[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
promote some End,
"[/quote]
What is the end ?
[/quote]
Legal marijuana.
/throws hands up and walks off[/quote]
more demagoguery there is no end that the Gov is trying to accomplish. I would bet it is a credit that was enacted in a time where most of the people that voted were married .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
promote some End,
"[/quote]
What is the end ?
[/quote]
Legal marijuana.
/throws hands up and walks off[/quote]
more demagoguery there is no end that the Gov is trying to accomplish. I would bet it is a credit that was enacted in a time where most of the people that voted were married .
[/quote]
Ok.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]
Adults can consent to do a lot of things. That basis alone does not entitle anybody rights. It still misses the heart of the issue. Which is the argument that a homosexual marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage. If it is then same rights should be granted, but that argument cannot be made because it is not the same.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]
Adults can consent to do a lot of things. That basis alone does not entitle anybody rights. It still misses the heart of the issue. Which is the argument that a homosexual marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage. If it is then same rights should be granted, but that argument cannot be made because it is not the same. [/quote]
why and who says ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
more demagoguery there is no end that the Gov is trying to accomplish. I would bet it is a credit that was enacted in a time where most of the people that voted were married .
[/quote]
Good Lord.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
more demagoguery there is no end that the Gov is trying to accomplish. I would bet it is a credit that was enacted in a time where most of the people that voted were married .
[/quote]
Good Lord. [/quote]
OK what where or why would our Government try to accomplis (THE END)
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
This is getting a little far afield, but I assume you are a strict textualist. Can you point me to the text in the Constitution that provides interpretive guidance?
[/quote]
I’m an originalist. The language is important but not the only interpretative tool The highest interpretive authority on the Constitution is the federalist papers. The convention notes also provide guidance:
“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.” - James Madison
“[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.” - Thomas Jefferson
Yes I can. See above. Madison, the “father of the Constitution” - ‘resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.’
That was used by me as an example.
You’re going off on a tangent.
Obviously because if the Constitution is not a binding document then it serves no purpose at all does it?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
This is getting a little far afield, but I assume you are a strict textualist. Can you point me to the text in the Constitution that provides interpretive guidance?
[/quote]
I’m an originalist. The language is important but not the only interpretative tool The highest interpretive authority on the Constitution is the federalist papers. The convention notes also provide guidance:
“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.” - James Madison
“[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.” - Thomas Jefferson
Yes I can. See above. Madison, the “father of the Constitution” - ‘resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.’
That was used by me as an example.
You’re going off on a tangent.
Obviously because if the Constitution is not a binding document then it serves no purpose at all does it?[/quote]
I agree that this is a tangent, so I’ll just add that pointing to the federalist papers–and not the text of the Constitution–is evidence that the founders could not get a consensus on interpretive principles, intentionally left them out, and punted to the courts. (Scalia uses this argument frequently in other contexts, but ignores it when it doesn’t take him where he wants to go.) Also, I firmly believe that the Constitution is a “binding” document, and it serves lots of different purposes, just not the same purposes as a contract between two private individuals.
My $0.02.
You ask for proof that allowing gay marriage in some way confers some benefit to society as a whole. The current argument for why we even bother to recognize and reward heterosexual marriage seems to be based around the inherent stability that a two parent household creates for children. Furthermore, the argument appears to also be that this stability promotes procreation in a controlled setting. I would argue that allowing for gay marriage fulfill both these conditions for a significant subset of the population.
First, I would argue that the pursuit of equality among citizens is a worthy end in itself. A major measure of the virtue of a civilization is the equal freedoms (and thus rights/rewards) enjoyed by citizens. You argue that a gay man has the right to marry or not marry a woman like any straight man. If, as I believe and science increasingly supports, homosexuality is not a choice and is a largely genetically/otherwise physiologically determined state, this is not equal. Genetically, they are predisposed to find the prospect of a close romantic relationship with a woman unsavory and unfulfilling. Imagine a tax break or subset of rights that existed for only people who ate gluten. Somebody with celiac’s disease (a genetically/physiologically coded state) COULD choose to suck it up and eat gluten, but they would suffer immeasurably for this choice.
Furthermore, as medical/reproductive science progresses, the ability for gays to “procreate” increases. I would not doubt that within our lifetimes it will be come increasingly common and possible for genetically male/male or female/female children to be birthed. Beyond that however, is a lesbian couple who uses donor sperm and IVF any less worthy of a child and having the support than a heterosexual couple who goes through the same process? And before anybody notes that this isn’t technically 100% their biological child, should children born of affair have their parents’ marriage benefits revoked? How about a child via adoption? Giving the same benefits to a homosexual couple that is interested in raising a child confers the same benefits as giving those benefits to a child rearing heterosexual couple.
In regards to how this benefits society, I would argue that supporting the union of a homosexual couple confers many of the same important benefits supporting the union of a heterosexual couple does for the society. I just went over why it confers the same family stability benefits as a heterosexual union. Beyond that however, promoting a union between two individuals promotes a more stable society beyond the family setting. Somebody with a significant other through their life is going to be inherently more stable than somebody who does not. They have something to lose. It is easy to argue that you can do this without a title or benefits, but it is worth noting that there are many marriages that would not exist for the length they do if not for some of the psychological (and legal) hurdles required to dissolve the marriage. Signing a marriage contract suddenly seems to make the relationship worthy of a lot more work before dissolution. This in a way ensures that more individuals will keep at least that one other person around who can make them feel more connected on a personal level to society and the world as a whole. Somebody who is utterly alone is far more dangerous to a society than somebody who is married to someone, regardless if they are still madly in love or simply get along (non-romantically) but are not in such a way they wish to go through the new hurdles required to dissolve their relationship.
In regards to why gay marriage should be recognized and not polyamorous relationships, this is truly comparing apples and oranges. The dynamics in a two person relationship (stability, etc) vary drastically from those in any 3+ person relationship. In a two person relationship, there is equality in the commitment given-those two individuals are (in theory at least) completely committed romantically to the other individual in the relationship. It is a binary relation-1 to their partner, 0 to all else. With two, three, etc partners, suddenly this becomes incredibly more complex. No longer is it in shades of black and white. By splitting the commitment, you are opening an entire world of shades of grey. Therefore, the gap between the relationship between these partners and those they share with others outside the relationship is incredibly thinner than in a two person relationship. Thus, the inherent stability of the binary system is not present.
Also, the problems with governing using the lens of religion is that there is indeed so much disagreement. In regards to Sharia law, 'Murica style, goes-there are plenty of aspects of Biblical law that would be abhorrent beyond the establishment of Christianity as the official religion. I have no problem with people using the Bible as a personal moral compass, if they need that to define their morals so be it. However, saying something should be a law because “the Bible says so in Name:number:number” is a slippery slope to the Old Testament.
tl:dr:
-Through adoption or other means, homosexuals can have children. Supporting monogamous relationships in these cases creates stability.
-Even in the absence of children, society benefits by the coupling of its members.
-Polyamorous relationships are non-binary and thus far different than the binary romantically committed/not romantically committed relationships that lend stability.
-The Bible, while great as a moral compass, should not be used as a reason unto itself for laws.
This was long, I did not proofread it thoroughly, I am headed out-I tend to ramble so hopefully this was coherent enough. If not I will edit later.
We aren’t looking to provide incentive/order for homosexuals to head off to a lab for designer children. A sexual relationship isn’t even required for such a thing. We’re looking to provide order to the smallest possible unit which has reproduction as an inherent quality.
Your reasoning against polyamorous marriage seems forced. Isn’t it up to interested consenting adults to decide if they’re comfortable with the arrangements? You only told us why it’s not for you. Besides not only can 2 men shop labs for designer babies. So too will 3 men be able to have their share of a genetic investment encoded into their purchase.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
First, I would argue that the pursuit of equality among citizens is a worthy end in itself.[/quote]
Equality as understood by the founders meant equality before the law.
“The Statist, however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes…The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrender himself to the all-powerful state. Only then can the impossible be made possible.” - Liberty and Tyranny Mark Levin
Oh, and by the time your designer babies are practical and affordable for whatever minority of the fraction of homosexual minority that wants 'em, homosexuality screening and corrective therapy might have already begun. If it’s biological. My point being is that homosexuality would virtually go extinct in developed nations. If we’re going all futuristic.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
You argue that a gay man has the right to marry or not marry a woman like any straight man. If, as I believe and science increasingly supports, homosexuality is not a choice and is a largely genetically/otherwise physiologically determined state, this is not equal. Genetically, they are predisposed to find the prospect of a close romantic relationship with a woman unsavory and unfulfilling.[/quote]
That argument is nonsense. Let’s extend it to another sphere: alcohol is legal. Some guy doesn’t like alcohol and has a preference for cocaine. Should cocaine be legalised to accommodate his tastes? Is he being treated unequally before the law? It’s nonsense.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
And we have come to the heart of the issue.
[/quote]
Not really. There are many good reasons not to change the definition of marriage. That’s just one.
See Burke. Buggery laws have been in existence in the civilised world for half a millenia. Before that they were prosecuted under ecclesiastical laws. Civilised societies have always considered sodomy an abhorrent and unnatural act. It’s condemned as such in the bible. I’m not convinced that leftists and radical libertarians of the last 50 years have more wisdom in this regard than that accumulated over centuries and expressed unequivocally in the bible.
I didn’t say that was the grounds for my opposition.
[quote]
The second adjective, “unnatural,” is not true: it is entirely natural in that it is something which certain men and women–creatures of nature, mind you–do.
It occurs naturally in the animal world as well: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia [/quote]
Yeah, I expected that response. Chimpanzees bugger their children too. I contend it is unnatural for humans to do so.[/quote]Right on schedule there is solid reasoning here from the usual sharp contributors, but this is the best post so far. Anybody thinks that the bible did not play a defining role in the founders view on marriage and related law has simply been very selective in their reading of history or hasn’t paid attention at all. The idea of publicly condoned homosexuality in any form would been unspeakably debauched and repugnant to them. (let’s see if the choo choo is on schedule this time too)
Running out the door so not a ton of time for response-however:
Sloth 1: I am merely stating that using reproduction as the reason to not have gay marriage is not 100% valid. As I alluded to in discussing adoption, merely raising a child of another union that was unwanted has inherent value in itself. I also do not believe that a tax break/marriage is needed to promote procreation: evolution has made sex feel way too good for it to stop.
Sloth 2: My argument is not about the comfort of the individuals in an individual arrangement. People work better in binary thought processes, especially in something as complex as relationships. My argument is that these relationships are inherently less stable due to the lack of a binary process and thus not as beneficial for society to support in any official way.
SexMachine 1: Thus why I begin with saying “I would argue”. While I recognize that there are other schools of thought as to what equality can entail, I embrace the definition to include social outcomes. In this case, that outcome is marriage.
Sloth 3: Bingo-this I think is the crux of the disagreement on this issue: the view that homosexuality should be screened out or homosexuals should be “cured” by some kind of therapy. I do not consider it to be some illness that should be “corrected” in any way. There are a wide variety of physiological differences among us that I consider harmless variations not warranting any kind of “cure”.
SexMachine: One major difference in your example and mine is mine is about the carrot and yours is about the stick. There is no societal benefit given for consumption of alcohol other than you can consume it. I don’t get a tax break or any other benefit other than a taste for drinking beer. It’s not that homosexual relationships are punished (officially…) it’s that heterosexual ones are benefitted. I spoke too gently before by saying “unsavory and unfulfilling”-I should have simply stated bluntly that it is simply impossible for this person to participate in one of the greatest aspects of human life if they are forced to be with a member of the opposite sex. Essentially, if they are with the person of their choosing, they are paying a fine of sorts by not being eligible for the same benefits of others.
Furthermore, I would propose that our sex drive and desire to be in a loving relationship are among that greatest drivers of our actions and thus our identities. To in effect punish somebody for following their greatest non-threatening evolutionary urges when others are rewarded for such action is paramount to societal rejection of the individual in question, which I do not believe is appropriate in this case.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
With the notion that we shouldn’t legislate based on a book of mythology that is millennia old?
Really? You’re always going on about patriots and extremists. That is an extreme position.[/quote]
You say it’s a book of mythology. That doesn’t make it so. I believe people should be able to legislate based on their beliefs and convictions however they are formed. Clearly you have a problem with that.
[/quote]
I absolutely have a problem with the possibility that the laws under which I live are somehow shaped by a book whose opening act features a talking snake. Yes.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
You argue that a gay man has the right to marry or not marry a woman like any straight man. If, as I believe and science increasingly supports, homosexuality is not a choice and is a largely genetically/otherwise physiologically determined state, this is not equal. Genetically, they are predisposed to find the prospect of a close romantic relationship with a woman unsavory and unfulfilling.[/quote]
That argument is nonsense. Let’s extend it to another sphere: alcohol is legal. Some guy doesn’t like alcohol and has a preference for cocaine. Should cocaine be legalised to accommodate his tastes? Is he being treated unequally before the law? It’s nonsense.[/quote]
All analogies limp, and this one fucking crawls. Cocaine use has demonstrably deleterious effects on both the individual and society. Homosexuality as it exists in modern society–as a relatively steady and modest percentage of the overall population–has neither.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
One major difference in your example and mine is mine is about the carrot and yours is about the stick. There is no societal benefit given for consumption of alcohol other than you can consume it. I don’t get a tax break or any other benefit other than a taste for drinking beer. It’s not that homosexual relationships are punished (officially…) it’s that heterosexual ones are benefitted. I spoke too gently before by saying “unsavory and unfulfilling”-I should have simply stated bluntly that it is simply impossible for this person to participate in one of the greatest aspects of human life if they are forced to be with a member of the opposite sex.
[/quote]
They’re not forced to do that.
They are eligible for the same benefits. If they are married they are eligible. If they’re not, just like an unmarried “straight” person they’re not eligible.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Running out the door so not a ton of time for response-however:
Sloth 1: I am merely stating that using reproduction as the reason to not have gay marriage is not 100% valid. As I alluded to in discussing adoption, merely raising a child of another union that was unwanted has inherent value in itself. I also do not believe that a tax break/marriage is needed to promote procreation: evolution has made sex feel way too good for it to stop.[/quote]
You guys are only arguing one part of our position at a time. Yes, heterosexuals would continue to have sex, the reproductive act, without marriage. Therefore, the reproductive sexes will continue to reproduce, as it is inherent to their nature, and the nature of the act itself. That’s OUR point. We want to direct that into marriage.
This sounds like you threw it together in 5 minutes. “People work better…” What people? You?
It’s simply reality. Prospective parents, left and right, would choose this within the privacy of the Doctor/Patient relationship. A potential mother and father has a powerful incentive for doing so. That is, matching their child’s sexual attraction with it’s reproductive organs. Naturally conceived grandchildren, delivered through natural birth, with both biological parents present to rear that child.
We can pretend all we want, but none of us believes such screening and/or therapies wouldn’t be employed widespread. We live in a society already that allows for the killing of the same child. In fact, you might look into voluntary gender selection. In your own society 2 men will cobble together a child from choices made from each others genetic menu.