Support NATA 2014

A Different Spin On Gay Marriage

  • 3,236 Views
  • 147 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:10 AM Reply

This really isn't a new spin on anything though...

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:10 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:06 AM, Ceratisa wrote: If you even bothered to look at US history you'd see a glorification of the nuclear family not long ago.

Actually, glorification of the nuclear family over the extended family goes hand in hand with population decline. The extended family is more about the people and the relationships, so growing it is considered a goal. The nuclear family is more of a day to day issue, and what governs day to day decisions? MONEY. Money is perhaps the biggest downward force on population. Children are expensive, and without support from the extended family the price for having and caring for them skyrockets even further.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:14 AM Reply

Can someone give me a complete legal argument why homosexuals shouldn't get married? Let's forget the science and look at what the law has done: after all, all science aside, it's ultimately the law's decision. What legal precedent is there for defining marriage as such? What impact would this have upon other laws, etc? Because from a legal standpoint, there should be no reason on a ban of gay marriage.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:25 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:14 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: Can someone give me a complete legal argument why homosexuals shouldn't get married?

If it were that simple, the Supreme Court wouldn't be tackling the issue.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:28 AM Reply

At 3/26/13 11:43 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I would have to think about it a lot before affirming one way or the other. But, I can say that I would not be likely to support a marriage between prison inmates - and, not really because of the procreation issue. Your rights as a prisoner are up for debate.

In some regards, but not here. The ruling on Turner v. Safley is consistent with the ruling in Loving v. Virginia which allowed interracial marriage. This is where Earl Warren deemed marriage as the "basic civil rights of man..." You may have your own philosophical opinions as to what the rights of inmates should be and marriage may not be one to you, but it's frankly irrelevant as the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law of the land; the ruling is entirely consistent with the constitution. To deny inmates the right to marry is a violation of the due process clause, which states: "Nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Note the emphasis on liberty: this is the part of the due process clause where the Supreme Court decided that the right to marry is a fundamental right and protected under the constitution.

Infertile couples should certainly be able to marry, but I would argue that certain benefits should be limited.

Well this doesn't really make sense to me, because we don't wait until a couple has a kid to bestow the legal benefits of marriage. Taking this into consideration, it shouldn't even matter whether or not a couple is incapable of having kids as far as this line of thinking is concerned, it should matter whether or not they're having kids in the first place. Otherwise, this is discrimination and a breach of the ruling found in Loving v. Virginia. This is such a massive slippery slope I can't even begin to describe it. How is this enforced? Is there a new federal department that checks married couples to see if they're having kids? What benefits are being limited, and why? What is the justification? How does this not create an incentive for couples to start having kids immediately rather than waiting? What about adopted children? Lesbian couples who have a baby via insemination? How would the law view that?

Again, it's for the purpose of encouraging the population that marriage functions - not necessarily to actually force the creation of babies.

Everything you've said here is the exact line of thinking that makes a functioning marriage for certain individuals impossible.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:31 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:25 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: If it were that simple, the Supreme Court wouldn't be tackling the issue.

Look, it doesn't matter what we think marriage should or should not be, because at the end of the day, that doesn't matter. The question here is what effects will happen if gay marriage is banned, and is beneficial to society in the eyes of the law? And, as we can see, the law says little if any about this so I ask again, what's the legal reason for banning gay marriage?

If you can't defend the bill in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter if you're right. Any lawyer will tell you this.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 02:04 AM Reply

I was going to respond to this thread, but the title is, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. There's nothing different at all about the OP's reasoning for prohibiting gay people from marrying. It's the same arguments used by other people such as the bigots who run the American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage.

Besides, it seems that the other political forum regulars are doing a fine job of rebutting the OP's rationale.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 02:33 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:10 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3/28/13 01:06 AM, Ceratisa wrote: If you even bothered to look at US history you'd see a glorification of the nuclear family not long ago.
Actually, glorification of the nuclear family over the extended family goes hand in hand with population decline. The extended family is more about the people and the relationships, so growing it is considered a goal. The nuclear family is more of a day to day issue, and what governs day to day decisions? MONEY. Money is perhaps the biggest downward force on population. Children are expensive, and without support from the extended family the price for having and caring for them skyrockets even further.

