I couldn't agree more. Daytonrocker's scenario is certainly possible, but it's also a red herring. If we constructed laws only based on their being foolproof to abuse, we would be in a real conundrum, since we would have no laws at all. In fact, his scenario could be enacted today by heterosexuals. I am certain it has already been done many times - two heterosexuals decide to marry for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with love or procreation. Or a gay man and a gay woman marry for reasons having nothing to do with love or procreation. Does this mean we should not allow heterosexuals to marry, because some people 'abuse' it? Of course not. The fact is, there are no human institutions which some opportunistic people won't figure out how to take advantage of. That doesn't mean we throw out all human institutions.

Of course we want our institutions to be as foolproof as possible. There is nothing about same-sex marriage that makes it any less foolproof than heterosexual marriage. Of course, in a hetero marriage, two men can't marry for the benefits. Likewise, in a same sex marriage, a man and woman can't marry just for the benefits.

I think that sometimes in this kind of debate we get bogged down in technicalities, and we end up discussing marriage in very distanced, clinical terms. From reading the posts of some of the people who oppose same-sex marriage, we might conclude that they view marriage itself as nothing more than a form of contract that is completely divorced from emotion, that marriage serves only some scientific objective. I would ask us to look at our own marriages. Why did you get married? Was it because you performed a bunch of risk/benefit calculations? Was it because you decided to procreate and so sought out a woman with child-bearing hips (or a man with desirable genetic traits)? Or did you meet someone, fall in love with them, decide to get married because you loved them more than anything in the world? Most people marry people they love. I don't have any figures to support this, but my optimistic nature believes it to be true. There have always been people who married for selfish, financial, or practical reasons, but most people want to marry someone because they love that someone. Why should gay people not be allowed to do this? Why is it that a gay man cannot marry someone they love?

It is how people answer that last question that betrays their views on homosexuality. If we bring in incest or bestiality, it can only be because we group homosexuality with these other forbidden practices. And why? They are very different things. Most gay people tell us that they felt same-sex attraction from the moment they started feeling anything sexual at all. While we still haven't found a specific "gay gene," I think we can safely say that homosexuality is at least partly genetic in nature. Incest has been with us throughout history, but it is a fundamentally different thing. In extended families, it has often been a tool of politics. On an individual level, where there is attraction involved, it is happenstance. Someone isn't sexually attracted to their sister because they are related. Someone might become attracted to their sister, but not because they have a sexual orientation which causes them to find only family members attractive. The same is true with bestiality. I have never heard of a case where someone, upon going through puberty, finds themselves only sexually attracted to animals.

I'd also like to address the idea that same-sex marriage is somehow a "special" right. I just don't get that. If same-sex marriage were legal, it would mean everyone who wants to can marry someone of the same gender. You don't have to be gay. It would encompass the same group of people that heterosexual marriage covers - everyone. Gay people can marry people of the opposite sex, so heterosexual marriage is allowed for anyone who wants it. Likewise, same-sex marriage would be available for everyone who wants it. The "nightmare" scenario of me marrying my male roommate for benefits is no different than the "nightmare" scenario of me marrying my female roommate for the benefits. A law which allows mixed-race marriage could be seen as a "special" right - because it only applies to that group of people who desire a mixed-race marriage. A law that makes alcohol legal is a "special" right, because it only affects people who want to drink alcohol. Black people comprise about 10% of the population. In that sense, the Civil Rights Acts are all "special" rights. Saying that legalizing same-sex marriage would mean men would or could marry their brothers is as specious as saying that legalizing alcohol means people can then logically shoot up heroin.



Actually, I personally agree with you. Allowing those combinations is fine with me. I have been happily married to a woman I love for 16 years. If you want to marry your father, it won't affect my marriage, or my view of marriage. But that's a whole different ball of wax from what we are discussing here. I disagree that one necessarily dictates the other.

Let me demonstrate with a hypothetical. Suppose that marriage was illegal. Now, a group of people want to lobby for it to be legal to get married. A naysayer could use your same argument. If we allow men and women to marry, why then, we have to allow any man to marry any woman! Why, we could have men marrying their mothers or sisters! We could have three men marrying three women! If we allow legalized marriage, we would have to allow all of those things! Ridiculous, right? But why is that any more ridiculous than the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage means we have to automatically allow all these more bizarre combinations?

I do understand your point about the procreation aspect. Allowing two brothers to marry is different than allowing a brother and sister to marry, because of procreational reasons. My response is, so what? So what if DaytonRocker wants to marry his brother? Why should that be a problem? We don't require "proof of love" in marriage today. How would allowing brothers to marry be a problem? How many people do you think would actually do that? The taboo against incest is much, much stronger than the taboo against homosexuality. How many people would be willing to deal with the ostracism that would result when people know they are married to their brother? Or would we see shows like "Incestual Eye for the Non-incestual guy?"

Legalizing same-sex marriages does not mean we must become morally blasè about incest. Alcohol is legal, but we do not as a society approve of alcoholism. Driving is legal, yet we do not celebrate reckless drivers. Skydiving is legal, yet that hasn't forced us by some inexorable logic to legalize base jumping off of skyscrapers. Hardcore pornography is freely available, but that hasn't forced us to legalize child pornography.

I personally believe that you've made a point here sir.

Legalizing same-sex marriages does not mean that we become morally blase' about incest, but it does mean that we become morally blase' about same-sex marriages and homosexuality as a part of our society. I believe that this debate, and this issue as a whole in the United States is indicative of whether homosexuality is truly accepted or rather tolerated.

