But always between a Male & a Female.

As I said before, Don't bet the farm on it. You have a tough sell to make, and the marketing firm is lacking.

And there's no reasonable LEGAL reason to prevent it from being allowed by two males or two females. There are all kinds of emotional and religious reasons, but marriage is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state. As such, you'll need a LEGAL reason to prevent it from occurring between two consenting adults.

The fact that at least a third of the country is currently FOR some kind of marriage contract between homosexuals tells me that the marketing campaign is working just fine. Where were we 10 years ago on this issue? Not even on the drawing board.

Took a while for dinosaurs to die, too. Didn't just happen all at once.

The purpose of the government of the United States, as stated in the Constitution, is to "secure for ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty". Now, if gay marriage is indifferent to that purpose, then there's no reason for the government to care one wy or the other. If it contributes to that, then denial constitutes an offense on the government's part. If, on the other hand, gay marriage is detrimental to those purposes, then it should be prohibited.

My post regarding the Dutch letter addresses the impact of gay marriage, and thus far, nobody has answered it.

One more point: any gay activist who chooses to hang their hat on "marriage has long been recognized as a fundamental right", had better take care. An honest judge will, based on that, toss their case out immediately. Why? Because he'll simply look at what has long been recognized.

As Redliner pointed out, and as y'all have implicitly admitted, what has been recognized is a unique relationship between members of the opposite sex. The only part of the definition of marriage that y'all want to change is the opposite sex part. Everything else you want to remain the same.

You do not need a reasonable LEGAL reason to change a law, much less fundamental social institutions. What you need are reasonable PRACTICAL and MORAL reasons. Your formulation is as redundant as saying that you need a reasonable Constitutional reason to change the Constitution. (If what you wanted was already reasonable under the Constitution, then you wouldn't have to change it, would you?)

Doesn't this begin by saying that there's no scientific evidence to back up the following claims? Furthermore, with the world's population spiralling out of control, I'm not sure I see what's "harmful" about this trend. IF it is one, which this article doesn't bother to spend a second proving. And what's so sacrosanct about marriage at this point anyway? Don't American divorce rates over time hover around 50 percent? Don't see how this line of reasoning precludes marriage rights for gay people.



There won't be an amendment. It's frivolous and bigoted, and people know it. I think, for the forseeable future, it will remain a states-rights issue, and gay people will have to move to the sane states to be granted what common-sense and most case law says should be their due.

That would depend on how you define "ourselves". If you define it as all Americans, then denial of the right of marriage to gay Americans is a denial of rights and does constitute an offense by the government unless of course you don't consider homosexuals to be Americans or human. Williamson Vs. Oklahoma



No sense debating this one again. The study has been addressed on numerous topics on AD. Even the study claims there is no proof that gay marriage is connect to other social ills.



In America, civil rights or basic human rights are rights inherent to the individual simply because they are human beings that can not be abridged by state or majority. At least that has always been the way of things in America, as well as the foundation of the Civil Rights movement and their eventual win in the 60's and beyond.

If you are to Deny what case law (linked several times in this topic) defines as a basic right from a group of people then you have to show that there is a significant risk to the rest of society (or the rights of other individuals) by allowing them to have this right. If you cannot, then you have no grounds to deny the right to the minority in question.

As yet, no one has been able to show any risk to society created by allowing gay marriage.

If you leave the burden on the group rather then the government then you open the door wide to the government infringing on all manor of minority groups (from homosexuals to bikers to chess players) simply because the majority doesn't like the group or see them as their equal.

I for one will ALWAYS err on the side of the individual before the government.

Missouri's vote was political gamesmanship. The Republicans saw it as a way to get more conservatives out to vote in November, that is why they wanted it on the November rather then August ballot and took the issue to the courts and lost.

The national polls put the issue at roughly 50/50 across the country. So the political gain is limited. Most Republicans in battleground seat realize that the gain in conservative votes (that they likely had anyway) please in comparison to the losses in moderate votes. So, it is unlikely that this issue will ever make it to the US constitution, it is simply the way of things in politics.

That is why in the end, it will likely be decided by the supreme court.

One of my core beliefs if you will, is that any nature and or nurture posed by any living organism or multi celled organic living thing or whatever its called is allowed by its biology. To take this further, to use maybe that love or relationship in the form of marriage should only be by terms of what can sexually reproduce is silly, becuase our nature/nurture does not stop same sex couples from occuring and living that reality as a loveing couple. It does however prevent people from flying, but does not stop us from building planes, i hope my point is noted.

To deny sam sex marriage like this is to use to government to stop an american's' freedom of religion and or liberty, exspression and so much more, and in real words to me, is nothing more then a faction of humans abstraction of something they tend to follow. I am not fimilar with the christian worldview fully, but does this bible thing state that such cannot happen, or is it assumed from the text? and even if it does, what does that have to do with americas way of life? or legal version of such. If marriage is to be adopted into the government, is it not to be for americans, or is this nothing more then the same bigotry that america faced with slavery.

I feel this situation is sad for what it applies about america, not what it touches directly. This then would set a standard for bigotry in action, heck maybe we can ban all kinds of things now. I think this is the real fear that was posed to us during the cold war in action by people who claim so much a better life by the freedom the country or way of life holds.

A law exists. It is a law that has existed longer then anyone here can remember. This law is that marriage is a contract that can only be entered into by two individuals, one of which must be a female, the other must be a male.

Many challenge this and say that somehow this is a discrimination of a right.

Look at the law again and again I ask, who is discriminated against?

No one MUST enter into one of these contracts, and the contract has qualifiers.

Some would say that I made light of the sitting Governor of New Jersey, and perhaps I did. Yet it remains THE perfect example of just why the argument of a discrimination is bogus.