I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact I'm saying this is part of why the benefits exist. The glorification I was referring to was government and media. Luckily the U.S. still has one decently growing group.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 02:56 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:31 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: And, as we can see, the law says little if any about this so I ask again, what's the legal reason for banning gay marriage?

You can point to Prop. 8 or DOMA but none of this really answers your question, because there is no legal reason for banning gay marriage: it's a political reason instead. DOMA is laughably unconstitutional and I fully expect at least a 5-4 decision to strike down Section 3. Finding no rational basis or creating a quasi-suspect class for homosexuals will be the death knell for anti-gay marriage legislation. For Prop. 8, if the Supreme Court finds that all same sex marriage bans doesn't hold up against the equal protection clause, well there goes Section 2 of DOMA. What the GOP will do when it's not longer socially and legally acceptable to make this a central theme of their platform is anyone's guess, but that's another discussion entirely.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 03:06 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 02:56 AM, Feoric wrote: You can point to Prop. 8 or DOMA but none of this really answers your question, because there is no legal reason for banning gay marriage: it's a political reason instead. DOMA is laughably unconstitutional and I fully expect at least a 5-4 decision to strike down Section 3. Finding no rational basis or creating a quasi-suspect class for homosexuals will be the death knell for anti-gay marriage legislation. For Prop. 8, if the Supreme Court finds that all same sex marriage bans doesn't hold up against the equal protection clause, well there goes Section 2 of DOMA. What the GOP will do when it's not longer socially and legally acceptable to make this a central theme of their platform is anyone's guess, but that's another discussion entirely.

This is my point: this whole debate is worthless from a legal standpoint and now that there's more political majority for it it'll finally be settled......regardless of what you think the purpose of marriage is.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 04:16 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 03:06 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: This is my point: this whole debate is worthless from a legal standpoint and now that there's more political majority for it it'll finally be settled......regardless of what you think the purpose of marriage is.

If you want the actual reason for DOMA (and essentially every DOMA-lite legislation) here it is:

"H. R. 3396 ADVANCES THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN DEFENDING TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF MORALITY
There are, then, significant practical reasons why government affords preferential status to the institution of heterosexual marriage. These reasons -- procreation and child-rearing -- are in accord with nature and hence have a moral component. But they are not -- or at least are not necessarily -- moral or religious in nature. For many Americans, there is to this issue of marriage an overtly moral or religious aspect that cannot be divorced from the practicalities. It is true, of course, that the civil act of marriage is separate from the recognition and blessing of that act by a religious institution. But the fact that there are distinct religious and civil components of marriage does not mean that the two do not intersect. Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality. As Representative Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated during the Subcommittee markup of H.R. 3396: "[S]ame-sex marriage, if sanctified by the law, if approved by the law, legitimates a public union, a legal status that most people...feel ought to be illegitimate.... And in so doing it trivializes the legitimate status of marriage and demeans it by putting a stamp of approval...on a union that many people...think is immoral."

It is both inevitable and entirely appropriate that the law should reflect such moral judgments. H.R. 3396 serves the government's legitimate interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws."

However, this is legally irrelevant to the case. The Supreme Court actually does not care since this case is an example of rational basis review. The only requirement under rational basis review is to distinguish a rational relationship in a law or regulation to any governmental interest - this is not strictly limited to the governmental interest Congress intended. It's important to emphasize this point: rational review is to determine if a piece of legislation is rational, not smart. I still feel it's worth bringing up in the discussion to shed light on just how blatantly hateful and discriminatory this piece of legislation is, since we're not the Supreme Court.

NewgroundsMike
NewgroundsMike
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 07:25 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 03:06 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: This is my point: this whole debate is worthless from a legal standpoint and now that there's more political majority for it it'll finally be settled......regardless of what you think the purpose of marriage is.

Just had to shortly voice my opinion on this: Once again I look at the US and facedesk. I mean, they could at least treat gay and straight couples equally on legal terms. They don't have to enforce it on the church (where the conservative notion of family comes from), what do they have religious freedom for after all? What harm do gay people do? None. The ban on gay marriage is indeed discrimination. This whole debate is just ridiculous from an outsider's point of view.

