[quote]Makavali wrote:
I think Beebuddy is right - I believe you do think your marriage is cheapened just because your a bit squeamish about two men having sex.[/quote]
Illogical or not, it, or some other irrational factor is clearly the main issue that gays who demand the right to marry face. People are hesitant to evolve. I think the title of this thread is great… “Why do people care about gay marriage?” Clearly it has fuck all to do with me, so my position is not to oppose it. Live and let live.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Illogical or not, it, or some other irrational factor is clearly the main issue that gays who demand the right to marry face. People are hesitant to evolve. I think the title of this thread is great… “Why do people care about gay marriage?” Clearly it has fuck all to do with me, so my position is not to oppose it. Live and let live.[/quote]
Exactly. So far, there has been no proven evidence that it would affect heterosexual relationships.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Illogical or not, it, or some other irrational factor is clearly the main issue that gays who demand the right to marry face. People are hesitant to evolve. I think the title of this thread is great… “Why do people care about gay marriage?” Clearly it has fuck all to do with me, so my position is not to oppose it. Live and let live.
Exactly. So far, there has been no proven evidence that it would affect heterosexual relationships.[/quote]
There’s not even a good argument at all that I see. Of course there is the possibility that I am actually as dense as that other poster fancies himself brilliant…
Since the title of this thread is “Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?” I don’t see the problem with asking that question directly. I was asked it, and I answered directly… “Marriage is for men and women only!” was my response. It took a little while but I realized that the position is indefensible and ultimately a very feminine and weak way of thinking.
It’s too bad some of the phonies and fakes can’t bring themselves to answer this question directly and honestly. I have much more respect for someone that says “I think faggotry is awful and I just don’t want them to use MY word.” Ultimately I think the person who says that will change their mind if they have any masculinity left about them.
I think I just figured out what that other poster is trying to say… I also made the argument that gay marriage will “corrupt our social structure” at one point. Clearly this position is not defensible because there is not a single shred of credible research backing this position up. The irony here is that I too am weary of over-liberalization, but the constitution is the document that I am using to defend my current position, which is perfectly rational. Using ideology to defend one’s position simply won’t do.
Thunderfail, you’re done. Enjoy your bitter fail.
And Zap I want to make clear that I still love you as always. Sorry if I overstepped my bounds in an earlier post.
Since you’re so charitable you’ll have no problem stating with brevity exactly what the argument is. [/quote]
I already did - more times than necessary.
They can define it anyway they want to, but the Constitution doesn’t command a legislative equivalent to traditional marriage in order to “fix” the inequity.
Actually, the burden under a Rational Basis test - which this is, under the Equal Protection clause - is the plaintiff’s, the person coming and claiming they are being denied their rights. The law gets the presumption of validity.
So, what I am saying is - you have it exactly backward. Stop marching around and pretending otherwise.
You’re all over the road here - this isn’t a “constitutional” argument, it is a “public policy” argument: if they won’t give us what we want, we throw the bums out and elect ones who will.
Oh, it’s “litigable” all right - but wouldn’t you understand the prospects of its success if you actually understood where it fits under the Constitution. I’ve tried to point it out, but you are a man with a Cause - so you have no interest in listening.
You think you’ve discovered the “Truth” and like all zealots, you’re suddenly deaf, dumb, and blind on the issue.
And, even if you were, you’re still dead wrong on your contention w/r/t to the 1st Amendment.
And now, you are changing your story - the issue you raised was not whether it would be passed, but instead a silly litany of reasons it would be “unconstitutional”.
It wasn’t in your first droning post - the entire argument you made was based on the idea that “such a ‘language amendment’ couldn’t stand!!!”. Now, you are switching positions - and why? Because you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are being told so.
And amendment can’t be “struck down” as unconstitutional, because it isn’t a lesser law than the Constitution. Now you see why my patience is short with you - this is a plainly ignorant and stupid contention. A constitutional amendment can’t be unconstitutional. Good Lord.
Let the ego down, and be serious. Your post was awful, Beebuddy - incorrect in so many aspects.
And subject myself to that amateurishness all over again? A waste of my time.
That wasn’t the issue, but as an aside, I don’t think it has much of a chance. But again, that wasn’t the issue you raised. Read your own post.