Room-mates are legal, but same-sex marriages are not. Life-partners are legal, but homosexual marriages are not. No one is attempting to barge into homes across the United States attempting to delve into the oddities of what happens within the walls and comforts of one's home, but marriage is a more open and public event.

Why do homosexuals call it "coming out of the closet"? If it were more acceptable, why would the closet even exist?

I believe that there are factions of the United States that believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable, while others are more tolerant as opposed to accepting. We've discussed how incest has been a part of Western Society's history, and even debated historical and biblical account of homosexuality. However, I believe that we've negated to acknowledge that some Americans believe it to be abnormal and wrong.

If some people didn't think this way, why would a state as large as Texas strike down an intitative to allow gay marriage? I presume that some would point fingers and insinuate ignorance, etc. However, I'd venture that many states if/when the vote comes to your booths will vote in a similar manner.

In a previous thread, QH, you mentioned that some politicians (excuse my paraphrasing) were afraid to do "the right thing" and vote for gay marriage. Did anyone ever consider that they (as well as their constituency) may not believe that this is the right thing????

People in America tolerate satanism (sp?), astrology, witchcraft, vampires, and other less-than-typical occurences. Does that make it acceptable? Is there a difference between tolerance and acceptance?

And you can do that right now with a woman, so what is your point? You could decide that you and your neighbor were better off by getting married and having a prenup in place. You don't share a bed or live in the same residence.

Now how often does that happen DR? I'm willing bet a considerable amount of money it is extremely rare, so rare in fact there probably aren't even stats for it because it is ridiculous.

Why would allowing same sex marriages change this scenario when you could do it right now with a woman - without the social stigma.

Vibiana, people don't get married, divorce, and die. Many (if not most) remarry. You've framed the divorce point as if people generally divorce and never marry again.

I was married to my ex-wife for 13 years. We had a son. We got divorced. I spent about 2 years dating and having fun before meeting my current wife. We got married, had a kid, and life couldn't be any better.

Of course, the divorce sucked. But if I had to do it all over again to be where I am now, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

No offense, but you really need to lighten up on the marriage = divorce. Because divorce = remarry to some.

edited to add:

I've already addressed that point in full. But just to summarize, women do the right thing and marry for love/children. Men would marry for cheaper beer.

I don't believe you have and that is a faulty argument in the first place. A man and a woman could decide that their situation with benefits, insurance, etc was compelling enough for a platonic marriage. That is available right now and it just doesn't happen. To suggest that it would all of a sudden start happening between men or women if gay marriage were legalized is completely ridiculous.

If you believe that men would marry each other in a platonic fashion please at least cite some sort of evidence to back this up other than your opinion. I have reviewed the thread and I don't find any, if it exists feel free to point it out.

Carlitoswhey,

First, let me address your gross manipulation of statements I've made regarding sodomy laws and marriage. The government can't prevent married people from having sex -- right to marital privacy. Whether there is an assumption that married people will have sex or not, is irrelevant -- the government can't prevent a married couple from having sex. It can prevent non-married couples from having certain types of sex... sodomy used to be one of them. Allowing same-sex couples to marry without removing sodomy laws puts the government in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, the government has an interest in preventing sodomy, on the other hand, it can't prevent sodomy if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. While this is no longer applicable to sodomy, it still applies to incest. I never stated that marriage legitimizes sex, I stated that the government can't prevent a couple from engaging in consentual sexual activity with each other -- even if that sexual activity is illegal. Marital privacy protects them from government intrusion into their sex life.



DaytonRocker's scenario doesn't get past the fact that there are laws against incest -- even if they can't reproduce or have no desire to have sex. There is a social taboo regardin incest it is not just related to procreation. So, DaytonRocker wouldn't have sex with his brother? Okay, can he prove to the government that hewouldn't? I don't think he could... so we end up in the same scenario as stated above. The government, if it allowed him to marry his brother would be unable to prevent him from having incestuous sex -- whether his actual intention is never to do so or not, the government has no guarantee that it wouldn't happen (only DaytonRocker's word). As it currently (for whatever reason) has an interest in preventing incestuous sex, it can prevent him from being married because of that inability and that inability alone. The valid State interest is in an ability to prevent siblings from having sex... the exclusion of sibling marriages (heterosexual or homosexual) is necessary because the State would be unable to prevent siblings from having sex if they were allowed to marry.

As for the male friend marrying a male friend situation... yes, it is a possiblity that this would occur -- I'm sure it will. But it currently occurs among men and women already in heterosexual marriages, so it can't be used as an valid reason to exclude same-sex marriage.

Of course, this situation begs the question (I've asked it many times before)... why would someone like DaytonRocker change his obviously deep rooted personal view of marriage and decide to marry his friend with the kids just so they can split the marriage benefits? Why wouldn't he tell his friend that he believes marriage is about procreation and the traditional family? Just because he can? This only goes to show that marriage will not be weakened by the fact that same-sex couples are allowed to marry, but by the choices made by heterosexuals. Yet again. If the majority of people in this country believe that traditional marriage is the way to go... why would they change that view when same-sex couples are allowed to marry? That would mean that they really didn't believe that traditional marriage was the way to go, wouldn't it? That's what doesn't make sense. So, in order for this scenario to occur enough times to weaken marriage, the majority of people would have to do this. All of these people who have very strong beliefs about traditional marriage would have to suddenly change their minds. If you were to take a poll in the South today about interracial marriage, what do you think the result would be? Do you think the majority would be for it or against it? I mean, if they felt it could be enforced? Do you realize that it took Alabama until the year 2000 to finally succeed in removing its constitutional ban on interracial marriage? That it still has a constitutional provision for racial segregation in education (even though federal law makes it moot). All attempts to remove this provision have failed. This would seem to indicate that belief systems do not change just because the law changes. If DaytonRocker would choose to marry a man simply because same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then I would question his beliefs regarding traditional marriage... they obviously are not that important to him.

