Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Its relevant to the conversation because you brought it up. [/quote]

No, I’m saying it’s largely irrelevant to the main argument for enactment because proponents are not urging the enactment of gay marriage to help solve an STD crisis in the community. It’s a post-hoc rationalization.

And again, I obviously disagree, I think it would do quite a bit to solve many of the problems for the gay community (if it influences the straight community to be less homophobic, could we file that under solving a problem?)

A. It wouldn’t do that. B. Our society isn’t suffering from systemic homophobia, i.e., there is no problem to be corrected here. C. “feelgood” legislation designed to do nothing more than promote “tolerance” is a fool’s errand - the reason has to be more compelling than that to reform an ancient institution.
[/quote]

A. I think it would. B. I disagree, it is. C. I, obviously, consider the reasons compelling enough.

So, uh, what exactly is your basis for the poly/incest/beastial/child/whatever else predictions? It hasn’t happened anywhere else but it would most certainly happen here? Bad logic.

No, that’s the point - it’s a logical conclusion. You seem to suggest that because these other events didn’t happen overnight, it stands to reason they won’t happen at all. That is illogical. Erosion takes time, and in any event, we’ve already seen adviocates of polygamy using this argument to urge legalizing their alternative lifestyle.

Its a logical conclusion based on bad logic - and the evidence, so far, is against you. Until you have evidence that your conclusion will come true, it will remain against you.

And again, so what if poly advocates “use this argument”? It will still fail, no matter how many times they try to use it, because multiple person marriage is functionally different (and impossible to make functionally the same as) binary marriage.

Your logic is akin to “If we let women vote, we’ll eventually have to let children and foreigners vote, because we’ll be considering it an individual right rather than a privilege!”.

This is sort of what the argument comes down to, for me (and I apologize if this could be articulated better): the government can incentivize/reward people for what they do, not who they are. Certian actions, however, follow logically from who someone is - in these cases, the government rewarding the actions that follow from who someone is discriminates against everyone else (the same way tax refunds for praying facing mecca, abstaining from pork, and fasting during ramadan would discriminate against non-Muslims, since these actions flow logically from who they are).

This, to me, is why the government can decide to incentivize only stable monogamous pairings, but not only heterosexual pairings - forming a monogamous relationship is a facet of what you do, who you form that relationship with is a facet of who you are. This is also why I’ve compared gay marriage and interracial marriage, both race and orientation being a “who you are” rather than “what you do”.

Now, could a polyamorous person argue that being poly is “who they are”? Sure, but I’d disagree (and would need to take some time to explore the topic enough to articulare a proper answer).

Ok, so your argument there is that the risk of death, being solely on the person, isn’t the same as the risk of a child, which affects society mroe greatly? Or that the risk of death should be enough of a deterrant on its own?

I’d think that risk of death would be a deterrant of its own. Shouldn’t it? And if it isn’t, why not?

People engage in behaviors that risk their lives all the time - shouldnt risk of death or serious injury be enough to stop extreme sports, etc?

Also, from what I understand, the parts of the brain responsible for sex/arousal and the parts responsible for consequences dont work at the same time - CERTAINLY NOT any kind of excuse, but a bit of an explanation.

Also, you see marriage as “rules” rather than “rewards”?

Not “rather than” - it’s both, and always has been. Rights always come with responsibilities.

Ok.

Finally, I noticed that you and lucasa both touched on the same subject (the original intent of marriage), but claimed different things - you, that it was created to control unwanted children, him, that it was a social institution using women to gain social/political/financial advancement. These seem to be contradictory accounts.

Not really, marriage served (and serves) a number of functions, including the ordering of property. But its primary function is to order families and childrearing, and this naturally entails affecting other aspects of that (status of women, primarlily in a time when they couldn’ hold property, inheritance, etc.). When society doesn’t have ruiles in place for this kind of stuff, it’s chaos and bloody.

You present a false choice - it’s not “either/or”, it’s a number of things. The protection of women (and advancement, to a certain extent) was part of it, but that relates directly to the larger need to order procreation (women who aren’t married but saddled with a child are in need of protection, etc.).

EDIT: underlined paragraph added due to error in original.

I didn’t present a false choice, I said they seemed to be contradictory and allowed you opprotunity to rectify them, as you did.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Its a logical conclusion based on bad logic - and the evidence, so far, is against you. Until you have evidence that your conclusion will come true, it will remain against you.[/quote]

Well, no, it isn’t bad logic unless you can tell me why. Predicting the future often entails lacking measurable evidence (that is why a prediction, and not a known fact).

