[quote]camdengolf wrote:
The answer to everyone’s problems regarding this issue is “Civil Union.”
Civil Union=Marriage for Gays.
[/quote]
This approach would only fly if the term ‘marriage’ was removed from all law and replaced with the term ‘civil union’. The state/law would recognize only civil unions regardless, and people could proceed to be married by any church they choose, if at all. The Marriage wouldn’t mean shit outside of the couples religious group and all civil unions would be equal.[/quote]
…why can’t two loving homosexuals marry?
Either take the wedding rings off of everyone or let anyone have them and let them mean something more clearly and usefully defined. [/quote]
How about we scrap marriage and give people cohabitation benefits, and child-raising benefits? Why not make “being married” about meeting criteria regarding the relationship between people, rather than an abstract idea that may or may not tell something about their relationship?
Either your occupation or the internet has robbed you of your ability to think and interact. You appear too cowardly to express your opinion freely on the internet, even when asked. Apparently all you can do is effectively quote rule of law.[/quote]
My opinion has no effect on the point I was making. The subject of the OP was both a legal and a constitutional matter, so I argued using my knowledge of the law and not my personal opinion of homosexuals. Since you keep pressing for my opinion, though, I will state that I am against homosexuality. I am not going to present my reasons why I am of this opinion in this thread as the purpose of the thread was not about whether homosexuality is right or not. If someone decides to start a thread on that topic, I will present my reasons there. I happen to believe in the constitution of this country which is why I do not allow my personal beliefs and opinions to lead me to try and deny anybody their constitutional rights.
As to your comment in an earlier post about my not offering a solution to the marriage problem, I would like to see all legal rights and benefits associated with marriage done away with and have the subject of marriage be a completely religious one. Since this is not likely to ever happen, I offer arguments as to what should be done that are within the realm of possibility; hence, my support of legally allowing homosexuals to marry.
[/quote]
Kudos on supporting equal constitutional rights for gays, despite having personal convictions against homosexuality. I wish others were similarly educated and objective.
Either your occupation or the internet has robbed you of your ability to think and interact. You appear too cowardly to express your opinion freely on the internet, even when asked. Apparently all you can do is effectively quote rule of law.[/quote]
My opinion has no effect on the point I was making. The subject of the OP was both a legal and a constitutional matter, so I argued using my knowledge of the law and not my personal opinion of homosexuals. Since you keep pressing for my opinion, though, I will state that I am against homosexuality. I am not going to present my reasons why I am of this opinion in this thread as the purpose of the thread was not about whether homosexuality is right or not. If someone decides to start a thread on that topic, I will present my reasons there. I happen to believe in the constitution of this country which is why I do not allow my personal beliefs and opinions to lead me to try and deny anybody their constitutional rights.
As to your comment in an earlier post about my not offering a solution to the marriage problem, I would like to see all legal rights and benefits associated with marriage done away with and have the subject of marriage be a completely religious one. Since this is not likely to ever happen, I offer arguments as to what should be done that are within the realm of possibility; hence, my support of legally allowing homosexuals to marry.
[/quote]
Kudos on supporting equal constitutional rights for gays, despite having personal convictions against homosexuality. I wish others were similarly educated and objective.[/quote]
I wish other people would too. I happen to have been raised by a judge, and I will be going to law school myself, so I was taught from an early age to set my personal bias aside when considering and especially arguing matters of the law and constitution. I wasn’t even going to state anything about my personal opinion in this thread but I kept being called a coward for not doing so, which I don’t understand. I am actually arguing in support of a cause that runs counter to my personal convictions but that makes me a coward?
[quote]forlife wrote:
BostonBarrister, I think you make a good point.
The legal question is whether gay marriage is substantially similar to straight marriage. If so, it would be unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. The California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is in fact substantially similar.
It is equally fair and requisite to ask whether polygamy, incest, and bestiality are substantially similar to straight marriage. The courts would have to weigh those comparisons on their own merits, independently of what they decide regarding gay marriage.
In all cases though, the standard of comparison is the same.[/quote]
I honestly could care less about gay marriage. But your argument is so flawed I couldn’t help but comment.