So, just so I understand this correctly....let me summarize...

It's ok for two guys to sodomize each other, but it's a social taboo for me to be married to my brother because I can't prove we won't have sex.

This conversation reminds me of the scene where Harlan Williams and Ben Stiller are in the car in the movie "Something About Mary". Harlan William's great idea is "Seven Minute Abs". Ben Stiller agrees it's great, but asks what happens if somebody starts selling "Six Minute Abs"? Harlan Williams yells, "You can't do that! It's Seven Minute Abs", and starts twitching.

Carlitoswhey framed the question perfectly. If a hetero can marry the opposite sex and a gay person can marry the same sex, why can't a hetero marry a person of the same sex?

So, where do bisexuals fit into this? Is there some test we must take to qualify for marriage?

Also another pretty ridiculous question. Let's say that hypothetically only homosexual marriage was legal. Would you marry a man just so you could be "married" but still have a relationship with a woman?

I'm guessing your answer would be no because you'd find that vile and disgusting. That is the same way that homosexuals feel about the suggestion that they marry someone of the opposite sex. It makes for cute debate rhetoric but it proves that the person who suggests something like that doesn't know a thing about homosexuality and has probably never even interacted with someone who is homosexual.

I think you misunderstood entspeak. The difference would be that it is your brother. Instead of sodomy (legal), it would be incest (illegal). There is no reason to conflate the two. It is possible for sodomy to be legal and incest to be illegal. Indeed, a heterosexual person could marry someone of the same sex. Just like gays can marry people of the opposite sex. I might ask you, given that same-sex marriage is currently illegal, why can't a gay man marry his gay sister for the benefits? The reasoning is the same. One does not have to prove heterosexuality to marry someone today. However, society infers a marriage bed when there is a marriage. The state can't simply take your word for it that you don't want to have sex with your sister, only marry her. Likewise, you aren't allowed to have a kilo of heroin in your house - even if you swear you don't use it.

It may be valid to question whether incest between two men (or two women) ought to be illegal, given their inability to procreate, but that would be a completely seperate debate.



I disagree. It only 'proves' that Daytonrocker has a different opinion than you do. None of us know each other in person, and it is highly unfair for any of us to make such broad assumptions about others based on their opinions here. I think we can debate this topic with civility. Daytonrocker has raised some good points, and Carlitoswhey is right that this is a topic that deserves a national conversation. I am hopeful we will win the day by persuasion, not with a bludgeon.

I suppose I should commend aevans176 for being one of the few honest voices among those who oppose same-sex marriage. Can we be frank for a moment? The only reason that large majorities of Americans continue to vote against same-sex marriage is that they think that homosexuality is bad. This is why we keep getting these insane comparisons of homosexuality to "satanism" and "vampires."

This is, of course, nonsense. Same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are exactly the same when it comes to ethics. Any ethical system which denies this is wrong.

I disagree quark. If someone were to come into a debate topic and state something that everyone else knows to be so completely wrong such as "black people are genetically inferior" or the like I don't imagine you or anyone else would be jumping to defend them. This isn't much different.

I have plenty of friends who are homosexual who I know for a fact would find that suggestion offensive. A person cannot do something that runs completely against their very being. It may be an opinion but it is wrong, indefensible, not based in fact and needs to be corrected. I am not afraid to call a spade a spade and an opinion like that represents an ignorance of the subject. Arguments such as this have no place in a serious debate.

First, like Vicki, I would like to commend your openness - and, up to a point, your open-mindedness. I do acknowledge that some Americans believe homosexuality to be abnormal and wrong. Trust me, I'm reminded on a daily basis. Similarly, many Americans once believed that miscegenation was abnormal and wrong (and some still do), just as many believed that people with various disabilities were abnormal or that women working outside the home was wrong.

And this really is the crux of the debate. The overriding point is that such beliefs, by and large, are not rational. They are based on tradition or religion or, simply, "feelings". People who have these feelings will come up with all sorts of (often ludicrous) justifications for opposing certain changes within our society - we've seen many of them here - but that does not mean that they are right.

What our legislators and our courts must decide is which rights we, as a society, should secure and which we should deny. But I don't think that such decisions should be left to the "tyranny of the majority". Were that the case, our schools would still be segregated and there would still be no wheelchair access to most public buildings. Unless there is demonstrable damage done to others by securing rights for certain classes of people, our legislators and/or our courts should have no hesitation in doing so. Regarding gay marriage (while I'm not all that fussed about it one way or another myself), I have yet to see any rational argument put forward for opposing it. All of the hysterical slippery slope arguments and appeals to misreadings of scripture and so on are just desperate attempts to justify people's personal prejudices - the "belief" that homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.

Sure, there's a difference between acceptance and tolerance - and just not giving a damn what other people with their own lives. But your comparison of homosexuality to satanism and withcraft is more than just silly. Satanists and witches are not prohibited from marrying - so long as they're straight. On the other hand, supremely "acceptable" decent, law-abiding, Christian men and women are prohibited from marrying - if they happen to be gay.

If there's a possibility that marriage or civil union laws could be abused by same-sex partners, those abuses should be addressed. Otherwise, a prohibition of same-sex unions makes no more sense than a prohibition of opposite-sex unions. If one is rational.

Would not marriage only be as important as the people in the marriage make it out to be. The picture that is being painted is that marriage is a ritual that is done purely for a social stance. I am sorry, but with the millions of people that get marriages, I am sure you would find a vast amount of diversity in those peoples lifestyles. On an issue of tolerance, would not a marriage of some other religion then weaken the marriage of another marriage of different particular religious affinity? There are way to many points one could bring up that in being equal negate in my mind the idea that for some mysterious reason same sex unions or marriages would some how destroy hetero marriages.