And yes, I still claim to be Christian.


You can't fight for peace. If you fight, there ain't peace.
NO, I'M NOT AMERICAN!
Click here if you want to be my dinner!

Earfetish
Earfetish
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Melancholy
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 08:33 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 07:25 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Just had to shortly voice my opinion on this: Once again I look at the US and facedesk.

What country do you live in? The UK only legalised gay marriage this year. It's still illegal in most countries, including most Western countries.

Also the OP is trying to reconcile her parents' authoritarianism about genitals with modern values and ethics. Just give it up OP. Also homosexuality isn't a choice.

NewgroundsMike
NewgroundsMike
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 09:59 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 08:33 AM, Earfetish wrote:
At 3/28/13 07:25 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Just had to shortly voice my opinion on this: Once again I look at the US and facedesk.
What country do you live in? The UK only legalised gay marriage this year. It's still illegal in most countries, including most Western countries.

I live in Germany. Gays are - sort of - allowed to marry here, currently there's only a debate on tax issues here which I hope will be resolved soon. The thing with the US is what a huge deal they can make out of it.


You can't fight for peace. If you fight, there ain't peace.
NO, I'M NOT AMERICAN!
Click here if you want to be my dinner!

Earfetish
Earfetish
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Melancholy
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 10:31 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 09:59 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: I live in Germany. Gays are - sort of - allowed to marry here, currently there's only a debate on tax issues here which I hope will be resolved soon. The thing with the US is what a huge deal they can make out of it.

On 28 June 2012, a Green Party motion in the Federal Diet of Germany to legalize same-sex marriage was defeated by a vote of 309 to 260, with 12 abstentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_
in_Germany

yeah doesn't sound like you guys are too awesome either

the overwhelming majority of the US, Uk and German populace appear to support gay marriage but religion is too powerful a force, even in secular countries

And in the UK a small but vocal minority kicked up an almighty fuss about gay marriage, backed up by one of the most popular newspapers in the world (the Daily Mail), even though probably over 75% were adamantly pro-gay marriage.

HibiscusMallow
HibiscusMallow
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 10:49 AM Reply

At 3/27/13 04:30 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: A homosexual gene cannot be solely dependent upon some sort of hormonal dysfunction.
While hormonal factors may play a role in a person's probability of becoming homosexual, since they are absolutely not primary

There is a lot of misunderstanding over the "gay gene", some people think it is a gene with direct effects that only a few people have like the genes for green eyes or blonde hair and do not understand that brain development is a much more complex process and everyone has genes that cause a likelihood of having gay offspring, some people instantly assume anyone who rejects the gay gene is trying to argue that being gay is a choice. Hormones are a link in the mechanism of action so it is fundamental to this.

All hullabaloo aside... Both genetics and environment are always involved to some extent and some traits may increase the prevalence of homosexuality but there is much evidence suggesting other factors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeminization_and_masculinizat ion

Dr Sharpe said

animal studies had shown how female sex hormones could affect sexual differentiation in the brain and regulate sexual behaviour, but this had still to be proved in humans. It could well be different, he said.
There are many adults who suffer from a lack of, or excess of a certain hormone, yet do not engage in homosexual behaviors.

The effect of hormones on prenatal development of the brain is different from the effects of hormones on an adult brain.

I believe you have a misconception of the idea of benefits and discrimination. Benefits are given to serve a purpose or function, and also to reward members of a certain group. For example, there are employment benefits, military benefits, and insurance benefits - all of which are intended to attract more able members and/or create an easier environment for current members to operate. Marriage, without a purpose or function, lacks the need for benefits; they must then be revoked if homosexuals are allowed to marry. This is because benefits cannot be given to one type of marriage (that would certainly be discrimination), yet also cannot be given to all members because the investment no longer offers a return.

I am very confused by all this, now it is your turn to educate me. Do married soldiers have more loyalty or something that makes them better? Do unmarried soldiers have no loved ones? It seems to me a better idea to instead just pay all the soldiers more money and let them buy life insurance if that is what they want.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 12:02 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:28 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 3/26/13 11:43 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I would have to think about it a lot before affirming one way or the other.
You may have your own philosophical opinions as to what the rights of inmates should be and marriage may not be one to you, but it's frankly irrelevant as the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law of the land;

Absolutely right! But, you asked for my personal opinion on the issue; I tend to have extreme views in regards to incarceration as a crime deterrent and rehabilitation center. Of course, the majority of the country disagrees and I have to respect the decisions made by the Supreme Court.