First…you use the CSC to back up your opinion. Maybe you should conduct a review on how that Court Rules. Talk about loons. That aside, using THAT source to back yourself up is about the same thing as saying: I agree with myself. Duh.
Beyond that any finding that Marriage and Gay Unions are “substantially similar” is absurd on its face. Laughable.
Before the ACLU, NOW, and a host of other liberal powerhouses combined to destory Marriage it stood as a means for Society to create stable pair bonds who in turn created nice, productive, little tax payers…who built rather than destroyed the moral underpinnings of this Nation.
I think the results of that destrution speak for themselves, poverty, crime…
Gay pairs can make no such claim. They cannot produce children. The gay culute is one that attempts to tear down and destroy what it sees as hostile towards it ( and fair enough, some things are hostile towards them).
But, frankly, I think we have bigger problems than homosexuals having the ability to marry.
Just when the discussion was moving in a positive direction, someone has to go and post shit like this. Your post contributes absolutely nothing to this thread.
[quote]Valor wrote:
I honestly could care less about gay marriage. But your argument is so flawed I couldn’t help but comment.
First…you use the CSC to back up your opinion. Maybe you should conduct a review on how that Court Rules. Talk about loons. That aside, using THAT source to back yourself up is about the same thing as saying: I agree with myself. Duh. [/quote]
First, the flaws in the logic in that post have already been pointed out and discussed in length and usually in a much more intelligent manner. I myself have several posts discussing the legal and constitutional issues involved. Please try to argue with my logic and reasoning.
[quote] Beyond that any finding that Marriage and Gay Unions are “substantially similar” is absurd on its face. Laughable.
Before the ACLU, NOW, and a host of other liberal powerhouses combined to destory Marriage it stood as a means for Society to create stable pair bonds who in turn created nice, productive, little tax payers…who built rather than destroyed the moral underpinnings of this Nation.[/quote]
You provide no rational or logical argument to support your claims. Are you trying to claim that married homosexuals will not pay taxes? How will homosexual marriage change heterosexual marriage? The correct answer is it won’t. It will not affect anyone’s morals since morals are a personal issue and not a legal one.
Provide some evidence that homosexual marriage will increase poverty (I guess hate crimes may increase so I won’t argue that one)
Gay couples raise children now through adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc, so there goes that claim. Again, how is the gay culture attempting to tear down what it sees as hostile towards it in regards to marriage. They are not trying to stop heterosexuals from marrying. They still won’t be able to marry in the eyes of whatever god/gods don’t allow it. If you are going to make an argument, you need to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you have no argument.
First, the flaws in the logic in that post have already been pointed out and discussed in length and usually in a much more intelligent manner. I myself have several posts discussing the legal and constitutional issues involved. Please try to argue with my logic and reasoning.[[/quote]
If you spent any time reading the Walker opinion to refer to so often, you’d realize - aside from the problematic and procedural trainwreck he presided over - he insisted on applying a standard of review that doesn’t and has not applied to the policy choice of preserving traditional marriage and prohibiting other kinds of marriage. Care to comment on that?
It would change for the reasons Boston Barrister and Orion have noted - it provides a path to recognition of the individual right of marriage, which, but its nature as a “right” prevents prohibition of government recognition of other individual choices to “marry” pursuant to that “right” and thus effectively eliminates the institution as a publicly-recognized one: marriage will be defined out of existence in the name of legitimating this newly recognized individual “right”.
That would, of course, have a tremendous impact on marriage as we recognize it, as should be obvious.
Gay marriage doesn’t exist for one simple reason: society has determined that only one kind of marriage is any good for society, so it decided to privilege one above all others. There is nothing irrational about the policy, and there is certainly nothing unconstitutional about the government legislating such a policy.
If you don’t like this simple fact, no problem - call your Congressman. But it isn’t a denial of anyone’s “rights”, except to some judges with an agenda to advance policy they like (i.e., Walker).