On point that you can look on in that light, is if such were true, that marriage in particular being legal in the gay community would destroy hetero marriage is that such is legal in other cultures. If this claim was true such a correlation would become self evident in these cultures that do allow same sex marriage. Granted its not America, but as a country that celebrates freedom and diversity, why would this one particular image of that diversity be the mysterious bringer of doom to any particular social institution, besides the one of bias against same sex unions or marriage.

As pointed out many times over, tax representation has to much diversity in regards to this debate to be used against same sex unions. So does the ability for single people to adopt or have children in a non marriage mode and still obtain such tax representation. Again, the arguments against cannot find some superior ground in my mind to be used with positive action against same sex marriage.

Furthermore, the idea that some people find it disgusting personally does not sit well with me on why it should not be legal for same sex marriage and or unions. Using that line of logic, you cannot default in anyway the stance of racists, such as Hitler, or those that agreed with him, being its really the same things, discrimination, hatred and intolerance for something that does nothing truly to deserve that situation ultimately. If something could be pointed out besides personal speculation on why same sex marriage was such a threat, I may be able to elevate the position from something higher then viewing it as Hitler type thinking. Again, that argument could really be turned around on those that use it in way to many ways for me to take it to heart.

The other option is about if same sex unions become legal, then everything has to become legal. Well, with guns being legal I still cannot purchase a microwave bomb for home defense. I doubt to favor well using the argument that guns are legal, so why not. Same sex marriage is a different creature. It will not produce handicapped offspring for one. The other options that could be compared to such cannot really in a majority sense, being they are separate for the reason of difference, people that want to marry a cow, are not the same as two grown Americans wanting to share life together, even if they are of same sex.

About the whole issue of same sex marriage just being a desire to rip off the American tax payer or system at large, that argument is truly flawed, but then again its not like hetero couples would never think of such, or even view various incentives as they are, incentives for marriage, god no that never happens. Divorce also I guess could simply be explained away as a issue that exists purely from the fact homosexuals are alive and living, I would think not and I cannot find a reason why the arguments against are still being held.

That is the "Well if a man can marry a man, then why can't a man marry a block of cheese" argument. As you all know, this is a really bad version of a slippery slope argument. The other and more accurate name for the argument is the logical extreme argument, and thats the problem. It is NOT a logical extreme, it is a blatantly illogical extreme.

There are several countries, including my home country of Canada, where gay marriage is legal. There are dozens more where civil unions are legal. In NONE of those countries has it suddenly and inescapably become legal for a man to marry a block of cheese, or his cat, or his sister, or a dead horse, or whatever. Homosexuality is homosexuality. it is not incest, or necrophilia, or polygamy. They all may be generally related to sex, but that is all. Trying to assume that legalising one will somehow 'unavoidably' lead to legalising the rest is as inane as saying legalising homosexuality will lead to legalising rape, after all, they both involve sex, right?

The idea that legalising one thing will automatically lead to legalising other, vaguely related things needs to be proven, it cannot simply be asserted.

Similarily, when people assert that legalising marijuana will lead to legalising of all hard drugs, or that legalising euthenasia will lead to elimination of murder laws, one can legitimately simply say: "No, it won't, because society has a certain level of intelligence."

For a slippery slope argument to have any validity, there has to be a reasonable causal link between the steps. Since no society on the planet would legalise marriage between a man and a block of cheese, or a man and a dead body, simply asserting that there are the 'inevitable' sequels to legalising gay marriage is utterly absurd, and has no validity whatsoever.

This line of argumentation somehow presumes that gays not being allowed to marry is sime kind of legal lynchpin, without which all human sexual mores, laws and taboos will disintigrate.

The only predictable 'fallout' of legalising gay marriage is that gays will be allowed to marry. Guessing based on nothing that this will somehow lead to the fall of civilisation, the elimination of all laws and the Rapture on earth is just bad argumentation.

-----------------------

Equally foolish is the assertion that, 'if gays can marry, then men everywhere will call themelves gay and marry for tax purposes'. This is crazy.

Firstly, 93% of the population can legally marry, and yet people do not 'marry for tax purposes' very often at all. Why is that, and why can you assume that legalising gay marriage will suddenly lead people to take an action that they can already take, but never do? DaytonRocker responds to this point with the horrendous sexual steriotype that "women do the right thing and marry for love/children. Men would marry for cheaper beer." Apart from being a blanket assertion used to back up a blanket assertion, it is also a 50 year old insulting gender steriotype.

Secondly, while happily admitting that US society in general has a problem with homosexuality and that gays lifestyle is openly disliked in many parts of the country, this argument THEN goes on to assume that two straight guys will get married under 'gay marriage laws' for a quick tax break, effectively claiming to be gay. OK< take a step back and take a long deep breath. Can you seriously imagine a flood of straight men rushing to have a same sex marriage just for the heck of it? Would you do it? No, of course not. This argument, as well as again being an unevidenced blanket assertion, has no connection to reality.

Well said, and I apologize for simplifying / mischaracterizing your point (even though I quoted you at times verbatim ) You have consistently said that marriage confers a right to privacy that prohibits the government from coming into the bedroom (although that has certainly been challenged through the years).

But, you haven't answered this to my satisfaction. If you say it's a separate topic, fine, and DR and I are not bringing it up as a slippery slope. Just saying that we are changing marriage.
No offense but "social taboos" isn't a good enough answer for "compelling state interest." As election after election has proved, there is a "social taboo" surrounding gay marriage, which was rejected by voters on moral grounds in what, 18 out of 18 states? That's why we're debating.


The reason we are bringing this up is that many or most of the marriage laws were created specifically to deal with procreation. Child support, paternity laws, visitation rights, permission for medical treatment, bringing kids across the border, even incest laws are all specifically related to procreation. Forget the fact that 18% of marriages don't have kids - the fact is that most of the laws were written as if they do. That's why allowing same-sex marriage is changing marriage - advances in science have not been reflected in the law, and changes in social mores have not been reflected in the law. Forget whether I'm "for" or "against" gay marriage, the reason it weakens marriage is that it seems to make marriage about love and companionship. Which is fine, but let's decide that, and then change all the marriage laws that deal specifically with procreation, replacing them with "child rearing" or "family law."

If you think the incest parallels are ridiculous, surely you'll acknowledge the interracial marriage examples are equally ridiculous, because a black man and white woman can conceive a child as easily as a single-race couple.
This is where the whole "civil rights" argument breaks down. Every gay advocacy group uses the "LGBT" phrase, which includes bisexuals and cross-dressers/gender-indecisives. If you are "born" gay just like someone is born black, I say go get your civil rights. If you decide that you like having sex with men and women, or wearing dresses if you're a man, more power to ya. But that's behavior-based and not civil rights.


I thank you for the defense. Whether I have "never interacted" with a homosexual would really be funny if you knew me. If someone really believes that 2/3 or 3/4 of the American people are bigots because they don't want to redefine marriage, that could also be construed as a closed-minded. Frankly, this debate has made me lean much more towards the side of civil unions than I had before. My concern is the law regarding marriage as child-rearing vehicle. It's already weakening and I think it should be strengthened. Illegitimacy is killing neighborhoods and communities, and redefining kids out of marriage isn't going to help in my opinion.


I like this. How would you apply it to our ridiculous slippery slope arguments - polygamy, incest, etc.? I can see where this logic wouldn't apply to under-18's, but it would seem to apply to everyone else.


Women are prohibited from becoming priests. The vatican just forbade openly gay priests. From a religious perspective, gays cannot marry. Unless their Christian sect allows it. But why should that preclude civil unions?

Interesting point on acceptance vs. tolerance. I'd say that most Americans fall into the latter category, at least today. Which is where the conflict lies.

edited to add - a little levity from Saudi Arabia... link

You mean the dead horse that's being beaten in this thread? LOL

Since I suppose I would technically define myself as bisexual, although I have jokingly referred to myself as a "retired" lesbian or a "straight woman with a past," it seems hilariously ironic that if same sex marriage were legalized, I would be able to marry anyone of either sex ... but I'm not the marryin' kind. Ain't life funny sometimes ...

DR, I most emphatically do NOT believe that marriage always leads to divorce, or that divorcees never remarry. Please stop twisting my statements to suit your convoluted arguments. Also, whether a divorced person remarries or not, if he or she had children at home at the time of the divorce, they will be hurt by it, which is my point in the first place. Divorce can hurt adults, but it almost always hurts children.

The same-sex marriage/incestuous marriage comparison will always fail. After all, the same arguments against incest -- that people find it disgusting -- can be leveled against homosexuality, at least in a lesser sense. The difference is that MORE people will find incest disgusting than homosexuality, but I still believe the two are apples and oranges.

As for someone's question about "the closet," I think you'll find fewer gays and lesbians in the closet nowadays. That's due to education, which has enabled people to understand that -- surprise! -- gays and lesbians are just as normal as straight people. Who'da thunk it.

carlitoswhey ... I agree with you regarding illegitimacy, BUT ... because your average newlyweds Joe and Tim won't be adopting out-of-wedlock children (unless the laws change, which is another argument), the responsibility for strengthening marriages in which procreation is conventionally possible -- in other words, heterosexual marriages -- lies with those heterosexuals. And the responsibility for not having out-of-wedlock babies lies with unmarried, heterosexual couples OR with unmarried women who use donor sperm or whatever.

It is possible to quote someone verbatim and still manipulate the meaning of that quote -- it isn't the quotes that are the issue. But thank you for the apology.



The social taboo that is being discussed in this debate appears to be homosexuality -- not just same-sex marriage. And I would argue that for the majority of people, the social taboo on homosexuality was the moral issue at question in those elections you refer to. If there was no social taboo regarding homosexuality, there would be no issue regarding same-sex marriage. Likewise, there was a social taboo regarding interracial marriage. The constitutional problem stems from the fact that, despite a social taboo, there is no government support for that taboo. People keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act as though that meant anything in terms of the legalities of the Loving case -- if you look at the case, you will find absolutely no mention of the 1964 legislation. But you will find mention of the 14th Amendment. People of color had the right to choose the person they married -- despite the social taboo. This, of course, is subject to valid State interests. An existing law gives the government a valid State interest. It has an interest in upholding that law... whether that law is just or not as long as it exists, the government can claim it as a valid interest. So, while you can argue that social taboo is not enough to keep incest laws in place, you can't claim that social taboo is not enough to keep siblings from marrying. The law keeps siblings from marrying. As long as that law exists, the government has a valid State interest in upholding that law -- even to the extent of excluding sibling couples from marrying because the result would be an inability to uphold that law. If that changes... if the incest laws are removed then siblings could and rightfully should be allowed to marry -- the government would then have no valid State interest in excluding them from access to that right. So, let incestuous couples prove that social taboos aren't enough to justify incest laws. I mean, if incest laws are removed, do you think it right to prevent a man from marrying his sister? What would be the justification? Social taboo? But the legal support for that taboo would've been lifted, right? People might still feel that incest is taboo, but it's no longer illegal... so who cares what people think, right? If it isn't illegal, the government can't prevent them from doing it. If it isn't illegal, the government can't prevent an incestuous couple from marrying. Why? It can't remove the legal support of the taboo by repealing incest laws and then enforce a legal support of the taboo by preventing incestuous marriage. If incest is legal, incestuous marriage should be legal. But even this can have limitations based on valid State interest: even if incest laws are changed, a father can still be prevented from having sex with or marrying his under age daughter -- because of a valid State interest in protecting children from abuse.



Child support, visitation rights, permission for medical treatment, bringing kids across the border all relate to child rearing in general and not exclusively to procreation. The only, and I can't believe I have to state this yet again after trying for months with Hayleyanne... the only law in the marriage contract itself that deals exclusively with procreation is the legal obligation regarding presumed paternity (if your wife has a child, it is legally presumed to be yours) -- and even that has been successfully challenged in some states -- California, for example. That is it. I defy you to find me another. I asked Hayleyanne, repeatedly, to provide another... she couldn't. Perhaps you can? And paternity laws only apply to couples who procreate and not to couples who adopt. Allowing for same-sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on paternity laws.



The problem is that you are making marriage restrictions entirely about procreation without any concrete proof that the government should be able to make restrictions related solely based on the ability to procreate.



Same-sex marriage does not redefine kids out of marriage. Illegitimacy is a heterosexual issue because it is impossible for a same-sex couple to have an illegitimate child. Banning same-sex marriage does nothing to strengthen marriage in this regard. Keeping same-sex couples out of marriage decreases illegitimacy... how?



The Church would have nothing to do with civil unions. A civil union would be a secular arrangement. But, as you know, I'm against the idea of civil unions.

You are now taking my remarks completely out of context. This is what prompted the original statement:


This is what I was referring to, not the issue of gay marriage in general. To suggest that homosexuals solve their problems by simply marrying someone of the opposite sex represents an ignorance of their situation of the highest order and it would be offensive to a homosexual to suggest something like that. It would probably be similarly offensive for me to suggest you marry a man or have sexual relations with one to solve some problem.

As far as the rest of your comments, I think Wertz has made the best statement here:

But for the state to encourage anyone to marry anyone should not be offensive. When your aunt Judy said "I hope you get married someday" was she being offensive, or is marriage something to aspire to?

Having, raising, and staying with a child, likely buying a home, keeping a job and paying taxes are rational reasons. You feel that denying homosexuals that right is only based on morals or feelings. I maintain it has to do with kids. Let's say you are right. What is the threshold whereby the state should not just accept but encourage an activity? When 2/3 of people find it immoral? 1/2? A majority of registered voters?


I also thought this was eloquent. Let's say that most Christians, Jews, and Muslims feel homosexuality is immoral. Do those voters have any right at all to enforce their morality on society via laws?

Why do the majority find same-sex marriage immoral? Because it doesn't produce children? Or is it because same-sex couples engage in sexual conduct that disturbs them and doesn't produce children? It is the latter, actually. However, in this case, what the majority feels about homosexual conduct is irrelevant. The fact is, homosexual conduct is not illegal. This removed the ability of the government to exclude same-sex couples from marriage based on the view of homosexual conduct as immoral. You seem to be forgetting that marriage is a fundmental right. It's not a matter of whether the State should encourage same-sex couples to marry or not. It is a matter of whether the State is within its rights to exclude same-sex couples from marriage under the Constitution. The government can't legalize sexual activity that doesn't produce children and then prevent same-sex couples from marrying because their sexual activity doesn't produce children. Not unless it can prove that procreation (as opposed to child rearing -- which includes the non-procreative options) is the reason marriage is regulated. But it can't do that. There is nothing left in the laws regarding marriage to support this idea.



Only to the extent that the laws do not unnecessarily violate another individual's Constitutional rights.

Well, in the extreme, if the majority gets so exorcised over this issue, they could either re-criminalize homosexuality (not a chance), or pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (less likely, but this would moot your argument). Indeed several states are doing this now.


You also said here that marriage was a "fundamental right," I believe basing this on the Loving case, based on the 14th Amendment (equal protection clause).


Various states restrict the right of marriage, regarding first cousins, age limits, etc. Why is same-sex marriage a Constitutional issue and those other limits are not?

cite

When the Constitution was written, of course, Richard Loving could have owned Mildred Jeter. Richard could have married a free woman, and Mildred could have married a fellow slave (with some difficulty no doubt). I doubt that any preacher or judge in Virginia in 1789 would have married either of them to someone of their same gender. Nor did this issue arise in the Loving case, so it wouldn't be settled case law either, to my knowledge.

Some people disagree with incest, polygamy, smoking marijuana, with drinking too much, with smokers, ... and yes, satanism and drinking blood.

I believe for this debate to get so poignant as to portray one's ethics in an air of omnipotence is no more open-minded than any other person on this board (or in your own town,etc).

If you believe that Satanists are wrong, who are you to judge??
I personally find cigarrettes abhorrid, but love happy hours. I learned a long time ago (like conception!) that living in the South means that going to happy hour often involves being exposed to cigarrette smoke.
Does that mean that I accept cigarrette smoke and believe it to be ok, or does it mean that I tolerate smokers?

Frankly, this thread (in my opinion) has turned into the left telling the right that we're ignorant, unaccepting, and often wrong. I personally don't believe in anything but democracy, and that the American people should speak as to how their nation should be run. Even that gets made fun of... as if it's absurd that when TX voted against homosexual marriage, that the rest of the country could efficiently do the same and ride the current of their cast ballots.

IF there are people in America that believe that it's wrong to drink blood (i.e. be a modern-day vampire), I'd like to see a debate on how this affects the rest of the America. What about Satanism? How does it hurt anyone? It seems like a "fringe" idea to some, but surely not to satanists.

For homosexuals and those that aid the "cause", their sexuality is no different than anyone else. Is Satanism any different than being a methodist?
I guess it all depends upon which side of the fence you happen to stand on. I personally carry a sword of ambivolence on this issue, but believe that there isn't any wrong side.

Biological arguments can be made against the feasibility for homosexuality, and people make their own ethical agreements for and against homosexuality. It all boils down to values, of which no one can really dictate where another American should or shouldn't stand in the context of right/wrong...

Well, they can't re-criminalize homosexuality as a result of Lawrence. So, yes, not a chance there. Passing a State Constitutional amendment does not resolve the conflict with the Federal Constitution which supercedes it. In fact, Alabama only recently removed its Constitutional ban on interracial marriage, the fact that Alabama had a Constitutional Amendment banning it did not resolve the Federal Constitutional problem. The same situation exists here. Also, the chances of there being a Federal Marriage Amendment are slim due to State's Rights issues.



No. I don't mention anywhere in that post that I believe that marriage is a "fundamental right" based on the Loving case. I have explained many times in this thread why I believe that marriage is a fundamental right -- even in direct response to a question from you on the topic.



I have never claimed that these are not issues involving the Constitution. Never. How many times do I have to say this before you will actually register it: the State can violate a Constitutionally protected fundamental human right if the State has a valid State interest for violating it and the violation is necessary in order to further that interest -- that's the kicker... the violation must be necessary in order to further the interest.

I was referring to a very specific suggestion carlito and it may not have even been your original point, but it was how DaytonRocker summarized it that is a problem. He stated (and attributed it to you) that if homosexuals want to get married they should just marry someone of the opposite sex. I don't know how that is supposed to have any relevance to this debate in support of any argument but it is a bad thing to say.

Found it.



Hmm. Doesn't say anything about limitation due to sex. I wonder how much they haggled about this in 1948

There are lots of debatable platitudes in this document. Article 12 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. " would seem to ban journalism (and maybe Congress / Parliament) in most Western countries. I'm not sure the above passage makes a compelling case for same-sex marriage. Indeed, it would be as easy to argue that part (3) actually makes the case for a "defense of marriage" style Amendment.

To keep up with my ridiculousness streak, I'm editing to add that the above only refers to "men and women." Which clearly discriminates against the transgendered community. After they achieve bathroom-labeling equality, you just know that they are moving onto marriage next.

Out of curiosity, at the time of the changes, what was the US popular sentiment (or democratic will, as you call it) towards desegregation of schools? Allowing inter-racial marriages? Giving women the vote? Allowing blacks in the military?

Since popular opinion was against every one of those changes at the time they were made, I assume you oppose them all?


Oh, and to be honest, I get tired of people playing the 'democratic will of the people card' only when it suits them. The US has shown in opinion poll after opinion poll for decades that it favours legal abortions, so why does the right satill oppose them? Does the 'democratic will of the people' only apply when it happens to be something you agree with?

Anyways, back on topic: Public sentiment was against most if not all of the major equality and civil rights initiatives in the last century or more, so I would assume by your above statement that you oppose every single one of them?

Carlitoswhey,

Just because, historically, nobody conceived of same-sex marriage does not make marriage any less a right. I'm sure that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn't conceive of the possibility of that it would be used to allow black men to marry white women. Upholding the historical... traditional view is definitely not a valid State interest. Traditions change, history becomes the present... things change. Just because nobody conceived of the day when sodomy would become legal doesn't mean marriage is not a fundmental right and it makes the government no less accountable for the manner in which it restricts access to that right.

Vermillion,

Interestingly enough, in Alabama they still have a Constitutional Amendment upholding racial segregation. All attempts to remove this Amendment have not succeeded. Public opinion in Alabama is still very much in favor of segregation. It took them until the year 2000 to remove their Constitutional Amendment banning interracial marriage.

I am not one of those people, as long as these activities do not harm others. My point was that you selected activities which are normally thought of as disgusting by most people. Whether you intended it or not, what you conveyed was something like the statement "Gays are just like vampires!" I think you can understand why this is a problematic impression to convey.

Look -- suppose I said "Let's encourage homosexuality, the way we encourage high intelligence." Wouldn't you say that this was a silly analogy? In the same way, comparing homosexuality to vampirism and so on is silly.



Guilty as charged. I am not open-minded on this issue.



I don't. I have no problem with Satanists, as long as they do not harm others. Again, like it or not, you are saying something like "Homosexuals are just like Satanists!" Why compare same-sex relationships to things that have nothing to do with them?




You tell me. I don't even tolerate smoking in my face, because it harms me. Same-sex marriage harms nobody, and helps many people. Do you see the difference?



In no way do I wish to suggest that you are ignorant or "unaccepting" (whatever that might mean.) My experience tells me that you are an intelligent, good person. On this particular issue, I must stand my ground and say, yes, you are terribly wrong. You certainly have the right to tell me I am terribly wrong. And, if it makes you feel better, there is no doubt that most Americans agree with you.



Again, I must ask -- why compare homosexuality to Satanism and vampirism instead of, say, musical talent or mathematical skill? Am I being paranoid that it is only because you think all these things are bad, and that many people people agree with you? I don't think these things are bad, as long as nobody is harmed; but why mention them at all?



Absolutely right. This is what I believe, passionately. You are free to disagree.



Nope. You are free to disagree.




Do you really not believe that my opinion is wrong? That would only be natural. If you genuinely do not think there is a wrong side, why express an opnion at all?



I have to interrupt and say here that I strongly disagree. You might have a point if 100% of all human beings were strict homosexuals; however, the plain truth is that there is no shortage of people being born on this planet. (Frankly, I have to say that same-sex relationships are slightly better than opposite-sex relationships, since they avoid the serious problem of unwanted pregnancy. However, I am willing to "tolerate" and "accept" heterosexuality as well.)



Sure. All I can say is that, in my opinion, every argument which I have ever seen which attempted to make a case that heterosexuality was somehow better than homosexuality was an extraordinarily feeble one, which melted into nothing after a moment's thought. You may disagree.



Well, if you think I am wrong, you should tell me so. I would say that it is your duty to tell me so. I will return the favor.

Well if people really did accept live and let live this debate would be non existent as the homosexual community would not have to suffer bias in the form of law in a particular nation they inhabit.

And that in the end is really the issue. I find it astonishing that so much fuss is being kicked up about the ability of a group that is 7-10% of the population to, in private, take action that will have NO impact on anyone else. In fact, if they legalised Gay marriage tomorrow,and the media did not report it, I am willing to bet that the American population would nevr even know there had been a change, so little impact would this have on their lives.

The very idea that somehow allowing a small percentage of the population to marry would cause the overthrow of 500 years of tradition, destroy the institution of marriage, annihilate human morality and make lions lie down with lambs is laughable.

Those nations that have legalised gay marriage have realised, it makes no difference to anyone at all, whatsoever, except to those gys getting married.

The 14th Amendment was passed specifically in response to Southern States' efforts to discriminate against blacks (the black codes, etc.) They may or may not have thought about it, but at least it is a logical extension.

I don't know about popular opinion polls at the time, but women's suffrage was passed as the 19th Amendment. Meaning that 2/3 of Congress and 36 state houses passed it. Given that the voters at the time were predominantly male, Congress and the state houses had to stand for re-election, and that obviously 99% of women would have supported it, I think it's safe to say that this indeed had public support. Did it take many years? Yes it did. It also took 30 years to pass the 26th Amendment allowing 18-20 year-olds to vote. Our democracy moves slowly, as it was designed to by people smarter than you and me.

Well, most of the "right" personally oppose abortion because it's murder. And we get "tired" of people ignoring the abuses that happen when the courts "find" rights in our country's Constitution. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example as to why we should pass laws instead of finding "rights." There is a difference between abortion remaining legal, and abortion becoming a constitutional "right" which, as we see in New Hampshire today, even extends to 12-year-olds who don't have to tell their parents. Is it really far-fetched to say that finding "privacy rights" in our constitution applied to even 12-year-olds seeking hospital treatment clearly demonstrates the dangers of letting courts 'find' such rights? What more of a slippery slope example do you need than that poor mother who testified that she got a call from the hospital asking permission to "save" her daughter - they couldn't operate without parental permission to save her life from complications incurred during her daughters "privacy right" abortion. Under the law, that hospital couldn't even give her daughter an aspirin but they could Hoover out her "fetus" incurring whatever medical risk without even checking with mom first. If you and I were debating Roe v. Wade in 1974 and I brought this up you would call it an absurd slippery slope argument. You want absurd, I give you the Supreme Court of the United States.

To pretend that there isn't a next target after courts "find" this gay marriage right is to deny reality. Our societal goalposts are being moved by groups like NOW and the ACLU and frankly who knows where they are headed.

I'm all for making gay marriage legal if that's what we want. I just don't want us to look at 200-year-old documents and find a gay marriage "right" like they did in Massachussetts (or in Roe v. Wade). That is my only complaint. Please, why can't we pass laws regarding this subject and stop calling the majority names. We've got three branches of government - hold them accountable and have them do their jobs for a change.

You didn't answer my question at all by the way, with that exception these are all examples of the courts ruling against the will of the majority, so I asume you think they were wrong and you oppose those changes?

And to your point, yes the US democracy was designed by very smart people, and an INTEGRAL part of that design was a Judiciary that was not subject to the whims of public opinion that could make decisions on what was right and what was wrong, even if the 'majority' disagrees.

They were indeed very smart people.



Not true at all. Most of 'the right' opposes abortion because in their opinion they believe it is murder. However, the democratic majority of the country disagrees. You see? this is EXACTLY what I am talking about, according to you, the will of the majority MUST be obeyed, as long as it conforms to what you personally believe, if not then it is to be ignored, is that how it works?



Thats a wonderful doom and gloom assertion, but it has little basis in reality. Allowing gay marriage will legalise gay marriage, and that is all, just like in every other country that has legalised gay marriage.



Because sometimes the majority deserves to be called names. This may not be one of those cases, I don't know, but sometimes the courts are there to tell people what is best for them despite themselves. The US was against Inter-racial marriage, but the courts decided that, democracy or no, the constitution was there for a reason even if the will of the majority disagrees with what it states.

So you are saying that there is no right to marry. That men and women do not have the right to choose who they wish to marry. Remember, I'm not saying that the government can't restrict that choice... they can. But in this country, the government has to be very specific and is very limited in the way it can restrict that choice because that choice involves a fundamental human right... the right to marry. This is not a new right. It is the removal of a prohibition on an existing right... the right to marry. Same-sex couples, at the moment, are not allowed to marry. Meaning they are prohibited from engaging in the contract of marriage -- a fundamental human right. It is not a new right. To claim that somehow it is a new right is absurd.

When women were allowed to vote was that a new right? Or was it that they gained access to an existing right: the right to vote? It was the latter.