Infertile couples should certainly be able to marry, but I would argue that certain benefits should be limited.
Well this doesn't really make sense to me, because we don't wait until a couple has a kid to bestow the legal benefits of marriage.

Now, I'm not saying that marriage should be changed to fix this. Philosophically it would have to - but the logistics of doing so would be nearly impossible to accomplish. Yet, since the purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation (not force it), it could be argued that restricting an infertile couple's benefits would be discouraging to people who may not be infertile. Again, this is a difficult philosophical issue to solve whereas preventing homosexual marriages is manageable. You know the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

At 3/28/13 02:04 AM, Light wrote: I was going to respond to this thread, but the title is, in my opinion, completely inaccurate.

I saw it differently because I redefined homosexuality, whereas many conservatives instead treat it as a trait. Under my premise, It can no longer be argued that banning gay marriage (one with benefits identical to marriage) is discriminatory as I have illustrated in my previous responses to other users. You are welcome to read them! Far too many people treat "gays" as a legitimate group of people when in fact it is like selecting "shoppers," "joggers," or simply "people who like the color red." It is extremely vague and lacks the objectivity of age, ethnicity, and sex.

If you do not see it as a spin, then I apologize for the misleading title.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 12:22 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 10:49 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm

Interesting article! I had no idea something as odd as finger length could play a role in determining one's sexual tendencies. However, from what I saw, the study was not indicative of anything objective (plus, they mentioned a problem with the males requiring "several older brothers").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeminization_and_masculinizat ion

I am not sure what this one was for. A defect in the defeminization and/or masculinization process causing "homosexuality" would have to be true in nearly 100% of cases. Moreover, this same function is not present in females; therefore, it cannot explain lesbianism.

"No hormones have yet been discovered that are necessary early in life to produce female sexual development.... The full development of male characteristics also includes personal experience throughout life, determining gender identity, gender roles and sexual orientation."

There are many adults who suffer from a lack of, or excess of a certain hormone, yet do not engage in homosexual behaviors.
The effect of hormones on prenatal development of the brain is different from the effects of hormones on an adult brain.

My point is, these are variables on which homosexuality is not dependent upon when observed.

I believe you have a misconception of the idea of benefits and discrimination. Benefits are given to serve a purpose or function, and also to reward members of a certain group. For example, there are employment benefits, military benefits, and insurance benefits...
I am very confused by all this, now it is your turn to educate me. Do married soldiers have more loyalty or something that makes them better?

Whoops, you misread! I was describing a broad category - different types of benefits and their functions as such; not different types of marriage benefits. Apologies for the confusion!


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 12:24 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I saw it differently because I redefined homosexuality, whereas many conservatives instead treat it as a trait.

Why? What does it matter to you whether it's a trait or not? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what stake you have in this game. This is the biggest pitfall of the anit-gay marriage crowd. They fight tooth and nail making up crazy reasons why homosexuals should not be married, yet not once, ONCE, has any of them been able to answer the simple question of why they care what someone else does with their own life.

Side note, create a topic about your criminal views. I'd like to hear them (not sarcasm).

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:40 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm still waiting for you to tell me what stake you have in this game. This is the biggest pitfall of the anit-gay marriage crowd. They fight tooth and nail making up crazy reasons why homosexuals should not be married, yet not once, ONCE, has any of them been able to answer the simple question of why they care what someone else does with their own life.

See, many people misunderstand the conservative position because they feel it is against homosexual relationships or sex. While this may be true for some members of traditional marriage proponents, it is not true or relevant to the position. Supporters of gay marriage tend to believe there is some sort of social sentiment needed to be acquired - this is, in fact, just as subjective as every kind of relationship.