This is the most spectacularly ridiculous idea I have ever read in these forums. And I am not exaggerating.
You mean to tell me that if a constitutional amendment was passed defining “marriage” as “one man + one woman”, that amendment would violate a gay person’s right to define marriage his/her own way under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment???
Where to begin with this idiocy?
The 1st Amendment protects speech from being censored by the government - that is a basic, 9th grade version of it. It does not give you the ability to make words magically have legal operative effect based on your personal definition in defiance of another law that happens to define that word another way. The law is full of definitions of words to explain their coverage - under your theory, every law that includes a definition defining “tax” or an activity covered by the law would potentially violate the 1st Amendment on the basis that one person may want to define those words differently.
I said before your ignorance on the matter was unquantifiable - now I realize I understated it.
Further, a constitutional amendment couldn’t be struck down as violation of the Constitution because, as an amendment, it becomes a part of the Supreme Law of the Land - example, the 8th Amendment couldn’t be “in violation” of the 1st Amendment. They are “co-equals” on the playing field of constitutional law.
If such an amendment were ever passed, there isn’t an argument in the known universe that such an amendment violates a gay person’s right to free speech. It demonstrates an ignorance of law and policy that is beyond reproach, and if you think I am just piling on, you deserve it.
And you wonder why I am “inarftul”?
No, you wouldn’t. But, better still, how could you possibly know if you could win or not, when you have no understanding of the law?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The argument has never been “we can’t accommodate non-traditional relationships because of the administrative burdens”. As has been repeated to you over and over, the argument goes thusly:
Gay marriage is based on a principle that consenting adults relationships should be honored with the same privileges as traditional relationships
Q: can the law create those legal privileges for all the consenting adult relationships that want marriage rights recognized? A: no it cannot because of the administrative burden (bureaucratic nightmare) of the sui generis issue created by the principle in #1, and the only way to equalize all relationships is to remove any legal privileges for relationships altogether, that is the only fair way, because one consenting adults relationship is just as good as another (the libertarian argument).
As such, operation by the principle in #1 leads us into endgame where marriage is “de-privilegized” in law.[/quote]
I’m still confused.
You said earlier that “We could work something out for polygamists if we tried.”
However, above you said that “no it cannot because of the administrative burden (bureaucratic nightmare)”.
Which is it? Are you claiming that it is possible to administratively support marriage for gays and polygamists or not?
By the way, you still haven’t answered the two questions I asked in my earlier post:
Don’t you agree that the children are more likely better off with parents that are bound through the moral and legal constrictions of civil marriage?
Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry “undermines an already fragile institution of marriage”? Last I checked the marriages being performed in Massachusetts and California haven’t hurt the marriages of any of my straight friends.
This is why I assumed that your arguments are red herrings. You seem to be contradicting yourself, and you hand pick only those of my questions for which you have a response.
If you really are open minded and want to have a constructive discussion, I’m more than happy to do so.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Some sort of civil union to set inheritance rights etc is perfectly acceptable and should have been implemented long ago but in todays society an important part of marriage is procreation and child rearing.
[/quote]
I personally don’t care if it is called a marriage or a civil union, as long as the same rights and privileges are granted (including at the federal level).
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
The issue is that there is no legal basis for denying gays the right to marriage, and in fact the segment of the gay population that wishes to marry probably has more in common with my wife & me than they do with the stereotypical drug addicted hard-partying gay society.
So in the end I just had to say “Fuck it. I am wrong as motherfucker!” lol
[/quote]
It says a lot for your objectivity that you were able to set aside the stereotypes and look at the underlying issues of fairness and equal treatment under the law.
I think the more people have family and friends that are gay, the better they can see past the stereotypes and realize that we are human beings that vary in our values and behavior like everyone else. Some gays (like some straights) have no desire to ever be married. But the opportunity should be provided for those that love and want to make that kind of commitment to another person.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Some sort of civil union to set inheritance rights etc is perfectly acceptable and should have been implemented long ago but in todays society an important part of marriage is procreation and child rearing.
I personally don’t care if it is called a marriage or a civil union, as long as the same rights and privileges are granted (including at the federal level).[/quote]
It must be at the federal level and the rights should be similar but not the same.