And, no, gay marriage is not the moral equivalent of the Civil Rights Movements for blacks. If it were, the moral equivalent of the bigots that stood on the bridge at Selma with baseball bats in the 1950s would be the overwhelming majority of blacks themselves in the current “movement”, who are not in favor of gay marriage. Unless you think that is true - that black Americans in opposition to gay marriage are the moral equivalent of the KKK - never make the comparison.
Re: the original topic, the President refusing to defend the law: it’s obviously problematic, and few supporters would think it a good thing if they look beyond gay marriage into the next political debate. But far be it from me to inject cold rationalism into the minds of zealots.
And as Valor noted, this just shows an utter lack of prioritization. Unemployment continues to flirt with 10% (and people are remaining unemployed for incredibly long periods of time), the economy remains shaky, the country is drowning in unsustainable debt, we have an entitlement crisis, we face the enormous implications of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, China and Russia are arming to the teeth, health care requires reform (yes, real reform), and we are on the verge of another asset bubble popping (student loans, instead of mortgages).
With all this in mind, as to gay marriage - I think the national answer should be “who cares right now?” The grown-ups have better things to do than worry with this. Ask someone who has been out of work since 2008 and is not sure where the next mortgage payment is coming from what he thinks about this all-important-crusade for “equal rights”, and you might just hear an impolite torrent of expletives.
If you spent any time reading the Walker opinion to refer to so often, you’d realize - aside from the problematic and procedural trainwreck he presided over - he insisted on applying a standard of review that doesn’t and has not applied to the policy choice of preserving traditional marriage and prohibiting other kinds of marriage. Care to comment on that?[/quote]
I already have. In great detail. The Walker ruling is in the appeal process which is why it has not been implemented yet. It is being pushed through with what, in our legal system anyways, is astonishing speed. I would not be surprised to see the case before the Supreme Court within a year. Two at the most.
So what you are saying here is that since marriage is a right and the government cannot deny the right of marriage to homosexuals (I have already presented ample evidence of why). Because this of this, marriage will no longer exist because it will now be legally defined as different than what some people think it is. By this line of reasoning, marriage already does not exist because there is no universal definition of marriage. Most people’s definition of marriage depends upon their religion or personal views. Since each religion has different traditions and rules regarding what a marriage is and there are literally hundreds, even thousands, of religions in this country there is no one definition of what a traditional marriage is and most if not all of the individual religious views on marriage is do not match up 100% with the laws governing a legal marriage, then according to you marriage has already been “defined out of existence.” Since traditional marriage has already ceased to exist then granting legal marriage rights to homosexuals will not change anything.
[quote] That would, of course, have a tremendous impact on marriage as we recognize it, as should be obvious.
Gay marriage doesn’t exist for one simple reason: society has determined that only one kind of marriage is any good for society, so it decided to privilege one above all others. There is nothing irrational about the policy, and there is certainly nothing unconstitutional about the government legislating such a policy.
If you don’t like this simple fact, no problem - call your Congressman. But it isn’t a denial of anyone’s “rights”, except to some judges with an agenda to advance policy they like (i.e., Walker).[/quote]
It is not obvious. Every time I have challenged someone to show how extending legal marriage rights will affect a religious or otherwise heterosexual marriage I keep getting told that it is obvious. Please tell me how a legal homosexual marriage will affect a Roman Catholic marriage, or a Muslim marriage, or a Jewish marriage, or a Satanic marriage. All of these types of religious marriages are different yet they still exist without infringing on the rights of each other.
I never said it was. I also never posed an argument on a moral basis. My personal opinion does not matter, I have said that many times. I am simply arguing from a legal and constitutional standpoint with no regard at all to my personal bias. Not one person’s arguments on a legal and constitutional basis have stood up to mine and each time someone new tries, the arguments become looser and flimsier; yours are the second worst yet next to valor. At least lucasa put some effort and thought into his arguments.
I already have. In great detail. The Walker ruling is in the appeal process which is why it has not been implemented yet. It is being pushed through with what, in our legal system anyways, is astonishing speed. I would not be surprised to see the case before the Supreme Court within a year. Two at the most.[/quote]
Good - so in your mind, why was he right to unilaterally change the standard of review to a higher level of scrutiny? Inquiring minds. Can’t wait to hear your answer.