I am against gay marriage, not gay relationships. Were there to be a separate institution created for gay couples with benefits specific to them, although it is difficult to think of some that wouldn't include heterosexual couples, I would have absolutely no issues. But, traditional marriage will become completely emotional with no functionality if gays are allowed to marry in the same institution. it is extremely unfortunate that many conservatives and religious people are opposed to gay marriage on the basis of what they believe constitutes "improper bed behavior." Both sides misunderstand the marriage debate, and take it as a sex debate. Few people acknowledge the purpose of marriage, and thus become bigots because they either dislike gay sex or hate conservative philosophy.

This is why I offered the example of immigration. Although many privileges of American citizenship are restricted, a legal immigrant is still allowed certain freedoms/rights. This includes freedom from racial discrimination. Why? Because discrimination is an infringement on negative rights - that is, human rights that are acquired from birth.

However, legal immigrants are excluded from benefits given to American citizens. These are positive rights, and include:

1. Protection from deportation.
2. The ability to leave the country for any period of time and retain permanent resident status.
3. Assistance programs (ie: Social Security, Medicaid, and Food Stamps)
4. The ability to vote for political candidates.
5. The ability to hold any office in government excluding Presidency.

Marriage is a positive right - a privilege system intended to benefit heterosexual couples exclusively. While gay couples are still allowed civil unions (another positive right, by the way), the institution of marriage was never intended for these. Thus, the denial of an application for benefits associated with marriage is non-discriminatory. Similarly, the benefits withheld from non-Americans is non-discriminatory.

Side note, create a topic about your criminal views. I'd like to hear them (not sarcasm).

Will do!


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 02:44 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I saw it differently because I redefined homosexuality, whereas many conservatives instead treat it as a trait. Under my premise, It can no longer be argued that banning gay marriage (one with benefits identical to marriage) is discriminatory as I have illustrated in my previous responses to other users.

I still don't agree that homosexuality can't be a trait of an individual, but let's stop thinking about individuals for a second.

Homosexuality is trait of homosexual couples. A couple in which both people are the same sex is always unquestionably homosexual.

Since marriage can't involve only one person (inb4 if we allow gays to marry it might be able to) we're dealing with couples not individuals.

Marriage is a positive right - a privilege system intended to benefit heterosexual couples exclusively. While gay couples are still allowed civil unions (another positive right, by the way), the institution of marriage was never intended for these. Thus, the denial of an application for benefits associated with marriage is non-discriminatory. Similarly, the benefits withheld from non-Americans is non-discriminatory.

Right, the conservative position is that marriage is only for heterosexual couples. The problem is that homosexual couples are psychologically identical to heterosexual couples that are incapable of having children. If marriage was instituted by the government to encourage population growth, then from their perspective there's no difference at all between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple that won't have children other that the fact that one couple is homosexual.

So there you have it, one couple can get married and another can't and the only difference is that one has the trait of homosexuality. It is discrimination. Conservatives do not consider homosexual relationships equal to others and that's the basis for making them separate.

At 3/27/13 03:38 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Marriage without benefits becomes less important than civil unions.

There's no reason why these benefits have to be taken away since there's no difference.

This is literally one of the silliest phenomena because there would be no real gain from a formal ceremony (which can be carried out privately).

Maybe marriage should just not be a government institution at all. The only options that are acceptable to me would be to:

A. allow homosexual couples to marry, for the above reasons
B. remove marriage from government. If you really want to encourage population growth then reward couples for having children, not for getting married.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 02:56 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I am against gay marriage, not gay relationships. Were there to be a separate institution created for gay couples with benefits specific to them, although it is difficult to think of some that wouldn't include heterosexual couples, I would have absolutely no issues. But, traditional marriage will become completely emotional with no functionality if gays are allowed to marry in the same institution. it is extremely unfortunate that many conservatives and religious people are opposed to gay marriage on the basis of what they believe constitutes "improper bed behavior." Both sides misunderstand the marriage debate, and take it as a sex debate. Few people acknowledge the purpose of marriage, and thus become bigots because they either dislike gay sex or hate conservative philosophy.

That's great you think that. Here's the problem though: marriage has evolved from what it was 1000, 500 years ago. It's still evolving as a social construct within economic and political structures. If you want to argue that at its core marriage is about reproduction then what about all the single parents and married couples who don't have children? But I'm getting slightly off track here, marriage has evolved from being whatever it was in the past to something that is engrained into our social, economical, and most importantly legal systems. You may have your own views on how marriage should be defined socially but the problem here is law. The law has to be impartial to every group, otherwise that's institutionalized discrimination. Banning gay marriage in the eyes of the law is effectively saying, "Congratulations, you're a 2nd class citizen who can't enjoy their full rights under the law because you like the wrong group of people."

