Gay Marriage

[Moontanman]

Oh boy, what a thread, gay marriage, marriage between two people of the same sex. How could such a simple thing stir up so much bullshit!

 

I've read many things I really never expected to be part of the discussion, lets make a list and check it twice, see who's been naughty or nice....

 

End if civilization-doesn't support the state-gays be definition cannot reproduce-gays will never be allowed to colonize space

 

These arguments are so far outside reality is really difficult to get a handle on where they come from. Homosexuals have been with the human race from the start, most primitive cultures (other than the recent Judeo/Christian/Muslim perversion of civilization) do not persecute them in any way and make allowances for them. Gay human beings have not so far hindered the progress of civilization and I doubt very seriously they ever will. Gays are already here, have always been among us, and are already not reproducing, giving them "marriage" will not change that. Gays are a part of our society, nothing anyone can do will ever change that. If and when space is colonized there will be gay humans among the people who do so. No way to prevent it, it will simple be a part of that reality just like it is a part of ours now.

 

Licking, sucking, and taking it up the rear...... Lets grow up people, these acts are not now nor were they ever the exclusive domain of gay people. ALL LAWS PERTAINING TO LICKING, SUCKING, AND TAKING UP THE REAR ARE BASED ON RELIGION, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS Principally the Judeo/Christian part of religion, notice I didn't include Muslims, Mohammad in his wisdom did indeed allow for such behavior between married people. Sex, other than good old man on top get it over with quick, has been a big part of human life and civilization forever or at least since we had sense enough to see sex as fun. Even our closest relatives practice these sex acts. GROW UP PEOPLE!

 

FACT: MARRIAGE WAS CREATED BY HETEROS FOR HETEROS, BY NATURE--NOT BY STATE.

 

 

Is anyone really willing to go with this as fact? FACT? Again BULLSHIT! In the wild, as at least one of us is prone to say, humans are generally polygamous. Most primitive tribes the main guy has several wives, serial lovers are quite common too. In the wild, please!

 

 

Bestiality, gay marriage will encourage bestiality, I guess the fear mongering of the religious right just can't stay away from the argument. necrophilia, damn, I mean just.... damn, it's just say slippery slope is bullshit and let it go at that....

 

Homosexuality is a man made wrong... so you want to go with people choose to be gay, yes lets talk about that. An otherwise intelligent human being would choose to be gay, choose to be considered the lowest of the low by many people, choose to have the **** kicked out of him or her by well meaning up standing citizens who must want to make things right. Choose to be barred from haing a family, choose to be pushed out of society, despised by god or at least his servants on this earth. Choose to be gay, yes lets go with that, damn, how many times does it have to said homosexuality is not a choose, gay people do not choose to be gay, they cannot just decide to be straight any more than a straight person can choose to be gay. it not a choice, got it!

 

So, gay marriage, can we discuss it with out the bullshit please....

[Larv]

…as well as the huge number of homosexual citizens being treated as second class and being denied the same rights and privileges offered to our heterosexual citizens.

Not in my state, Washington. We treat them like first-class citizens, but we don’t let them get married. We have the “everything but marriage” law. It is entirely constitutional, and it doesn’t harm them in any way measurable in terms of equal rights and privileges.

[InfiniteNow]

We treat them like first-class citizens, but we don’t let them get married.

 

First, we're talking about this issue on a national level, not just in Washington. Second, your sentence above is an oxymoron.

 

Also, for what secular reason must their relationship be called something other than "marriage?" You can still add the descriptive adjective "same sex" in front of it if you wish, but what is the non-bigoted reason for calling it anything other than what it is... namely, a marriage?

 

 

Mom! Dad! You'll never believe it!!! Samual and I are getting civil unioned! We're going to be domestically partnered! Isn't that wonderful!?!

 

 

Hmmm... yeah. Pretty sure they're getting "married." Prove me wrong. Use some logical secular arguments why it can't be called a marriage (which you yourself continue to call the relationship of two same sex partners in your own posts). Tell us all why it's not enough to put an adjective in front of the word "marriage," and why a different name is required. Also, please recall that the "traditional definition" suggestion has already been refuted on multiple fronts.

