|
| Thread: Legal and Financial Benefits of Marriage Should be Removed |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted September 22, 2009 11:08 PM |
|
|
Ohforfsake, no one forces YOU to follow tradition. The issue I take is because you talk as if no one should.
Quote:
Authority and tradition are no arguments in themselves and need valid reasons to be there in the first place. Use lateral thinking, ask yourself why is this here, can I logically argument for following this line of actions?
seems to me that logical and being calculated are your authorities -- whatever they say must be good eh? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 09:01 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:04, 23 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
Which shows why the whole "it's tradtion" is no argument in itself. Argument for why this specific tradition is okay, and you've done properly in my opinion.
Sure it is. It establishes what marriage means in the US. You don't like marriage? Don't get married. That is pretty simple.
You want to have a legally recognized commiteed relationship that does not fall into what marriage means? Lobby for it. Call it a civil union or a bonding or whatever you want to call it.
Like I said, I have no problem with civil unions for gays who want a legally recognized committed relationship with the same legal rights as marriage.
There are lots of other traditions like that. Take Christmas. It celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. You don't want to celebrate his birth? Then don't.
You want to celebrate the birth of Buddha? Knock yourself out. But it would be bizzare if you wanted to call a day celebrating Buddha's birth Christmas. Christmas has a specific meaning already.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 10:56 AM |
|
|
Okay I'll put it short, if you don't get the point this time, I'll just drop it.
My point:
[spoiler]
Conclusion: My point is that no one should follow tradition, merely because it's a tradition, if you've other arguments, fine, present them. The same goes for authority.
There's nothing elitist in this, because it's not about others, it's about you, if others you care about follows tradition, then that's argument enough for you to do so, but if you only do it because it's tradition, then that's where there's a problem I'd like to point out to you. Again you're completely free to choose, I'm merely trying to make it clear the consequences of your choice.[/spoiler]
Any proper debate depends on acceptable premises or data and logical or at least likely conclusions.
Validity of tradition as an argument:
[spoiler]Saying something is tradition uniquely defines that it's something we've "always" done. - Premise.
Saying we should so something because it's tradition is just as valid as saying we should do something because that's what we've always done.
- Conclusion[/spoiler]
I mean comeon, if you've always been hitting some kid on the block and you suddenly realise that if it was you who were been bullied, you'd drop the thought process an say "but I've always done it, it's tradition, so I must continue"?
Consequence of invalid action, due to improper argument, and example of valid action:
[spoiler]
For any action, you've to, at a given time, reflect over why you should do it. Are you doing the following action because it's something you truely wants, or merely because other tells you?
If you can't come up with any solid argument for why you should do it, which has nothing to do with outer stimuli, such as other saying you should, or you feel like it, or something like that, then you're in this case merely a willingless slave to that outer stimuli.
Now if you'd an argument like: I want to be marriaged because my girlfriend, who I truely cares for (which you know you will even if there's no love feeling, otherwise again, slave) really likes tradition, or something similar, and wants to be marriaged. In that case the argument is valid, sure her argument may not be valid, but that's not the point, the point is whether you do what you want, or what something else tells you to do, like a little kid keeping on plauging you until you give in.[/spoiler]
Authority is no argument either:
[spoiler]
Again the very same can be said about authority, it doesn't matter if you care about the authority figure, so do I, they still have to come up with valid arguments. Often they did rose valid arguments, but the main problem is that it's to be able to convince me (and others) which they did not in the case of gay marriage. Thereby since their arguments for why gay marriage should not be allowed have been countered, then there's nothing more, their authority does not give their conclusions magical powers to be true even if you don't believe in the arguments, or anything like that.[/spoiler]
Off Topic Notes to answer previous post in detail:
[spoiler]
I don't celebrate christmas, but I use the free time I get to be with those I love.
In general I don't celebrate any birhts, unless I believe the person who was born at that given day would be happy if I did, and if I'm interested enough in that person, that making this person happy is what I want.[/spoiler]
Edit: Spoilers don't work on this site? How can I hide text that's only visible when clicked on them? I think that'd make all this much easier to read, and short as I wrote it is.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 11:35 AM |
|
|
I don't think you are getting what I am saying.
If a dog has always been called a dog why start calling a cat a dog too? A cat is a cat, not a dog.
Marriage is what it is. The meaning of marriage in the US is firmly established.
I could say "well, let's start calling a gathering in a classroom in public schools to listen to the teacher marriage" instead of sticking to the way marriage has been defined for the entire history of the country.
Marriage is a word that describes a specific thing. Another word describes cat. Another word describes a meeting. Ect.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 04:15 PM |
|
|
Marriage has a FORMAL definition and a LEGAL definition. The LEGAL definition is currently the same as the FORMAL definition. Gay rights activists' point is that you can change the LEGAL definition all you want because the law is updateable. We live in an era where we should all have (or should have) the same rights and privileges in the eyes of our government. Therefore, if the government sanctions marriage then the government CANNOT discriminate against select groups of people who want to engage in that government sanctioned action. To do otherwise is to stomp all over seperation of church and state. The government is defining marriage in terms of how the church says it should be defined. That is inherently unconstitutional.
This "between a man and a woman" business is NOT in the constitution, this is why Bush was trying to get the constitution AMENDED to include it. Gays have the constitution on their side on this issue. No two ways about it. Really if you analyze the situation, anti-gay marriage proponents have zero case against the legalization other than "it's not legal now so it shouldn't be legal period". There isn't any legal standing for why we can't and shouldn't change this law.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 04:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Conclusion: My point is that no one should follow tradition, merely because it's a tradition, if you've other arguments, fine, present them.
some people respect tradition.Quote:
The same goes for authority.
some people respect some authority. I'm sure most respect their parents at least.