The people of Missouri could see this. There were no "rights" being abridged, there were only those who did not wish to qualify under the law and asking that any and all qualifications be made null.

Missouri thought better of this and voted in a landslide.

Were they bigots? I think not.

Edited to add:

Just as anyone may choose NOT to enter into one of these contracts, anyone MAY choose to enter into one of these contracts.

Choose NOT to qualify, and you may not "marry".

And the "Jim Crow" laws existed for a long time as well. Eventually, the dinosaurs died and the laws were removed from the books because they conferred additional rights for some people, but not for others, which is totally against what America is supposed to be about.

Or do you stand for "two Americas"? One where heterosexuals can marry the person they love and have all the contractual rights afforded because of that marriage and another where homosexuals cannot marry the person they love and are not afforded those rights?

And, yes, the people in Missouri who voted for the amendment were indeed bigots. No doubt about it. They chose fear over love. They chose to deny a fundamental right to those who are not "like them" just because of that difference.

They're about to do the same thing here in Georgia and I've listened to their arguments for the amendment and all I can say is "how ignorant".

Please explain the length of time "Jim Crow" laws existed?

We are NOT, again, NOT talking about forcing a contract on anyone, There is nothing that says that a Man may NOT marry a Women.

Jim McGreevy obviously understood this, as did the people of Missouri, and apparently the people of Georgia.

Edited to add:

I think that what fails to be addressed is that not all contracts are universal. They are not, simply because of the "unique" aspects that exists in every event that requires licence or contract.

You want to contend that the relationship between two Men is no different then the relationship between members of the opposite sex.

That is a challenge, as most people CAN and DO, not only see the vastness of the difference, but respect the difference.

It is because of the "unique" difference between the two types of relationships that I can, and do see where a "unique" contract should be created so that gay couples can have a "contract".

But to say that this creates an inequity, simply because two different, very unique types of relationships exist is beyond Bold, its bogus.

Different contracts exist, side by side in most situations because the situations differ. Warrenty Deeds sit next to Leases, next to Government controlled land. The situations are unique, and the law understands this and tries to best handle this with differing types of contracts.

We are really not talking about anything different in this.

A majority of voters in Missouri and Georgia also thought slavery was okay at one time.


Arguments merely from tradition are disingenuous and unconvincing. Suppose the nation decided in the 1860's that we currently have slaves, we've had slaves for a long time in the past, and for that reason slavery is okay and we'll continue to have slaves. Is that logical?


People who want to marry the person that they love. It is logical to prohibit certain marriages such as marriage between an adult and a minor (how can the minor truly consent?) or perhaps between blood relations if it would produce harmful genetic effects, but there is no basis to prohibit marriages on the basis of gender, be it man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, etc., other than traditional bigotry.

You seem to misunderstand the way our legal system works Red,
When a decision is made by a court a "Precedent" is set which can the nbe interpreted for FUTURE cases. It doesn't matter who the ruling was about because it sets a precedent.
If you want to claim that this prcedent has no bearing on a same-sex relationship then you have to look into the wording and find where that can be argued.
...your point made zero legal sense.



This, too, was a huge stretch. I'm not sure how you leaped to your conclusion here.
It boggles... So the governor is married but clearly turns out to be gay and has a an affair.
Plenty of politicians have had affairs so I think it is safe to say the "gay" part of it was the reason he feels he has to leave. I'm not sure where you see equality. Truly...I am not even which part of this statement to debate because it is so unclear where you think you see a point.


You use the term "nature" rather loosely. If you mean nature as in their sexuality, well that CAN be linked to biology.

Nature, in no way, backs you in this argument. Nature makes gay people. If we were to base our delineation of rights based on "natural" properties of being human then we would have to include gays by default. The argument that marriage is about procreation is distinctly religious and moralistic. The sacrement of marriage was created to pull couples together in order to ensure they share their belief system with their progeny. Marriage, though, existed WAY before Christ. Generally speaking, I would say that marriage has ALWAYS served as a public recognition of a couple's union. Marriages are used in some cultures to make treaties, to codify economic agreements or to develop political influence.

In fact, the scientists who study human 'nature' seem to wholeheartedly disagree with George Bush's understanding of marriage.


Amazing how you beg your own question. If there were no cases of voters making laws against gays marrying we wouldn't be having the debate. Also, if there were no people claiming that gays not being able to marry is the "status quo" that needs no explanation then, once again, there would be no debate.

I find the "no need for defense" defense rather putrid in this debate. Just becasue something is the status quo in NO WAY alleviates it from the pain of reason and common sense argument. Slavery, genocide, child labor and other countless horrors have, at one time or another, been the status quo. The United States of America was founded to defend people from this type of status quo. Freedom can easily be defined as "one's ability to divert from the status quo without reprisal". Arguming that something is unimpeachable because it is the status quo is abominable. Legitimacy by virtue of the mobs anxiety is a classic totalitarian ruse. Lets not use it here please.

This is an interesting debate. I can't believe the cyclical logic Red is using can really be what he's thinking. It's like this smirking argument that is being used as a smokeshield to "reasonably" vent animosity towards a person's lifestyle. What if your completely wrong about this being a "choice" gay people make? Science seems to think you are, as previously linked in this thread. If it isn't a choice then do you concede gays should be allowed to marry?

Because, I think that's the crux of the differences here, I think you believe that being gay is some ruse played by perverts for sexual gratification. This makes it clear to me that you don't really have an understanding of how difficult it is to be gay in today's society, and also that you have no gay friends or family (or at least close ones.)

This is not a choice, talk to BIGAYLA's themselves, their friends, scientists who study the genetics.

The only people who DON'T agree with this are people who's moral system is fundamentally rooted in religion, or find themselves disgusted by the idea of homosexuality.

