Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gays are not a minority in the sense that you are using it. You are making huge assumptions that are not accepte, much less proven.

This is the problem with the entire gay-marraige argument. Prove that they are a minority in the sense that they qualify for protection under the constitution. You can’t. [/quote]

Discrimination has nothing to do with being a minority. I could discriminate against you because you have brown eyes. Is it no less discrimination when white people are hated for being white–no there is no distiction–it’s still a sort of discrimination and it’s unacceptable. Anyone that can be discriminated against for any reason should have some sort of protection. We can’t make a person treat any other person with dignity but we can ensure equal protection.

302

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You don’t want to hear about any other alternative marriage unions: "And please, let’s be more original than “Well, what if a duck marries a cat.” However, in reality are you not being somewhat closed minded yourself?

Why can’t someone bring up the fact that it may also be equally discriminatory (if you think that it is in fact discriminatory to deny homosexual unions) to deny polygamists the right to marry? Why are you so closed minded to the fact that some people may want to marry their children? Are they not being discriminated against? There are many other similar unions that could easily take place.

Do your socially liiberal opinions only go so far as accepting homosexual marriage?

Bigot![/quote]

This is not the argument–however, polygamy shouldn’t be outlawed eihter; why should we care that a man or woman wants to have more than one partner and offer protection to their faimily? Because one believes it is wrong? I believe it’s okay so now we have to find some ethical basis in which to say that it is wrong–not god or jesus or allah or buddah says.

303

[quote]Original_Demon wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hating fags is NOT an american value. (also history lesson: this country was not founded on religous values) and oh yeah gays are seeking a legal contract, that god has nothing to do with it.

This is by far the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard all year!!! This country was not founded on religous values!!! You’re making this too easy for me… In fact, I’ll keep it simple for you.

Reach into your purse, pull out a “1” dollar bill and read:

Right side:

  • E pluribus unum (from many, one)- “FROM MANY”, not the minority, is one nation formed.

Left side:

  • Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertakings) - I believe that would be “God”.

  • Novus ordo seclorum (New order of the ages). - This would be the nation made under “God”.

And what do the funny pictures mean you ask? Allow me to elaborate…

What the pictures mean:

The unfinished pyramid and the eye in a triangle on the reverse side are classic symbols. The Egyptian pyramid is a symbol of strength and duration; the 13 steps indicate the original number of U.S. states; and the 13 steps leading to an unfinished summit indicates future growth of the nation. The eye is known as the “Eye of Providence” and is surrounded by rays of light. According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, “providence” can mean:

  • a looking to, or preparation for, the future; provision.
  • skill or wisdom in management; prudence.
  • a) the care or benevolent guidance of God or nature, b) an instance of this.
  • God, as the guiding power of the universe.

The single eye shows up in Egyptian mythology as the Eye of Horus, an ancient god of the Egyptians. The eye represented wisdom, health and prosperity.

Let’s recap shall we…

As of June 20, 1782, the American poulace’s beliefs:

  • Strength and growth as a nation through the guidance of God – A symbol not only adopted from the Egyptian God, “Horus”, but found on many other American currencies, State Buildings, and Capitals.

And although fairies do exist, they will never fly with the Eagles!

OD[/quote]

What a laugh! You used currency to prove your point. Uhmmm In God we trust was added in 1862 by Licoln’s secretary, a devout christian. And even people like Teddy Roosevelt didn’t like it being there (he felt it was–Unconstitutional!). The founding fathers motto was “e pluribus unum”
Also so you know, when the founding fathers say this country is in no way founded on christian principles—I think you can take it to the bank. (rather than just make up stuff). Apology accepted in advance.

304

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You’re bashing red states for taking red state money? Aren’t you the guy who said he liked Reid for the SS check? Just curious.

[/quote]
No I love paying for the consequences of red state values (i.e. voting conservative)

305

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
You’d have to start with how is it fair for a heterosexual couple to marry and not bigamists. You’d have to throw out tradition (there’s a tradition of bigamy and polygamy) The discussion here is a civil contract between 2 parties, not multiple parties. Gays should have the right to enter the same civil contract with a loved one as straights do. So yeah its totally unrelated to a marriage between 2 parties.