Understand what I say, the "some" part is important.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 05:24 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:28, 23 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
To do otherwise is to stomp all over seperation of church and state. The government is defining marriage in terms of how the church says it should be defined. That is inherently unconstitutional.
No, the government just recognizes marriage and that is not unconstitutional.
Quote:
This "between a man and a woman" business is NOT in the constitution, this is why Bush was trying to get the constitution AMENDED to include it. Gays have the constitution on their side on this issue. No two ways about it. Really if you analyze the situation, anti-gay marriage proponents have zero case against the legalization other than "it's not legal now so it shouldn't be legal period". There isn't any legal standing for why we can't and shouldn't change this law.
No, the Constitution is not on the side of gays. Gays don't have a right to redefine what marriage is. That is like saying someone has a right to define what a dog is and demand that everyone else call cats dogs.
It is impossible that recognizing marriage is unconstitutional or that recognizing that marriage is specificly between a man and a woman is unconstitutional since gay sex was illegal in every state so the founders obviously did not include a right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
The writers of the Constitution regocnized marriage and recognized it as specificly between a man and a woman. Terrotories were not allowed to become states until they accepted this definition. Consider Utah. It had to outlaw polygamy to become a state.
Marriage has a specific meaning. Feel free to start another ceremony and lobby to have the government recognize it. If you don't want it to be called a civil union come up with a different name. Life-bond or whatever you want to call it.
Quote:
We live in an era where we should all have (or should have) the same rights and privileges in the eyes of our government.
Everyone has the right to marry. Marriage is between two people of opposite genders who are above a certain age in the United States.
Some cultures recognize marriage between a 60 year old man and a 6 year old girl. That is not in the US definition of marriage.
Some cultures recognize marriage between a person and an animal. That is not in the US definition of marriage.
Some cultures recognize marriage between a man and multiple women. That is not in the US definition of marriage.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, the Constitution is not on the side of gays. Gays don't have a right to redefine what marriage is. That is like saying someone has a right to define what a dog is and demand that everyone else call cats dogs.
It is impossible that recognizing marriage is unconstitutional or that recognizing that marriage is specificly between a man and a woman is unconstitutional since gay sex was illegal in every state so the founders obviously did not include a right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
The writers of the Constitution regocnized marriage and recognized it as specificly between a man and a woman. Terrotories were not allowed to become states until they accepted this definition. Consider Utah. It had to outlaw polygamy to become a state.
Marriage has a specific meaning. Feel free to start another ceremony and lobby to have the government recognize it. If you don't want it to be called a civil union come up with a different name. Life-bond or whatever you want to call it.
Quote:
We live in an era where we should all have (or should have) the same rights and privileges in the eyes of our government.
Everyone has the right to marry. Marriage is between two people of opposite genders who are above a certain age in the United States.
Some cultures recognize marriage between a 60 year old man and a 6 year old girl. That is not in the US definition of marriage.
Some cultures recognize marriage between a person and an animal. That is not in the US definition of marriage.
Some cultures recognize marriage between a man and multiple women. That is not in the US definition of marriage.
Incorrect, you're arguing a different point than I am. Your argument is that in the 19th century you had to accept the unconstitutionally biblical definition of marriage to become a state and that the founding fathers didn't allow gay sex because it's illegal in every state (which has nothing to do with the founding fathers, they discussed federal law specifically, state law only in general terms). You're appealing to history as your argument when the history is a government that was DIRECTLY making laws according to the Bible at the time. The point is we all know this is WRONG in the 21st century. It's unconstitutional to give religion's dictations credance in government. Marriage as a bond between a man and a woman is a CHRISTIAN definition. Not an American one. I'm arguing that we need to CHANGE the backwards laws you are falling back on as your argument. The laws regarding this subject are what the church believes and that is unconstitutional. These laws need to be redefined with a COMPLETE disregard of ANY christian opinion on the matter because christianity has absolutely no place in government.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 08:02 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:03, 23 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
The point is we all know this is WRONG in the 21st century.
The point is that it set a definition.
A trademark, if you will. If you want to CHANGE that, go and invent another one. And of course make the government recognize it, if you can or are willing.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 08:19 PM |
|
|
|
There is nothing to add to Aquaman's statements.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 23, 2009 08:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm arguing that we need to CHANGE the backwards laws you are falling back on as your argument. The laws regarding this subject are what the church believes and that is unconstitutional. These laws need to be redefined with a COMPLETE disregard of ANY christian opinion on the matter because christianity has absolutely no place in government.
You seem to be ignorant that Christianity is not the only religion that says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage is between a man and a woman in the United States. It has been for the entire history of the US. That is the definition of marriage in the US.
If you want to have multiple wives you can't do so in the US. You have to move elsewhere. If you want to have a little girl as a wife you can't do so in the US. If you want to marry your dog you can't do so in the US, you have to move elsewhere.
Just because the Bible says that sex between people and animals is immoral does not mean that there can't be a law saying you can't have sex with animals. Just because the Bible says murder is immoral does not mean the US can't have a law forbidding murder.
The historical meaning of marriage in the US is one man-one woman. I'm not talking about what the Bible says marriage is (you are the one bringing that into the discussion) I am talking about the historical meaning of marriage in the US.