As sited in my Sig, I truly believe progressives always win... eventually. And to answer the question for debate, the Supreme Court will act justly and the state amendments and laws banning homosexual marraige will eventually be struck down. This of course will require a progressive court, which may not be seen in the next 10 years (If Bush were re-elected), however, eventually it will happen.

Once you give people rights, I would hope this country will never take them back.

So if the government is to adopt marriage into its system of laws, then make it so only some Americans can use it on the base of a sexual orientation, that does not in any way preclude liberty or other constitutional freedoms of any American citizens?

For the most part i imagine we are talking about humans recognized as adults and of their own to make decisions in their lives within various parameters America sets. Then this same system as used by all individuals does not grant some individuals "equal rights" as others within the same context or American legal system, way of life or by the constitution. That is not some form of bigotry to be blamed, as to say why certain people of some race could not marry or vote at some point in Americas history, and why?

Every time i read on the groups opposed it is always from some religious group. There are more religions today and in history then i can count. In America freedom of such exists, but the federal government is to not make any laws for or against religion if i remember, and i cant say that this law would be that save for whom supports it. Its a liberty killer really, and holds no merit to be law save the people whom feel the need to push bigotry. Nothing in the constitution exists to merit such law in the first place and nothing of the sexual preference intrinsic or not merits such a law either. If America cannot grant such freedom as it is the government, i feel such an institution(marriage) should then be purged from that system as it breeches what it is their for and to be.

Again to argue it from a nature/nurture standpoint, human biology allows for it to be real, as real as for an opposite sex couple, and what of people born with male and female sexual reproductive organs? What fate should they bare for being natural? To argue it from that point is no good to me for the nature/nurture of living things is something humanity is currently ignorant of truly.

On a state level, being from a certain state does not mean you are no longer an american citizen. So how can a state then take or set rights for some citizens when working with something federal? i do no think we are talking about the sales tax rate, and that such a difference exists within this issue.

This statement is untrue even by biblical standards.



Read the bible and you will find MANY of marriages that existed between multiple women and a man.

As for the rest of the argument. Are you suggesting that marriage law should not be changed just because it has been this way for a long time?

Then would you have opposed outlawing polygamy, the marriage of brother and sister or first cousins, or allowing the marriage of inter-racial couples?

I don't think that is what you mean, but how else can it be taken?

Remember, the very constitution itself is the product of people who no longer wished to follow the laws they lived under.

Slavery was the law of the land for a long time. We outlawed it.
People we not allowed to vote for a host of reasons though out our history. We recognized that as a denial of rights and overturned all those laws.
Though out much of civilized human history, women could not own property, and were in fact considered property. We realized this was wrong and changed it.

All sorts of laws change as society decides what is right and what is wrong. That is the very reason for the existence of laws.

However, in America, our government was setup the way it is party because the founding fathers feared the tyranny of the majority. If not for that, civil rights laws would likely never have passed.

This issue is about civil rights of a minority. There are those that feel they are not entitled to said rights and there are those that feel that they are. It will mostly likely come down to s Supreme Court ruling to resolve.

Missouri's is interesting. Previously in Missouri, the state legislature passed a concealed carry law and it was vetoed by the governor. Then there was a referendum vote to pass concealed carry. It failed. 2 years later the law was written by the Missouri house again and eventually passed. Though I support Concealed carry it would seem to me that the will of the people wasn't very relevant there.

The simple solution to protect "marriage" and allow equality under the law is to remove the word all together. If you get married in a church you get a Marriage certificate. When you seek the force of law for a marriage, you get a civil union license from the state, be the marriage from a church or the state. Then you can allow same-sex unions without violating the word marriage, and without trying to make it separate but equal which never works.

Of course that is alot of work just to protect the sensibilities of a few, but I would rather do that then continue to deny the right of marriage to anyone.

Okay. Gay "contracts" should not be subject to religious views, and should be exempt from any of the obligations that traditional marriages find themselves subject to. They should be tax exempt (since they don't result in children that require education) and should be easier to obtain, since the coupling of gays results in no possibility of children being born without responsible parents.

Do you agree?

Azure:

Here is the rest of my post that you choose to ignore in your response:



Do you deny that the relationships within a male/female coupling is different then in a male/male or a female/female relationship?

Do you deny that contracts come in many forms, because not a single contract could cover them all?

OverlandSailor and Slim:

I have NEVER referenced the bible in this debate, or others of this kind. If thats how you want to debate me, using biblical or religious reference then I will abstain from those. I don't go there!.

Was slavery a "licence" or contractual arraingement?

You bring up civil rights again:



In this you are completely wrong. Civil rights celebrates the differnces in the genders. If not, title nine would be dead. The 400 meters in Athens would have been coed (which applying the times run, rules out women participants) and the American women would come home empty in Basketball.

This is a contract issue, and how best to allow for a contract to meet a need. It is no different then establishing thousands of other contract laws and regulations.

I have yet to hear anyone make a sensible " play" that a female/male relationship is the same as a male/male relationship. If not, then why treat them the same? Or are you saying that we should have a coed 400 meter race with time being the only qualification?

The Governor of New Jersey knew this and demonstrated his knowlege of it.

Again, your argument is far from bold, it is bogus.

Redliner, I didn't choose to ignore your post. Firstoff, I replied to the post prior to your previous posting (re-read the quotes and it will become clear). Secondly, you edited your next post (which contains the quote you cited) during the time I was posting my own, so I didn't see those statements anyway. Thirdly, I don't know why you're directing your "contracts" idea at me, nor have your statements regarding contracts been very clear to me (no offense intended); but I'll try to "respond" anyways: Sure there are certain differences between a male/female relationship, a male/male relationship, and a female/female relationships, but I think you're overlooking the core part: two people love each other and want to be married as a partnered couple, a right that the majority of the population takes for granted. If you're arguing that this whole issue is simply a matter of contract law, and no different than establishing thousands of other contract laws and regulations, I think you're choosing to focus on a smaller subset of the issues for the convenience of maintaining your own viewpoint.