And again, so what if poly advocates “use this argument”? It will still fail, no matter how many times they try to use it, because multiple person marriage is functionally different (and impossible to make functionally the same as) binary marriage.

No, it isn’t, in fact, functionally, it is more that same as traditional marriage. You have it exactly backwards. Polygamous relationships entail offspring, which marriage is primarily devoted to ordering.

Your logic is akin to “If we let women vote, we’ll eventually have to let children and foreigners vote, because we’ll be considering it an individual right rather than a privilege!”.

No, it isn’t - because you aren’t making a reasonable path to why these occur. Take foreigners voting, for example - does women’s suffrage somehow negate the textual language in the constitution that only permits citizens to vote (“all persons born or naturalized…”?). Of course not, because it can’t override the constitutional restriction.

[quote]This is sort of what the argument comes down to, for me (and I apologize if this could be articulated better): the government can incentivize/reward people for what they do, not who they are. Certian actions, however, follow logically from who someone is - in these cases, the government rewarding the actions that follow from who someone is discriminates against everyone else (the same way tax refunds for praying facing mecca, abstaining from pork, and fasting during ramadan would discriminate against non-Muslims, since these actions flow logically from who they are).

This, to me, is why the government can decide to incentivize only stable monogamous pairings, but not only heterosexual pairings - forming a monogamous relationship is a facet of what you do, who you form that relationship with is a facet of who you are. This is also why I’ve compared gay marriage and interracial marriage, both race and orientation being a “who you are” rather than “what you do”.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you - the govnernment most certainly can decide to incentivize only stable monogomous pairings. But the government, under the constitution, does not have to and can restrict that pairing to only heterosexuals.

Homosexuals aren’t being punished for being “who they are” any more than rich people are being punished for being “who they are” for yhaving to pay higher tax rates - it is a matter of public policy - the policy makes sense to do one, but not the other.

And no, there is no comparison to race. Laws forbidding interracial marriages were done with certain invidious motives - to prevent race-mixing, to sustain white supremacy, to maintain de facto segregation, etc. Traditional marriage was no such motive toward homosexuals, and never has. Nor does traditional marriage “suddenly” have those motives overnight when they didn’t have them before.

People engage in behaviors that risk their lives all the time - shouldnt risk of death or serious injury be enough to stop extreme sports, etc?

Well, it should be, but if they want to do it, that’s their problem. most choose not to, some do. So what? What is your point?

Also, from what I understand, the parts of the brain responsible for sex/arousal and the parts responsible for consequences dont work at the same time - CERTAINLY NOT any kind of excuse, but a bit of an explanation.

So, you do think we need to enact paternalistic laws to save them from themselves?

And, I still say - so what? There is no enormous, society-threatening epidemic at issue, even if I thought marriage would help prevent STDs.

Again, you are backfilling in order to justify something you want for other reasons - you have a solution in search of problems. It doesn’t justify radical overhauls to ancient institutions in place for very different reasons.

[thunderbolt23]

Try it this way: subtract procreation out of the equation entirely - what compelling interest(s) does society have to promote permanent coupling of heterosexuals, if are are starting with a blank slate that ignores procreation?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And no, there is no comparison to race. Laws forbidding interracial marriages were done with certain invidious motives - to prevent race-mixing, to sustain white supremacy, to maintain de facto segregation, etc. Traditional marriage was no such motive toward homosexuals, and never has. Nor does traditional marriage “suddenly” have those motives overnight when they didn’t have them before.[/quote]

I’m interested in this statement, particularly because I’m not sure if part of the original intent of only recognizing heteroexual marriages wasn’t to discourage homosexual unions. You seemed to say as much, on the subject, some time ago (if I remember correctly your wording was “lest we see more of them”).

If a case could be made that limiting marriage rights to heterosexual couples was, in part, to discourage homosexual coupling/activity, would that have any effect on the argument here?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m interested in this statement, particularly because I’m not sure if part of the original intent of only recognizing heteroexual marriages wasn’t to discourage homosexual unions. You seemed to say as much, on the subject, some time ago (if I remember correctly your wording was “lest we see more of them”).

If a case could be made that limiting marriage rights to heterosexual couples was, in part, to discourage homosexual coupling/activity, would that have any effect on the argument here?[/quote]

Seriously? You seriously think that enactment of traditional marriage in the states was, at least in part, to discourage “homosexual coupling”?