Well, yes, if it is declared a “right” - it currently is not a purely individual right, and never has been.
This makes no sense. In the US, we do have a reasonable universal definition of marriage (modified by certain things like age). Not only do states generally recognize the same form, the federal government only recognizes one form. Your “line of reasoning” isn’t one at all.
Incorrect, because I am not focusing on the religious definition of marriage, I am focusing on the civic definition of marriage. Varying religious definitions - to the extent they vary - don’t get validation through the state unless they comport with the traditional version.
Your point would be valid if the state recognized each and every version of marriage any one religion recognized - in which case you’d be right, marriage would be defined out of existence. This is not the case, as is quite obvious - but in any event, you make my point for me: if we opened the door to have civic marriage to accommodate every single marriage preference (religious and secular), exactly right, it would be defined out of existence. Well done.
Heh. Let me guess - you are young, and you really don’t know what you’re talking about, but you desperately want to pretend as though you do. I don’t suffer false bravado gladly.
You haven’t made a particularly compelling legal or constitutional argument. You simply point to a rogue district court opinion that had no interest in being a neutral umpire to the dispute.
Traditional marriage has never been enacted with an invidious motive to exclude homosexuals. It exists (and has existed) to privilege one form of marriage over all others so that society can encourage the raising of families and sexual ordering in the best and smallest format: man and woman. There is nothing irrational or unfair about it, unless it has been unfair this entire time (especially with respect to polygamy, which predates gay marriage in the argument).
The Constitution has always recognized that a legislature has every right to come to this basic and uncontroversial conclusion.
Good - so in your mind, why was he right to unilaterally change the standard of review to a higher level of scrutiny? Inquiring minds. Can’t wait to hear your answer.[/quote]
Considering that, as the federal judge presiding over the case, it was his job to issue a ruling I am going to go ahead and say yes. As to whether the decision was unilateral, how can you say that? Even the defendants in the case stated in no uncertain terms that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional so how was the decision unilateral? Despite this, he still heard statements from proponents of Proposition 8 (defendant-intervenors) and gave them a chance to argue the legality and constitutionality of Proposition 8. If you had actually watched the trial, you would have seen that he gave the lawyers for Proposition 8 every opportunity to present better arguments than they did. They just plain couldn’t.
First, since marriage is a legal agreement between 2 people, it can never be an individual right. Second, as I have already said, marriage is already a right. There is no arguing that so why are you even trying. Legal marriage exists in the United States. It has existed in the United States for quite some time. Rights come about through laws and statutes. There are currently 1138 laws and statute that define the RIGHTS and benefits associated with a legal marriage. The question here is whether the government can, constitutionally speaking, deny these same rights to same-sex couples. I have presented my arguments over several posts and even said exactly where in the constitution my arguments come from and provided specific examples from legal cases. Where are yours? There actually is a legal precedent that can be used to argue your side (I will give you a hint: it was a Supreme Court case from 1972). It is a very soft argument, so soft that it has not been brought up as a legal precedent in recent cases on the subject, but it is still better than providing no facts to support your argument and claiming legal marriage is not a right.
[quote]
This makes no sense. In the US, we do have a reasonable universal definition of marriage (modified by certain things like age). Not only do states generally recognize the same form, the federal government only recognizes one form. Your “line of reasoning” isn’t one at all.[/quote]
It was your line of reasoning, not mine. I just took it to it’s “logical” conclusion. The Socratic Method is a wonderful thing. If that is not what you wanted to say you should have chosen your words more carefully. As to there being a universally accepted definition of marriage, this is pretty funny. Every state has different laws governing the rights they associate with marriage. They often differ from each other quite a bit. For example, in Massachusetts gay couples have the right to legally marry and receive the same legal rights and benefits that heterosexual couples can. In Virginia, homosexuals do not have the right to legally marry. Nor do they in the eyes of the federal government.
Good. Now explain why the government can deny marriage rights to homosexual couples (hint: you have to show that it does not violate the 14th amendment). I have already made my arguments in previous posts. Homosexuals that are citizens and capable of receiving the benefits and rights of a legal marriage, therefor it is unconstitutional (14th amendment) to deny these rights. The federal courts seem to agree with me since that is what they have been ruling.
You were the one trying to argue that marriage is going to be defined out of existence. I was pointing out the flaws of your logic. Since you have stated that you are not arguing from a religious standpoint, then perhaps you would like to elaborate why you think allowing homosexual marriage will change heterosexual marriage. Allowing homosexuals will not change any of the rights associated with marriage, it will only extend existing rights to homosexual couples. Show me one thing married heterosexual couples can do that married homosexual couples cannot. Before you go to the obvious, homosexuals can have and raise children (I saw it on Glee). Since you are arguing from a legal standpoint, you have to accept children from in vitro fertilization and adoption since the law recognizes these. You have also failed to explain how homosexual marriage will change heterosexual marriage. I am in a heterosexual marriage. If homosexual marriage were legalized tomorrow, how would my marriage change?
[quote]Heh. Let me guess - you are young, and you really don’t know what you’re talking about, but you desperately want to pretend as though you do. I don’t suffer false bravado gladly.
You haven’t made a particularly compelling legal or constitutional argument. You simply point to a rogue district court opinion that had no interest in being a neutral umpire to the dispute.[/quote]
What does my age have to do with anything? I am 24, by the way, which has nothing to do with my arguments. You are probably older than me, but you have provided no arguments to invalidate mine on the constitutional or legal matters. Also, how again is Judge Walker’s ruling rogue? Again, even the defendants claimed Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. He still allowed a third party to argue that it wasn’t and even tried to get them to make better arguments during the trial.
[quote]Traditional marriage has never been enacted with an invidious motive to exclude homosexuals. It exists (and has existed) to privilege one form of marriage over all others so that society can encourage the raising of families and sexual ordering in the best and smallest format: man and woman. There is nothing irrational or unfair about it, unless it has been unfair this entire time (especially with respect to polygamy, which predates gay marriage in the argument).
The Constitution has always recognized that a legislature has every right to come to this basic and uncontroversial conclusion. [/quote]
We are not discussing tradition, we are discussing a constitutional and legal matter. Tradition has been overturned by the constitution several times. Let’s go back 100 years. Traditionally, at this time, only men could vote. Fast forward 10 years, women can vote. Go back 150 years, slavery was legal and black people were not allowed to vote. 10 years later, slavery is abolished and black men could vote. Where in the constitution does it state that the government can deny rights to a group of citizens based on tradition.
Considering that, as the federal judge presiding over the case, it was his job to issue a ruling I am going to go ahead and say yes. As to whether the decision was unilateral, how can you say that? Even the defendants in the case stated in no uncertain terms that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional so how was the decision unilateral? Despite this, he still heard statements from proponents of Proposition 8 (defendant-intervenors) and gave them a chance to argue the legality and constitutionality of Proposition 8. If you had actually watched the trial, you would have seen that he gave the lawyers for Proposition 8 every opportunity to present better arguments than they did. They just plain couldn’t.[/quote]
I asked you about the standard of review - a very important aspect to the decision and a huge aspect to the unorthodox manner Walker came to his decision - and it’s clear you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. You didn’t address the issue or even provide a relevant response.
This is why coming to PWI is no fun anymore - instead of people who know what they’re talking about, we get young posers who haven’t cracked a book but keep declaring “victory” at every turn.
Legislatures aren’t “denying” homosexuals anything because there is nothing to deny - such a right doesn’t exist (and never has in our constitutional history, by statute, constitution, or case). For such a right to exist, it will have to be invented.
A court can’t invent it (legitimately). The Constitution requires that classification laws be reviewed under a rational basis, unless they be race-based (or related to a tiny few other characteristics). Rational basis starts with a presumption that the law passed by a legislature is valid, and the burden is on the challenger to show that it irrational.
Traditional marriage is not and cannot be demonstrated to be an irrational policy. No invidious motive toward homosexuals was part of its enactment - indeed, the original legislatures who passed traditional marriage laws over 200 years ago weren’t thinking about homosexuals at all, in any shape or form. The only motive was to take an institution that predated the country itself and codify it in law because of all the benefits it provided society. Nothing irrational about it, and this is indisputable. Any idea that it doesn’t survive rational basis review is simply ridiculous to any reasonable observer.