To escape the use of the quote system and not as a jab, if men on men and female on female actions, such as running in a circle with one another are okay, why not marriage then? I know it sounds dumb, but i would like to find reasons against rather then "i just dont like it" kind of reason. I am sure americans all over could find a nice variety of things to ban on each other.

Like i said before, if marriage is to be something protected by federal status, then it should be for americans, not just some of them. I still cannot find any reason against same sex marriage save bigotry. As for female-male relationships, why would they be in the debate here, no one is trying to stop or change those as far as i see. The issue at hand is same sex marriage being legal, why and why not i guess, and i see no reason why and state why. I guess one could say because men and women can marry each other that in itself is the reason on why same sex cant Men and women can kill each other with knives and guns also, i guess that should be cool sorry, bad humor. Again personal opinion of human ignorance is all i really get here, not much anything more then that. Does the fact same sex people love each other and want what americans in america can have like marriage really mean something so vulger as made to be, does people being that mean they eat children and spew forth fire and acid from their mouths??? I feel with like a lot of other related debates its going in a circle here. Sure you can ban it if someone in power really wanted to, but it would be on bigotry alone that such is passed into law, no other real reason exists.

Azure:

Sorry, you were right, the postings were done as you wrote.

If anyone feels I am arguing is circles, then you are not paying attention, or simply wish I were.

I have been completely straightforward, have not brought moral or religious values into this debate, yet have to fend those accusations off.

My question still is, how can two relationships, so vastly different be treated equally?

To the vast majority, the answer is that the should not.

A greyhound bus is a mode of transportation. One requires a licence to drive one. An Airplane is also a mode of transportation, but a completely different set of "qualifiers" are needed to obtain a licence to fly one. Both are the same, modes of transportation, yet vastly different. The Bus driver cannot claim discrimination if he refuses to "qualify" for a pilots licence.

You can attempt to make it more difficult then it actually is and still 71% would see it this way.

Edited to add:



It is for all Americans that want it. It is simply that easy. Is someone who does not speak out, somehow having his freedom of speech taken away?

No, they opted out of excersizing that freedom by choosing to remain silent.

The problem with your argument (and the reason it is being labelled as circular) is that you are defining the terms by which to asess these relationships. The fact is that children is not an element in granting marriage licenses (not matter how much some people wish it were), and as such it cannot be used as a consideration for the nature of said contract. What is marriage WITHOUT children? Two people in love. Now, if you can convince me that two men in love experience a qualitatively different relationship than a man and a woman, then you'd have something. But the last time I checked "love" is not something which can be easily measured.

No, just pointing out the obvious.



So now you define what marriage is?

OK, I'll bite. Tell me Joe, how is the love between a Man and a Woman the same between a Man and a Man?

Now you must define Love. Yet millions of people are married that are NOT in love.

You want to jump right past the obvious, that being that marriage is between OPPOSITES, not SAMES.

There are so many examples of ways we have handled these situations in the past its simply nonsense to say it wouldn't work for this function.

Title nine is a prime example.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anybody to read what you have written and call it straight forward.... even those that agree with you position.



Yet you have not pointed out the vast differences. They both require love and commitment, right. Matter of fact for all the vastness you express, all you have come up with is "...they can't procreate" Yet, when confronted with the LOGIC of "would you then support banning marriages of infertile couples" it seems as if you back track by suggesting that this is the action the other side wants. There is no vastness in the differences and to combat this logic you point to a 71% vote against.

Point 1 about the majority. Just cause most people say anything doesn't make it true. What do people not gay know about being gay??

Point 2 about the majority. Please stop with this craziness about sales and about people who voted recognized the vast differences. They don't like "fags" and that's why they voted that way. And chances are there bigotry comes from their religion whether you have mentioned it or not. Majority of people think homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is sacred.

Your opinion. Off course that comes from someone who states the following:



No? Lets look at the three types of couples individually, and use just one example of the vast difference.

Male/Female couple and PMS. In this couple one of the partners will experience it, while the other can only wonder what it is like.

Female/Female couple and PMS. In this couple both partners experience it, and neither has to wonder what it is like.

Male/Male couple. Neither in this couple will ever experience it.

No vast difference.

Shall we go through more?

Alrighty then:

Pregnancy

In Male/Female. One can impregnate the other

In Male/Male. Neither can impregnate the other

In Female/Female. Neither can impregnate the other.

MORE!!!!!!

OK

Menopause:

In the Male/Female couple, one will likely experience Hot Flashes the other will not.

In the Female/Female couple, Both will likely experience Hot Flashes.

In the Male/Male couple, Neither will likely experience Hot Flashes as a result of Menopause.

Oh, and the bodies of the two individuals that form the relationships.

Male/Female = Different

Male/Male = Same

Female/Female = Same

Yep, clearly there are VAST differences that 71% of the population of Missouri can recognize, that you do not see.

In "modes of transportation", both a Bus or an Airliner can get you from New York to L.A., most can see why there are needs to "licence" the drivers of each differently? Can You?. Those that insist on different class licences for these vastly different "modes of transportation" are not bigoted against Bus Drivers.

Since when are arguing from false analogy, tradition, and appeal to majority, and using Is-ought reasoning a valid debate technique?

The fact is, depending upon your criteria, same-sex and opposite sex relationships are the same. These are my idea of reasonable criteria:

A person loves another consenting adult person and wishes to pledge their undying love and commitment to this person, and have their pledge publicly and legally recognized, with all the rights and responsibilities attendant to that. That is, they wish to marry their partner. Their partner feels the same way.

Why should we as a society prohibit this?

