Bikerdad wrote;


Applying everything as a political battle between the left and the right in respects to current American politics will only muddy and bog down individual issues actually receiving any attention as an individual issue.

We are not arguing all the points that have settled into different pools of political thought, we are debating overall why same sex couples should not be able or be able to obtain legal representation of being a couple, or a marriage if you like.

From my independent political view, I cannot find a reason besides bias for not allowing such, as in every argument against seems to really have no ground, exists purely in the realm of speculation, and as the debate has gone on it seems the bias factor has become more prevalent in the aspect of being the true blockade to in my opinion this aspect of cultural advancement. It becoming legal in my mind would not cause any harm and or change anything that is currently occurring today or tomorrow in regards to baby making and or heterosexuals as individuals living life.

It is a view that is my own for in one reason I do not agree with the current strategy or war in Iraq, yet I do not mind the idea of people that are positively known as terrorists being tortured, so with that I shall end my post.

As the one arguing for change, you're the one who has to convince the majority that the benefits to society from gay marriage justify using the power of the state to force others to provide those benefits when they don't want to.

Are you prepared to kill a business owner who refuses to provide health coverage to homosexual "spouses", and is prepared to resist court ordered seizure of his business resulting from his refusal? Extreme hypothetical? Perhaps, but perhaps not given the accurate predictions in the past that have been dismissed as "slippery slope" by gay activists. Back at the dawn of the gay rights movement, opponents warned that gay activists wouldn't be satisfied with tolerance (the real thing, i.e., "I believe you're wrong, in error, etc, but will not harm you due to some greater good), but would demand acceptance, including the ultimate form of acceptance, the social sanction of marriage. "no, we don't want that, we only want to be left alone."

Spare me the challenge of reviewing a 350 post topic and briefly explain how its irrelavent. If the argument is "we want the same rights as heterosexuals", then they have the same rights already. Heterosexuals can marry members of the opposite sex, so can homosexuals. Heterosexuals can only marry one member of the opposite sex at a time, ditto for homosexuals. Hetersexuals cannot enter into incestuous marriages (the degree of relationship varying by state), nor can homosexuals. Etc, etc. If the argument is "we want the right to marry anybody we want", well, that would certainly fall under the rubric of "special right", because heteros don't have that right. If the argument is "we want the right to marry the one we love", well, newsflash, but the government doesn't give a damn whether or not you love the person you marry, only that both parties meet certain criteria. Age, competence, relationship, and sex are the criteria. If "loving" someone is allowed to trump the other criteria, then again, you're asking for a special right, and even worse, you're placing the government into the distinctly illiberal place of ascertaining the heart of another. I would assume that in order to use "love" as a criteria, you would have to give the government authority to judge such an incredibly subjective matter. That idea scares the hell out of me, and I would hope that it scares the hell out of you as well.

This is irelevant. It used to be that black people had the same rights as white people: the right to marry anyone of the same race. Does this mean that anti-mescegnation laws are just? So the "we all have the same rights" argument, in itself, is meaningless.

Banning same-sex marriage in effect prohibits marriage based on sexual orientation. It means that the only way gay people can marry is to wed people to whom they, by definition, cannot be romantically or sexually attracted. It is even more restrictive in this sense than a ban on interracial marriage.



My understanding is that same-sex marriage proponents want the legal ability to marry the one, single, non-relative person who also wishes to marry them, regardless of either person's gender...whether the state thinks they love each other or not. So why must the state "testing for the presence of love" come into the argument?

No actually. Firstly, doing the right thing does not need to 'benefit' society, it is simply the right thing to do. There is discrimination, we should eliminate it.

Secondly however, even though it is entirely unecessary, if you insist on knowing how gay marriage will 'benefit' society, I will tell you. 7-10% of the population now has the option of getting married, the same option as everyone else, and they will be happier and an injustice will be removed. The other 90-93% of the population will notice NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to their lives, in fact if the media had not told them gay marriage was legal, they would peobably never even realise it.

Thus, a net benefit to society.



Come on Bikerdad, keep some kind of grip on reality. Thats not an extreme hypothetical, thats just madness. Kill a buisness owner who refuses to provide health coverage? Are you even trying to be serious anymore?




Well, the substance of your absurdist argument was already dealt with by Robert, that kind of obviously see-through 'pretend rights' has been used as an argument to deny rights for generations.

And the oft used but never substantiated argument that is you allow men to marry, then instantly and automatically men will be allowed to marry dead horses, or cheese, or the brooklyn Bridge, has been dealt with, and as yet nobody has tried to deal with my arguments on the topic, though that has not stopped them from repeating the same assertions over and over again...

Kill a business owner? Bikerdad you are arguing (incorrectly according to evidence cited by Vermillion) that homosexuals only make up 1 to 3% of the population. Even if the number is higher, how do you think that is going to "kill" business owners? Just because gay marriage is legal doesn't mean that every homosexual couple would go out and get married.

Furthermore, most major corporations already offer good benefits for domestic partnership situations so it wouldn't be a big change. If you want to know which ones go check out hrc.org.


That argument has already been made, several times in fact, in this thread. I don't feel the need to repeat it here when you can read some of the points made by others by going a few pages back in the topic. You are suggesting that there is some harm to society by this happening. If that is the case then lay out your points and tell us about it. Many of the arguments may be repeated but you haven't shown sufficient reason for your arguments to have merit.

