[quote]ZEB wrote:
Don’t like the group example? Fine take it out. The others still hold. Why can’t you marry your sister?[/quote]
You are not protected against discrimination based on your familial relationships. You can legally be discriminated against because, say, your brother was a felon. You can legally be denied a contract because of your familial relations.
See above.
You are not protected against discrimination based on your age when entering contracts.
Because animals and inanimate objects are not afforded the rights specified in the constitution.
I see where you’re coming from, but you have yet to specify a situation where the criteria of discrimination is sex, race or religion, which the consitution offers protection against. The examples you have given are not offered that protection.
[quote]
There is no sex discrimination going on regarding homosexuals.[/quote]
That’s not true. There is a man standing in a room that wants to enter a contract (marriage) with another a person. I walk enter that room and agree to enter the contract. You are denying me the ability to enter that contract based SOLELY ON MY SEX. I fulfill all other criteria, except being the correct sex. If a woman walked in you would honor the contract.
You might have an argument if the language of marriage contracts stipulated that the two participants be able to procreate together, or some other such clause. Barring that, I fulfill all other contractual requirements besides being the correct sex.
I’m mostly playing devil’s advocate here, but I still haven’t seen any logical arugment against what I’ve said.
That isn’t true at all. Here’s the proof: Imagine a man and a woman. The woman’s sexual preference is to sleep with women, but she wants to marry a man for the benefits of the contract. Would she be denied entering the contract because of her sexual preference? No. The only way she would be denied entering the contract would be if her spouse was a woman (a different sex).
I agree with the societal rules, as long as they don’t discriminate based on race, sex, or religion.
[quote]
It’s just soooo cool to say “hey everybody do your own thing and we accept it all. All you need is love…must be true John Lennon said it.”[/quote]
Straw man. I’m not saying that at all. People can’t do whatever they want. We need rules in society.
The friend that I brought up earlier isn’t homosexual.
Well, they should try and change the ruls if they feel the rules are unconstituational, right? You just disagree.
You keep saying it isn’t discrimination based on sex, but you have yet to provide any proof of that.
Good back and forth so far. Let’s keep it civil. We’re close to entering the “everyone that doesn’t agree with me is an idiot” deal.
Does a right have to be individually enumerated for it to exist? Does a right have to have been exercised in the past for it to be protected? Who decides the initial status of activities that are not enumerated?
Is this really the issue? Nobody is arguing that the state cannot declare an action or a contract available to the public. However, what was being discussed was the explicit denial of access to a contract based on sexual practices. This is a different kettle of fish than the one you choose to consider.
Indeed, a few of them might. There is a lot of hard thinking to do in these areas. I’m not saying I’m in favor of them either, before those of you that like to jump to silly conclusions can jump in there and do so.
It wouldn’t only be me that disagrees with the lower courts decision in Mass. and Calif. wrt gay marriages. They have all been overturned by higher coourts.
I’m not sure what they did about those who married in the time frame, but they are no longer allowed and considered valid by law.
Not to tirade about liberal vs conservative, but odd that this ocurred in Mass. and Calif.
I can’t tell you what basis the original decisions were made or what process went into overturning. That might be a BB special there.
My point being this is not some ‘conspiracy’ this is happening. Activist judges making rulings that are not in line with upper courts and previous cases.
The laws shall be made by the legislation and in turn cases shall be decided on those laws and their original intent. I believe this was the purpose of the judicial branch. Not to reinterpret those decisions based
on what they believe to be PC now.
Quite honestly, that’s what has ocurred repeatedly in the ‘freedom from religion’ interp. And while marriage is, for the most part, a religious ceremony and institution, as a society it has always been looked on as a necessary and stabilizing force–ie.-good for society as a whole.
Sasquatch, thats all cool, but honestly, without any backing, its simply an opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but it is hardly conclusive to an onlooker trying to muddle through it all and form their own opinion.