Side note: I personally don't believe in gay marriage in the eyes of the law because I don't approve of use of the word "marriage" in law. First Admenent says we cannot make laws pertaining toward religion, and marriage before the use in law was primary a religious function historically. Ergo, we shouldn't have made any laws pertaining to it in the first place. Instead, I argue we change all instance of the word marriage in our laws with the term civil union. In the eyes of the government, you don't get married, you get a civil union, regardless of who you choose to be with. Privately in social situations call it whatever you like, but in the eyes of the law don't call it marriage, period.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 03:21 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Absolutely right! But, you asked for my personal opinion on the issue; I tend to have extreme views in regards to incarceration as a crime deterrent and rehabilitation center. Of course, the majority of the country disagrees and I have to respect the decisions made by the Supreme Court.

Okay, that's fine, but you said "Your rights as a prisoner are up for debate." And that's kinda true I guess, but not in this instance because legally there is no debate about it. There already was a debate and it's been settled.

Now, I'm not saying that marriage should be changed to fix this. Philosophically it would have to - but the logistics of doing so would be nearly impossible to accomplish. Yet, since the purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation (not force it), it could be argued that restricting an infertile couple's benefits would be discouraging to people who may not be infertile.

You're lending too much credence to the procreation side of marriage. Procreation is a purpose, not the purpose. States have integrated marriage into the civil structure of society -- this is a relatively new phenomena. The purpose of marriage, since the inception of the institution, has been the continuation of property rights and power. Marriage was and is a social contract dealing primarily with the rights of ownership and inheritance. Religions would sanction or bless a marriage, but not perform or create one. It was not until recent history that the church or the state had to licence you to marry.

Your entire argument is built on a flawed premise.

Again, this is a difficult philosophical issue to solve whereas preventing homosexual marriages is manageable.

What happens when it's deemed unconstitutional?

Under my premise, It can no longer be argued that banning gay marriage (one with benefits identical to marriage) is discriminatory as I have illustrated in my previous responses to other users.

You're wrong. The Supreme Court can rule that homosexuals are a quasi-suspect class as what happened in the 2nd Circuit with Windsor v. United States. What then?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 03:26 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 01:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: But, traditional marriage will become completely emotional with no functionality if gays are allowed to marry in the same institution.
Few people acknowledge the purpose of marriage, and thus become bigots because they either dislike gay sex or hate conservative philosophy.

You have very much failed to prove that reproduction is anything but a minor part of marriage. Prove that marriage is ALL ABOUT reproduction and you'll have at least a slight case. But so long as the purposes of unity, love, commitment, raising of a family, and settling down still exist in levels of importance equal to or greater than reproduction, your point is meaningless, and seems to be nothing other than a lst grasp at straws.

Now, EVEN IF, you are right and reproduction is the major purpose of marriage, how does allowing gays to marry hurt marriage other than making their AND ONLY THEIR marriages useless? How does my heterosexual baby producing marriage change in ANY way because homosexual marry?

Also, how does a no reproducing homosexual marriage hurt the institution, as you wish to frame it, any more than a heterosexual couple that either cannot or chooses not to reproduce? What about compared to a hetero couple that divorces? Also, how is a gay couple that adopts and soundly and properly raises a child any worse than a hetero couple who does the same, or a hetero couple who biologically reproduces a child but then proceeds to abuse and neglect the child? Are you saying that the birth of a child is the only important factor, and that a child who is blood related to both parents is more important than one who blood related to one or adopted?

You have MAJOR holes in your argument that you need to sew up before you can start saying anything definitive.


However, legal immigrants are excluded from benefits given to American citizens. These are positive rights, and include:

The rights you listed are directly related to citizenship. They are citizen rights that only citizens of ANY country get to recieve from their respective country. Voting, free travel, free residency, recieving of governmental services are all items that are reserved to tax paying citizens who are part of the country. These are restricted to citizens only, because allowing them to any schmo who comes in will drain the budget, put the US government at the hands of any foreign national who chooses to vote, put US lands at the hands of any foreign national who chooses to settle there. So, like I said before they are directly related to the threshold act.