Being a government is a system of laws that predicates or at least attempts to aspects of human behavior through various means in a sense its all a collection of special rights that are subjective to whomever has enough energy I guess to control.

In a basic sense of pure libertarian structure, or anarchy, or every person for him or herself, none of this would be an issue, as it would not be a government enforcing in turn peoples individual beliefs on each other via whomever again has enough energy to control such.

giving the idea that this part of the planet namely America was inhabited by homo sapiens of this particular culture, then slowly evolved into a republic with constitution and aggregates of such, it was all by human endeavor that any of this came about, or more on people basically dong things, metabolic things

Anyways in essence a libertarian society is in a perpetual state of existence to me. Its called homo sapiens going through the life cycle basically. its lends to the creation of our history and all that good stuff, like Rome, Egypt, all that human stuff if you get my point.

I find a great majority of all this was probably taking into consideration when drafting the constitution, all that liberty, happiness, the people being created equal argument and so on, or basically attempting to make a for lack of better words, a "free society" that America claims to have.

I do not think such worked out, giving human ignorance of a great many things including and of course not limited to ourselves. So we have to have some form of organized structure that anchors or again basically provides some form of a semaphore of signals for daily living. Call it laws, or a government, or a religion, or an instructional video, I don’t really care, the point is it exists, even if our "free society".

So basically, what is the crux then for being anti homosexual weddings. I don’t find anything in a negative sense that can be used. Maybe if being homosexual meant you were also a cannibal that spewed fire at nuns you might have a case. The other objective meaning to it is there really is no negative aspect to them, and really its called bias. These people holding bias then want to use this central node of control to make sure such bias is regulated in the form of law to make sure these people receive special treatment. Such special treatment is to make sure that the are basically segregated from living the normal life in America in terms of what the government attempts to afford citizens, like ability to work, get married, obtain services from the private sector.

This bias has a long and glorious history in our society, its not anything new. As advances are made bring homosexuals up to par in regards to law, you find this community with the bias feelings of course attempting to keep control, which of course feeds into this debate because its that same old face with some new reason to keep that hope alive.

Its always had nothing more then bias to it, the entire history of it in America is rooted in bias.

So I guess the question comes down to really how free is America. With the last horrific moment of attempting to change the constitution to reflect an extremely liberty limiting add on, I don’t really put any form of trust in the anti homosexual side at all. They do not care about much anything past making sure homosexuals do not have equal treatment, not special rights, and by doing this, it is in fact a group of Americas, in our “free society” being segregated and marked for special treatment.

No one is asking people that are against homosexuals to go marry the same sex, or even raise their kids to like it. That is not being forced on anyone, the reality is people with bias are attempting to access the power government affords to in turn invade other peoples lives and tell them what they can or cannot do.

The fundamental unresolved issue appears to be the reason people get married and reason(s) society sanctions marriage. Many (like me) believe that marriage is about establishing the most stable environment for conceiving and raising children. Typical marital benefits appear to be consistent in supporting that notion.

But that premise has been soundly rejected because many marriages do not and cannot have children.

So, the reason switched to sex. Can we not safely reject that reason for the same reasons as stated with children? Many married couples do not and cannot have sex.

According to all arguments, sex or children is not a requirement to be married. That leaves us with basically, nothing. No other reason I can think of exists that gender and or relationship (friend, sibling, etc) makes any difference. If marriage and sex has nothing to do with marriage, what does "gay" have to do with marriage?

Given that, why should not any group of people be allowed to marry?

No, not true at all. Constitutionally, the burden is on the State (and therefore on those who oppose same-sex marriage) to provide justification for the exclusion. That's the way it works.

DaytonRocker


Really? What are the benefits afforded by the civil marriage contract that relate exclusively to procreation? Please leave out the ones related to raising children and only mention the ones related exclusively to conception.



As soon as the issues surrounding incest are resolved, they should be allowed to marry. As soon as the issues surrounding polygamy are resolved, they should be allowed to marry. We all have the right to marry the individual of our choice... however that choice can be limited by the State. That's the way it works.

As I stated a few posts ago and you never responded to... it doesn't really matter whether you believe a marriage is about children or it is about love/sex an argument can be made for gay marriage either way.

So let's go with your preference. You are focusing overly much on the "conceive" part of the equation which only takes a few seconds and not enough on the "raising" part which takes 18 years and up. I'd argue that raising children is a lot more important than conceiving them. There are more than enough children in this country that need homes and loving parents without every marriage being required to conceive children.

Homosexual couples often are parents. They adopt children or they have them artificially conceived. Your logic says they should be married if the state's interest is children. These families deserve the same support and benefits that any heterosexual couple enjoys. That is, if you really care about what is best for the children and not about your personal beliefs...

Sorry, bd, but you are just wrong - quite wrong. The post-Stonewall movement has ALWAYS been about civil rights and equality: equal rights, equal opportunity, equal responsibilities, equal treatment under the law. ALWAYS. I was there. I was a member of both the Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activists Alliance from the early seventies and, later, the Gay Coalition, which were the three largest and most influencial organizations from their inception through the eighties. I was an editor on New York City's first gay newspaper and a contributor to its first gay news magazine. And I knew members of the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, formed in the fifties. Your notion that the movement was ever merely "please stop beating us to death and we'll shut up" is pure, unadulterated fiction. The gay liberation movement was never - ever - about merely being "tolerated". It was - and remains - about equality.