This is actually precisely the problem with the idea that there is an individual right to marriage – at least to people who find it troubling that marriage could not be limited to two people, or that incestuous marriages could not be prohibited.

I’ve said this previously, but it bears repeating: If there were an individual right to marriage, a limitation by number, or a prohibition against incest, wouldn’t be any less “arbitrary and capricious” as restriction on that right than would limitations that limited marriage to those of the opposite gender.

That’s the Pandora’s Box here – I’m sure the idea bothers some more than others…[/quote]

No, it’s still unrelated. Allowing 2 people to marry doesn’t open pandora’s box any more than it’s currently opened. We’ve already had previous incidences or even allowance of polygamy–nothing new is opened. So it’s actually NOT a problem at all.

306

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pro X,

Last time. Seriously.

“So you relate gay marriage to incest? Why do you keep doing that?”

The argument for gay marriage: consenting adults should not have their rights denied - the unpopularity or minority status of their non-traditional lifestyle should not be the reason they face discrimination.

Does not this general platitude apply to every relationship that is ‘unpopular’ but ‘between consenting adults’, be it gay marriage, marriage with more than one partners, or incest?

You can’t explain why gays should be allowed to marry but a man who wants seven wives can’t. What if Angelina Jolie wants to marry her creepy brother? How is that relationship harming you?

The general principle being used to advance the gay marriage argument is a perfectly plausible argument for all non-traditional relationships that want marriage rights - and [b]that is why the comparison is made.[b]

As for its importance, it’s not something I spend a lot of time worrying about, but I hang out with a lot of liberal friends and it is always a topic of discussion with them.[/quote]

Can you explain logically why a man and woman can marry but a man who want’s to marry 7 wives can’t. Or why that was allowed previously. Jeez! this lame polygamy distraction

307

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

I’ve got a little newsflash for you. Irrespective of what we believe now, pretty much the only minorities the majority of the Founders were concerned about treating fairly were religious and political minorities. The idea of racial equality was pretty much unknown (note: not the idea of being kind to all humans, but the idea that the races were equal in all respects) at that time, and definitely was not a concept embraced by the majority of people who ratified the Constitution. And if you really think that the Founders had gay rights in mind when the passed they ratified the Constitution, or even that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment had gay rights in mind, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you…

Now, all that means is that gay rights aren’t enshrined in the Constitution as it was originally intended. These days we let judges add things – but even now they have not yet managed to add that.

THis isn’t to argue you couldn’t go and get states to pass anti-discrimination laws that specifically protect gays and guarantee them equality under the law – you could probably also get Congress to pass something under its Commerce Clause authority, which apparently is just about, though is not quite, general power.

Just don’t claim stuff that isn’t there.

100meters wrote:
Thanks for the newsflash! And yet still we have a republic that’s designed to protect minorities. It matters not what they then thought of other races. It also matters not if they could conceptualize gay rights. It doesn’t change the system we have, nor the intent of the constitution and all its amendments which last I checked belonged to americans (I think gays are americans)[/quote]

I’m sorry, but after reading this three times, I still don’t see your point? Obviously, the type of minority matters when you’re talking about protection, specifically Constitutional protection. Simply floating the idea “I’m a MINORITY!” does not instantly qualify you for specific extra Constitutional protection against legislation you find discriminatory against your group.

The morbidly obese are, thankfully, a minority, but they don’t get special Constitutional consideration when the state legislature passes a food tax. The bottom 20% of the income-bracket is, by definition, a minority, but they don’t get special protection either. And, by the way, the top 20% is also a minority. Obviously you can get into a discussion on how close or how far each of those, and gays, are to actual protected minority groups under the Constitution, but then you’re proving my point.

308

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
You’d have to start with how is it fair for a heterosexual couple to marry and not bigamists. You’d have to throw out tradition (there’s a tradition of bigamy and polygamy) The discussion here is a civil contract between 2 parties, not multiple parties. Gays should have the right to enter the same civil contract with a loved one as straights do. So yeah its totally unrelated to a marriage between 2 parties.

This is actually precisely the problem with the idea that there is an individual right to marriage – at least to people who find it troubling that marriage could not be limited to two people, or that incestuous marriages could not be prohibited.