Quote:
Your argument is that in the 19th century you had to accept the unconstitutionally biblical definition of marriage to become a state and that the founding fathers didn't allow gay sex because it's illegal in every state (which has nothing to do with the founding fathers, they discussed federal law specifically, state law only in general terms).
Actually, you are wrong. The founding fathors wrote many laws in their own states. Jefferson authored a bill calling for homosexuals to be castrated in Virginia.
Now, don't misunderstand me, I don't think homosexuality should be illegal but I am showing the historical context since you are calling everything into question. The Constitution absolutely has no right to gay marriage in it.
Clicky
Quote:
Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws...,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).
And I repeat, I am for civil unions for gays. If you don't want to call it civil union, fine, call it something else, but not marriage because marriage is already defined in the US as being between one man and one woman.
Start you own tradition. There is nothing wrong with that. Just don't demand that the historical meaning of marriage be altered to suit your desires.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 04:14 AM |
|
|
*shrug* Call it a Marriage if you want. It's not like it's affecting other people's lives. Anything else would be governmental interference after all.
Who really cares, as long as they're not groping each other in public (which is something straight couple can't do either) or harassing people.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 04:48 AM |
|
|
Elodin you are correct that this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. Just because something coincides with a holy book doesn't mean it's a religious law. That's ludicrous. But it does have to do with the government defining something that there's no reason for it to define to begin with. There are countless thousand words in the English language: you don't ask a government to define them for you; they develop and change on their own.
In the constitution, Congress is given the authority to raise a navy. However, wooden galleons are what the founders had in mind at the time. They didn't have in mind naval bombers (naval bombers don't even float), so are they not allowed to build naval bombers because our understanding of the word 'navy' is different from their understanding of the word 'navy'?
If a government told you that you don't fit their definition of marriage, would you break-up with your spouse? I hope not, because your marriage is a commitment that you personally made; you don't need another person's approval for it to be what it is. If two people trapped on a remote island decided to indefinitely commit to each other, it wouldn't be an invalid commitment because there isn't a dude in a suit to sign a paper for it.
Obviously not everybody agrees on what is considered a marriage, and there's no reason for a government to try to define it for them, especially since it has no legal bearing. This is why I feel the best option would be to give everybody civil unions, and then people can also get married through whatever other institution they wish. By doing this, both the state and private institutions would benefit for it. Marriage would go back to being a commitment, or covenant if you will, and the government would have a sound way of categorizing and giving couples benefits without getting involved in societal disputes.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 01:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it does have to do with the government defining something that there's no reason for it to define to begin with. There are countless thousand words in the English language: you don't ask a government to define them for you; they develop and change on their own.
The government did not define cat, dog, or horse but it recognizes that a cat is a cat. Same with marriage. "Cat" describes a specific thing just like marriage does.
Quote:
Obviously not everybody agrees on what is considered a marriage, and there's no reason for a government to try to define it for them, especially since it has no legal bearing.
Sorry, "cat" has always described a feline species and marriage has always described a committed relationship between a man and a woman in which they exchange vows.
Like I said, make up another word for a committed relationship beteen two pepole fo the same gender because it is not a US marriage.
Quote:
This is why I feel the best option would be to give everybody civil unions, and then people can also get married through whatever other institution they wish. By doing this, both the state and private institutions would benefit for it. Marriage would go back to being a commitment, or covenant if you will, and the government would have a sound way of categorizing and giving couples benefits without getting involved in societal disputes.
Ummm marriage is already a commitment/covenant. All that is necessary is to recognize an additional commitment between gays. Call it a civil union or whatever else you want to call it.
Anyways, I think we are just rehashing arguments so that is the last I have to say for now about marriage.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 04:17 PM |
bonus applied by angelito on 26 Sep 2009. |
Edited by Corribus at 18:21, 26 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
There is nothing to add to Aquaman's statements.
Perhaps, but if I may....
Some time ago, we had a rather sizable LGBT thread here, and then Father childishly deleted the whole thing before skipping town. Among the lost posts was a lengthy essay by myself on the topic of gay marriage. As luck would have it, I recently found a rough draft of this post buried away on my backup drive. So, given its relevance in the current discussion, I'll repost it below - with a few edits.
Some Common arguments against gay marriage and why they are wrong:
Most people in the US believe that marriage is [insert something here, usually having to do with religion].
(1) First, statements about what “most people believe” are usually made without reliable statistics to back them up, and even if there are such statistics available ...
(2) ...just because a majority of people believe something, does not make it right. The fact that this is a logical fallacy should be enough to trash this argument altogether. Of course, most people using the argument wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it smacked them in the face, so we must continue:
(3) Certainly Christians have a right to define marriage however they wish within the Christian church. However, insofar as this nation's government is supposed to be separate from religion (Establishment Clause), then it doesn't really matter one lick what the Christian view of marriage is when it pertains to matters of legality.
Now, I'm going say something that religious people out there are probably going to take issue with. Marriage from a legal standpoint is an economic arrangement between two people. Marriage laws don’t govern how people are supposed to love each other, if they need to love one another, if they need to love God, how or when they’re supposed to have sex, or anything of the sort, and nor should they. Laws really only cover the economic aspects of the union, and because these aspects really have nothing to do with the respective genders of the people involved, then from a legal standpoint, gay couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits of marriage as straight couples.
Most religious people don’t feel that marriage is only an economic contract, legally speaking. So, let’s look at it a little deeper.