This is ONLY akin to marriage if you're actually able to prove that reproduction is not only the primary function of marriage, but the SOLE function of it. Otherwise the benefit denied is not closely enough related to the threshold act to rationally be withheld.


Marriage is a positive right - a privilege system intended to benefit heterosexual couples exclusively. While gay couples are still allowed civil unions (another positive right, by the way), the institution of marriage was never intended for these.

Which marriage are you thinking of? State or church? Sure, the church can deny marriage to whomever they wish. State marriage has never been about the same things as church marriage, so unless you can prove that State marriage is primarily and solely about reproduction, the State has no reason to deny it to homosexuals.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 03:30 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
At 3/28/13 02:04 AM, Light wrote:
I was going to respond to this thread, but the title is, in my opinion, completely inaccurate.
I saw it differently because I redefined homosexuality, whereas many conservatives instead treat it as a trait.

Probably because it is, like eye color and height.

Under my premise, It can no longer be argued that banning gay marriage (one with benefits identical to marriage) is discriminatory as I have illustrated in my previous responses to other users.

I skimmed through them.

I'm not convinced.

You are welcome to read them! Far too many people treat "gays" as a legitimate group of people when in fact it is like selecting "shoppers," "joggers," or simply "people who like the color red." It is extremely vague and lacks the objectivity of age, ethnicity, and sex.

What is vague about homosexuality? They are people who are attracted to members of the same sex and only the same sex.

What is illegitimate about a group of people known as homosexuals?

If you do not see it as a spin, then I apologize for the misleading title.

OK.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 03:31 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 03:21 PM, Feoric wrote: What happens when it's deemed unconstitutional?

I doubt the Supreme Court will ever rule it unconstitutional. My guess on both issues is that they will puss out.

On Prop 8, I'm guessing they will kill the appeal because of standing, merely overturning the California Law and leaving every other state alone. 10% chance they say equivalent but named different is unconstitutional (following previous decisions stating that any law based solely in animosity against homosexuals is not allowed).

On DOMA, I say they will grant it standing (they've routinely granted standing for less injury than this) and will kill it on Federalism grounds.

In the end, I think they won't touch the actual issue with a 10 foot pole, but I do think the trial plaintiffs (the original plaintiffs, not necessarily the appellant plaintiffs) in both cases will get what they want.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 03:44 PM Reply

At 3/26/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
It is exactly the same for homosexuals. One who has a sexual relation with a member of the same sex becomes a homosexual.

Lmao and there's the bullshit hidden in all this mess. When did you choose to be straight?

If there is a gene that renders someone homosexual, it is in direct opposition with evolution which the primary function of is the creation of offspring.

Almost all animals are capable of being homosexual or bisexual, hermaphroditic, and even change sex all with distinct evolutionary advantages. In some populations, a homosexual male will have sex with other males to establish/maintain his dominance. Female Hyenas are a part of a matriarchal society and display their dominance by flaunting their enlarged clitori. Flounder females will actually change sex if the dominant breeding male of the school dies or leaves.

The animal kingdom couldn't give two fucks about which sexual preference you think is most advantageous.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 04:21 PM Reply

[I will respond to redundancies/short comments first. If you were quoted here, it is because I do not find it necessary to elaborate further, as my arguments have been outlined quite plainly within these two pages. Until you offer a new rebuttal, I probably will not reply again (not to be rude, simply to save time). Thanks for understanding!]

At 3/28/13 02:44 PM, Entice wrote: we're dealing with couples not individuals.

True, but no one is attempting to ban gay sex or relationships.

The problem is that homosexual couples are psychologically identical to heterosexual couples that are incapable of having children.

Psychology is irrelevant.

If marriage was instituted by the government to encourage population growth, then from their perspective there's no difference at all between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple that won't have children other that the fact that one couple is homosexual.

Correct. Unfortunately legislating specifics about heterosexual marriages would probably result in discouragement for couples to get married. Problems in the system are not excuses to actually INTRODUCE more problems.

