Gay Marriage

[modest]

...A comunity recognized union between man and woman...

 

Thank you. I don't believe you can support this statement:

 

especially in light of the fact that the "traditional definition" position has been demonstrated false on multiple fronts,.

No it has not. traditional definition is valid everywhere in the world. heteros can marry.

 

There certainly are places in the world where "A comunity recognized union between man and woman" is not a valid definition. In the Netherlands for example marriage is characterized: Een huwelijk kan worden aangegaan door twee personen van verschillend of van gelijk geslacht. (A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex). A valid definition cannot be "between man and woman" if the definition includes "two people of different or the same sex".

 

~modest

 

P.S. Try a babel fish translation on that Dutch

[lawcat]

EDIT: Ok so the definition of "traditional marriage" is valid.

 

Infinity posted:

"traditional definition" position has been demonstrated false.

 

Now substitute "a man and a woman" for traditional. My reply would be:

 

traditional (man and a woman) definition is valid everywhere i nthe world. heteros can marry.

.

 

Please provide an argument for gay marriage. Hetero marriage will not be overturned, if it is your intention to argue that it will. Gay marriage must be instituted. Why? I would like to know why?

[modest]

I don't understand the above post or what it means to convey.

 

A definition of marriage which includes the qualification "between man and woman" is not valid in a culture where marriage is defined as a union between persons of the same or different sex. You cannot support your statement that "a community recognized union between man and woman" is a valid definition of marriage anywhere in the world. That simply is not true.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

I don't understand the above post or what it means to convey.

 

A definition of marriage which includes the qualification "between man and woman" is not valid in a culture where marriage is defined as a union between persons of the same or different sex.

~modest

 

Let's go back to logic.

 

Definition 1: Oranges are blue or red. (marriage is between opposite or same sexes)

 

Definition 2: Oranges are blue (marriage is between opposite sexes).

 

Does def 2 satisfy def 1? Is def 2 valid under def 1, or is it "false"? It is of course valid.

 

You cannot support your statement that "a community recognized union between man and woman" is a valid definition of marriage anywhere in the world. That simply is not true.

 

~modest

 

I just did in the very place you said it could not be.

[Qfwfq]

Folks, please remain calm and rational. There is much logical fallacy appearing here, including the previous post to this one. Although this is not itself against our rules, it has been annoying people and provoking response which is out of the line; lawcat, before complaining about it, read this excerpt from our rules page:

 

"Take our advice: If you post theories which are untestable, ideas which are obviously based on bad logic, arguments which appeal to faith but fail when faced with reason, you will meet opposition in these forums. This is not because we are unfriendly. It is because we want to learn, try theories, understand, and most of all, discuss."

 

(bold mine) and please avoid stirring up trouble. Law is what the people of a modern democracy consider to be just, there's no way of proving what is just; therefore law, logically, does not constitute grounds against a change in public opinion leading to a change in law; this is circularity. Modest supplied the Dutch example; another is Spain where parliament voted to remove all trace of sexual semantics from laws regulating marriage. No more mention of man and woman, nor of husband and wife or anything incompatible with marriage of homosexuals; since then they have been marrying unhindered. Further, I read the initial post and I find it does not start with mostly arguments that attack or refute current marriage, it is not an "Attack on hetero marriage" at all; this is called the strawman fallacy.

 

For all: logical fallacy should be handled by pointing it out calmly and rationally.

[lawcat]

Qfwfq,

 

Post #198: Turle quotes me, and then changes my post to: bleh, bleh, bleh. That goes unnoticed.

 

Post #203: Modest, asks for proof that man-woman marriage is traditional.

 

Come on. We would not be here if there was no traditional marriage to rebut.

 

Post #207: Modest, twist the "OR" gate to "AND" to fit his logic, and then applies that twisted AND gate to the world at large

 

Post #1: danieyankee: 2. "Find me ONE good research . . .that "It is harmful for children to be raised by gay parents.".

 

This is a rebutal point by a State to those who try to attack current law. Not an argument on why gay marriage should be instituted. This is defendants argument, not a proponents argument.

 

Post #1: danieyankee: 3. "It isn't natural."

 

This is a rebutal point by a State to those who try to attack current law. Not an argument on why gay marriage should be instituted. This is defendants argument, not a proponents argument.

 

Post #1: danieyankee: 4. "God..."./"The Bible..."

 

Can anything be more irrelevant? This is a rebutal point of religious defendants in the media. Not a proponents argument.

 

Post #1: danieyankee: 5. "The purpose of marriage is reproduction."

 

This is a rebutal point by a State to those who try to attack current law. Not an argument on why gay marriage should be instituted. This is defendants argument, not a proponents argument.

 

And then, danieyankee, after each point, proceeds to raise cross-rebutal to rebutals. There are no well thought out proponent arguments in the initial post. The initial post is a fight against hetero marriage, not an advocacy for gay marriage.

 

In this whole thread, there is not a single argument for gay marriage that ties the nature of gay relationships to State, other than cross-rebutals to State's defenses.

 

This thread has not been about: Constructing gay marriage as valid and good for the State, as a plaintiff-proponent. All arguments have been: To deconstruct hetero marriage as invalid, and wrong, with poking holes, by raising cross rebutals. Yet, hetero marriage remains valid everywhere. That is illogical ab initio. This thread is therefore, not about gay marriage. This thread is about attacking hetero marriage.

[Larv]

Can you please define "traditional definition [of marriage]".

modest, would you accept a popular definition? I haven’t done a pole yet, but if I randomly asked 1000 Americans that question and took the most popular answer I think I know what it would be: “A traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.”

 

Am I right? And do you know of a better way of defining a “traditional marriage”?

[modest]

Let's go back to logic.

 

Definition 1: Oranges are blue or red. (marriage is between opposite or same sexes)

 

Definition 2: Oranges are blue (marriage is between opposite sexes).

 

Does def 2 satisfy def 1? Is def 2 valid under def 1, or is it "false"? It is of course valid.

 

By this reasoning a definition of marriage valid anywhere in the world is:

"A state-recognized union between two people

of the same race

."

That, by the same method of reasoning, is a valid definition of marriage. I disagree with that reasoning and both conclusions. It is a valid example of marriage, not a valid definition—not with your qualification "everywhere in the world".

...(I was tempted just then to make this a reductio ad absurdum and talk about midgets in the circus

defining

marriage, but, alas, I did not. Interracial marriage was absurd enough I suppose ;) )

 

You want us to believe that your definition of marriage (as a union between man and woman) is an ostensive definition (as "man and woman" is an example), but not an enumerative definition (because it lists only one element of the set as an example rather than the 2 that are possible). This is not believable. If I were to define marriage as,

"the intimate, state-recognized union of one man and one woman",

then it should easily be recognized that I am giving an intensional definition. I am giving conditions necessary for this union to qualify as "marriage" such as 1)intimate, 2)state-recognized, 3)involving one man and one woman.

 

It's completely analogous to the intensional definition of "bachelor" as "unmarried man". You couldn't say that "unmarried" or "man" are examples that might also include "married" or "woman". That would make no sense. With the intensional definition of "bachelor" as "unmarried man" those who are married and those who are women do not apply to the definition. Likewise, with the intensional definition of "marriage" as "state-recognized union of one man and one woman" those unions between two men or two women do not apply to the definition.

 

It is incorrect to say that "the definition of marriage as state-recognized union between man and woman is valid everywhere in the world". There are many places in the world where that definition is not only invalid, it's just simply wrong.

 

Post #198: Turle quotes me, and then changes my post to: bleh, bleh, bleh. That goes unnoticed.

 

Qfwfq just called it out of line. He also suggested you do something before complaining about it.

 

Post #203: Modest, asks for proof that man-woman marriage is traditional.

 

Nowhere in post #203 (or anywhere else) do I ask for proof that man-woman marriage is traditional. That is a complete and total fabrication. The post (quoted here):

Your link is broken—it is missing the right parentheses.

 

I do not believe my request is rude, hostile, or irrational. I do believe defining the terms used in rational discussion is very important, especially when there is significant disagreement or confusion.

 

Can you please define "traditional definition [of marriage]".

 

Thank you,

 

~modest

asks for you to define the "traditional definition of marriage". This is very sensible considering INow disagrees with your definition on that term substantially. Not to mention, I asked very nicely only to be responded to in an abject and antagonistic way. It's very discouraging. All the fallacies, mischaracterizations, and ad hominem comments are very discouraging.

 

~modest

[modest]

modest, would you accept a popular definition? I haven’t done a pole yet, but if I randomly asked 1000 Americans that question and took the most popular answer I think I know what it would be: “A traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.”

 

Am I right? And do you know of a better way of defining a “traditional marriage”?

 

I wasn't trying to find a proper or correct definition of the term. I simply wanted to be sure I knew what Lawcat meant when he used it so I could properly refute his point.

 

~modest

[Larv]

This thread has become a silly circus. Every reasonably intelligent person knows that “traditional marriage” is defined as a civil and/or ceremonial union between one man and one woman. The only real question here is whether or not “traditional marriage” should prevail exclusively in the civil laws of this country.

 

And every reasonably intelligent person knows that deviations from what is generally understood as “traditional marriage” should NOT be dismissed with prejudice. Times change and so do the mores of society. We used to keep woman from voting and driving automobiles (how bad was that?) Now, woman are fully fledged members of society. That’s good (more or less). But if “gay marriage” is to gain its rightful place in the laws in this country it must prove its constitutional worth. Either a state supreme court or the SCOTUS must rule on the constitutionality of “gay marriage,” and we Americans must accept those decisions as final.

 

That is the only way we can settle this matter. And any reasonably intelligent person who understands what it means to live in a constitutional republic also understands that a supreme-court ruling is as final as you can get in a constitutional republic.

 

So, Americans, are you all on board in this constitutional republic? Or do you, like InfiniteNow, hold that your values are above constitutionality and that your opinions are the only ones that matter?

[InfiniteNow]

And every reasonably intelligent person knows that deviations from what is generally understood as “traditional marriage” should NOT be dismissed with prejudice. Times change and so do the mores of society. We used to keep woman from voting and driving automobiles (how bad was that?) Now, woman are fully fledged members of society. That’s good (more or less). But if “gay marriage” is to gain its rightful place in the laws in this country it must prove its constitutional worth.

 

I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, and I couldn't disagree more. This comment here displays an appalling misunderstanding of the principles underlying our constitution and our nation (and that misunderstanding of the underlying principles of our constitution makes your suggestion that I am trying to place my "values above constitutionality" rather silly).

[Turtle]

Qfwfq,

 

Post #198: Turle quotes me, and then changes my post to: bleh, bleh, bleh. That goes unnoticed.

 

erhm...no. i summarized your quote to save space, but that little blue arrow next to your name in the quote box is a direct link to the post in its entirety. that you did not contest or deny or correct my characterization of your arguments as hatefullness, intolerance, and mockery indicates to me that my characterization was spot on. no matter the topic or merits of arguments in them here, that type & tone of posting is against our rules explicitly. ;)

 

Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

Also, we will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice. Violations of these ground rules might lead to banning without further notice. It is always a good idea to lurk around a bit before you start posting. ...

 

Urban Dictionary: troll

[dannieyankee]

Lawcat's idea that my initial post was an attack on heterosexual marriage is completely false; I did not attack heterosexual marriage, I attacked the arguments used AGAINST gay marriage. Heterosexual marriage is not a problem; it is the fact that heterosexual marriage is the only type of marriage that is incorrect.

[dannieyankee]

I also must mention this: When I posted this topic, I had no intention of specifying the USA. I myself am not living in the country, but instead in England, where there is a form of domestic partnership available; the question is, indeed, why not marriage? As I have pointed out, separate but equal does not work.

 

Using the Constitution of the US doesn't fly with every other country.

[CraigD]

I’m rather amazed – and more than a little chagrinned – at the amount of interest, activity, and emotional intensity this thread has generated, over an issue that I’ve long suspected is important only as a point of political rhetoric. My surprise reveals, I think, at least a couple of failures of my understanding of human psyches, society, and politics:

• The assumption that an issue that directly impacts a small fraction of a population – US homosexuals who want to marry – wouldn’t be of much interest to many people
  
• The assumption that, as a primarily science-focused site, hypographers would be even less interested in this issue than the general American population
  

Over the years since gay marriage rose to the political main stage, I’ve pondered what real, tangible reasons most people – who are not gay people who want to marry, nor are likely to be invited to gay weddings, or otherwise have much interaction with the issue other than seeing it discussed in political, media, and social settings – for having strong feelings on the matter.