Let's start with a question: why is it necessary to make laws that regulate marriage? Traditionally, marriages were typically between a man who worked and a woman who stayed home and took care of the child(ren). In this system, the man often had complete control of the family finances and the woman was at the mercy of the man’s decisions. In the case of a marriage breaking up through divorce or death of the husband, if there were no laws governing what happened to the family's money after the marriage, then the woman and children were at the mercy of the (ex)husband or his family. So, laws were necessary to regulate the economic side of marriage in order to protect all parties involved. Which is really what contract laws are for. As far as the State is concerned, marriage laws exist to ensure that no single party of the contract is exploited at the potential end of the contract (divorce, death). This is as much to protect the spouse as it is the children. Similar laws govern inheritance for the same reason.
Now, there are no laws that prohibit two men/women from living together in union. However, there are also currently no laws in place to protect both parties in such an arrangement or any children involved. Suppose in a lesbian marriage (call it a union since at the moment it is not protected under the law), you have a "housewife" who takes care of the house and child, and a "breadwinner" who works and earns money for the family. They have an adopted child. At some point in the future, they have a falling out and the breadwinnder leaves the housewife, and goes off on her own. The housewife now has no income, no house (it was in the breadwinner's name), no job, and a child to take care of.
Of course, in a heterosexual marriage, there are laws to protect all parties in the marriage from the consequences of such a situation. Heterosexuals have alimony, child-support, etc. This is the reason the State regulates marriage in the first place. If homosexuals are not allowed to benefit from the same protection under the law (which is really not constitutional, because it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution), then the housewife and child are left in the cold. The hard of heart might say: well, you reap what you sow. If you go into the union knowing you are not protected, and you get burned, then that's that. I'm not one for whining about a situation after the fact when I knew the risks beforehand. But really the child has no choice in the matter and, at the moment, no protection, which is not right.
Let me be clear: marriage as a social entity is about more than money. But the government only needs to be involved primarily because of the financial elements involved in the union; for this reason, and for many others, homosexuals should be protected under US Marriage Laws just like heterosexuals are. (Heterosexuals also enjoy many other peripheral benefits, including taxation advantages, which ease the burden on a family with only a single earner.)
Society has a right to establish moral standards, so society can say what people are allowed to do based on society’s morals. Evidence: we have laws against pedophiles, murder, rape, or anything else. Somebody's morals are always the law.
No, no and no. Society has no right to insert subjective moral standards into the code of laws when those moral standards selectively discriminate against certain groups in favor of others, especially when it's done for no particular reason other than the majority find what minority are doing "distasteful". Laws exist to protect people from physical, emotional or economic harm, not to tell people what is morally right and morally wrong or to protect peoples religious sensibilities.
Many laws (I'd venture, a majority) are not based on morals. As an example, speed limits are not based on morals. Immigration laws are probably not based on morals. Voting regulations? Food and drug regulations? Not really based on morals. And the laws that are based on "morals" are so only by coincidence, because many morals exist to also protect people from harm. I’ve written extensively about that elsewhere.
More importantly, laws against murder, rape, pedophiles, etc., apply to everybody in society equally. You can't have laws that selectively apply to certain people, because that's against the spirit of freedom set forth in the US Constitution, and I'm not sure how one can feel comfortable defending such discriminatory laws as being MORAL. Consider whether you would condone laws that specifically forbid murdering white people, or stealing from everyone except Jews, or raping anyone but a heterosexual. Murdering anyone is equally illegal; the standards of legality and punishment do not depend on the race, religion or beliefs of the victim. Laws that forbid homosexuals from getting married are no different from Jim Crow Laws that forbade blacks from going to the same schools as whites. The Jim Crow Laws were based on bigotry and discrimination and were (eventually!) recognized as unconstitutional and thrown out.
Members of society have a right to establish a moral code for themseves, and some of the laws that govern that society are derived from such codes because in some cases morals and laws have the same ultimate goal (preservation of life), but a moral code is not itself legally enforceable. Society does not have a right to establish a moral code which invokes laws that discriminate against a substantial portion of that society for no reason, or laws that only apply to certain people within that society.
Some examples of the history of other discriminatory marriage laws: Arizona once had a law that forbade black people from marrying white people. (Actually, it also forbade white people from marrying asians, Hindus, or any other race.) Florida's law on the matter was even more absurd: "All marriages between a white person and a Negro, or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited." They have obviously been thrown out. But how are thoses law any different from laws which forbid a white man from marrying a white man? Obviously, society once established a "moral order" forbidding interracial marriage; clearly, the traditional "definition" of marriage at one time did not include interracial couplings. These laws were deemed unconstitutional because they violated the principle of equal protection of ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS UNDER THE LAW. The Constitutional phrase is not "equal protection of SOME American citizens under the law".
For the same reason, women were eventually given the right to vote, even though at one time society had determined that women shouldn't be permitted to vote. The situation for homosexuals and marriage now is really no different from that of women and voting prior to the passage of 19th Amendment of Constitution. That again was a case of a law that was applied unequally to a significant portion of the population based on no other reason than "society" (well, the power-holding majority of society) had deemed that women should have no right to suffrage. Do you agree that society had a right to prohibit women from voting? I mean, that's what society at the time had determined was the standard of morality, right? And if you believe that society has the right to enforce morals and personal beliefs as laws, then you have to believe that if society determines women don’t have the same legal benefits as men, than the law should be able to be written to reflect that. What makes female suffrage different from gay marriage?