I think all other things being equal a straight couple should have preferential treatment when it comes to child custody. That is the only thing I can think of that should be treated differently.
Zap, would you still think straight couples should have preferential treatment to child custody if the research showed that children raised by gay couples are as healthy as children raised by straight parents?
Beyond that, we know that supply far exceeds demand when it comes to child adoption. There are many thousands of children waiting to be adopted, so I don’t think preferential treatment would even be an issue.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zap, would you still think straight couples should have preferential treatment to child custody if the research showed that children raised by gay couples are as healthy as children raised by straight parents?
[/quote]
I don’t trust much research.
I wouldn’t ban gay couples from raining kids, I just would not consider them on the same plane as straight couples (all other things being equal).
[quote]
Beyond that, we know that supply far exceeds demand when it comes to child adoption. There are many thousands of children waiting to be adopted, so I don’t think preferential treatment would even be an issue.[/quote]
Only in custody cases. I would rather see a kid raised by a loving gay couple than be raised in an orphanage.
On the constitutionality of denying gays the right to marry, I think the recent California court ruling is illuminating. While it’s true this ruling was within the scope of the state constitution, it has bearing and the decision will likely be used as a touchstone for the U.S. constitution.
[quote]Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of marriage, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority, the state cannot limit its availability to opposite-sex couples.
In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, he wrote, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.[/quote]
The court ruled that it is a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship. Note that there is no requirement that children be included in the definition of “family”. A couple is still a family, and is entitled to the same privileges granted to other families irrespective of whether or not they intend to have children.
If you don’t trust research, there is no way to reach an objective conclusion on the validity of your basic premise. I’m not sure how you would be able to test it otherwise.
Many studies of childrearing by gay and straight parents have in fact shown that there are no health differences. These are peer reviewed scientific studies, published in respected journals and supported by professional organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Given that, I can’t see giving one couple preference over another on the basis of sexual orientation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
On the constitutionality of denying gays the right to marry, I think the recent California court ruling is illuminating. While it’s true this ruling was within the scope of the state constitution, it has bearing and the decision will likely be used as a touchstone for the U.S. constitution.
Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of marriage, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority, the state cannot limit its availability to opposite-sex couples.
�??In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,�?? he wrote, �??the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.�??
The court ruled that it is a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship. Note that there is no requirement that children be included in the definition of “family”. A couple is still a family, and is entitled to the same privileges granted to other families irrespective of whether or not they intend to have children.
[/quote]
Constitutional right to form a family relationship? Is that actually in the California constitution?
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you don’t trust research, there is no way to reach an objective conclusion on the validity of your basic premise. I’m not sure how you would be able to test it otherwise.
Many studies of childrearing by gay and straight parents have in fact shown that there are no health differences. These are peer reviewed scientific studies, published in respected journals and supported by professional organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Given that, I can’t see giving one couple preference over another on the basis of sexual orientation.
[/quote]
Health differences are only a mnor thing. I also prefer 2 parents to a single parent family when other things are equal.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Constitutional right to form a family relationship? Is that actually in the California constitution?[/quote]
Yes, according to the California Supreme Court. I don’t know whether there is specific language in that regard, or whether it is an application of the more general right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Health differences are only a mnor thing. I also prefer 2 parents to a single parent family when other things are equal.
Studies are not required.[/quote]
I wasn’t referring to just physical health. The scientific research shows that there are no differences in all aspects of health (mental/psychological, physical) for children raised in gay vs. straight families. Also, children are no more likely to be gay by virtue of having a gay parent.
You won’t find the idea anywhere in the CA Constitution, but the judges did make up something similar. BTW, side note: the CA state constitution doesn’t have “pursuit of happiness” language, so the judges had to abuse the concept of “liberty” to get to their decision.
[quote]
beebuddy wrote:
Illogical or not, it, or some other irrational factor is clearly the main issue that gays who demand the right to marry face. People are hesitant to evolve. I think the title of this thread is great… “Why do people care about gay marriage?” Clearly it has fuck all to do with me, so my position is not to oppose it. Live and let live.
Makavali wrote:
Exactly. So far, there has been no proven evidence that it would affect heterosexual relationships.[/quote]