I don't know who these alleged opponents were that you claim were getting their panties in a twist over the slippery slope to gay marriage, but we certainly never heard about them. At the time, our greater concern was getting homosexuality decriminalized. I have no doubt, though, that if there were hysterics screaming "Oh, no - we can't stop imprisoning gays or they'll be demanding that we let them get married, have sex with minors, burn down churches, and change the colors of the flag to pink, white, and lavender" you probably knew them.


No, bikerdad, you spare us the challenge of reviewing a thread in which we've already been participating in order to reiterate for the third or fourth time arguments that have already been addressed.

When entering a discussion, it is common courtesy to familarize oneself with that discussion specifically so that one is not repeating points that have already been raised and thoroughly debated or asking questions that have already been answered. If someone informs you of the fact that something you are raising has already been discussed within "the last few pages", the appropriate answer is "I'm sorry. You're right - I should review the thread rather than wasting everyone's time." not "Spare me". If you don't want to be part of the debating community or if you feel that every discussion should be tailored to your personal needs and desires or if you simpy can't be bothered taking an interest in what others have said before you, perhaps you should think twice before posting. I know I would. Indeed, it's one of the reasons I don't participate in many threads. I know there's hardly a single thread on homosexuality that you can resist, but if you are so interested in the subject why not take the time to see what others actually have to say about it?

Besides, you have already raised exactly the same arguments in previous discussions of gay marriage and had them thoroughly answered - here, for example, and here. Interestingly, you began your first post in the latter thread, "Excuse me if I repeat what someone else has said, since I haven't taken the time to read the entire thread." Maybe you should not only read threads before responding to them, but also read the responses to your posts in previous threads. It might save you having to make the same arguments over and over and over - never mind repeating the arguments of others over and over and over.


Oh, really? Where are these criteria stated? There is no national definition of marriage. Another newsflash: there's nothing in the Constitution that says, "And, by the way, marriage means one man and one woman." The fact is that, in most states, the only criteria for marriage are age, competence, and relationship. It is only when courts intervene that the criteria are changed - to exclude homosexuals from the right to marry.

In Kentucky's Jones v. Hallahan in 1973, for example, the Court of Appeals noted that the state statutes relating to marriage did not include a definition of marriage at all. The judges resorted to three dictionary definitions, most of which at the time mentioned "men" and "women". As of today, most dictionaries define marriage as being between "two people", so presumably a new case in Kentucky would uphold the right of two men or two women to marry.

In Pennsylvania's De Santo v. Barnsley in 1984, it was again the courts that defined marriage as being between men and women exclusively - both the trial court and the Superior Court arbitrarily decided that, since there was no legal definition of marriage, same-sex partners could not be considered married by common law.

In Dean v. District of Columbia in 1995, it was again an Appeals Court that defined marriage as exclusively heterosexual.

In case after case, where this has come up, the courts have recoginized that THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE STATING THAT IT IS EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN OPPOSITE SEX PARTNERS - apart from those states that have recently passed legislation specifically to deprive some of their citizens of the right to marry. Otherwise, it has been the courts that have so defined marriage. But, then, you knew that: it's a point you raised yourself in a previous thread on gay marriage.

In any event, bikerdad, the only way that you can possibly state that one of the criteria of marriage is based on gender is if you are a big fan - a huge fan - of "judicial activism" (or, as you called them in a previous thread, "judicial dictats"). Are you? If so, I trust we'll never hear you disagreeing with the decisions of the Vermont and Massachusetts Supreme Courts. Right?

Well to be honest, Wertz, there are only 7 states remaining that have gender-neutral marriage definitions or have no legal definition of marriage at all. Most other states redefined marriage to exclude the possibility of same-sex marriage starting in 1973 -- or they added a legal definition of marriage. The issue is whether or not those legal redefinitions of marriage were Constitutional.

Often?.... I am going to need to see some data proving that Homosexual couples are 'often' parents. The word often meaning more couples are parents raising children than not. Please provide this data

If you want to find a site where said data is tracked feel free to supply it, that isn't necessary to prove my point. In fact I'm not even aware of such data being tracked. Adoption by homosexual parents is legal in many states today and therefore if the state's interest is in providing marriage to protect children then they should be offering marriage to these couples.

Once again that is purely looking at the state's interest not people using that as a crutch for their own religious and personal beliefs. right back at ya.

Of course it is necessary to prove it... you made a statement that homosexual couples 'often' raise children. I would like that backed up with factual data or retract the statement.

So, just to be clear...

I believe what you're saying is, is that heterosexual and homosexuals often adopt children and therefore, should be eligible to marry.

Is marriage limited to those groups because there are no other classes of people that can do the same? Do you believe only those two classes of people currently adopt children?

Exactly. There is no "tradition" in the US of marriage being defined as opposite sex unions. For over two hundred years, states either had no definition of marriage or a gender-neutral definition of marriage. The federal government has never had a definition of marriage. Opposite sex marriage is something that has been imposed, largely by courts, very recently - since the gay liberation movement began. "The government", as bikerdad claimed, did not have "criteria" based on sex, it has been done, mostly in the past ten years or less - by individual states. And it is reactionary, not "traditional". And, yeah, arguably unconstitutional. These are changes that have been made, not to secure rights, but to deny them.

First, sleeper... let us use the real definition of often rather than your made up one, shall we? Often does not mean, "more often than not". Often means "frequently. As for the factual data... here you go.

2000 Census.

Here you will see that in the year 2000, 22.3% of same-sex couples in which the partners are male were raising children under 18. You will see that 34.3% of same-sex couples in which the partners are female were raising children under 18. This is compared to 45.6% of married couples raising children under 18.

Now, you might say that those numbers are low... but you have to take into consideration that it can be extremely difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children... impossible in some states, difficult in most, and specifically allowed in only 10.

That being the case, I'd say those numbers are significant in comparison to the number of married couples raising children.


DaytonRocker,

The fact that same-sex couples adopt children is only being brought up in response to claims that marriage is about raising children. Do not attempt to distort the argument.

Dictionary.com defines often as:



Frequently or in great quantities.... Unless you are attempting to redefine the word often, it was mischaracterization of facts. Homosexuals do not in fact 'often' raise children, so this is not accurate.

To be honest I don't have a problem with gay marriage as long as it doesn't lead to what Dayton Rocker thinks may happen. What I don't appreciate is when statements are made and we are supposed to just take them as fact without questioning them.

Oh, please -- By your interpretation, heterosexual married couples do not in fact often raise children.

In comparison to the number of married couples that raise children and taking into account the difficulty in adopting as a same-sex couple, it is certainly not a mischaracterization of the facts. A significant number of same-sex couples raise children as a percentage of same-sex couples, as compared to the percentage of heterosexual married couples raising children.

You can't look at a statistic in a vacuum, Sleeper.



Oh, feel free to question statements... that's cool. Feel free.

The statement was made not in context to heterosexual couples. Now you are trying to twist words to make a comparison that was not there earlier. The statement was not accurate. Plain and simple.

No, the original statement was made in response to the claim that marriage is about raising children. Therefore the comparison to heterosexual married couples is relevant. I'm not twisting your words at all. You're the one who claimed that often meant more people did than didn't. All I said was that if you believe, put in context, that the number of same-sex couples raising children is not significant considering the hardships... you would be wrong. And I made an additional statement that under your interpretation of the word often it would appear that heterosexual married couples do not often raise children. I was just holding you accountable to your interpretation of the definition of often. In this debate -- considering that comparison -- that interpretation means absolutely nothing.

hmmm, given the difficulties same-sex couples have adopting, then where did almost all those children come from? oh, I forgot. heterosexual "relations."

Ah well, lets not bother ourselves with the implications of such inconvenient considerations.

Now, as to those who are incapable of following my "kill the businessman" scenario, I'll spell it out.

1) Homosexual marriage is imposed by judicial fiat.
2) Kelly marries Chris, then demands that Joe, Kelly's employer, provide the health benefits the same as Joe does for heterosexual couples.
3) Joe refuses.
4) Kelly and Chris bring suit against Joe for violation of their civil rights.
5) They win a judgement, and they decide to make an example out of Joe. The judgement will wipe out Joe's business.
6) Unable to pony up the cash, Joe's business is foreclosed.
7) The sheriff comes out to execute the forecloseure, Joe refuses to vacate, and things escalate from there...
8) Joe's dead, in the name of love?

Plausible? It doesn't seem so at first glance, but let me remind you: Nobody except fringe cultists and militia types would have imagined Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Elian Gonzalez before they happened.

Is homosexual marriage a civil right?

Beside the voters in numerous states who have already explicitly amended their Constitutions prohibiting it, we now have this to add, from that rock solid Bible Belt state, New Hampshire.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47718

Come on, Bikerdad; your scenario could apply to any law that Joe refuses to follow. (For example, the law tells Joe to pay his income tax; Joe refuses; and so on.) You could make a good case as to whether the law should force private businesses to offer health benefits to married couples at all, but that's not the issue at hand. You might even be able to make a case that, in a world with same-sex marriage, Joe should be allowed to offer health benefits only to heterosexual married couples. (Although, in my opinion, that would make Joe a real slime ball.) Again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Your link to the New Hampshire legislative report failed to include the Minority Report, which supported same-sex marriage as a civil right.

Link (PDF file)

So, if your only point is to tell us that more people agree with Bikerdad than me, fine. This is absolutely true. And that breaks my heart.

Of course it applies to any law, although the likelihood of my scenario is far more likely in situations that are emotionally charged, as is this issue. This scenario, or similar ones, are one reason why I am very, very selective in my calls of "dere otta be a law." And its also why I continue to be puzzled by those on the opposite side of this issue who also cry "keep the government out of my bedroom." If you want the government out of your bedroom, why the blazes would you want them roaming about through the rest of the house? (metaphor, metaphor....)

My link didn't include the report at all, it merely referenced it and included two links, one to a small section of the report, and another to the entire report.

Grace and peace, BD

Your business man argument is ridiculous. If same-sex marriage is legalized, Joe must fall in with the law and provide marital benefits. Just as Joe would also have to provide marriage benefits to an interracial married couple even if he didn't approve or vote for interracial marriage. The argument is ridiculous.

As for the New Hampshire report... did you read it? Did you actually read the entire report? Any commission that uses Eugene Volokh as a credible source of information is suspect. In reading the report, it becomes clear that this commission had an agenda to begin with -- that, as the minority report suggests, the outcome was preordained.

I will deal with other issues in this thread after lunch, but this particular point needs to be put to bed now before it derails the thread.

Bikerdad, I have debated you before, and though you nd I see eye to eye on nearly nothing, you are a good debator on the whole.

Please instantly drop this inane 'Homosexual marriage leads to shooting deaths' argument right now, it is crazy to the point of insulting. Be clear, if you tend to pursue this argument, then I can, with PEFECT validity, use it as well:

1) Bush Jr. Invades Iraq.
2) Bush gets in over his head in Iraq, issues a stop-loss order on troops set to go home.
3) Joe (above), apart from being a business owner is also a member of the national guard, but disagrees with what hge feels is an illegal war in Iraq.
4) Following his concience, Jow refuses to follow an illegal order and refuses to go to Iraq. When authorities come to arrest him, he refuses to leave his home, a shootout ensues, and Joe and a federal officer are killed.
5) Jow's Dead, in the name of non-existend WMD?

Bush Jr. willingly went into Iraq, and he should have KNOWN that Federal oficers would be shot by Joe, therefore Bush Jr. is guilty of the murder of a federal police officer. Right?

'Splain please...

All I'm trying to show here (with little or no success), is that modifying marriage laws to allow groups other than heterosexuals to marry should not be limited to strictly homosexual couples. I beleive that premise to be purely arbitrary and discriminatory.

And yet, I'm the one that gets called intolerant.

Yes, and it has been explained that there are separate issues relating to the other types of relationships you've mentioned (incest, polygamy) that currently keep them illegal. And the bottom line is that these types of relationships are illegal based on their own merits. Can that change? Yes. But should it change simply because one restriction on marriage is lifted? No. This has been explained to you, but you just simply refuse to accept. If you would like to challenge the fact that incest is illegal and polygamy is illegal, then please do so. I doubt you can prove otherwise or that you can prove that these relationships have the same issues keeping recognition of civil marriage for these types of relationships illegal. But please try... I mean it's what I've been hoping you'd do all along. So please, illustrate the arbitrariness and unnecessary discrimination that occurs when you lift the bans on same-sex marriage but keep the bans on incest and polygamy.

Can you not see the absurdity of your argument?

Currently, same sex marriages are illegal in most states. Polygamy is illegal in most states. Incest is illegal in most states (even between non-child bearing consenting adults).

We're now debating making same sex marriages legal (which are currently illegal in most states), but you only want to legalize one class of people, but reject the others because they are currently - of all things - illegal. This is laugh out loud funny to me. Seriously.

I feel like a broken record, as I'm sure many on both sides of this debate do. I have addressed this same thing before, as have others.

Homosexuals could be called a "class of people," because they have a particular sexual orientation that has been with them since birth, or at least noticed upon reaching puberty. The same is not true with polygamists and "incestualists." Nether are "classes of people." They are constructs. When incestual marriage is illegal, it is not shutting out a "class of people." There is no such thing as an incestual sexual orientation. Polygamy does not exist as an expression of a sexual orientation, but rather as a religious construct from certain traditions.

Let's say that 7% of the population is gay. 7% of the population is attracted not to members of the opposite sex, but only to their own. They do not control this any more than you or I control our attraction to members of the opposite sex.

Please show me some data about what percentage of people are only attracted to their blood relatives - once they went through puberty, they found themselves only attracted to members of their family... I doubt you'll find anyone. Likewise, even though some men might fantasize about polygamy, and some women might fantasize about polyandry, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who is only attracted to multiple partners.

It is incorrect, then, to refer to these other forms of marriage as affecting a "class" of people. The fact is, of these three types of marriage, currently illegal, only same-sex marriage affects a "class of people."

Huh? I just said he'd have to provide the benefits, so why do you say my argument's ridiculous.

However, since we do agree that the law would require the benefits (i.e., a third party will be bound to provide benefits in accordance with a "right"), my question for you is this: How do you propose that the law be enforced?



Eugene Volokh? The same Eugene Volokh who holds an endowed professorship at the UCLA Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? That guy? Not a "credible source of information."?! Ja, sure...

First off, the argument isn't that it will lead to shooting deaths, its that it may. Second, it's only crazy because you refuse to acknowledge the possibility, and more importantly, grapple with it. Paint Businessman Joe as the most rabid homophobe possible if you want if that's what it takes to make the scenario plausible, but grapple with it. As you hopefully know, in Canada, Bible based criticism of homosexual behavior is being punished. Such censorship would have been denigrated as "implausible" a mere 15 years ago.

As for your Bush scenario, frankly, I'm pretty sure that the Bush did take into account the possibility, nay, certainty, that Americans would be killed going into Iraq, and that there might be some pretty unpleasant incidents at home as well. And he determined that the risks were worth it. Getting back on topic, if Bush is to be faulted for either mischaracterizing the risks or underestimating them, what are we to make of people who refuse to even consider the risks of their desired course of action?

Tammy Bruce, a pro-choice, lesbian feminist describes them thusly: malignant narcissists.

There is not one fact in that entire paragraph. Not even one.

Could what you say be true? Maybe. That's a matter of opinion. And you are entitled to yours. But your opinion is making a decision for another group of people who in your opinion, are somehow different.

If having children and having sex are not requirements to be married, sexual orientation - no matter what it is today and what it could be tommorrow - has nothing to do with marriage. You are making a choice to beleive that gays have always been gay and will be gay tomorrow. While I'm certain that is true for some, there is no evidence to suggest that is a fact. Yet, you choose to allow them certain rights because you have a counter assumption with the groups that get in the way of your argument.

A bi-sexual could be anything they wanted to be today or tommorrow. Many like Anne Heche or the woman cited earleier in this thread might have sworn your statements are true today, but changed thier sexual orientation, went the other way and got married to men.

We don't require couples that marry to have children no more than we require couples that marry to have sex. If the intent of marriage is not for children and stability, then it exists for nothing of a tanglible nature. And there is nothing tanglibe in sexual orientation because that could change (for many) from day to day.

Again, the question arises... why is polygamy illegal and why is incestuous marriage illegal.

Incestuous marriage is illegal because incestuous behavior is illegal. Now if homosexual conduct was illegal -- as incestuous conduct is -- you could make the argument that same-sex marriage should remain illegal as incestuous marriage is illegal. You could also argue that if you made same-sex marriage legal while homosexual conduct was illegal, you should also make incestuous marriage legal -- to refrain from doing so would be unnecessarily arbitrary because both types of behavior are illegal. But this isn't the case: incestuous conduct is illegal, homosexual conduct is not. There is no reason to lift the ban on incest just so that incestuous marriage between full blood relations could be legalized solely because same-sex marriage is legalized.

As regards polygamy... there are reasons that polygamy is illegal that have nothing to do with homosexuality or homosexual relationships. There is no reason to lift the ban on polygamy just because same-sex marriage is legalized. The completely separate and distinct reasons for keeping polygamy illegal do not disappear if you legalize same-sex marriage. These reasons are not arbitrary and do not suddenly become arbitrary if you legalize same-sex marriage.

Can you not see that?



Your argument is ridiculous because you are attributing the death of the business man to homosexuals being allowed to marry rather than where it should be... the man's violation of the law to the point he dies (an extreme in any situation).

How is it enforced now? I think, being that the law requiring marital benefits would not change, it would be enforced the same way it is today.



Laugh all you want. The guy is not a credible source for this report... the references in the report attributed to him have nothing to do with the law, but deal with his personal views on homosexuality... so his law credentials are meaningless in this case.

I have addressed this issue half a dozen times, and each time nobody responds, then a page later makes the ame claim again as if nothing happened.

There is nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING similar between incest, homosexuality and polygamy. It has become fashionable for the rightist in this issue to claim that legalising gay marriage will necessarily and unavoidably lead to the legalisation of the rest, but nobody ever seems willing to more than assert. Nobody seems willing to explain why. Is it because they are all vaguely sexual in nature? Is that it?

Then will same-sex-marriage lead to legalising bestaility, necrophilia, rape and pedophilia? After all, they are all sexual-related actions, and that seems to be the ONLY justification people can offer as to why this fictional 'slippery slope' exists.

Those who propose this do so on the basis of nothing but a massive unsupported assertion. However, allow me to summarise the reasons why this assertion is not just wrong, but silly:

1- It hasn't hppened. There are 7 nations with same sex marriage laws on the books, and about 25 more with civil marriage laws. In not ONE of them has this slippery slope developed.

2- Homosexuality is legal. The other activities suggested as being inevitable are illegal. To pretend that one will lead to the other is like asserting that legalising euthenasia will lead to legalising first degree murder.

3- The idea that legalising gay-marriage will lead to legalising incest or polygamy presupposes that at the moment, the ONLY reason incest and polygamy are illegal is because Gay marriage is illegal, that somehow gay marriage is some legal and moral lynchpin that will bring the whole criminal code tumbling down.

This is, of course, absurd. Is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that there might be OTHER resons why incest and polygamy are illegal? Could it be because both almsot always involve abuse of position and power? Could it be that incest and the family unit are utterly incompatable? (how do you break up with your sister, and maintain family unit?) Could it be that the majority of incest cases involve authority figures such as father daughter? Could it be that 99% of polygamous marriages back when it was legal were dispower relationships of one man and many women?

If anyone is going to assert this neverending statement that 'legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising marriage with family, marriage with many partners, marriage with dead cats, marriage with a block of appartments, marriage with the colour green', could you please stop asserting and explain to me WHY this is so inevitable? Any while doing so, you might feel free to deal with the points I made above?

bikerdad wrote;



Yes, and I guess were adopted against the will of such people. Plus, what sense does that statements make really. They have trouble adopting, then its the people being adopted being the product of heterosexual intercourse... I thought the children adopted were test tube babies, but thanks for the clarification on that one.

Also the reason that some people think it will lead to other sexual aspects of homo sapiens becoming legal that are currently not, is because a majority of people view those acts as wrong, in which we find homosexuality being lumped in with. The reasons for this bias against homosexuality in its relation to being legal in marriage was the debate subject. Not if it becoming legal will in turn make other aspects of sexuality in homo sapiens legal. This bias was confronter including this point, and I am sure being alcohol is legal, that the subsequent constant of a negative impact it has, drunk driving, too, will soon be legal. Sure I do know that homosexuality on its own also kills thousands of people a year like alcohol, but the logic in that one is alcohol is cool and accepted, while the more sinister chimps like homosexuality is not cool. I guess being that marriage is for procreation of children and ability to do so, not so much about children, being homosexual couples or individuals I am sure could provide a healthy environment, that heterosexual marriages should be socialized into something where nothing that could be dubbed harmful should be allowed, like alcohol, smoking, or a vast amount of other legal things that really does not get any form of an uproar from that ultimately moral voice that singles out homosexuality as the ultimate evil and downfall of humanity.

1- Gay marriage becomes constitutionally illegal.
2- Encouraged by this fact, Joe feels he is right to discriminate against homosexuals.
3- An openly gay couple comes into his store, he refuses to serve them and insults them.
4- The couple take him to court, and decide to make an example, and he loses his store.
5- He refuses to vacate the store when Marshals come to confiscate it, a shootout ensues, Joe dies.

Bikerdad, I cannot believe you would support banning gay marriage, when clearly this may lead to the death of poor Joe. The scenario above is only crazy because you refuse to aknowledge the possibility, and more importantly, grapple with it.

Won't you please grapple with the fact that your insisting on gay marriage be illegal may kill poor Joe?

You continue to ignore the underlying point - what does sex have to do with marriage?

If I can't have children (sterile), can I get married?
If I can't have sex (injury, physical disability of a spouse, etc), can I get married?

The answer to both is obviously, yes. The absense or presence of children and/or sex has nothing to do with the legality of marriage. Currently, I beleive marriage assumes a couple will raise children. If that were true, then I would agree that siblings could not get married because of illegal behavior we would have to assume accompanies that. After all, we would have to assume sex to have children.

But you can't have it both ways. Most here claim marriage is not about raising children, hence same sex couples who can't reproduce or have no intention of adopting should be able to get married - just like heterosexual couples that don't raise or adopt kids. To be consistent, you would have to agree that marriage is not about sex for the same exact reasons. Not everybody can or does have sex, yet are married.

I'm sorry, I am not trying to be rude at all, but I think you completely missed the gist of my post, I recommend you reread it.

None of that has anything to do with my post or my position. I don't think sex necessarily has anything to do with marriage, where did I say I did? I am entirely consistent. While both procreation and sex often happen in marriage, marriage is not necesarily about either. That does not have anything to do with my comments.

But can the government legally bar specific sexual conduct between married couples? Great big NO on that one. Can the government legally bar specific sexual conduct between unmarried couples? Great big YES on that one. That's the difference. That is what you are ignoring. So it's not about whether married couples have sex or not. It is about whether or not the government can uphold existing laws regarding sexual conduct. If full blood relations are allowed to marry, the government can't uphold the existing law barring sexual relations between full blood relations. Do you not see that?

And to be clear... most here claim that marriage is not exclusively about raising children. Not that it has nothing to do with raising children at all, but that it is not exclusively about raising children. If the government saw marriage as being exclusively about raising children, those groups that, statistically, do not raise children could be legally barred from marrying -- i.e. those over the age of 65. Right?

It would be nice DR if you'd stop dodging the question. You seem to feel that the intent of marriage is to raise children. You believe that a marriage provides a stable environment in which to raise them and the benefits that go along with marriage correspond to that. Did I get all that right?

That is perfectly fine if you believe that is what marriage is. What you have not done is justified the huge flaw with your logic - gay couples can and do adopt children. So if you really believe that marriage is done in the best interest of children then why do you not support homosexual marriages, especially when children are involved?

The unspoken undercurrent of this discussion, at least over the last day or so, seems to be the idea that same sex marriage would set a bad example for children who are adopted or conceived through alternative means by gay/lesbian couples. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Again, I cannot understand why encouraging stable, legally protected families would not be a GOOD thing.

Let me start by saying that there is no right to a marriage license. No one has a right to have anything they do recognized by the government. There are a variety of things the government offers benefits for that you have to meet certain criteria to attain.



American society determined long ago that marriage (see above) was the best foundation by which to build on. Since there is no right to a marriage license, a self governing society has every right to decide which relationships it wants to endorse. Including the gender of those involved in said relationship.

If anyone wishes to change the definition of marriage it is up to them to convince society that same-sex unions also have a benefit to society.

The major benefit that same-sex unions offer society is the benefit of equality for relationships that are just as legitimate and deserving of social sanction and respect as those between a man and a woman.

Not to mention the benefit of children being raised in a stable home (assuming they are a stable family, which we do for heterosexual couples when we discuss them). This goes for couples who adopt or have kids through a surrogate mother. And what about making people happier in a society? Is that worth nothing? Doesn't it say somewhere we (as Americans) have the right to pursue happiness? I'm pretty sure that's mentioned somewhere.

RDduck, you have provided a dictionary definition which does nothing to help this debate. The whole reason this thread is so ungodly long is because of those who feel that the definition is wrong and those who feel it is right. Providing it as an end is like saying something is good because a law says so.

Also, at the same time, can you show that changing the law (actually, it's been shown in this thread that most marriage laws didn't state anything special pertaining to the sex of those getting married until recently) to allow homosexuals to get married would be a bad thing for society? If you offer the slippery slope argument, just reread this thread and you'll see it a dozen times and it's been address a bakers dozen times, same thing goes for the "it's morally wrong"/religious argument, or the it-damages-children argument, ect.

darn spelling

Let me start by saying that you are absolutely wrong. Civil marriage is a right in this country.



A dictionary is not a legal document. Many states have legal definitions of marriage. Pre-1973 none of those legal definitions were gender-specific.



Again, absolutely untrue. If that were true, there would still be states with bans on interracial marriage.



Yet again, absolutely untrue. Legally, it falls to the State to justify the exclusion. That's the way the law works in this case.

Wow, you stated absolutely nothing that was true. I've heard, read and soundly rebutted these statements several times before: it's the typical party line for those who oppose same-sex marriage -- the more I hear it, the more it remains untrue.

I tend to agree with Daytonrocker's latest argument. He is making the point that people are discounting the axiom that same sex marriage is improper because axioms are not more important than values such as loving each other, freedom to partner with whom you want, and the chance to have a family with whomever you want which are derived from the concept of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The axiom of 'homosexuality is bad' is discounted.

Yet, with polygamy it seems the axiom of 'more than two in a marriage is bad' is held as sufficient. The arguments for values such as loving each other, freedom to partner with whom you want, and the chance to have a family with whomever you want are now discounted. There does seem to be a dichotomy in place. How come it is perfectly OK to discount Daytonrocker's axiom in favor of derivative thinking then turn around and say the same derivative thinking does not supersede your own axiom. It is not consistent. Why is axiomatic thinking fine in one case and not the other?

Are you not trying to have it both ways?

No. There are very valid reasons why 'more than two in a marriage is bad'. If you marry a woman and then marry another woman and then marry another woman... how many women have you married? Three. How many men have the women married? One. All of the laws regarding equal obligations and benefits in marriage are geared very specifically around a relationship between two people. How does one equally divide property should one of the women ask for a divorce? Does he get half and she gets half? Does that provide equal protection for the other two women in the marriage? To allow for polygamy would require a complete restructuring of benefits and obligations in the contract itself. So, the view that 'more than two in a marriage is bad' is based on facts associated with marriage that actually need to be rectified before polygamy can be allowed. The view that 'incest is bad' is a personal view with government support -- incest is illegal. The view that 'homosexuality is bad' is a personal view without government support -- homosexuality is legal.

The reasons behind the axioms and their validity in terms of the law are all different.

wow, 20 pages is a lot, but I actually think that I can contribute something left unsaid. I suppose everyone else thinks the same thing as well, thus leaving us with 20 pages:)



They are similar in that they share judeo-christian origins for being outlawed. At one time or another they were each deemed sexually deviant by this society from the "normative" non-kin, 1 man 1 woman relationship. Now, if one believes that this classification of sexual deviance (i call it the normative relationship clause) is THE reason why these behaviors were outlawed, then allowing gay marriage would unravel that particular definition of a normative relationship.

In order for that to happen while still maintaining consistency, one of two things would have to also happen. Either those other types of marriages would become legal, or society would develop a new definition of a "normative" sexual relationship to replace the old one. The latter option has already happened, after laws prohibitting interracial marriages were struck down. When that happened, the "normative" sexual relationship was re-defined to tailor around the non-kin, 1 man 1 woman relationship.




True, polygamy is illegal, but promiscuity is not, similar to how homosexual marriage is illegal while homosexuality is not.




Polygamy was illegal long before abuses of women were taken into consideration. It is illegal in this country because of the normative relationship clause (i.e. judeo-christian religious values). No one said incest had to be between the mediate family. Incest between cousins is also illegal in this country (we're pretty much alone in the world on this one) The only argument against incest between cousins of different households is the normative relationship clause outlined above. The genetic considerations have been shown to be vastly overstated.




Legalising gay marriage leads to those crazy marriages in as much as society cannot define for itself a new normative definition of a sexual relationship. I have no reason to believe society won't be able to do this as it has done it in the past after legalising interracial relationships, which violated the same race relationship norm.


Personally, I feel that since marriage is inherently a religious institution, it should be relegated to churches. By separation of church and state, the government should not sanction any interpersonal religious institution. However, it should be allowed to promote civil unions and family raising units that are based on society's normative relationship. So, if the legislatures feel that society deems same sex relationships as normative, then they should pass laws to reflect that.

There are of course problems with my views. For instance, what happens when society's prevailing sentiment is on the wrong side of an issue? Unfortunately, only the history books telling us which was the right decision haven't been written yet.

It is interesting you bring the sex of the polygamists to the discussion. I thought you had previously argued the sex of those entering a marriage was not important? If you have a pie and X number of people, how do you divide it? The math is simple: 1 divided by X. This is not a major change from when X was only 2.

I do tend to agree with you that it would cause a major restructuring of the benefits and obligations in the marriage contract. But, so does same sex marriage as marriage has been interpreted with the knowledge of roles defined by sex. Why is it OK to make these complete restructuring only for two and not more?

It just comes across as you have your own axioms which are not derived from any consistent thought process but your thought processes are those to support your axioms.

How we change our marriage laws and why we do is important. Otherwise, same sex marriage will be infected by the same ills of current marriage law.

You're kidding me, right? It was an example... the sex of the people was completely irrelevant to the argument.



So... if you have a marriage between A and B & A and C & A and D. B divorces A and gets 1/3 of the property. Why? B has no contract with C or D... only with A. Why do C and D lose property because B has a problem with A? The laws of the contract are specifically geared to providing equal benefits between two spouses. A marries B, A marries C, and A marries D... if B divorces A, according to the current laws of the marriage contract, B is entitled to half of A's assets... not 1/3.