Conservatives do not consider homosexual relationships equal to others

No. Conservatives do not consider marriage to apply to homosexual relationships.

There's no reason why these benefits have to be taken away since there's no difference.

Gay marriage results in these benefits serving no purpose. It would also be a waste of money.

At 3/28/13 02:56 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
At 3/28/13 01:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Few people acknowledge the purpose of marriage, and thus become bigots because they either dislike gay sex or hate conservative philosophy.
That's great you think that. Here's the problem though: marriage has evolved from what it was 1000, 500 years ago.

Which is why if the definition is changed, it must evolve further and no longer be associated with benefits.

At 3/28/13 03:30 PM, Light wrote:
At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Under my premise, It can no longer be argued that banning gay marriage (one with benefits identical to marriage) is discriminatory as I have illustrated in my previous responses to other users.
I skimmed through them.

Then evidently you have no desire to have an actual discussion on the issue. No problem.

At 3/28/13 03:44 PM, Saen wrote: The animal kingdom couldn't give two fucks about which sexual preference you think is most advantageous.

Please read Part II of my opening post, thanks!


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 04:41 PM Reply

At 3/28/13 03:21 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 3/28/13 12:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Now, I'm not saying that marriage should be changed to fix this. Philosophically it would have to - but the logistics of doing so would be nearly impossible to accomplish.
You're lending too much credence to the procreation side of marriage.

Well, I intend to draw attention to the reasons marriage benefits were created. Inclusion of non-heterosexual marriages makes the benefits invalid - they would need to be rewritten to suit everyone, which would probably result in less benefits if any at all. A new definition of marriage would serve no function beyond satisfying emotional needs (this oddly seems to be the gay community's most prevalent argument). I propose two different types of marriages with benefits exclusive to each - perhaps a redefinition of civil unions rather than traditional marriage.

Again, this is a difficult philosophical issue to solve whereas preventing homosexual marriages is manageable.
What happens when it's deemed unconstitutional?

Then I must respect the ruling, and adjust my political opinion on the issue to focus on removing benefits associated with marriages in the interest of saving the government's money.

Under my premise, It can no longer be argued that banning gay marriage (one with benefits identical to marriage) is discriminatory as I have illustrated in my previous responses to other users.
You're wrong. The Supreme Court can rule that homosexuals are a quasi-suspect class as what happened in the 2nd Circuit with Windsor v. United States. What then?

Well now, that is why I call it a "premise." =)

At 3/28/13 03:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3/28/13 01:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Few people acknowledge the purpose of marriage, and thus become bigots because they either dislike gay sex or hate conservative philosophy.
... So long as the purposes of unity, love, commitment, raising of a family, and settling down still exist in levels of importance equal to or greater than reproduction, your point is meaningless, and seems to be nothing other than a lst grasp at straws.

Neither of the aspects you described are exclusive to marriage. This is why my argument still stands - the only difference between civil unions and marriage are the benefits and connotation. The benefits, as I have described, are purely designed to encourage population growth. Connotation is subjective and not even remotely close to being a good reason to make changes to an institution, besides the literal name you call it by.

Now, EVEN IF, you are right and reproduction is the major purpose of marriage, how does allowing gays to marry hurt marriage other than making their AND ONLY THEIR marriages useless?

It doesn't hurt marriage (objectively), it results in a huge waste of money.

(I've omitted the following paragraphs because they are extremely redundant, and can be answered simply be re-reading some of my previous responses).


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 04:42 PM Reply

Which is why if the definition is changed, it must evolve further and no longer be associated with benefits.

Great! That would cool if it was going to be applied equally to everybody in the eyes of the law. However, excluding one group over another again is in institutionalized discrimination and such is the case in legal argument against gay marriage.

This is going to be the third time I'm going to ask you for a clear, precise legal argument against homosexual marriage. Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter what you think the purpose of marriage is or how gay marriage might affect the population (here's a hint: probably not a big difference. Whoop dee frickin do) it's an legal argument of should gay marriage exist in the eyes of the law?

Let me phrase this differently so you might understand this better: do you believe that there is benefit for society in which government not only prevents but also fails to recognize relationships an individual may choose to have throughout their life?

It's a simple question this way, really.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature