s point is well-taken - if we keep inventing new and “modern” protections in the guise of Equal Protection, what others can we find if we look hard enough? And who gets in, and who gets left out?

It’s not just a relevant issue - it is the that you bump against when “discovering” all kind of new political preferences that suddenly matriculate into “rights”.[/quote]

No, you’re wrong. The Supreme court has held that there is no fundamental right on economic issues and they get a rational basis review. Not so for marriage. Know your Constitution. Know your caselaw. Know the legal framework surrounding these issues. Otherwise, these comparisons are a total waste of time.

Maybe you think there SHOULD not be a distinction between economic and social rights and economic and social liberties. But that is not the case.

It’s all well and good to have theoretical discussions about where we went wrong and how this country could still function. But I prefer to discuss contentious issues under a framework of the world as it actually exists. Not a fantasyland of how some people think it should exist. But go ahead. Don’t let me stop you. Before yesterday I hadn’t posted in this thread in a week. I’ll check back in another week to see if there’s anything interesting to respond to.

1195

Isn’t private property an economic issue??? We have no fundamental right to our property (wealth)???

1196

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

No, you’re wrong. The Supreme court has held that there is no fundamental right on economic issues and they get a rational basis review. Not so for marriage. Know your Constitution. Know your caselaw. Know the legal framework surrounding these issues. Otherwise, these comparisons are a total waste of time.[/quote]

The Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right as marriage is traditionally defined - there is no fundamental right to marriage any way you want to define it. How do we know? Case law, genius - the Supreme Court has already ruled that a state’s prohibition of same-sex marriage doesn’t violate the Constitution.

The “fundamental right to marriage” was handed down in 1967 (Loving) and the right for a state to ban same-sex marriage was handed down on a dismissal for want of a federal question in 1972 (Baker v. Nelson) - as in, Baker was after Loving, so a state ban on same-sex marriage doesn’t violate the fundamental right to marriage in the eyes of the Supreme Court, who ruled on the question only five years later.

Hey, Jsbrook - know your Constitution. Know your caselaw.

As to rational basis of economic issues, I know the court has determined that scrutiny is appropriate - and that was precisely my argument, that other social classifications that get the same level of review now get no “bump up” in status just because they are “social” in nature. There is no constitutional basis for removing them from rational basis - only political preferences.

Hey, Jsbrook - know your Constitution. Know your caselaw.

There is no distinction - under Equal Protection, the deciding factor is classification, not “social liberties”. A municipal ordinance that outlaws public nudity is not economic by any stretch of the imagination, and it targets a purely social issue - and, oh happy day, it’s evaluated under rational basis. The “nudist” doesn’t get a higher level of protection than the rich person under a progressive taxation challenge.

No you don’t - you simply sit back and regurgitate the “state of the law” without offering insight one on which way a court should go. Any of us can grab a Wikipedia entry and get as much out of it as your posts on the issue, which don’t do anything except give a middle of the road rundown.

The theoretical stuff is what the Justices would do themselves in trying to come to the right answer - that’s the fun stuff. You, on the other hand, simply want recognition for being able to rattle off the appropriate standards.

When you actually want to pony up and discuss the “contentious issues”, let us all know.

1198

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

Yea Thunder the homosexuals have created something called a “sexual continuum” to rationalize their perverse behavior.

It goes something like this:

A homosexual man can have sex with a woman any time he wants …but he’s not a bisexual and he’s certainly not a heterosexual…Um…he prefers another mans ass so he’s actually a homosexual because he really…really loves another mans ass.

You see when a homosexual man screws a woman he doesn’t really enjoy it (cough)…The erection that he has when he’s driving into her vagina is…um…it’s sort of doesn’t count. Never mind that most normal hetersexual men can’t possibly have sex with another man (skip the prison examples).

It all makes complete sense…if you’re forlife.[/quote]

Well, I have no idea what that is - it sounds idiotic.

But, based upon Forlife’s own theory, with respect to his marriage that produced childrenm either:

(a) He loved his former wife and that is why he married, and as a “hardcore” homosexual, he has refuted his own claim that “hardcore” homosexuals do no such thing.