The ability to bear children is an arbitrary, false criterion. It would prohibit many opposite-sex marriages. Same-sex couples can still be parents - in fact I know a few such couples.

Arguing that one thing is significantly different from another requires that you state your criteria for differentiating. Why should people who meet the critera I mentioned above be denied the ability to marry each other?

Red, your arguments about "vast differences" are complete nonsense.

I have brown eyes and my wife has blue eyes. Vast difference! NOT.

I'm tall and she's not. Vast difference! NOT.

It's a stupid game and you're the only one playing. Just because you want to claim a "vast difference" doesn't make it truly "vast" or even a difference that matters within the confines of creating or maintaining the marriage contract. I don't see anything on my marriage contract about ANY of your "vast differences".

Getting back to real world: Here's an example about why these dumb constitutional amendments will fall:

Say I marry a woman legally and then -- with her consent and desire -- have a sex change operation. Now I'm legally female and so is she, yet the marriage contract is still in force and our marriage hasn't really changed in ways that are significant to US (her and I, not the USA). The state will have a damn hard time breaking that marriage contract, since we already have it and there's no provision for forcing a couple to divorce.

WOW. I'm sorry, everyone here can't find sense in your "arguments" and they are all just confused. You fabricate definitions in order to defend your opinion and you are "just pointing out the obvious"?? This is a debate forum I thought, but it is appparently just an online classroom

I notice you did not respond to any of my post but you DID stop talking about "nature" if only overtly. Still, Redliner, you seem to be asserting that there is some abstract or other-worldy aspect of a male-female relationship that remains undefined. Also, this ethereal, karmic connection of love is not available to others. Perhaps do you think a father can love his son or, because both are male, is that too, totally impossible? Oh wait, I get it, those are different relationship and don't fit into your analogy! They are relationships of a different type and so my argument is nonsense. But what difference is it? Both have a legal (in the sense of financial, medical, guardianship, etc..) relationship. Both live together. Ah yes, I know, the mystery of fatherhood is the reason for the love. But wait, don't plenty of fathers NOT love their sons?? After all, you did point out that problem with marriage:

And so love is not a good measure. Hmm..it seems to me you are left with the one thing everyone thinks you are hung up on: sex. Because gay men and women have sex with eachother and it doesn't seem right to you. After all, you so astutely point out that, with male-female relationships Who can argue with that logic????



This means nothing. It is a non-argument. Please make it into an argument for me.

title nine is a prime example of what?

Oh..there were some other arguments that need some attention:



I would like to examine tautology in a few ways:

First, to undo your belief that your postulations are merely misunderstood let me simplify your arument to show I know where you were going. Ok, a license is needed to marry. Heterosexual couples need this license in order to marry. Gay's on the other hand, shouldn't be upset that they can't get that license because what they do is qualitatively different from what hetero couples do. (apparently gays don't get up in the morning, go to work, worry about money, think of their loved ones, and watch the days fly by ) Why should gays be mad that they can't get a license to do what they aren't even qualified to do?? Right??

1) Well, walking is a mode of transportation that requires NO license. So walking is the same as flying because it is a mode of transportation? Wait, is it because of the license or because of the danger and complexity of flying as compared to walking that licensing is required?
Hmm..so it must be that hetero marriages are more dangerous or complex that they require licensing that gays simply "don't have the equipment for"?? Yeah right....

2) According to your argument you would have to admit that, like the modes of transportation (bus and plane), that gay marriages and hetero marriages are essentially the same. If bus and plane travel are "the same, modes of transportation" then the marrriages to which you compare them must be also (assuming you desire to use logic). Since you have already said that they are not the same, you have already refuted your own argument.
Do I speak circles?

3) In our country a bus driver can CERTAINLY go out and acquire a pilot's license should he/she desire to do so. And since everyone here, despite your attempt to ignore them, has been talking about Rights, it is important to point out that gay couples can't just go out and earn the right to marry. If there was a law saying that bus drivers could NOT earn a pilot's license then that would be INEQUITY.


Ooh..Ooh..here's another doozie:


there are plenty of sensible arguments made in this thread, you aren't "listening".
I think it is important for us to lay out some parameters here if you want me to show how a gay relationship is the same as a hetero one. First, it will be impossible for you (or anyone to understand) if you haven't been in a real, long relationship. Sitting back and postulating on relationships as an abstraction, without having actually BEEN in one to know the difference, is a pointless endeavor. Relationships, I would argue, are a way of sharing one's life with another.
They are a system of give and take. You lose flexibility and choice and gain stability and comfort where you are. You set roots but you grow. You learn the deepest truths about yourself through the experiences of your loved one.(that is the one that requires experience to understand)
There is no difference in this type of love in any relationship. Usually this type of love is found in families (but not every family) but lucky people are also able to find it with someone else.
Not all marriages, and possbly the smalller portion of them, are true love. For that reason I think it is nonsense to insist that love be a prerequisite of marriage. Only RELIGION links the two as far as I know. The government does not.

IF love is necessary for marriage then I think that bad hetero marrriages are as "destructive to marriage" as are gay marriages (assuming the garbage argument that anything outside a marriage can be bad for it)

Anyway, I think Redliner that you have constantly asserted your points without giving us any reason to even think about them nevermind accept them. You keep demanding that others are beholden to prove your unbacked assertions wrong (you need to read my last post about this) even though you have not even tried to prove what you say is true. Please use clear statements, NO analogies (they are easy to pick apart) and explain to us why marriage between "opposites" is qualitatively different from that of "sames"...

You want to argue that the diffences are not vast, yet you do not argue a single point of my post?

A male can be short, and another tall. The difference is height, not gender.

A female may have blue eyes while another female has brown eyes. The difference is color, not gender.

The top 20 100 meter sprinters in the world are male, yet none are allowed to compete in the Womans 100 meter dash.