[lawcat]

Lawcat, please don't shout.

 

If you were to answer the criticisms

 

~modest

 

Dude, spell the question out, or do not post. You are interrogating posters on their beliefs by asking empty whys without any particularities. Spell it out with particularities.

 

you can post your beliefs, like I've been doing, but you can not interrogate people endlessly without providing particularized reasoning that ties your ultimate conclusion to the fundamental purpose of the State.

 

Unlike in science, where Bohr, Einstein, Hawking postulates hold true with observatioon, and where those who post wild science must provide exceedingly persuasive argument; here, you are on shallow grounds. Here, you must provide an exceedingly persuasive argument. So far you have not done it. All you've done is ask why.

[Moontanman]

Not in my state, Washington. We treat them like first-class citizens, but we don’t let them get married. We have the “everything but marriage” law. It is entirely constitutional, and it doesn’t harm them in any way measurable in terms of equal rights and privileges.

 

I'm glad to hear that larv, I really am, now it's up to honest up standing citizens like you to make sure that it is never compromised by people who will try to interpret the laws to favor their respective gestalt. For blacks in my state many years ago exactly the same but different was a vile joke played on them by people who never really intended the laws to do anything but keep Black people as far from equal as possible. make sure that doesn't happen in your state larv..... Good luck with that by the way

[Larv]

Oh boy, what a thread, gay marriage, marriage between two people of the same sex. How could such a simple thing stir up so much bullshit! ... Bestiality, gay marriage will encourage bestiality, I guess the fear mongering of the religious right just can't stay away from the argument. necrophilia, damn, I mean just.... damn, it's just say slippery slope is bullshit and let it go at that....

Who said gay marriage would encourage bestiality? I certainly don’t feel that way. Nor would it necessarily encourage pedophilia, incest, or necrophilia. But it might encourage polygamists to seek legal status for their “marriages.” I wouldn’t care anything about that either, so long as it is judged to be constitutional by a supreme court.

[Larv]

Mom! Dad! You'll never believe it!!! Samual and I are getting civil unioned! We're going to be domestically partnered! Isn't that wonderful!?!

Wouldn’t “civilly united” be a better term?

 

Hmmm... yeah. Pretty sure they're getting "married." Prove me wrong. Use some logical secular arguments why it can't be called a marriage.

Oh, just that silly old Constitution, that’s all.

[InfiniteNow]

Prove me wrong. Use some logical secular arguments why it can't be called a marriage.

Oh, just that silly old Constitution, that’s all.

 

Okay, good. Now we're finally getting somewhere.

 

Will you please quote the relevant part of the Constitution which says that the relationship of two people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, despite it's tremendous concordance, overlap, and similarities with the relationship of two opposite sex people which IS called a marriage?

 

I really look forward to reading this part of the Constitution to which you just referred. I must say... When I read it myself front to back the last two times, I must have missed that bit, and appreciate your next post which will fill in a gap in my knowledge.

[Larv]

Okay, good. Now we're finally getting somewhere.

 

Will you please quote the relevant part of the Constitution which says that the relationship of two people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, despite it's tremendous concordance, overlap, and similarities with the relationship of two opposite sex people which IS called a marriage?

 

I really look forward to reading this part of the Constitution to which you just referred. I must say... When I read it myself front to back the last two times, I must have missed that bit, and appreciate your next post which will fill in a gap in my knowledge.

Hey, I’m not in the business of interpreting the Constitution; that’s why we have supreme courts in this constitutional republic. And by my last count, the supreme courts’ interpretations are running 43 to 7 in favor of not legalizing gay marriage. So, keep on reading…and smoking…and truckin’ yer blues away.

[InfiniteNow]

sigh... deep breaths.

[InfiniteNow]

Hey, I’m not in the business of interpreting the Constitution; that’s why we have supreme courts in this constitutional republic.

Your response is total bullshit, and nothing more.

 

I asked you to name a relevant secular reason why the relationship of two same sex partners cannot be called a marriage, and to ensure that your reason was one which had not already been refuted in this thread.