(b) He never loved his former wife, it was just about sex (as he seems to be indicating), but somehow he actually married her and had children with her - all on the basis of not love or soulmate attachment or devotion, but sex.

Forlife likely won’t admit to (a) on the basis it directly undercuts his precious theory, and (b)…well, let’s charitably say that a man who married and had kids with no such love or devotion - just sex, mind you - has made a mockery of the very institution he says he claims is so important.

That is more than a little embarrassing.

1199

[quote]makkun wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
How about this example of the “social progression curve”-

Do you support this kind of behavior forlife?

I think I’ve never read a more compelling argument for one legal solution - marriage, recognised by the state and accepted beyond borders - and not two alternative and thus competing legal constructs (marriage and civil union).

Oh, and yeah, defying a court order is a shocking thing and sets a wrong example - of course we can’t support that type of behaviour.

Makkun[/quote]

What is the meaning of your 2nd paragraph, as your sarcasm is confusing me a bit?

Do you mean to say you think it was wrong for the biological mother to refuse her former homo partner visitation rights, even after the daughter began to express ideas of suicide?

1200

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[…]What is the meaning of your 2nd paragraph, as your sarcasm is confusing me a bit?

Do you mean to say you think it was wrong for the biological mother to refuse her former homo partner visitation rights, even after the daughter began to express ideas of suicide?[/quote]

It did indeed just mean that - I think it’s a very problematic decision to ignore a court order (legally as well as morally); and it sets a bad example for everyone.

When your child starts expressing mental health issues, it’s your duty as a parent to seek independent medical/psychological advice and follow it. If that includes curtailing visitation rights, so be it. But just pulling the plug on a (legal) committment made before and thus getting in conflict with the law is imho a very problematic decision. That can only add to the distress the child will feel over the separation, by destabilising an already painful and unbalanced situation. When dealing with a depressive child that’s the last you’d want - and I think that’s why the mother’s decision is very problematic.

Oh, and I meant also what I wrote in my first paragraph: I think this case exemplifies why there’s a need to regulate partnerships with one legal construct. Of course the answer can be to accept no gay relationships at all - but going the civil union route will mean producing conflicts just like this one. For the sake of its victims (in this case the daughter), I think the state has to provide one solution (marriage), not two (civil union and marriage). I gather the two of us will end up on opposite sides which decision is to be made, but I hope you can agree with me on this initial point as it centres on the safety of the child.

Makkun

1201

[quote]makkun wrote:
but I hope you can agree with me on this initial point as it centres on the safety of the child.
Makkun[/quote]

Yes, and I’m sure that’s what the mother was thinking when she made her “problematic” decision. She might have had a better plan, such as have the daughter seen by a professional, which would provide substantiating evidence. As a father and also someone who has seen what can happen when the responsibility for a kid’s wellbeing is taken over by the courts, I can sympathize with her decision. If I was faced with the same choice, I would not let my child out of my protection for one day. They can do a lot of damage very quickly.

What bothers me is her former homo lover seems to be bent on getting what she wants at the expense of the child.

I will say this though. People outside of a traditional marriage should not be legally allowed to artificially inseminate. Lisa Miller brought the trouble on herself, but for the sake of the child, I hope the courts support her.

1202

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[…]Yes, and I’m sure that’s what the mother was thinking when she made her “problematic” decision. She might have had a better plan, such as have the daughter seen by a professional, which would provide substantiating evidence. As a father and also someone who has seen what can happen when the responsibility for a kid’s wellbeing is taken over by the courts, I can sympathize with her decision. If I was faced with the same choice, I would not let my child out of my protection for one day. They can do a lot of damage very quickly.[/quote]

Well, of course - once the courts get involved it’s normally a sign that things have gotten out of hand already. Defying their orders just makes it worse though. I’m sure her motives are guided by what she thinks is right for the child - but that’s not always a guarantee that her actions will be.

I can’t say, but it could be motivated by love for the child. Homosexual or heterosexual partnership - a family tearing itself apart sucks for everyone.

Looks like everyone’s loosing in this story. :frowning:

Funnily enough, I’m not a great fan of IVF either - even in married couples, as it sets all types of issues - and as long as there children hoping to be adopted.

Makkun