What on this thread is not opinion. We have all interpreted the constitution and the rulings in our own way and formed an opinion as such.
Are you telling me your ‘other view’ is soley based on law or science? i don’t think so.
it is not only my opinion that gay marriages have been ruled to be illegal at this time. it is and has been that way since the original writing of the constitution. The activist judges have tried to change that on their own. That is not soley my opinion. It is based on fact and reported as such. The fact that I agree with that decision is in fact my opinion as to how it should be interp.
Do you actually have an opinion on this thread? And can that opinion be backed up by anything more than your opinion and your interp. of rulings in the past?
I agree completely. The genetic vs. choice debate is absolutely irrelevant. In my frame of reference, what’s happening here is an argument over whether or not the state has the right to void contracts based solely on the sex of the parties involved.
That is where my frame of reference changes. A contract is presented before the state. The state must decide whether or not it will recognize said contract. The state is taking the position that it is acceptable to use the sex of the parties involved as the sole criteria for not recognizing the contract.
So it is your stance the the state can pass laws that prohibit the recognition of contractual agreements based solely on the sex of the parties involved, as long as there is a rational basis?
That’s a fair interpretation, but I wouldn’t necessarily call an opposing interpretation radical or unprecedented.
Man you need to look harder at the arguments here. Are you defending Gojira’s bullshit post? Futuredaves? Morty’s?
Honestly, before you go off half-cocked telling the right how flimsy their argumments are - look at the over-emotional, and angry left-wing heterophobes.
Sad thing for ya’ll that gay marraige referendums have been soundly defeated in every state that has had an elelction on it. The good thing for the anti-hetero movement is there are more than enough judges out there that are willing to ignore the will of the people and craft law from their bench.
And on the born that way versus the chose that way debate - Show me the fucking “gay gene” and you win. It is truly that simple. Just show me the “gay gene” and I’ll never utter another pro-hetero word.
But until that time - “choice” trumps nature. Just like the will of the people SHOULD trump the courts.[/quote]
Hmmm. So it’s all choice is it? i guess this means if I talk really persuasively to you - you could ‘turn gay’
Let’s get started!
[quote]T-chick wrote:
Hmmm. So it’s all choice is it? i guess this means if I talk really persuasively to you - you could ‘turn gay’
Let’s get started![/quote]
Unless it can be genetically proven, then it is a choice.
But good luck trying to persuade me, girlfriend. Messing with my mind is like playing with a steel trap. Yeah - I said a steel trap.
You don’t really want to compare voting for one candidate to the homosexual marriage issue do you? Your comparison is lacking. In fact, it can be turned to prove my point. I am for not changing the status quo. So…If you wanted to change the institution of voting for a select minority I would be against that as well. Hence, if you do not like the democratic system of voting then you have options: Don’t vote, move to a country which is not democratic, or perhaps change your thought process.[/quote]
So if we had always been voting only for one candidate, you’d be OK with that, since it’s the status quo?
Not if you believe that our most basic rights to life and liberty are inherent and unalienable. If you believe that rights are granted by the government, then yes, your belief makes perfect sense.
Simply because the majority is opposed to me does not mean I am in the wrong, nor does it mean I should lay down and accept whatever they decree.
The authors of the Constitution were well acquainted with the dangers of majority rule – it tends to form a sort of ochlocracy, as seen in Athens during its later years, prior to its downfall. Thus, the system was constructed to prevent the majority from doing whatever they wished, mainly by the judiciary. There’s a reason judges are appointed for life without fear of political reprisals: they have to make the unpopular choices.
[quote]Homosexuals can live with one another and perform all sorts of homosexual acts and live happily ever after. After all it is a free country and I?m very happy about that. However, they must do so without the institution of marriage.
I hope you get the point.[/quote]
But…why? Why deny them the civil benefits of a civil marriage?
Actually, thought reform is quite different from what you’ve assumed. Thought reform defined as is the alteration of a person’s basic attitudes and beliefs by outside manipulation. It’s somewhat akin to brainwashing, though it’s generally considered more refined.
Could you subject someone to this and change their expressed sexual orientation? Sure, and that would work for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. But I don’t think it would change their underlying orientation – assuming you didn’t alter brain chemistry as well. I doubt there are very many volunteers for this sort of thing, so it may prove hard to test.
As for genetic gender differences…how about the wide variety of weird chromosome pairings and triplings that distort gender? Odd things can occur there.
OK.
Fear, disgust, and anger are all classified as agonistic emotions, and occur in the amygadala region of the brain.
Dr. Andy Carder, research scientist at the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge, had this to say:
"…I and my colleagues have argued that the human brain contains partially separate, but interconnected neural systems coding fear and disgust. In addition, they suggest that both systems pass information on to a further emotion system located in frontal lobes of the brain. The idea that these systems are interconnected and talk to one another is essential, because many of the emotional situations we encounter in everyday life contain a blend of emotions. For example, some situations are both disgusting and frightening, and many Hollywood films including Seven and Silence of the Lambs capitalise on this for maximal emotional effect.
An important question is why emotions such as fear and disgust should be associated with relatively specialised neural machinery, do these emotions have some kind of special status? The answer to this question may well be yes because both play central roles in ensuring that an individual avoids dangerous or harmful situations and substances. In the case of fear, that danger may be from a predator or more dominant member of the same species, whereas for disgust the danger may be related to the potentially contaminating effects of rotten food or stagnant water, for example. "
So I don’t think you can say they aren’t linked at all. If I wanted to go out on a limb, I’d say the disgust at homosexuality is tinged by a fear of association.
You’re really hung up on this ‘phobia’ thing. Look, the colloquial meaning of the word has changed some: now, it’s generally assumed to encompass ‘disgust’ as well as ‘fear’.
I doubt you’ll give up your fight over that, though – you seem rather insistent on the point.
But ‘repugnant’ isn’t the right type of word – it would mean ‘gays are repugnant’, not ‘I am sickened by gays’. You would want ‘repulsed’, maybe? I still prefer ‘homoairia’ as a more concice and elegant way of stating what you want. So you would be ‘homoairic’.
Then again, maybe you do mean to say ‘gays are repugnant’, in which case you’ve got just the right word.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Unless there is an individual right to state-sanctioned marriage somewhere in the Constitution, which I would love for someone to point out to me, or unless gays are a “suspect class” under the USSC’s Constitutional civil rights doctrines, which they are not (in fact, only blacks and women are, and blacks more than women), then the only thing that the legislature needs is a “rational basis” for its program.
vroom wrote:
Does a right have to be individually enumerated for it to exist? Does a right have to have been exercised in the past for it to be protected? Who decides the initial status of activities that are not enumerated?[/quote]
Generally, yes - a right does need to be individually enumerated. The limit on the government is supposed to be that the federal government is limited to its enumerated powers. However, the Commerce Clause has been so expanded that it’s not much of a limit anymore.
If the right is not so enumerated, then the judges are making the right up as they go along. That’s the problem with judicial activism.
Your other two questions are answered by those, if you think about it.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So if the legislature decides that heterosexual marriages are good for society (good for child-raising, or for whatever other reason they come up with), and thus wants to preference them with tax incentives and make it easy for a package of contractual rights to attach upon the consummation of a legal, state-sanctioned marriage, then the court has no business questioning that decision.
vroom wrote:
Is this really the issue? Nobody is arguing that the state cannot declare an action or a contract available to the public. However, what was being discussed was the explicit denial of access to a contract based on sexual practices. This is a different kettle of fish than the one you choose to consider.[/quote]
Yes, it is the issue. As I said, there is no right in the U.S. Constitution to be free of discrimination on any level based on your sexual orientation.
The threshold is that unless there is an individual right against discrimination, there can be discrimination. The government is free to discriminate against those who choose to smoke, those who have not graduated high school – heck, it can make a program solely available to natural blondes if it wants to.
As far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, there are only two categories that merit special scrutiny when it comes to discrimination: race and sex (that’s according to USSC jurisprudence). And by sex I mean what’s between your legs, not what you consider yourself to be, nor what you prefer to find between someone else’s legs when you hit the sack. Those two – race and sex – are the only two "suspect classes – according to Constitutional jurisprudence. In other words, the government can only discriminate against a “suspect class” if it has a damn good reason – a “compelling interest” is the most exacting standard, and it is attached to race. Sex gets a slightly lower standard.
Other than that, it’s “rational basis” scrutiny, which means that the court shouldn’t bother looking any further than any rational basis the government offers for its reason for its law.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
If the court were to make up an individual right to “marriage” and place it somewhere in those “penumbras” of the Constitution, then those arguments concerning polygamy, incest, and other things take on a whole new importance, because if there were an individual right to marriage, then why would the number of individuals or their biological relationship be any less “arbitrary and capricious” than restricting it to only those of opposite gender?
vroom wrote:
Indeed, a few of them might. There is a lot of hard thinking to do in these areas. I’m not saying I’m in favor of them either, before those of you that like to jump to silly conclusions can jump in there and do so.[/quote]
That’s the implication. An individual right is vested in the individual, and the government needs a compelling interest to limit it – it’s tough to find a compelling interest, at least according to USSC precedent.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s the legal analysis.
vroom wrote:
That’s a legal analysis at any rate…
[/quote]
I’ll bet you a bottle of a Biotest supplement of the winner’s choosing that you’ll find a bunch of what I wrote above in the appellate court verdict that overturn’s this trial-court decision. Of course, we’ll likely have to wait a few years for this, but just let me know if you’re interested in taking that wager (A two-part trigger for me to win: 1) the appellate court overturns this ridiculous decision; 2) They utilize a bunch of the analysis I just laid out, though obviously in their own words, and with a bunch of citations).
Everyone has an opinion sasquatch, but expressing an opinion is not altogether what makes a discussion interesting. The interesting part is determining why someone believes their opinion is correct.
Boston, above, argues very well (because he is probably an expert in the subject area) and this very much can help people think through the issues and come to a conclusion.
Myself, I generally ask pointed questions, and if someone can actually answer them, then I can form an opinion on the topic based on more than supposition and emotion, or talking points.
So, excuse me if I wonder your qualifications or reasons for the opinion you express. However, if you have nothing to back up your statements, they don’t weigh very much, if you know what I mean.
That is not a slight. It is true of every other raw opinion on the forums. Perhaps I will state an opinion, or perhaps I will post some more of my meager thoughts or questions.
Heck, if I can keep from voicing an opinion, I won’t be emotionally drawn into supporting that opinion, and there is even a chance I can keep an open mind and understand many points of view simultaneously.
It’s not like its important that I have or state an opinion.
However, if it pleases you, I will state that I don’t believe one group should impose its moral beliefs on another. It’s possible that in this case, as argued by Boston, that it is legal for this to be done.
If two guys want to have sex, it is none of my business. It probably isn’t all that different when a man does a woman up the ass – and that happens a lot. In particular, if two women want to have sex, I’m all for it, especially if I can watch.
So, barring further reasoning, which is actually convincing, I’m inclined not to oppose it. Anyhow, I don’t have a horse in this race, it makes no difference to me how it turns out. If you do have a horse in this race, that itself is another issue.
I’m also concerned about whether or not people are objecting for religious reasons and then casting about for other supporting explanations instead of religion. This does appear to happen from time to time.
So, now I’m likely to be dragged through all kinds of bullshit arguments just because I’m not for one group imposing it’s moral standards on another. It’s a principle, not a direct stance on the gay marriage issue.
There, now you have my current conclusion, which can be modified with good argument, and the reason or principle from which is comes. I think the principle is pretty self explanatory and the outcome from it is straight forward. It is at least more than just a raw opinion. It has some substance beyond that for the reader to accept or reject.
If all we wanted in these threads was opinion, we could simply have a vote on every issue…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
As far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, there are only two categories that merit special scrutiny when it comes to discrimination: race and sex (that’s according to USSC jurisprudence). And by sex I mean what’s between your legs, not what you consider yourself to be, nor what you prefer to find between someone else’s legs when you hit the sack.[/quote]
Exactly. And denying marriage benefits to gays is a discriminatory based on sex, and by that I mean what’s between your legs.
If two men produced sworn affidavits that they considered themselves heterosexual, and that they prefered sleeping with women, they still would not be allowed to get married. Why? Because of what’s in between their legs, or their sex.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Exactly. And denying marriage benefits to gays is a discriminatory based on sex, and by that I mean what’s between your legs.
If two men produced sworn affidavits that they considered themselves heterosexual, and that they prefered sleeping with women, they still would not be allowed to get married. Why? Because of what’s in between their legs, or their sex.[/quote]
No Morty. You are confusing choice with sex. They are choosing a lifestyle. And there’s a big difference between sexual preference and sexual discrimination under the constitution.
You can’t extrapolate like you just did and expect folks to just believe it - much less a logical judiciary. But as BB has shown - parts of the judiciary are far from logical.
Good posts everybody. Even the ones that heckled me.
One question: What happens to the country in general when we legitimize gay marriage? Some people get married that weren’t able to before, get a few benefits they weren’t able to before, and that’s about it.
I’ve already posted on two other threads before the link to a study which showed positive results from gay couples rearing a child. So a few gay couples can adopt if we legitimize gay marriage, and it’s not a bad thing. I would think that you guys would cheer the couples who want to adopt a child into their loving family, rather than relegate these children to a foster home or orphanage.
On the tax part of the gay marriage thing, do any of you honestly think that the amount of money we that the few hypothetical gay married couples out there are going to save on taxes is going to place a burden on our government?
Inheritance, power of attorney, other legal things which are part of being married… these are all things that can be signed over to someone anyway, so allowing the gays to marry isn’t going to be a problem in that area either.
So what’s your beef with this guys?
Nevermind… I’ve heard your beef. You can’t stand the thought of a gay couple being on equal status in any way to you and your marriage. That’s it. And that’s okay, but I just want y’all to realize that maybe… you might be a tad close-minded.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No Morty. You are confusing choice with sex. They are choosing a lifestyle. And there’s a big difference between sexual preference and sexual discrimination under the constitution.
[/quote]
I honestly don’t understand your argument at all. Are you saying that gay marriage isn’t denied because of the sex of the participants, but because of the choice of lifestyle they’ve made? I’m not being sarcastic, I really don’t follow.
Here’s a thought experiment:
BB has already pointed out that sex (what’s in between your legs) and race are special cases that through legal precendence we have established as criteria that cannot be used in a discriminatory way.
So since banning gay marriage isn’t (according to your argument) a denial of recognition of a contract based soley on sex (what’s in between your legs), let’s remove sex (what’s in between your legs) completely from the marriage license application.
Now, let’s say that you’re a gov’t official that’s received an application for a marriage license that has sex (and race) removed, what are your grounds for denying an application from a gay couple?
I’m looking at a state marriage license application right now and there is no place to specify what kind of lifestyle you will pursue, what kinds of sex you prefer, or your ability to procreate. What is your basis for denying this contract, given that sex and race are protected against your discrimination?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
One question: What happens to the country in general when we legitimize gay marriage? Some people get married that weren’t able to before, get a few benefits they weren’t able to before, and that’s about it.
[/quote]
True, but that’s not really an argument as to why gay marriage should be legal. “Hey, it doesn’t hurt anyone” isn’t sufficient to make something legal (to most people at least).