[forlife]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And no, there is no comparison to race. Laws forbidding interracial marriages were done with certain invidious motives - to prevent race-mixing, to sustain white supremacy, to maintain de facto segregation, etc. Traditional marriage was no such motive toward homosexuals, and never has. Nor does traditional marriage “suddenly” have those motives overnight when they didn’t have them before.[/quote]

I’m interested in this statement, particularly because I’m not sure if part of the original intent of only recognizing heteroexual marriages wasn’t to discourage homosexual unions. You seemed to say as much, on the subject, some time ago (if I remember correctly your wording was “lest we see more of them”).

If a case could be made that limiting marriage rights to heterosexual couples was, in part, to discourage homosexual coupling/activity, would that have any effect on the argument here?[/quote]

I’m not sure it matters whether or not the original intent was discriminatory. It is still discrimination if the impact is discriminatory, regardless of intent. The law protects people from both disparate impact and disparate intent.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m interested in this statement, particularly because I’m not sure if part of the original intent of only recognizing heteroexual marriages wasn’t to discourage homosexual unions. You seemed to say as much, on the subject, some time ago (if I remember correctly your wording was “lest we see more of them”).

If a case could be made that limiting marriage rights to heterosexual couples was, in part, to discourage homosexual coupling/activity, would that have any effect on the argument here?[/quote]

Seriously? You seriously think that enactment of traditional marriage in the states was, at least in part, to discourage “homosexual coupling”?[/quote]

It was a long time ago, so I’m paraphrasing you very very loosely, but I could have sworn you said (something to the effect of) “We should not incentivize homosexual couples/relationships(cant remember the word) lest we see more of them”

Am I misquoting or did I misinterpret you?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m not sure it matters whether or not the original intent was discriminatory. It is still discrimination if the impact is discriminatory, regardless of intent. The law protects people from both disparate impact and disparate intent.[/quote]

I am sure it does matter, as that relates to Title VII employment claims.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

It was a long time ago, so I’m paraphrasing you very very loosely, but I could have sworn you said (something to the effect of) “We should not incentivize homosexual couples/relationships(cant remember the word) lest we see more of them”

Am I misquoting or did I misinterpret you?[/quote]

Hard to say, I don’t remember. I certainly do not support the idea that the law or policy should serve to discourage homosexual relationships, so I hope that clarifies it for you, in any event.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

It was a long time ago, so I’m paraphrasing you very very loosely, but I could have sworn you said (something to the effect of) “We should not incentivize homosexual couples/relationships(cant remember the word) lest we see more of them”

Am I misquoting or did I misinterpret you?[/quote]

Hard to say, I don’t remember. I certainly do not support the idea that the law or policy should serve to discourage homosexual relationships, so I hope that clarifies it for you, in any event.[/quote]

Do you think the law, as it is, does dicourage homosexual relationships?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do you think the law, as it is, does dicourage homosexual relationships?[/quote]

Of course not - why would it?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do you think the law, as it is, does dicourage homosexual relationships?[/quote]

Of course not - why would it?
[/quote]

Because it’s only effective if each individual internalizes it. So, the story people internalize is “Everyone should get married”. Since marriage is not available to homosexuals, the internalized message includes “No one should be gay”.

You’ll also notice that many people, when debating gay marriage, use the justification that “Being gay is wrong.” I think limiting marriage to heterosexuals enforces that idea.

[ssz28envy]

I believe it truly does not matter what anyone thinks about gay marriage itself. I believe that all reasonable people would agree that it’s none of the government’s business in the first place. Personally, even though it doesn’t matter, I believe if gay people want to marry, good for them. Does it affect me? No. So why should I care? Sanctity of marriage? Give me a break. The sanctity of your marriage is up to you and your partner. It has nothing to do with other people’s relationships, regardless of sexual preference. America is supposed to be a free country. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn’t affect others rights.

[ZEB]

[quote]ssz28envy wrote:
Does it affect me? [/quote]

Yes, in many ways and not one of them are good!

[ZEB]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do you think the law, as it is, does dicourage homosexual relationships?[/quote]

Of course not - why would it?
[/quote]

Because it’s only effective if each individual internalizes it. So, the story people internalize is “Everyone should get married”. Since marriage is not available to homosexuals, the internalized message includes “No one should be gay”.

You’ll also notice that many people, when debating gay marriage, use the justification that “Being gay is wrong.” I think limiting marriage to heterosexuals enforces that idea.[/quote]

No one has limited anything. There never was a long-term successful society that sanctioned gay marriage. Homosexuals currently have the same rights that the rest of us do. What you want to do is change a 5000 year old institution to favor perhaps less than 1% of the population. A very, very bad idea for a multitude of reasons. Many of which I have already mentioned in prior posts. And beyond California and a few other wacky states it won’t fly.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Because it’s only effective if each individual internalizes it. So, the story people internalize is “Everyone should get married”. Since marriage is not available to homosexuals, the internalized message includes “No one should be gay”.

You’ll also notice that many people, when debating gay marriage, use the justification that “Being gay is wrong.” I think limiting marriage to heterosexuals enforces that idea.[/quote]

With all due respect, I think this is grasping, at best.

For my part, I’ve never once argued that gay marriage shouldn’t be enacted because homosexuality is “wrong”. You’ll have to take that up with people who think that, as I am not one of them.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Because it’s only effective if each individual internalizes it. So, the story people internalize is “Everyone should get married”. Since marriage is not available to homosexuals, the internalized message includes “No one should be gay”.

You’ll also notice that many people, when debating gay marriage, use the justification that “Being gay is wrong.” I think limiting marriage to heterosexuals enforces that idea.[/quote]

With all due respect, I think this is grasping, at best.

For my part, I’ve never once argued that gay marriage shouldn’t be enacted because homosexuality is “wrong”. You’ll have to take that up with people who think that, as I am not one of them.[/quote]

I’m just making the case (or trying to) that marriage laws enforce those arguments and ideas.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

Thunderbolt, do you know of any historical documents that would be useful in our discussion of the original intent of marriage?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m just making the case (or trying to) that marriage laws enforce those arguments and ideas.[/quote]

Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, but I’d say this about your argument and what I have seen in the advocacy for gay marriage - there is intensive laboring to “backfill” all kinds of imagined reasons why traditional marriage does this or does that. This tendency makes the arguments appear to be a little desperate and strained, to be charitable.

It’s almost as if proponents of gay marriage just simply have to think traditional marriage is bad/harmful as a starting position and then come up with reasons for their conclusion after the fact. It hurts credibility.

Why oh why do gay marriage advocates not simply stick to a script of “gay marriage is just plain good policy, and here’s why” and try and convince people of the merits of it? They never stick to that - there is always the collateral attack on traditional marriage as “discriminatory” or “existing in bad faith” or “unfair”. Stop insisting it is a right that exists that gays are being “denied” and start arguing affirmatively that it makes sense to create a new right.

This argument would be positive and forward-looking. Instead, we get bozos claiming that they are being “cheated!” and “denied their rights!”, which just turns off reasonable people who have a basic understanding of what marriage is and is designed to accomplish.

I won’t necessarily agree with a person who argues as I suggest, but it’d be a lot more convincing if they dropped the “traditional marriage is harmful to society because it discriminates!” bit. That is just foolish, and the argument turns more people off than on.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m just making the case (or trying to) that marriage laws enforce those arguments and ideas.[/quote]

Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, but I’d say this about your argument and what I have seen in the advocacy for gay marriage - there is intensive laboring to “backfill” all kinds of imagined reasons why traditional marriage does this or does that. This tendency makes the arguments appear to be a little desperate and strained, to be charitable.

It’s almost as if proponents of gay marriage just simply have to think traditional marriage is bad/harmful as a starting position and then come up with reasons for their conclusion after the fact. It hurts credibility.

Why oh why do gay marriage advocates not simply stick to a script of “gay marriage is just plain good policy, and here’s why” and try and convince people of the merits of it? They never stick to that - there is always the collateral attack on traditional marriage as “discriminatory” or “existing in bad faith” or “unfair”. Stop insisting it is a right that exists that gays are being “denied” and start arguing affirmatively that it makes sense to create a new right.

This argument would be positive and forward-looking. Instead, we get bozos claiming that they are being “cheated!” and “denied their rights!”, which just turns off reasonable people who have a basic understanding of what marriage is and is designed to accomplish.

I won’t necessarily agree with a person who argues as I suggest, but it’d be a lot more convincing if they dropped the “traditional marriage is harmful to society because it discriminates!” bit. That is just foolish, and the argument turns more people off than on.[/quote]

But, to be fair as well, it seems your argument is that the intent of marriage was not discriminatory, and intent is the only thing to be considered, without analizing the effects of the implementation. Is it a fallacy to say that, if a law is discriminatory in its application, that law is discriminatory, regardless of its intent?

Also, how does sexual orientation being (or not being) a protected class (not sure if class is the correct word here) play into all of this? What are your thoughts on that?