 

You cited our constitution. I found this a step in the right direction, in that you'd finally provided an answer not grounded in bias and bigotry. In order to further learn about the subject, I asked you to cite precisely which bit of our constitution says that the relationship of two people of the same sex cannot be called a marriage, despite it's tremendous concordance, overlap, and similarities with the relationship of two opposite sex people which IS called a marriage.

 

Now, instead of responding to that request, you are telling me that you are incapable of interpreting the constitution?

 

Please. Have the academic integrity to support your claim or retract it. Your response above was pure bullshit, and nothing more, and I know you can do better. Also, I can tell you right now... There is no such thing in the constitution, so I am openly and sincerely requesting support of the point you made above, as per this sites rules to which you agreed when creating your account.

 

You said the reason was in "a little thing called our constitution." I asked you where. Now, show us.

 

 

And by my last count, the supreme courts’ interpretations are running 43 to 7 in favor of not legalizing gay marriage.

Okay. Good. More progress. I'm excited to see this. You said that there have been 50 cases brought to the supreme court which have ruled on the issue of same sex marriage, and that 43 of them have ruled against same sex marriage.

 

That's something we can check. Please cite those cases, and do not respond that you're "not in the business of interpreting the constitution" or "studying SCOTUS case law." You know, something like "InfiniteNow v. The bullshit claims being made in this thread," or "Larv v. Those who see no reason not to call it a marriage."

 

 

Now, I'm obviously giving you a hard time. I know full well that the SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue in 50 different cases, despite the implication of your statement. What you obviously meant is that same sex marriage is currently disallowed in 43 states. I get that. This isn't about current law.

 

Now, please stop with the red herrings, and provide us all with some logical secular arguments why the relationship of two same sex partners can't be called a marriage (which you yourself continue to call the relationship of two same sex partners in your own posts). Tell us all why it's not enough to put an adjective in front of the word "marriage," and why a different name is required. Also, please recall that the "traditional definition" suggestion has already been refuted on multiple fronts.

 

Seriously. I am honestly asking you to support your position and stop hand waving. It's below you, and I've seen you do better in other discussions, so know that you are capable of doing better in this one.

[lawcat]

 

That's something we can check. Please cite those cases, and do not respond that you're "not in the business of interpreting the constitution" or "studying SCOTUS case law." You know, something like "InfiniteNow v. The bullshit claims being made in this thread," or "Larv v. Those who see no reason not to call it a marriage."

.

 

I have done that for Larv. Go back and read. SCOTUS had ruled that there is no constitutional issue on the ban of gay marriage, It is up to states to decide. Then, I have provided you with the list of statutes and const. provisions, and rulings. Go back and read. Stop going in loops with questions that have already been answered. Stop interrogating people.

 

Your premise that constitution mandates equality is wrong; it has been proven wrong in the courts and many different constitutions when put under the scrutiny of arguments. The reason that you feel that constitution is wrong is based on "benefits and protections," which is what you posted in the first two pages of this thread.

Minority of States have equal benefits clause, and some of those high courts have ruled in favor of civil unions based on the "Benefits" clause, in that particular State. For example, Vermont did that in Baker v. State, in 1998. Here is an excerpt:

 

We conclude that under the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont

Constitution, which, in pertinent part, reads:

 

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community,

 

Vt. Const., ch. I, art 7., plaintiffs may not be deprived of the statutory benefits and protections afforded persons of the opposite sex who choose to marry. We hold that the State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law. Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel "domestic partnership" system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature. Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law.

 

http://vermont-archives.org/govhistory/governance/Impeach/pdf/98-032_op.pdf

 

Fed constitution, and the majority of States have no such provision, that the government ought to be ( an issue of where to assign greatest weight) instituted for the common benefits.

[InfiniteNow]

You've never met a strawman which you didn't like, have you, lawcat?

[lawcat]

You've never met a strawman which you didn't like, have you, lawcat?

 

Strawman argument is an "attenuated" argument. Your argument is a strawman's argument, because you invoke "benefits," and "love." Benefits argument is attenuated because only Vermont, out of fifty States, has ruled on such basis. See the previously posted ruling. Love argument is attenuated because love is not essential to marriage, and even the strongest proponents understand that. See this book on the bottom of page 17, Gay marriage: why it is good for ... - Google Books: "Love is not, however, the defining element of marriage in society's eyes, and it never has been."

 

You need to come up with a better argument than that as a matter of persuasion. Moreover, you need to invoke stronger point than that to refute the existing arguments.

[InfiniteNow]

Your previously cited SCOTUS cases fail to address my point. Further, you continue to misrepresent my point, and instead choose to argue against that misrepresentation and claims some sort of victory. Hence, my claim that you are engaging in the logical fallacy stands.

 

 

Now, to remind you of the previous point, I asked for which cases ruled that the relationship of two same sex partner could not be called a marriage, despite the fact that the relationships of opposite sex couples (which are parallel in every way except genitals) are called marriages.

 

 

Exactly ZERO of the cases you've cited meet this request. So, would you like to try again? Or, would you prefer to make up something else which I did not say and argue against that?

[modest]

A straw man is an informal argument fallacy defined as:

Something, such as an argument, deliberately set up weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea.

An very good example of a strawman is the following exchange:

Procreation is neither the only purpose of marriage or civilization... The fact is: homosexuality exists. Does it benefit society to allow homosexuals to marry or to force them to live as if alone? Which has the vested interest of society? I stress this in the form of a quote... “Two people are better off than one”

In the first paragraph of the reply my argument is remade into an entirely different thing which is 1)weakly supported and 2)easily knocked down. The second paragraph then refutes the first paragraph (the strawman).

You raise a common argument: If two people can live together, love, share food, share finances, share joys and sorrows of this limited life on earth that we have, then they should be able to marry. The corollary of that is the biblial passage you posted which can be summarized as: it is a human necessity to go in pairs.

 

Both are incorrect. The first is incorrect because if it is essentially incorrect[correct]; if it were true you could marry you mother, your father, two neices, five tribal women, and share joys and sorrows of life; and this is not the case. The second is incorrect, because it is an arbitrary poetic construct; what arbitrary line of reason could possibly make us say that it is in pairs that we are the strongest.

A strawman is a very easily identified and well known argument fallacy. More than being considered a bad argument tactic, most see a strawman as a strong indication of a weak position and is therefore avoided by experienced debaters.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Infinity, Here is what you've posted

 

marriage really doesn't have a definition in any law anywhere which dictates the genitals .

 

the ability to "create a child" is only peripherally related to the institution of marriage.

.

 

"What secular reason is there for calling the state recognized union of two people in love by another name?"

Marriage is how we define the relationship, not the genitals the participants in said relationship are required to have.

 

 

...the simple fact is, the government IS involved in marriage, and they DO confer benefits and privileges to couples. For this reason alone, they must have a relevant secular reason .

 

ONLY exception to this is if the majority decides to change or amend the constitution itself, but that action MUST be taken prior to putting any restrictive and discriminatory laws on the books (laws which result in the differential conferment of benefits and privileges for no relevant secular reason).

 

Clearly, bans on same-sex marriage and differential conferment of state sponsored benefits and privileges to married couples based solely on genitals violate the first prong since there is no relevant secular reason for this differential treatment, and are hence unconstitutional.

 

 

So, nobody here is arguing that state regulations don't have legitimate purposes. The argument is that this specific regulation does not. Further, since this state regulation is resulting in the differential conferment of benefits and privileges, .

 

Nope. Strawman.

 

I'm saying our laws must be secular, as evidenced by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our federal constitution, as well as the countless rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States

 

What legitimate secular purpose is there for the differential conferment of state benefits and privileges, allowing them to opposite sex couples, but disallowing them from same sex couples. This should be fun to watch.

 

 

Bigotry always gets defeated. .

 

I'm still waiting for that legitimate secular reason for the state conferring benefits and privileges to opposite sex partners, but not same sex partners.

 

Oh... I'm still waiting for that legitimate secular reason for the state conferring benefits and privileges to opposite sex partners, but not same sex partners.

 

You do know, right, that SCOTUS cases are not the FINAL ruling on constitutionality issues, just the current one, and are often overturned as society evolves and becomes better educated? Oh... and Baker v. Nelson wasn't a ruling at all, . . .