According to what BB posted discrimination based on sex requires a compelling interest. Thus I could see a ban on gay marriage if it was shown to have a negative impact on society. But as you’ve pointed out, not only is there no proof of a negative impact, most studies show a positive impact.
It’s mostly conservatives that oppose gay marriage so the tax part shouldn’t really be an issue. More taxes saved = more investment.
[quote]
So what’s your beef with this guys?
Nevermind… I’ve heard your beef. You can’t stand the thought of a gay couple being on equal status in any way to you and your marriage. That’s it. And that’s okay, but I just want y’all to realize that maybe… you might be a tad close-minded.[/quote]
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
I honestly don’t understand your argument at all. Are you saying that gay marriage isn’t denied because of the sex of the participants, but because of the choice of lifestyle they’ve made? I’m not being sarcastic, I really don’t follow.
[/quote]
That’s exactly my point. The marraige laws don’t discriminate an the basis of what sex you are, or what type of sex you prefer. It makes the assumption that marraige is between a man and a woman.
Now that is an assumption that a lot of folks don’t like. But there are a lot more that do like it. Marraige laws do not forbid homosexuality - they just won’t recognize gay marraige.
The law is not unconstitutional - unless the constitution is changed. I think it should be a state by state decision, and not a federal decision.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
One question: What happens to the country in general when we legitimize gay marriage? Some people get married that weren’t able to before, get a few benefits they weren’t able to before, and that’s about it.
True, but that’s not really an argument as to why gay marriage should be legal. “Hey, it doesn’t hurt anyone” isn’t sufficient to make something legal (to most people at least).[/quote]
Okay, I hear you. But what about the “freedom to pursue happiness”? I think that the fact that some gay folks can’t get married for no good reason at all is interfering with that. And I can almost hear ZEB right now saying “well what about the NAMBLA guys?” in his joking manner, but that is not even close to the same thing, and he knows that but I think that he likes to mess with my head sometimes. So while I get your point about making something legal just on account of it’s harmlessness, I would ask you to look at this in the way of why make something UNacceptable even though it’s harmless and even beneficial, a la anti-prohormone legislation, for example.
Interesting post. Just about everything you condone and accusr the 'right ’ of being guilty of, you just presented as the argument for your beliefs.
What exactly does the fact that your lesbian friends served in the military have to do with anything. You can say that about paying taxes.[/quote]
I guess I was trying to help the more close-minded and homophobic around here understand that gay people are people just like you and me. You’re right, I could have also mentioned taxes and everything else that the other normal people like you and me do. The military mention would especially get to them I thought, because here we have the kind of caliber of people who volunteer to serve their country even as it turns its back on them (in a manner of speaking). I was all about getting the other folks in this forum to see my friends as something besides some abstract symbol of something wrong or unnatural which should be looked down upon. Oh well.
Yeah, it’s a big brush to paint with, but what else do I have to go on here? If you can see gay people as a different kind of normal people, then I assume you wouldn’t mind them getting married. Think about it. What damage can they do? None.
Okay, I guess I should have segued better or something… How about this:
The beef a couple of y’all have has to do with “it’s a choice” vs. “they are born that way”. Well, there are other things our government recognizes as a minority and a choice rather than a quality that you are born with, and that’s a religion choice. Does it really matter if gays choose to be that way or they are born with their preferences? It doesn’t matter of you’re born Jewish, does it? I am thinking of this in terms of marriage being a government benefit just like the benefit that a religion gets. Tax break.
I’ve got something else here I just thought of:
Gay marriage should be none of our business. Unless we are gay ourselves. In the same way that they shouldn’t interfere with hetero marriage. Gay couples aren’t trying to have a heterosexual marriage, they’re trying to have the same kind of thing but different. Instead of looking at it as “invading” or “violating” (calling Dr. Freud) an existing institution, we could look at it as starting a new institution that exists alongside an older one. Then they can discover the joys of gay divorce, gay alimony, and gay child support payments.