To change the standard of review would be to shift the presumption - the new presumption would be to presume that traditional marriage would be considered suspect until proven otherwise. Such a move by a court would be (and was) the height of absurdity - there is no constitutional duty of a court (who, like legislatures, are bound to the constitution - they don’t get to invent new ones) to make such a ludicrous approach to evaluating the merits of traditional marriage. To presume that traditional marriage is irrational, unjustfiably discriminatory or invidious is not following the Constitution - rather it would be a dereliction of duty to it.
Want a good case to read on it? Hernandez v. Robles, out of New York. Like any state case, it is narrow to the state, but you’ll get the drift.
I realize I am casting pearls before swine, as I don’t believe for a second you have an informed opinion on any of this. But there you go.
There was no problem with my words or reasoning - I was pointing out that your example proved my point for me, in addition to my own point. And you aren’t using the Socratic Method, idiot.
Hint: no I don’t. Under rational basis, the government definitionally does not have the burden to prove traditional marriage doesn’t violate the Constitution; the challenger to the law has the burden of proving it does.
As for why the government can “deny” homosexual a right (that doesn’t exist), see above.
Now don’t you wish you would have spent some time actually learning about the topic before you stumbled in here and started declaring “victory” all over the place?
Your idiotic test for constitutionality isn’t the test at all - and it is damn stupid in any event. Whether a law preserving traditional marriage to the exclusion of alternatives is constitutional or not is not measured by “homosexuals being capable of receiving benefits of marriage” - it is measured by whether the government has overstepped its boundaries in providing a rational classification, and the government is presumed to have acted legimately in these cases.
You have a case from a district court in San Franscisco whose judge intentionally tried to rig the process to avoid interlocutory appeal so a higher court couldn’t review the legal standard he was applying. That’s it.
Asked and answered, I already did.
Reproduce.
No, they can’t have children. And thus, society has no worries over “out of control” reproduction among heterosexuals that marriage is designed to ameliorate.
The metric isn’t your marriage or mine - the metric is marriage as a whole in society. In any event, at some point, as we continue to expand “marriage” to every alternative you can think of, the legal privileges of marriage will have to be watered down to accommodate these, and thus, the legal privilege (and its social benefits) would whither away…which is why libertarians love the idea so much - it gets the state out of the marriage business.
On its face, no, but you appear to be fairly immature and uneducated. What adult - with such a limited knowledge of this topic - comes and says the stupid arrogant nonsense you’ve been spouting abouit “victory”?
No, I have - avail yourself of the search function.
If you had any sense, you’d know “tradition” is very important in constitutional matters by another name: “precedent”. As for your examples, let’s have a looksie - women were granted the right to vote by legislative action, not a legal interpretation of a constitution. And how about that? Slavery was abolished by legislative action, not a legal interpretation of a constitution, as was black suffrage.
So, you aren’t even making sense - you support a judge creating new rights by citing historical examples of judges not creating rights, but instead deferring to the judgment of legislatures.
Sorry, Spartacus. Better luck next time.
EDIT: corrected “pearls before swine” (had them backwards)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The metric isn’t your marriage or mine - the metric is marriage as a whole in society. In any event, at some point, as we continue to expand “marriage” to every alternative you can think of, the legal privileges of marriage will have to be watered down to accommodate these, and thus, the legal privilege (and its social benefits) would whither away…which is why libertarians love the idea so much - it gets the state out of the marriage business.
[/quote]
What makes you think it’s the case that marriage will “continue to expand to every alternative you can think of”?
What makes you think it’s the case that marriage will “continue to expand to every alternative you can think of”?[/quote]
Because the individual “right” to marriage is premised on a principle that the government cannot say one consenting adult relationship is better than another, and as a corollary, the government may not provide marriage to one relationship but not the other.
That “right”, of course, would extend to every conceivable consenting adult relationship, because this “right” mandates “equality”. And, these relationships are certainly out there, and people in them would certainly love to enjoy the perks and privileges afforded by marriage. A polygamist would love plenty of tax deductions for all his dependents, for example, so once the “right” is established, there is no reason to think others in other alternative relationships wouldn’t demand their “right” to marriage as well.
It’s a matter of common sense, there is nothing novel about this idea. It would happen.
What makes you think it’s the case that marriage will “continue to expand to every alternative you can think of”?[/quote]
Because the individual “right” to marriage is premised on a principle that the government cannot say one consenting adult relationship is better than another, and as a corollary, the government may not provide marriage to one relationship but not the other.
That “right”, of course, would extend to every conceivable consenting adult relationship, because this “right” mandates “equality”. And, these relationships are certainly out there, and people in them would certainly love to enjoy the perks and privileges afforded by marriage. A polygamist would love plenty of tax deductions for all his dependents, for example, so once the “right” is established, there is no reason to think others in other alternative relationships wouldn’t demand their “right” to marriage as well.
It’s a matter of common sense, there is nothing novel about this idea. It would happen.[/quote]
Few things:
You point out that marriage is intended to ameliorate problems in the heterosexual community. I would agrue that gay marriage would ameliorate problems in the homosexual community (albeit not all the exact same). For example, if marriage helps reduce STD transmission, and many men are bisexual, then there is a benefit to both the gay community and society in general.
Secondly, the slippery slope has been beaten to death. Please don’t tell us that you’re trying to stop gay marriage based on the notion that the tiny number of people in poly relationships will try to get marriage (and fail).
You point out that marriage is intended to ameliorate problems in the heterosexual community. I would agrue that gay marriage would ameliorate problems in the homosexual community (albeit not all the exact same). For example, if marriage helps reduce STD transmission, and many men are bisexual, then there is a benefit to both the gay community and society in general.[/quote]
Incorrect - marriage is designed to ameliorate problems in society generally, particularly as to children-related issues, not a narrow “community”. Second, the idea that marriage would help reduce STDs is an illusion - if the threat of death or debilitating disease by themselves are not incentive enough to urge people into safe sex, availability of marriage isn’t going to change their minds.
In short, gay marriage is a solution in search of a social problem. Society at large does not benefit from its enactment. Period.
Incorrect - it isn’t a slippery slope; as Boston noted above, it is the application of a proposed legal principle to different facts and other situations.
Moreover, any “progressive” who argues against this purported “slippery slope” is doing so hypocritically - they are happy to announce that gay marriage is a function of the “slope” emanating from the Civil Rights movement (“it’s progress!”), but suddenly say its off-limits to look further down that slope to see what the next step of “progress” is.
Incorrect - marriage is designed to ameliorate problems in society generally, particularly as to children-related issues, not a narrow “community”.
[/quote]
But only the heterosexual community has children.
[quote]
Second, the idea that marriage would help reduce STDs is an illusion - if the threat of death or debilitating disease by themselves are not incentive enough to urge people into safe sex, availability of marriage isn’t going to change their minds.[/quote]
You don’t think marriage has any effect on STD transmission in the heterosexual community?
Moreover, any “progressive” who argues against this purported “slippery slope” is doing so hypocritically - they are happy to announce that gay marriage is a function of the “slope” emanating from the Civil Rights movement (“it’s progress!”), but suddenly say its off-limits to look further down that slope to see what the next step of “progress” is.
[/quote]
Nonsense. By this logic, since this is all part of the “slope emanating from the Civil Rights movement”, should we NOT have made such strides in Civil Rights, for fear of where that ‘slope’ would lead to?
But only the heterosexual community has children. [quote]
Only the heterosexual “community” - i.e., society at large, not a “community” - procreates, and we have social rules and customs to order that procreation. Marriage is one of the primary engines of that ordering. There is no need for such ordering in the homosexual “community”.
Sure it does, at the margin, and not in a drect way - but that’s not what marriage is designed to prevent, that isn’t the problem was designed to solve.
Ok, so… Marriage does have an effect on STD transmission in the heterosexual community, but it wouldnt have an effect in the gay community? Is that your position?