Some people respond to the comparison of gay marriage bans to earlier interracial marriage bans as follows: an interracial couple is different from a homosexual couple because at least in the former case, it’s still between a man and a woman. This is a thinly veiled religious argument – there is a perception that the Bible somehow forbids homosexuality but not interracial mingling. That may or may not be true, but it's also irrelevant. It makes no difference. Bigotry is bigotry. Why should it be important for the law to be race-sensitive but not gender-sensitive? There’s no logical criterion that can be provided to justify the distinction, other than a religious argument, but laws can’t be based on religious arguments, as I’ve already established.
The truth of the matter is that people have no rational reason to want laws against the practice of gay marriage. They simply don’t like it, and for that reason alone they want it banned. It’s based on either an ick-factor or a God-says-factor, or both. Well I’m sorry; not liking something isn’t enough to create a law forbidding it.
The US government can't establish a State religion but that does not mean we can't have any laws against things that a particular religion opposes.
If that statement seems counterintuitive, that’s because it is. It’s an argument that violates its own premise. If a government bases its laws on what a particular religion thinks, rather than what is needed to protect the rights and health of everyone, then the religion in question is by default a State-sponsored religion. As such, outlawing homosexual marriage simply because that is what a particular religion wants violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution, as this is akin to endorsing an aspect of a faith. For the same reason, the government would not be allowed to pass a law that forbids the consumption of pork due to its prohibition in Judaism. And for the same reason, you cannot pass a law that mandates the teaching of Creationism in schools.
If laws allow people to marry whomever they want, then laws should allow people to marry their pets.
I’m sure we’ve all heard this one, and the person who uses it no doubt thinks he’s being very clever. But, this is an absolutely ridiculous analogy that is as offensive to homosexuals as it is just plain nonsensical. Marriage – like any contract – is consensual; last time I checked, animals couldn’t legally offer consent to anything. Beyond that, this argument shouldn’t even be dignified with a response. To compare two loving human beings trying to enjoy their lives in a meaningful relationship to some guy donking his hamster is just repugnant.
Why don’t we have some other word for homosexuals, and reserve “marriage” for straight couples? Civil unions have been proposed previously.
The people who make this offer usually think they are being quite magnanimous for proposing such a generous compromise. The fact that they are willing to offer it should be a cue as to how petty these people are being, if they’re willing to boil down an issue that’s so morally important to them into a matter of simple semantics. Basically, they are telling you that they would be fine with the State allowing homosexual couples to enjoy the same economic and legal benefits of heterosexual marriage, as long as the word for it was changed to something else, because of the religious connotations of the word "marriage" (as if any one religion has exclusive ownership of a certain word). Amusingly enough, the person who makes this compromise completely undermines any other moral argument they make against homosexual marriage, without even realizing it. It’s sort of like saying, “Gay marriage should be banned because it violates God’s Supreme Law, but if we just call it something else besides marriage, maybe God will be too stupid to realize we’ve all actually just pulled a fast one on Him.”
More to the legal point: while this compromise may sound reasonable on paper, and in practice should be acceptable to most homosexuals, when the State creates different terms for the same thing applicable to two different groups of people (especially for such a dumb reason), what it ultimately accomplishes is opening up a loophole for differences is legislation for the two classes of people. There’s a lot of history to support the conclusion that "Separate But Equal" is rarely equal - only separate. You might recall we tried to do this with blacks in the middle of the 20th century. If people against homosexual marriage are dead-set on retaining the word "marriage" only for religious unions, then the State label should be applied to everyone for the purposes of the State contract. I.e., nobody in the State should be married. All currently married couples, as termed by the State, should be in civil unions. That way, by the State, all couples are treated equally. Then the religious people can retain the word “marriage” for unions effected in the Church.
Of course, when you propose this alternative, the people making the original proposition demur. And when you ask them why they demur… well, the squirming is entertaining, to say the least.
The definition of marriage is X. The government doesn't have a right to change that.
A nonargument. Definitions change all the time, both in popular use and in the law. What are laws except complicated, exhaustive definitions? If you actually pick up a federal law and read it, you'll see that it is nothing but page after page of definitions. Every time a law (any law!) is changed, it involves changing definitions, so to claim that government doesn't have a right to change a definition is just... idiotic. If the government did NOT have the right, no laws would ever change.
The legal "definition" of marriage has already changed several times in the history of this country, and it isn't even the same in each state at any given time. I've already given an example above: at one time, in several states the definition of marriage did not include interracial unions. Now they do. The government changed the legal definition of marriage. Nobody has exclusive ownership over a word; language is not immutable. Definitions change to accomodate changes in thought, in advances in technology. Why do you think new dictionaries are published every year?
More to the point, not only does the government have the right to change a legal definition; it has the duty to change that definition if the existing definition is discriminatory. That's the whole reason we have a judicial branch in the first place, to make sure laws, and the definitions which underpin them, do not violate the principles of the Constitution.
Judges are supposed to apply the law, not make new laws because they hold different moral viewpoints than society does. (The so-called “Activist Judges” complaint.)
Not really an argument against homosexual marriage, but it comes up in these discussions all the time, so I will say something about it here. The idea is that people who are against homosexual marriage are indignant that judges may actually interpret the constitution correctly and thus overturn antiquated, unconstitutional laws passed by legislatures which hold bigoted viewpoints.
Of course, this protest against judges belies a fundamental ignorance of how our system works. Judges, particularly those sitting on the Supreme Court, interpret laws and make sure that they are fair and constitutional. For instance, the majority of society may one day come to believe that women shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore. If there were no judges, then because the majority feels this way, they would have the strength in government to pass a law that says as much. The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to realize that the people in power (or the majority, who put most of the people in power in power) often do not have the interests of everyone in mind when they pass laws. This is why the judicial branch was created, as part of a complex system of checks and balances; in this case, the judicial branch is a check of Congress, which is put in place by the people.
Just to cue complainers in on some US Civics - the Supreme Court does not make new laws, and it never has. They do not have the power to do so. Only the US Congress can propose and ultimately pass federal legislation. The judicial branch exists to make sure that the laws are applied fairly. From Article 3 of the US Constitution:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
Note that the US Constitition does not overtly grant the USSC the power of judicial review. This precedent came in 1803 under the landmark case Marbury vs. Madison. Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers did clearly have this in mind as a duty of the judicial branch. For example, in the Federalist 78, written by (Founding Father) Alexander Hamilton (emphasis is mine): "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them [the judges] to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute.
I.e., the US Constitution TRUMPS any laws passed by the legislative branch. Or, in other words, new laws have to be in accordance with the principles by which the Founding Fathers wrote that great document. Note that nowhere does the Constitution grant any legislative powers to the judicial branch. In fact, the Supreme Court does not even technically have a means by which it can enforce (apply) its rulings. Rulings are adopted through a mutual respect for Constitutional Law by all members of government. The long and short of this is that it is impossible for the Court to “legislate from the bench”. Of course, people against gay marriage have no problem with this process when it happens 99% of the time; they only raise a stink when the laws in question have something to do with homosexual marriage, or anything else which they find offensive.
The Founding Fathers…
A lot of people like to bring up that the Founding Fathers were religious and incorporated their religion into our laws. Well, that might be true, and many laws are ultimately based on morals. But while the Founding Fathers may have been religious, and may have even believed that homosexuality was wrong, the government that they erected was specifically set up to separate the Church from any State function. They also set up the Constitution to be a living document. If the Founding Fathers had wanted religious principles to rule our lives, they would have written the laws according to the Bible and provided no way for us to change the law. You’ll notice there isn’t a single usage of the word “God” in the US Constitution.
More importantly, laws governing marriage are written at the state (as opposed to Federal) level, and the Founders had no capacity to compose marriage-laws which would be applied unilaterally across all states. So what the Founding Fathers thought about marriage or homosexuality has no relevance to how marriage laws, in general, were written, or their relationship to Constitutional law. In fact, the Founding Fathers have no relevance at all to the discussion, and are only typically brought up as a way to win the argument by default out of our mutual respect for the men who wrote the US Constitution - a fallacious appeal to authority. The argument goes something like this: Founding Father Joe was a Christian and was against homosexuality (and homosexual marriage); Founding Father Joe wrote the Constitution; therefore, homosexual marriage should be illegal. Problem is that it doesn't matter how many personal letters Founding Father Joe wrote about his distaste for homosexuality. What matters is what Founding Father Joe wrote in the Constitution, and the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The Constitution is our guide; not Founding Father Joe's diary.
Perhaps the people who are using the Founding Fathers in this way should take a moment to reflect that perhaps why our country has been so successful is because the Founders didn't litter our goverment's founding document with their own personal prejudices and religious beliefs.
In any case, the Founding Father argument is clearly BUNK.
God intended a man to marry a woman.
I bring my post to a close with this because it’s the most common, as well as the most banal, argument against gay marriage that there is. It encompasses all of the aforementioned arguements into one nice little ridiculous package. It’s not really an argument at all.
This is a religious view. I would not impugn anyone for holding a religious view, provided that they do not try to enforce their religious views on other people. What I don't understand is why these people really care so much what other people do. If Christians want to live their lives by what they think God intended, then why don't they live their lives that way, and be happy with that? If the actions of other people are not harming them or anyone else, then who cares? Isn't God the person who is supposed to judge people? If God really disproves of homosexuality, don't you think it is up to God to say something about it in the afterlife, rather than having self-nominated individuals to act as the executors of his laws here on earth? Certainly: laws should prevent people from engaging in actions - like murder, rape - that actually harm other people. But preventing actions or things that you just simply don't like as a matter of principle? That's not fair. I don’t like mushrooms, but that doesn’t give me the authority or the right to outlaw them.
What is most silly and petty is that these people seem to think that the word marriage is more important than the religious principles that allegedly give rise to their arguments in the first place, so much so that they’re willing to ignore their principles as long as the sacredness of the word is preserved. Certainly, the condemnation of homosexuality violates the (Christian!) principle of "live and let live", and the erection of statutes prohibiting homosexuality or homosexual marriage is even MORE wrong under the what I believe is the proper (i.e., minimally invasive) jurisdiction of the government. But beyond that, I just find it strange that people who seem to hold such strong convictions about the matter of homosexuality on religious grounds are suddenly willing to look the other away if the label for the practice is merely changed to something else. If homosexuality is so harmful to society, so sinful, so heinous, so disgraceful in the eyes of God, so evil that it should be forbidden by law, you would think that these people would be against it no matter what it is called: marriage, union, rainbowage or whatever. But no: they’re perfectly happy with a shallow surface treatment of the problem - merely call it something else, and they'll happily look the other way. To me, it just sort of strikes a strange chord and makes all of the moral proselytizing ring false.
Furthermore, giving a separate name to the practice of homosexual marriage is a double offense because not only does it really accomplish nothing real (other than to make it easy for people to pretend it isn't happening) it endorses a separate but equal mentality that has been shown to be a bridge to discrimination during the Civil Rights Movement, where blacks were allowed to have "equal types of schools" but not the same schools, and "equal types of jobs" but not the same jobs and "equal types of busses" but not the same busses, but where the schools, jobs and busses were really not the same at all. In the same vein, these people would ostensibly let homosexuals have "equal types of marriages" but not the same marriages, and we all know that the marriages would not be the same at all. So what's the point? It's silly AND petty. Actually, it's also sad, because it seems to me that in some senses our country has come so far, but in others it really hasn't changed at all.
So really, let's not mince words and pretend like we're tolerant. When you boil it down, the fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are Christian, and many Christians don't like homosexuality, not because it harms them but because it just offends them and because they believe that God doesn't like it either. And these people feel that since they (think they) are the majority, that gives them the right to run the lives of the minority however they like, and they feel erroneously that the laws exist not to ensure equal treatment of everyone, and protect everyone from physical or economic harm, but rather exist as blunt instruments whose purpose is to ensure that everyone has to live by their standards of what lifestyles are acceptable and what lifestyles are not acceptable. The attempt to pass laws against homosexual marriage (or to prevent laws protecting the practice) is not based upon any premise of protecting society, or safeguarding the rights of citizens, which is what the passage of new laws is SUPPOSED to accomplish; rather their only aim is to ensure that something they find distasteful can be forbidden, even though it doesn't cause them or anyone else any harm.
It is selfish, plain and simple.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 05:37 PM |
|
|
Such a great post, Cor.  QP, please.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Most people in the US believe that marriage is [insert something here, usually having to do with religion].
Sure, but that has nothing to do with anything.
Marriage in the US has a specific historic and traditional meaning. I have not argued for the religious side at all, it the the anit-religion crowd that has done that.
Quote:
Certainly Christians have a right to define marriage however they wish within the Christian church.
Yep. And gays have a right to define marriage how they want to within their own group.
But in the US there is already a definition of marriage. Gays can have whatever ceremonies they want to but marriage in the US has the historic meaning of one man and one woman. As I pointed out previously any territory that wanted to become a state had to accept that definition.
Quote:
Now, I'm going say something that religious people out there are probably going to take issue with. Marriage from a legal standpoint is an economic arrangement between two people.
Not only most religious people but most people "period." I'd say the percentage of people in the US that view marriage as merely an economic arrangement is pretty small.
And certainly there is no way that that idea of marriage matches the historical meaning of marriage in the US. Sex outside the marriage covenant has been considered immoral for most of the history of the nation so obviously marriage has never been considered only an economic arrangement in the US.
From the history of the nation marriage has been a moral arrangement.
Quote:
Laws really only cover the economic aspects of the union, and because these aspects really have nothing to do with the respective genders of the people involved, then from a legal standpoint, gay couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits of marriage as straight couples.
That is not true. Homosexual sex was illegal in all the states and Jefferson actually authored a bill as governor of Virginia to castrate homosexuals. Further adultery and premarital sex was illegal.
Any person can marry a person of their opposite gender, including gays. They have the same rights as everyone else.
"Marriage" has a specific meaning, just as "dog" or "cat" or "swim" do.
Quote:
But the government only needs to be involved primarily because of the financial elements involved in the union; for this reason, and for many others, homosexuals should be protected under US Marriage Laws just like heterosexuals are.
Marriage has a specific meaning in the US.
Civil unions can protect gay couples just as well.
Quote:
And the laws that are based on "morals" are so only by coincidence, because many morals exist to also protect people from harm.
I'm sorry but you obviously have not read the Declaration of Independence or the constitutions or compacts of the colonies and states.
Quote:
More importantly, laws against murder, rape, pedophiles, etc., apply to everybody in society equally. You can't have laws that selectively apply to certain people, because that's against the spirit of freedom set forth in the US Constitution, and I'm not sure how one can feel comfortable defending such discriminatory laws as being MORAL.
So does marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. A gay person can enter such a union though I don't know why he would want to. Now, gays are free to have civil unions that should be recognized by the government but there is no reason for the government to redefine marriage or to stop recognizing marriage.
Quote:
Society does not have a right to establish a moral code which invokes laws that discriminate against a substantial portion of that society for no reason, or laws that only apply to certain people within that society.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Laws like don't murder, rape, or steal are based on morals. You might say, "Oh, those are all things that hurt someone." Yep. But what makes hurting someone wrong? Only an absolute moral standard.
Society has a right to make laws and to make laws based on moral precepts.
Quote:
This is a thinly veiled religious argument – there is a perception that the Bible somehow forbids homosexuality but not interracial mingling. That may or may not be true, but it's also irrelevant.
Yep, the Bible does not forbid interracial marriage. Moses married a black woman.
No one but anti-religious folks have been arguing marriage on a religious ground.
Quote:
Well I’m sorry; not liking something isn’t enough to create a law forbidding it.
Sorry, but you wanting to call a cat a dog is no reason to say that everyone else must call a cat a dog.
Quote:
Quote:
The US government can't establish a State religion but that does not mean we can't have any laws against things that a particular religion opposes.
If that statement seems counterintuitive, that’s because it is.
Sorry, but that statement is...well...illogical.
From your argument you must not want there to be laws against murder, rape, theft, ect because all of the major world's religions oppose such things.
Quote:
If laws allow people to marry whomever they want, then laws should allow people to marry their pets.
I’m sure we’ve all heard this one, and the person who uses it no doubt thinks he’s being very clever. But, this is an absolutely ridiculous analogy that is as offensive to homosexuals as it is just plain nonsensical. Marriage – like any contract – is consensual; last time I checked, animals couldn’t legally offer consent to anything. Beyond that, this argument shouldn’t even be dignified with a response. To compare two loving human beings trying to enjoy their lives in a meaningful relationship to some guy donking his hamster is just repugnant.
No it is not. Animals have feelings and can consent to sex. If they don't want to have sex they will fight.
Also, there are cultures where people do marry animals and many pagans in the past had rituals where they had sex with animals.
Further, what about a gorilla? A few gorillas have been taught sign language. What if they consented to a marriage? Gorrillas mate for life. What right would you have to deny such a bond other than on moral grounds or the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman? None.
Quote:
Amusingly enough, the person who makes this compromise completely undermines any other moral argument they make against homosexual marriage, without even realizing it. It’s sort of like saying, “Gay marriage should be banned because it violates God’s Supreme Law, but if we just call it something else besides marriage, maybe God will be too stupid to realize we’ve all actually just pulled a fast one on Him.”
Not really. Religious people realize that not everyone will follow their beliefs. Even though I believe that drinking too much is wrong I would never try to tell you that you can't become a drunk and drink yourself to sleep every night.
Marriage has a specific historical meaning in the US. That tradition should not be ripped to shreds just because someone else wants it to be defined differently.
Again, the only people trying to argue about marriage from a religious standpoint seem to be people who seem to usually be hostile to religion.
Quote:
The definition of marriage is X. The government doesn't have a right to change that.
A nonargument.
Quote:
Nah, marriage has a specific historical meaning. The government does not have a right to say marriage is a union between a man and a monkey.
Quote:
Judges are supposed to apply the law, not make new laws because they hold different moral viewpoints than society does. (The so-called “Activist Judges” complaint.)
Not really an argument against homosexual marriage, but it comes up in these discussions all the time, so I will say something about it here.
Sure it is. Gay sex was outlawed by the founding fathers so obviously they did not intend a right to gay marriage to be in the Constitution. As I linked to in an earlier post, Jeffereson authored a bill calling for castration of homosexuals and gay sex was illegal in every single state.
So no one can honestly argue that the Constitution gives a right to gay marriage.
Further, as I said, marriage has an established meaning in the US.
And certainly certain leftists tend to be activists who don't care about what the Constitution says at all. The Constitution is quite clear when you look at the historical setting and writings of the founding fathers.
Quote:
You’ll notice there isn’t a single usage of the word “God” in the US Constitution.
Actually, the Constitution says "in the year of our Lord" ie Jesus Christ, whom they recognized as God.
Further, one can't consider the Constitution apart from the Declaration of Independence which mentions God a number of times.
Quote:
God intended a man to marry a woman.
I bring my post to a close with this because it’s the most common, as well as the most banal, argument against gay marriage that there is. It encompasses all of the aforementioned arguements into one nice little ridiculous package. It’s not really an argument at all.
Again, the religious people are not the ones bringing religion into the argument.
But yes, God created a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Further, it is obviou that the male and female sex organs were designed (by God or nature) for each other.
I frankly don't care if you agree with that or not.
Quote:
Certainly, the condemnation of homosexuality violates the (Christian!) principle of "live and let live",
Sorry, wrong again. Christians believe certain things to be sin. Condemning a sin is not condemning a person. Christians are told to speak out against sin.
You seem not to have read the Bible. The Old Testament prophets, Jesus, the disciples, and apostles all preached repentance.
Quote:
But no: they’re perfectly happy with a shallow surface treatment of the problem - merely call it something else, and they'll happily look the other way. To me, it just sort of strikes a strange chord and makes all of the moral proselytizing ring false.
No, it is your representation of what religious people supposedly believe that is shallow and false.
Marriage has a specific historical meaning in the US. And yes, it has a specific religious meaning.
Just because I believe the Biblical teaching that gay sex is sin does not mean that I would seek to prohibit you from having gay sex. Just because I believe the Biblical teaching that becoming a drunk is wrong does not mean I would deny your right to get drunk every night.
Again, marriage has a specific meaning from a historical perspective. There is no reason to try to confuse the issue by bringing in religion into the discussion.
Quote:
The attempt to pass laws against homosexual marriage (or to prevent laws protecting the practice) is not based upon any premise of protecting society, or safeguarding the rights of citizens, which is what the passage of new laws is SUPPOSED to accomplish; rather their only aim is to ensure that something they find distasteful can be forbidden, even though it doesn't cause them or anyone else any harm.
It is selfish, plain and simple.
Sure it is. It is an attempt to safeguard the historical institution of marriage from activist judges.
What is plain and simple selfish is demanding that the historical definition of marriage be changed to meet you desires.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't remember that one.
The thread its from grew 30 pages in 2 days out of nowhere.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2009 07:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is plain and simple selfish is demanding that the historical definition of marriage be changed to meet you desires.
You fail to see the only relevant point: the state simply has to call all marriages civil unions officially - because for the state that's what they are, whether it's between a man and a woman a man and a man or a woman and a woman, whether people are wed with a religious ceremony or simply sign a worldly contract. Because for the state nothing else matters - or at least nothing else should matter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 25, 2009 12:45 AM |
|
|
|
But there is no reason to stop recognizing marriages, which have been recognized for the entire history of the country. It is best to recognize civil unions in addition to marriages.
|
| |
|
|