I’ve said this previously, but it bears repeating: If there were an individual right to marriage, a limitation by number, or a prohibition against incest, wouldn’t be any less “arbitrary and capricious” as restriction on that right than would limitations that limited marriage to those of the opposite gender.

That’s the Pandora’s Box here – I’m sure the idea bothers some more than others…

100meters wrote:
No, it’s still unrelated. Allowing 2 people to marry doesn’t open pandora’s box any more than it’s currently opened. We’ve already had previous incidences or even allowance of polygamy–nothing new is opened. So it’s actually NOT a problem at all.[/quote]

It’s new in that it is a change from what has been allowed under the law for the past 150 years, which I’m sure stretches past your memory.

And though I’m not at all certain on this point, I don’t think it was practiced by anyone other than Mormons, who were driven out of several states for that and other reasons, and whose statehood was denied until they wrote it into their proposed Constitution that polygamy would be illegal.

309

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m sorry, but after reading this three times, I still don’t see your point? Obviously, the type of minority matters when you’re talking about protection, specifically Constitutional protection. Simply floating the idea “I’m a MINORITY!” does not instantly qualify you for specific extra Constitutional protection against legislation you find discriminatory against your group.

The morbidly obese are, thankfully, a minority, but they don’t get special Constitutional consideration when the state legislature passes a food tax. The bottom 20% of the income-bracket is, by definition, a minority, but they don’t get special protection either. And, by the way, the top 20% is also a minority. Obviously you can get into a discussion on how close or how far each of those, and gays, are to actual protected minority groups under the Constitution, but then you’re proving my point.[/quote]

What does being a minority have to d with equal protection underthe law. The mere premise of equality implies that one doesn’t have to be a minotiry to have equal access. Implying one is a minority does not imply that one should have laws written specifically for that group–just that one should not be treated differently than anyone else–specifically in regards to laws that excludes them because they don’t fit into a majority qualifier.

The whole premise of arguing that some one needs to be a certain kind of minority makes no sense. Woman are most certainly not a minority in this country–yet there are rule written to protect their rights.

310

I’m talking to a post. Am I not? If certain others can voice their opinion so have I voiced mine… “Try, no, do or do not, there is no try”… I apologize. There were so many puns in those few sentences I couldn’t resist. BTW, I don’t hate gay individuals. I hate what they stand for. This is America, or was, not a dog and pony show.

OD

311

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The whole premise of arguing that some one needs to be a certain kind of minority makes no sense. Woman are most certainly not a minority in this country–yet there are rule written to protect their rights.[/quote]

Nothing you have written makes any sense. If you don’t understand the subject matter - please quit posting until you do.

It is not BB’s job to rehash everything that has been written here. Why do you keep asking the same idiotic questions? Do you think the answer will change if you ask the question often enough?

312

[quote]Original_Demon wrote:
I’m talking to a post. Am I not? If certain others can voice their opinion so have I voiced mine… “Try, no, do or do not, there is no try”… I apologize. There were so many puns in those few sentences I couldn’t resist. BTW, I don’t hate gay individuals. I hate what they stand for. This is America, or was, not a dog and pony show.

OD[/quote]

Don’t you understand, OD? It’s only free speech if you advocate the fucking of dogs or 10-year old boys. It is hate speech if you think that their lifestyle is wrong.

313

An interesting piece I recently came across. It goes against my thought process, but to be fair–it is relevant and ?informative?

Until roughly 2 centuries ago, the institution of marriage was considered far too important to leave up to the emotions of 2 people. Marriage was about economics and politics and, more than anything, creating in-laws.

…At some point, ‘love conquered marriage.’

The original support for a love match, was to make marriage more secure by getting rid of the cynicism that accompianied mercinary marriage and encouraging couples to place each other first in their affections and loyalties.

From the get-go social conservatives warned of disaster. If love was the only criteria–some people may never marry, people falling out of love may demand divorce and even homosexuals could lay claim to marriage.
looks like they were right on–200 years ago.

Up until 40 years ago, marriage was ‘defined’ by ‘male bread-winner’ manifesto. Held in check by economic dependency of wives, the unreliability of birth control, and penalties for having children out of wedlock. The last 40 years has brought about great change–‘all by the heterosexuals.’

Hetero’s said it should be about love, and claimed they should be able to decide whether to have children. Marriage isn’t about gender roles, but about individualized relationships."

To many, this sounds like exactly what the gays and lesbians are asking for and wanting.

To get back to ‘traditional’ marriage they would need to roll back everything from female independence to divorce, birth control and the idea that marriage is about 2 individuals not a ‘class’ based system of subserviance.

So if ‘traditional’ marriage is truly all but dead, why not allow the next logical step and open it up to all those that ask for it. Marriage is still considered the gold standard of relationships, even with its now non-traditional standars and definitions.

I know this does not address the constitutionality of it, but maybe sheds some light on how the institution itself is under constant change and revision. From what once was convenience and class status quo to love to independence to???

I thought it an intersting read and much above is paraphrased, but the idea is there.

I wonder though, with these revisions have come a price. The family is not what it once was, and society reflects that. Where might this next step take us? I’m not sure I want to hazard a guess. With that thought, can we really sink much lower when it comes to family values in this country. We have bigger problems that should invoke 12 pages of dialogue and passionate debate, and I hope we address those with the vigor we attacked this topic.

314

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m sorry, but after reading this three times, I still don’t see your point? Obviously, the type of minority matters when you’re talking about protection, specifically Constitutional protection. Simply floating the idea “I’m a MINORITY!” does not instantly qualify you for specific extra Constitutional protection against legislation you find discriminatory against your group.

The morbidly obese are, thankfully, a minority, but they don’t get special Constitutional consideration when the state legislature passes a food tax. The bottom 20% of the income-bracket is, by definition, a minority, but they don’t get special protection either. And, by the way, the top 20% is also a minority. Obviously you can get into a discussion on how close or how far each of those, and gays, are to actual protected minority groups under the Constitution, but then you’re proving my point.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What does being a minority have to d with equal protection underthe law. The mere premise of equality implies that one doesn’t have to be a minotiry to have equal access. Implying one is a minority does not imply that one should have laws written specifically for that group–just that one should not be treated differently than anyone else–specifically in regards to laws that excludes them because they don’t fit into a majority qualifier.

The whole premise of arguing that some one needs to be a certain kind of minority makes no sense. Woman are most certainly not a minority in this country–yet there are rule written to protect their rights.[/quote]

The premise is qualified by the fact that any particular program that is passed is likely to somewhat discriminate against someone – even if it’s just a matter of competition for government spending resources. [ADDENDUM: I want to add this obvious example: The U.S. tax code is among the most discriminatory bodies of law ever divised. It discriminates against people based on income, against people with no kids, against people who aren’t old, against people based on how they want to invest their money, etc., etc.] Thus there is a premise embedded in the law that the government can discriminate in the laws it passes, unless that discrimination violates some other particular individual right.

This general premise is modified by 14th Amendment Equal Protection doctrine, which basically holds that discrimination against certain, discrete groups (“suspect classes”) is suspicious on its face, and thus the government will have to face much greater scrutiny (either “intermediate” or “strict”) than normal (“rational basis”).

315

100meters,

“Can you explain logically why a man and woman can marry but a man who want’s to marry 7 wives can’t. Or why that was allowed previously. Jeez! this lame polygamy distraction”

See, now we are getting somewhere. I never said that you - the collective you - couldn’t make that argument that gay marriage is ok, but bigamy is not…I am saying that nobody here is making that argument.

Gay marriage advocates around here are arguing in enormous absolutes - things like “individual freedoms” and “consenting adults” and “liberties” - all general, sweeping platitudes that when offered as a defense of gay marriage could also be applied to anyone of a non-traditional bent in their relationships.

What I have been trying to get at is that distinctions can be made - that is, people can, because of their value systems, religious backgrounds, general philosophies, etc., make distinctions that say two gays can marry but a man and seven wives cannot. What I was pointing out was that a strict adherence to ‘logic’ in the sense of defending a binary gay marriage forces those defenders to ‘logically’ apply the same defense to bigamists, etc.

And see what the problem is? You find incestual relationships or polygamy morally repugnant or something unnatural - and that is a perfectly defensible position…

…so just say so. Just say that you want to draw ‘arbitrary’ lines based on gut instinct or value systems or whatever. Explian why there is a recognizable difference between gay marriage and bigamy. Those of us who defend traditional marriage do so, or at least I do. I think the union of a man and woman is privileged above all others based on cultural patrimony, nature, and Western concepts of marriage, therefore I defend its status.

My point is simple: all this garbage about endless libertarian freedom, supposedly based in logic, that suggests anyone anywhere can do whatever they want unless it hurts someone else leads us down a road that, admittedly, we are not interested in going down.

As to the Constitutional side of it, this process should be left to the legislatures since it is such a values-driven debate. How can a neutral court possibly decide that one arrangement is better than another? All the court should do is ensure the “democratic rules of engagement” are followed.

As for the legislative debate, we can agree to disagree. You convince more people that gay marriage is good than I do that it is not good, and victory is yours. It is the American way.

316

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Nothing you have written makes any sense. If you don’t understand the subject matter - please quit posting until you do.

It is not BB’s job to rehash everything that has been written here. Why do you keep asking the same idiotic questions? Do you think the answer will change if you ask the question often enough?

[/quote]
It makes no sense to you. I understand perfectly well the subject–you hate “fags” and have no ethical basis to back up a reason to have laws in place to discriminate against them–just your hatred.

I’m asking questions that have everything to do with the subject–they are backed up by reason–asking a question makes it so the person who answers them actually has something to respond to–not just my opinion? It’s a tool used by ethicists. Asking a question implies that I am open to hear someone’s answer. The reason I keep asking them is because no one has answered them.

317

[quote]Original_Demon wrote:
I’m talking to a post. Am I not? If certain others can voice their opinion so have I voiced mine… “Try, no, do or do not, there is no try”… I apologize. There were so many puns in those few sentences I couldn’t resist. BTW, I don’t hate gay individuals. I hate what they stand for. This is America, or was, not a dog and pony show.

OD[/quote]

yet here you post on a body building web site with you gunz all flexed in an avitar–the biggest dog and pony shoy of all time.

318

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

The premise is qualified by the fact that any particular program that is passed is likely to somewhat discriminate against someone – even if it’s just a matter of competition for government spending resources. Thus there is a premise embedded in the law that the government can discriminate in the laws it passes, unless that discrimination violates some other particular individual right.

This general premise is modified by 14th Amendment Equal Protection doctrine, which basically holds that discrimination against certain, discrete groups (“suspect classes”) is suspicious on its face, and thus the government will have to face much greater scrutiny (either “intermediate” or “strict”) than normal (“rational basis”).[/quote]

So then can the gov’t then write laws that exclude people who are left handed? The answer is it would never happen. I fail to see a distiction between ones physical uniquness and their sexuality. The fact is the laws as they are written now exclude certain individuals from equal protection of the law.

319

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It makes no sense to you. I understand perfectly well the subject–you hate “fags” and have no ethical basis to back up a reason to have laws in place to discriminate against them–just your hatred.
[/quote]

Show me where I ever said “I hate fags”. Short of showing me the quote where I said that, you are a fucking liar.

Go ahead. Show me or shut up.

320

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Nothing you have written makes any sense. If you don’t understand the subject matter - please quit posting until you do.

It is not BB’s job to rehash everything that has been written here. Why do you keep asking the same idiotic questions? Do you think the answer will change if you ask the question often enough?

It makes no sense to you. I understand perfectly well the subject–you hate “fags” and have no ethical basis to back up a reason to have laws in place to discriminate against them–just your hatred.

I’m asking questions that have everything to do with the subject–they are backed up by reason–asking a question makes it so the person who answers them actually has something to respond to–not just my opinion? It’s a tool used by ethicists. Asking a question implies that I am open to hear someone’s answer. The reason I keep asking them is because no one has answered them.

[/quote]

You have heard many responses–you just haven’t heard the ones you want to hear.
You make sophist arguments and then rebuke the answers and claim hatred and stupidity by the poster. Believe me son, it’s been used many times on this thread alone and many others. Get a new gig.