And yet you do not see the difference?

Do both win a gold for the individual 100 meter win. Yes, yet one is for the Mens 100 meter and the other for the Womens 100 meter. No difference? Check the times.

The people of Missouri understood this, and even though the "gay marriage" crowd spent much more then the DOMA crowd did, still the garnered 71% because they easily saw through the "no difference" argument.

Poor marketing, simply poor marketing.

I had to edit to add this gem:



ummmm, no, I think I actually pointed out a number of very real aspects of a male-female relationship. You married? PMS is real, not abstrat. Pregnancy is real, not abstract. Menopause is real, not abstract. And the differences in a male body and a females body is real, not abstract.

I would post links to pictures of the differences in the bodies of either gender, but I don't think the Moderators would much appreciate that.

Edited once again:



Then you must argue that a bus and an airplane are essentially the same. Problem is, they are not. They are completely different and require almost completely different set of rules and regulations. We have not even discussed propulsion or the science that make them different.

My argument all along has been that the difference does not make one wrong, and another right. The difference makes them each unique. Unique differences require unique solutions.

And Redliner, my argument is that they don't differ in any meaningful way, that is, in any way relevant to their fitness for marriage. Both types of relationship involve (ideally) two responsible, consenting adult people who wish to commit socially and legally each other and who respect and revere the institution of marriage.

I believe everyone will acknowledge that male and female atheletes should often be held to different competitive standards, but this does not have any bearing on the validity of same-sex marriage.

You keep bringing up obvious yet irrelevant differences between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, but you have yet to show why these differences should prohibit same-sex marriage.

Is your argument against same-sex marriage simply that people of the same sex shouldn't get married?

Except that the principle remains the same. Individuals must qualify for each. You want to say that a marriage is a union between two consenting adults who love and care for each other. But the statute, in most cases, does not reflect that.

Commonly the statute has only these as qualifications:

1. Free to Marry.

2. The two parties cannot be too closely related

3. The two parties must be of opposite sex.

You want that changed, most do not.

In the womens 100 meter dash, these are the qualifications.

1. Must post a good enough qualifying time, or place in a qualifying event.

2. Must be a Woman.

The second example actually discriminates to a greater extent then the first, yet we should celebrate the second and do away with the provisions of the first. (and I am the one accused of arguing in circles )

Jim Mgreevy proved, without a doubt that gay Men are not discriminated against in the marriage issue. He found he could qualify, and he did. Were his rights abbreviated?

AMF:

As to your question about, what happens if a couple marries, then one gets a sex change operation.

The marriage licence is not a renewable licence. I have pointed this out before earlier. One must qualify to obtain the licence, there is no further review required.

Exactly my point. And if the marriage works for them, then the state has no vested interest in preventing it. And if it works for them, why would it not work for all couples of the same sex? The "vast differences" you claim are not vast at all in relation to the marital contract if the two people involved in the contract want it to work. Same with heterosexual people who come from different races or different religions. It's differences that get to be worked out BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES and the state has no vested interest in preventing it.

And if the state has no vested interest in preventing it, then the limitation can't stand up to court scrutiny. Regardless of what the majority wants.

And I certainly wouldn't have been happy in 1940 as a black man in the south if all you said was that I needed a better marketing campaign.

You are correct. That is the way things currently are. And a couple of centuries ago, American women could not vote and most black people in America were property.

My point being, you cannot make a rational, moral case against change merely by pointing out how things currently are, or by pointing out that change is unpopular.



In this instance, you are not using circular reasoning, but rather a false analogy, comparing apples to oranges. There are rational practical reasons for separating most athletic contests by gender. How do these reasons apply to same-sex marriage?



McGreevy is a corrupt politician who lied to his wife and had an extramarital affair. His actions were dishonorable, to say the least. Why are you using him as a case in point? Are you arguing that gay people should simply marry someone of the opposite gender and just shut up about being able to marry who they actually want to marry?

Redliner, you are once again choosing your own terms for this debate.



You are prescribing conditions in a false way. Currently as it stands marriage contracts are not validated by these standards; rather they are measured by the standards of capability and risk.

1. Is the party entering into the contract FREE AND ABLE to understand their decision?

2. Does entering into the contract pose a RISK to the parties?

Those are the standards by which marriage contracts are validated across the states. The individual readings of these two questions vary according from state to state, but they supply the foundations for the qualifications for marriage in each and every state.

You however seem to have this idea that esoteric things like "differences" are a fundamental element of marriage. I have no idea whatsoever how you came to this conclusion. With the exception of a bad song from the 80's I've never seen this used as credible justification for love or marriage; it certainly has no moral or legal standing.



Ok, I'll do it. (Abridged to save space.)



I'm sorry. After re-reading this list I think you make even less sense. You are applying subjective values here. Are men and woman biologically different? Yes. But without throwing reproduction into the equation then these differences have no bearing.

Do men and women experience PMS differently? Of course. Women suffer through it, and men suffer through their women suffering through it. So what about a black man and a white man? They cannot possibly understand the experiences of each other in any meaningful way. Does that qualify them for marriage.

What if I were to hook-up with a Phen-fen baby and pursue marriage? I can't imagine what it would be like growing up without arms. Is that a vast enough difference to make the marriage workable?

The basic problem with your argument (among many) is that you have attached a subjective standard (note how it's not a difference, but a VAST difference that you observe) and expect us to treat it objectively. More problematic, you have hinged your argument on this matter of differences when they have no historical, moral or legal standing.

(Did I deal with your individual examples? No. Because I don't have to. Are men and women different? Yes. Nobody would deny that. The fact that you completely and utterly fail to tie that into law, history, or any MEANINGFUL dynamic of the same-sex marriage discredits your argument better than anyone here could.)

UltimateJoe:

You make the admission in your post that Men and Women are obviously different.

How different Joe? Would you say “Vastly” might be a good way to describe the difference?

I will proceed after your reply. No need to waste space by cutting and pasting things needlessly.






After a very long redliner quote placed in by UltimateJoe:


UltimateJoe wrote:


Thanks for saving all that space Joe?

Questions for Redliner:

1) How does the existence of "vast" differences between the two sexes justify denying two gay people the ability to marry each other?

2) What does Gov. McGreevy have to do with denying two gay people the ability to marry each other?

Redliner, I addressed with your "points" the only way I could, but discussing them by at large. All you have done is made shallow observations about biological realities. Your utter failure to apply those observations in a logical way to the issue at hand is what drew my response.



No. It wouldn't be because you are applying a subjective value. They are different. That is enough. Either they are different or they are not. Whether they are "vast" or minor is irrelevant. Your argument is that these differences are an integral part of marriage; so it does not matter whether those differences are vast, gargantuan, insurmountable, whatever...

Now, in the future if you feel the need to recap a post of mine, why don't you take the time to consider what it said as well as how I said it.

Guess I have to make my points short to get Redliner (or anyone ) to read them..


Redliner, so far you have argued to get peopel to admit that men and women are vastly different. Biologically(meaning genetics) you are wrong, but culturally you are correct. So what!

Show us how marriage is only valid if the culture considers the two partners to be "opposites" or "vastly" different.... Make ONE credible argument to that I beg you....

Redliner wrote

UltimateJoe Responded:



Subjective? How so. This is how the dictionary defines vast:

Etymology: Latin vastus; akin to Old High German wuosti empty, desolate, Old Irish fás
: very great in size, amount, degree, intensity, or especially in extent or range

When speaking of the differences in "Genders" Males and Females are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Is it unreasonable then to call the difference vast, or is being opposites in gender closer to being at the same end of the spectrum?

Joe, Redliner is obviously not going to address any substantive points in this thread until you throw him this bone. Aw heck, I'll do it for you:

OK Redliner: The differences between males and females are vast. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Women cannot successfully compete against men in many athletic contests. Men don't go through menopause or have PMS. Women can bear children and men cannot. We are anatomically different in several obvious ways.


Now: What do these vast differences have to do with denying same-sex couples the ability to get married?

Does your argument boil down to "people of the same sex should not get married because they are not of the opposte sex"? Because that's what it's looking like to me.

So marriage should be something that can only be granted to "2" people that are different, or vastly different is the point to debate. Biologically speaking humans share vast difference in genetics, does that mean anything? i mean do all people look the same, does offspring always look exactly like a parent or both of them all the time. If one cannot use that argument then, the current point to debate must hinge directly on the difference that comes from sexual reproduction only.
height, eye color, hair style or type or color, or nothing else seems to add to the fact people can share vast difference in either type of person in regards to experience or biologically save sexual reproduction. Then one can bring up the point on why this point should deny marriage to same sex couples, it does not bring any point on why it should not, only to allow one to say that it should only be like that, with no real anything to back it up save that. How natural is marriage across the board in human society or culture. Marriage can take many forms, are humans only able to feel monogomy when it comes to sex, or love or something related? So then how natraul is marriage itself? if we can make up things, how can that then become the only way? The nature argument here holds not real reality to the discussion at hand save we get to deal with what abstractions biology can take in reality, and then with ignorance of such one is to say its not natural or not "moral" or not something, when reality shows this not to be true.

Can a scottish female then marry a female from iceland, or what about japan, does that count for mass difference in some respect. If our biology allows it, then how can it not be natural, again people cannot fly by will, but we can build planes. I can try to shove hotdogs down my toaster, how natural is that to do. I mean if you think about it at all, to use nature in an argument like this cannot be done to back the argument of it not being legal, it cannot merit a case against. This becomes even more so in the realm of the american legal system i imagine.


If one wants to drag that logic out, which i dont really feel like doing, i imagine it could get rather odd to say the least, though i am sure it would be good for a laugh. i am not so cruel as to do such though, sorry. The progessive south comes to the rescue again it looks like.

Nileriver, I think what redliner is saying is that marriage can only apply to two people who share a specific set of differences. Namely, they must be of opposite gender. IOW, marriage only makes sense if applied to two people on the opposite ends of the gender spectrum. Thus (if I understand redliner correctly) a relationship between two people of the same gender can be many things, but it cannot be "marriage".

Redliner, you want us to accept this argument as is, but you don't seem to understand that your justification ("marriage was designed for and can only apply to cases of two people from each end the vast gender divide") is essentially the same as your assertion ("two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married").

That's where your reasoning is circular*. But if my paraphrase of your arguments is wrong (and I may well have gotten it wrong), please correct me.

* EDITED TO ADD: Or is this an example of begging the question? I get those two confused....

Please remember what board we on on and quit accusing me of not addressing substantive points.

Please note we are on a board titled "Gender Issues".

I will address points based on the manner of the debate. I would appreciate an answer to my post by the individual that claims that I was being subjective, not objective in my points.

I do appreciate you questioning, however, to make a claim that the two opposite genders are close to being more alike, in respect to gender, then being different IS a subjective veiw.

It's kind of hard for me to do this when you don't seem to understand what subjective and objective are. Is there a substantial difference between men and women? Yes, like I said, they are different. The "level" of this difference is irrelevant to the discussion though. To be honest; I have absolutely no idea why you're hung up on it. Like I said, "Opposites Attract" is a bad 80's song; but a legal, moral, or religious tradition. So unless you can demonstrate HOW the difference is an integral part of the legal, moral, or traditional makeup of marriage you're just beating a dead horse.

Oh Joe, I certainly understand the difference. I have posted previously Objective (Marriage statutes that state that marriage is between one member of each of the two Genders) terminology, Then you respond with the Subjective opinion that it should be between two individuals that “Love” each other. Love is subjective Joe. Gender is not, and, neither is the differences in the “genders” subjective.



Let me remind you of an equally bad song “What is love?” Interesting how the Singer can’t seem to DEFINE such a subjective word.

But back to the issue at hand, that being, who’s rights are being abbreviated?

Is a Bus Driver having his rights abbreviated because, failing to qualify for a pilots license, he is not legally allowed to fly an airliner?

Can the Bus driver take additional training in order to legally obtain a pilots license? Yes he can. Can a Gay Man legally marry? Yep, ask MGreevy.

This is not subject to interpretation. It is law. Both are “drivers” of differing modes of transportation, but to be legal they both must meet certain qualifications to drive the VASTLY different vehicles.

The above is how the law can, and does handle situations differently even when there are similarities. I would think that you would agree with this. Both are related as “modes of transportation”, yet because they are different, different legal standards apply because of the difference of the vehicles.

Same sex relationships are relationships. Male/Female relationships are relationship. They are the same because they are relationships (as the Bus and the Airliner are both modes of transportation), and both CAN, and most possibly should exist as separate licenses due to the differences in the parties of both (just as the Airline Pilot and the Bus Driver require different license).

Is one more socially valuable then the other? I don’t see that one can claim this.

I'm at my wits end. Nobody is disagreeing with you that a same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage are different, at least in terms of biology. You have yet to state WHY it matters. What difference does it make? There, answer that. Why should the difference between the two matter?



It isn't a question of social value. You are attempting to use practical variation to describe an ideological position. Bus drivers can't fly airliners because THEY DON'T KNOW HOW. That does not corrolate to the marriage example. Now, either you don't accept that (in which case you're wrong) or you don't understand it. Which is it?

Bus drivers are not denied the right to become airline pilots, they must however qualify for the license to legally fly an airliner

My response has always been that it is necessary to make a similar process available to same sex couples. We do not disqualify Bus Drivers from gainful employment simply because they may not obtain a Pilots license. If we allow for "civil unions" then we are, in practical terms, providing the same position for same sex couples as we have for the Pilot or the driver.

A Pilots licence is to a "civil union" as a a Bus Drivers license is to a "marriage".

Again, if there are rights being abbreviated, where are they and what are they.

The Bus driver can't claim to be discriminated against because driving a bus pays less then Flying an Airliner when the Bus driver refuses to qualify for a multi engine pilots license? The same is true in this debate. Jim Mgreevy was not discriminated under the "marriage" statute even though he may have been Gay at the time he applied for the license, he simply had to qualify for it.

If some claim that the "marriage" statute in it's current form is not appropriate for them, no one makes them apply, so to claim discrimination on that basis is as realistic as the Bus Driver claiming discrimination in the above example.

Gay relationships are legal, and they are real, and for some they are desirable. You will get no argument from me. But as "Marriage" became law from the want of heterosexuals to have a civil binding contract, "civil unions" should be formed to allow homosexuals a similar vehicle. I have absolutely no problem with that.

I am afraid however that you, and others will want a "catch all" standard, and, this will be rejected again and again because of the obvious differences in the two types of relationships.

That is a wonderfully well considered and delicately worded obfuscation.



Your example underlines the own gaping faults in your argument. A Pilot's license is fundamentally different than a Bus Driver's license to be true. However, there is an underlying reason why they are seperate and distinct. A bus driver is INCAPABLE of flying a plane. However, gay people are not INCAPABLE of being married. The qualitative element is absent from the marriage dynamic. Now, you've made it pretty clear elsewhere that you don't WANT homosexuals to marry, primarily because you're hung up on the myth that it'll "destroy the institution of marriage." Why not just 'fess up to that instead of engaging in these horrible logic games?

More to the point; why not admit that the people in Missouri who voted to ban gay-marriage are using the exact same reasons; and it has nothing to do with objective reasoning.

As it underlines the faults of your own argument.



A bus driver is NOT incapable of flying a plane simply because he holds a bus drivers license. You oversimplify this. Any Bus Driver may, if they wish to, obtain the training and the experience to QUALIFY for a Pilots license. And gay people may, if they wish to, marry, as you point out and Jim Mgreery proves it as truth.

see my point?

And Joe, remember, I am arguing in a forum, that as part of the question speaks of "the Gay minority having their rights abbreviated", not some other forum.

Which is exactly why I think the prohibition against gay marriage will go the way of the misegenation laws and the inability of women to vote; they are all rationally unsupportable injustices.

The arguments against gay marriage boil down to:

1) "My God says gays are perverted sinners, and no WAY am I going to allow them to dignify their perversion with a marriage liscense."

2) "The idea of gay love and gay sex is icky to me, so I don't want gays to be able to marry."

3) "Dude! They can't get MARRIED!! Marriage is for same-sex couples only. There are OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES1!!1!!" (then when asked to explain why these differences should preclude marriage, it's "Because the two relationships are DIFFERENT!11!1!" ad infinitem)

So, because I have faith that the American public will come around, I think full-on gay marriage will be a reality within the next 15 years. I think it will happen just like CubeJockey described in the second post of this thread. I really think that once the American public sees gay couples seeking marriage for what they are, the public will come around.

You are right, Redliner. Gay people have the right to marry anyone of the opposite gender that they choose. So their rights are the same as straight poeple's.

Just like a hundred years ago, black people had the exact same rights as white people; they could legally marry anyone of the same race. So why did people complain about "rights being abbreviated*"? Everybody's rights were the same, right?

Maybe because you should have the right to marry anybody regardless of race? Well then why not regardless of gender too?

For the record, I agree that the wording of the original debate question was loaded, but IMO not enough to affect the substance of the debate.

EDIT: grammar, missing words, etc