Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
convictions against homosexuality[/quote]

I’ve told you over and over again, I do not have anything against homosexuals. I have a problem with those that act on that, as well I vote equal benefits for gay couples and straight couples…nothing from the State.[/quote]

Which is why I said, “convictions against homosexuality”, and not “convictions against homosexuals”. In the end though, either conviction results in discriminatory policies and laws.[/quote]

Mere semantics, I have convictions against homosexual acts, homosexuality describes an inclination or orientation of a person who is inclined to do evil just like the rest of us, don’t try to bullshit me.

[quote]
It’s true that if the State were to stop granting any benefits for marriage, the discrimination would go away. But until that happens (and we both know it won’t), the current laws are in fact discriminatory.[/quote]

How are they discriminatory? Marriage is between a man and woman, fundamentally that has been the case, forever. I’m not one to fore sake good and just laws and morals for the idea of “progress.”

342

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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?[/quote]

I suppose nothing.

343

[quote]forlife wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Yea, except it’s not. The institution of marriage is between man and woman, I’m not sure how man and man…woman and woman fit into man and woman categories.

344

[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]

But why should everyone get married, not everyone should get married, that is ridiculous.

345

[quote]ssz28envy wrote:
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.[/quote]

Bullshit, it the government’s business in the first place. And, second it does affect you, if you see it or not, it does. Free from what? Responsibility, morals, &c?

346

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

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? [/quote]

Every law discriminates. A progressive tax discriminates against wealthy people. Public nudity laws discriminate against nudist/exhibitionists. Publicly funded scholarships discriminate against dumb/lazy students.Merely asserting that a law discrininates in implementation is meaningless, because every law discriminates to a certain extent. [/quote]

I think all of your examples fall under “do” rather than “are”. I really need to figure our how to articulate that idea properly.[/quote]

Um…homosexuals have to “do” something otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about marriage laws, we’d be talking about them being able to get work. Their “doing” is directly related to the issue.

Homosexuals have an inclination, I have an inclination (hey doctors say it’s genetic, right?) to drink heavily and then dance…so I should have the DUI laws dismissed because they are discriminatory to my driving while participating in my inclination. The use of “are” in this case is a little iffy. If you “are” black, that doesn’t give someone the right to discriminate against you when it comes to a job, if you “are” a thief, it is their right to discriminate against you from getting a job working as a Brinks driver, if you “are” an alcoholic the cops should discriminate against you when they pull you over after weaving all over the road. Homosexuals should be discriminated against from the institute of marriage, because they do not fit the criteria for the institute of marriage, unless of course they want to marry the opposite sex.

347

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m not sure either, to be honest. Wouldnt there be some sort of record?[/quote]

Well, specific to marriage laws, I am sure there is something like that - part of a state’s legislative record, to the extent they have such a record. Most state marriage laws are so old that I am not sure such records would have even been taken “on the record” like we think of floor debates today (i.e., you can get legislative history fairly easily in the modern age).

Often times, the law itself (in its preamble or recitations) says why the law is being enacted - example, laws often have a “Whereas, the State of New York has decided that [intent for passing the law]”.

An enterprising researcher may have already cobbled such together - I don’t know.
[/quote]

How much can we really know about the intent of the law withotu such a record?

Also, would you say that marriage is a legal institution based directly on a religious institution?[/quote]

Separation of Church and State is not the deprivation of the Church’s influence on State or Morals and State, it is the regulation of State from Church.

348

Marriage is the recognition of the State as your master. You agree to abide by the Master’s rules and you benefit legally.

All rules from the state except those designed to hinder initiating violence are designed to subjugate some humans by others.

349

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Was thinking about this today. Do you think marriage still effectively orders procreation, as it is today?[/quote]

Yes, marriage does - so long as society values marriage. Currently that isn’t the case and it remains under assault. But, more plainly stated, marriage isn’t failing society - society is failing marriage.

I don’t know who is seeing things that way, but the question presented to you remains.

350

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Again I’d like to know if there’s any hard information on the original intent of marriage. It’d be an interesting project.[/quote]

There’s plenty of “hard” information on this topic. What I am telling you isn’t just hypothetical.

[quote]Also, the kind of marriage they enshrined in law was totally different from marriage today. From everything I can understand, marriage was a decision made by the parents of the married, not the people themselves. Divorce was unheard of.

Now two people can and will marry without consent of their parents (even against it). Divorces are increasingly common, including no fault divorce.

You’ll notice these two major changes obviously increase the autonomy of heterosexuals (especially men). Even if the quest for gay marriage is an entirely symbolic endeavor in the name of equality, its noteworthy that most support (or dont care about) other changes which undermine the effectiveness of marriage as a procreation orderer (to a much larger extent than gay marriage ever could), but rail against gay marriage on those very grounds.[/quote]

I haven’t heard this - most people who take an interest in preserving traditional marriage have fairly strong opinions in opposition to some of these changes to marriage. I do.

351

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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?[/quote]

I suppose nothing.[/quote]

Exactly. And for the same reason, there is no compelling public good at stake in the enactment of gay marriage, which is why none of its proponents can elucidate one.

I keep hearing about the psychological benefits of coupling, companionship, etc. Ok, continuing to set aside procreative activity, why would the state have any interest in requiring the legal process of divorce, with the waiting periods, the marital dissolution agreement, the counseling, all that stuff?

Think of it - if a couple has decided they want to divorce, it’s quite clear they no longer enjoy all the “psychological benefits of coupling, etc.” - so what interest would the state have in [u]discouraging[/u] people from getting divorced (as our laws currently do, even in no-fault divorce jurisdictions)?

Answer: it doesn’t. There is no public good to enforce here. Once a person ceases to enjoy the “psychological benefits” of marriage - the purely individual aspects to marriage (which are the only ones at issue in a non-procreative environment) - that individual just walks away and seeks out the next one. You know, like [u]dating[/u].

This project for gay marriage has nothing to do with any viable public good - it is merely a project to improve the self-esteem of the gay community. Considering that the obvious problem “to fix” here is the purported fragility of the community that, for some reason, is so desperate for affirmation and attention from other people, it is a fact the law is no place to remedy that issue.

352

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]
Can’t procreate… I don’t understand how this makes you second class citizens. Originally, marriage benefits were given because it is in the states best interest to have more people (children), so if you can’t do that then why should you benefit like a married couple?[/quote]

It’s hard to understand that most people view marriage as an expression of love and commitment, centered around companionship. Its only the narrative we see every day, in every media outlet, all the time.

If you want to run with the point that marriage is a “procreation orderer”, go ahead. Don’t play dumb on why a gay couple might want to adopt or a gay person might want to immigrate a partner into the country.[/quote]
Thanks for the sarcasm… Anyway, “an expression of love and commitment, centered around companionship” could define friendship as well not just marriage, but marriage is more than this! I’ll wager that media outlets are trying to say this is all it is though, but I think it is this and it is a “procreation orderer” as you’ve put it.

I’m not playing dumb on why a gay couple might want to do some things. I understand the desire, but having a desire for something not supported by law doesn’t make you a second class citizen. I like to drive fast, but there are speed limits thus I am a second class citizen (not a perfect analogy, but you get the point).

353

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Again I’d like to know if there’s any hard information on the original intent of marriage. It’d be an interesting project.[/quote]

There’s plenty of “hard” information on this topic. What I am telling you isn’t just hypothetical.

[quote]Also, the kind of marriage they enshrined in law was totally different from marriage today. From everything I can understand, marriage was a decision made by the parents of the married, not the people themselves. Divorce was unheard of.

Now two people can and will marry without consent of their parents (even against it). Divorces are increasingly common, including no fault divorce.

You’ll notice these two major changes obviously increase the autonomy of heterosexuals (especially men). Even if the quest for gay marriage is an entirely symbolic endeavor in the name of equality, its noteworthy that most support (or dont care about) other changes which undermine the effectiveness of marriage as a procreation orderer (to a much larger extent than gay marriage ever could), but rail against gay marriage on those very grounds.[/quote]

I haven’t heard this - most people who take an interest in preserving traditional marriage have fairly strong opinions in opposition to some of these changes to marriage. I do.[/quote]

Where is the “Anti-No Fault Divorce” act then? Where is the “Parental Consent Act” then?

I’m aware this is away from the center point of our conversation, but why does the majority do nothing to stop these changes to traditional marriage (which harm it far more than gay marriage would), yet rally the troops against gay marriage?

You’re opposed to it. Have you brought the issue to your statesmen? Have you voted to pass legislation to oppose those changes? Has anybody?

Where are the bills? Where are the protests? Why isn’t there actual opposition instead of the passing “oh yeah, I guess thats kinda bad” observation?

Considering the aforementioned changes actually affect the way heterosexuals act w/r/t marriage (whereas gay marriage doesn’t necessarily change the behaviors of heterosexuals), aren’t these changes much more detrimental to “traditional marriage”?

354

Changes which increase the autonomy of heterosexuals (while effectively destroying the institution of marriage) = acceptable.

Extending marriage priveleges to homosexuals engaging in relationships exactly similar to heterosexuals with the exception of gender = unacceptable.

Again, the argument that allowing homosexuals to marry would totally revolutionize how marriage is perceived by the public is completely unfounded. Go ask 100 people who have not done extensive research into the history of marriage what marriage is - I’d take any bet that most would not include “procreation orderer” in their response.

355

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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?[/quote]

I suppose nothing.[/quote]

Exactly. And for the same reason, there is no compelling public good at stake in the enactment of gay marriage, which is why none of its proponents can elucidate one.

I keep hearing about the psychological benefits of coupling, companionship, etc. Ok, continuing to set aside procreative activity, why would the state have any interest in requiring the legal process of divorce, with the waiting periods, the marital dissolution agreement, the counseling, all that stuff?

Think of it - if a couple has decided they want to divorce, it’s quite clear they no longer enjoy all the “psychological benefits of coupling, etc.” - so what interest would the state have in [u]discouraging[/u] people from getting divorced (as our laws currently do, even in no-fault divorce jurisdictions)?

Answer: it doesn’t. There is no public good to enforce here. Once a person ceases to enjoy the “psychological benefits” of marriage - the purely individual aspects to marriage (which are the only ones at issue in a non-procreative environment) - that individual just walks away and seeks out the next one. You know, like [u]dating[/u].
[/quote]

This already happens, though. As it is, marriage is virtually entirely symbolic - perhaps thats where I get the perception you noted.

Again, off the center topic, but are the problems associated with two people staying together because divorce is too much work worth the problems of divorce, especially w/r/t children? No, I’m not trying to make a point here, just a thought.

[quote]
This project for gay marriage has nothing to do with any viable public good - it is merely a project to improve the self-esteem of the gay community. Considering that the obvious problem “to fix” here is the purported fragility of the community that, for some reason, is so desperate for affirmation and attention from other people, it is a fact the law is no place to remedy that issue.[/quote]

As Forlife pointed out, it’s about much more than just “self-esteem”. It could be a matter of wanting to immigrate a partner into the country, etc.

I’ve also offered other problems in the gay community and in society in general. You simply deem those problems not important enough.

356

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Where is the “Anti-No Fault Divorce” act then? Where is the “Parental Consent Act” then?[/quote]

Parental consent doesn’t strengthen marriage as we know, so that is a non-issue, and are you somehow unaware that people are trying to change no-fault divorce laws?

No-fault divorce isn’t a “far worse” detraction from gay marriage, but in any event, your hyperbolic “the majority does nothing” theme isn’t accurate.

You also present a red herring - whether there are other aspects of marriage that need doesn’t answer the central question as to whether gay marriage would help or hurt. Maybe once this fad of trying to pass gay marriage subsides, marriage traditionalists take up the cause to reform these other issues, especially since they are now on notice that the complacency over the years has contributed to the problem.

But it’s irrelevant to the discussion about gay marriage.

Of course people have - it appears you don’t much about this issue, do you?

No, they aren’t “more” detrimental (parental consent laws is a dead end for your point, btw) - no-fault divorce has weakened marriage, but it doesn’t threaten to nullify it.

357

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Changes which increase the autonomy of heterosexuals (while effectively destroying the institution of marriage) = acceptable.

Extending marriage priveleges to homosexuals engaging in relationships exactly similar to heterosexuals with the exception of gender = unacceptable.[/quote]

More hyperbole. No one said no-fault divorce has “destroyed” marriage - but it certainly has diminished its value in pursuing the public policy ends marriage is designed to address. Extending marriage to homosexuals (and anyone else in a consenting adult relationship) threatens to define marriage out of existence completely.

You keep circling back to arguments that have been addressed.

Why would I do a survey of 100 people who haven’t put much thought into the public policy of marriage in order to get an answer as to what is the public policy of marriage?

Gay marriage serves no compelling purpose. You haven’t provided one, and the question has been asked a number of ways. Until someone can come up with a reason why gay marriage should exist independent of the institution of heterosexual marriage, the integrity of the idea is dead in the water.

358

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]
Can’t procreate… I don’t understand how this makes you second class citizens. Originally, marriage benefits were given because it is in the states best interest to have more people (children), so if you can’t do that then why should you benefit like a married couple?[/quote]

It’s hard to understand that most people view marriage as an expression of love and commitment, centered around companionship. Its only the narrative we see every day, in every media outlet, all the time.

If you want to run with the point that marriage is a “procreation orderer”, go ahead. Don’t play dumb on why a gay couple might want to adopt or a gay person might want to immigrate a partner into the country.[/quote]

No, the fruits of marriage are children, not adopted children, but procreated children. Just because people have this twisted view of marriage, doesn’t mean that’s not what is expected of those that are married.

359

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

As Forlife pointed out, it’s about much more than just “self-esteem”. It could be a matter of wanting to immigrate a partner into the country, etc. [/quote]

I wouldn’t rely on Forlife as much of an authority on this subject (or any subject, for what its worth), but in any event, let’s unpack that as possible public policy: a reason to enact gay marriage is so someone could immigrate a partner into the country.

Back to square one: what public policy does this serve? What public good does this provide to society?

Do you have an answer?

Seems to me, this is back to the beginning of the question you can’t answer: it’s just a policy to make someone happy at the individual level, to validate an individual’s choice. Well, that ain’t what public policy is - you’ve still yet to define why we, as a society, need gays to be able to immigrate their partners into this country. What problem does that solve for society?

Again, do you have an answer? Or is the answer to merely validate the self-interested individual’s desire?

Yes, I deem them such because they are not terribly important, and you haven’t made the argument that they are. You haven’t provided, really, a single compelling problem in the gay community that we - the collective “we” in society - need gay marriage to fix, except possibly the self-esteem angle, which is no business of public policy.

You want gay marriage as a matter of “fairness” and “tolerance”, and really nothing else - well, that simply isn’t good enough, given the risks.

360

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t “more” detrimental (parental consent laws is a dead end for your point, btw) - no-fault divorce has weakened marriage, but it doesn’t threaten to nullify it.[/quote]

Implying gay marriage will nullify hetero marriage.

LOLWUT