 

People who support it – for the most part, I think, people who self-identify as “liberal”, and of whom I’m one – seem to me motivated by a sense that, by extending a privilege to people to whom it was formerly unavailable, gay marriage further equality, and an intuition that allowing gays to marry can’t hurt us in any way, and may even help, in the same manner straight marriage has presumably made our society safer and more comfortable.

 

The thoughts, feelings, and motives of people who oppose it – for the most part, I think, people who self-identify as “conservative” – are more difficult for me to fathom. Some, it seems clear, object for reasons of religious doctrine and or personal loathing – both religion and sexuality are, after all, more emotional than rational domains of human experience.

 

Why people who oppose gay marriage for other than religious or personal reasons do so is the most challenging of these question for me. As best I’ve been able to puzzle out, these reasons fall into to two main kinds.

 

In one the bottom is an actual, financial bottom line: people object to gay marriage because they believe it will cost them money.

 

In most cases, it’s financially advantageous for two people in the US to be married rather than unmarried, because they pay less federal, state and local income tax, and because they are eligible for employer-paid health and other insurance (allowing them to both have the “richer” of their repective available benefits, and pay a lower total premium), and government benefits such as OASDI based upon one another’s incomes. As these moneys come from somewhere – insurance from the insurance premiums of its holders, taxes and government benefits from and two taxpayers and beneficiaries – it does appear that allowing people who were not previously able to marry to marry will be financially disadvantageous to people currently enjoying its financial benefits.

 

I think this reasoning if flawed, however, because it assumes both that a significant fraction of the total population will marry people of the same sex if permitted to, and that insurance and entitlement systems behave in a simple way. Neither assumption is, I think, correct.

 

Another objection to allowing gay marriage is that it endangers children. Although many credible studies have concluded that the children of gay marriage – each of whom, obviously, cannot be the biological offspring of both parents – are not at significantly greater risk of death or physical or emotional injury than children of straight marriage or of unmarried gay or straight parents, others make reasonable arguments that they are. This is a complicated issue, as it involves personal behavior, psychology, and societal influences, and not one that I believe will be conclusively understood in the near future.

 

However, whether the children of gay marriage – or children, or adults in general – are endangered by gay marriage or not is, I think, in a very important way involving US law and its underlying moral philosophy, not ultimately important in deciding whether it should be permitted.

 

Many behaviors married people and/or parents, both straight and gay, increase or decrease the likelihood of good or bad things happening to their children and those of others. The heart of our theory of government, however, is ultimately one of assumed liberty. Our highest laws proscribe, for the most part, not what is forbidden to people, but what is forbidden for government to forbid to people. They do not declare that the overriding purpose of our society and government is to insure the safety of children – no matter how emotionally compelling such a purpose may be.

 

A final observation concerning a claim and implication made in this thread: that gay people cannot or generally do not biologically reproduce.

 

Although it’s difficult to address this claim statistically, primarily because it’s difficult to determine a person is gay unless they chose to prominently declare it, I’ve both read of and had personal experience with openly gay people with biological children. In some cases, they had children while within straight marriages or relationships before they were openly, or even personally confident, that they were gay, but in many cases, including the households of two friends with whom I have frequent contact, they chose to and had children in the same manner as exclusively strait people – by having sex with members of the opposite sex.

 

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, not a disjoint gender or physical disability. Homosexual men and women can, and do, have heterosexual sexual intercourse. People who self-identify as heterosexual can, and do, have homosexual sexual intercourse. Neither necessarily chose to self-identify as bisexual, nor are necessarily uncertain of their sexual orientation.

 

Although some homosexuals who wish to have children avoid having sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex by using artificial insemination and similar techniques, not all do.

[InfiniteNow]

The heart of our theory of government, however, is ultimately one of assumed liberty. Our highest laws proscribe, for the most part, not what is forbidden to people, but what is forbidden for government to forbid to people.

 

QFT.

 

 

Craig's point is spot on ("Quoted for Truth"), and to supplement it, I would like show readers how it is further supported (at least, here in the US) by the Ninth Amendment to our Constitution. This is known as the Enumeration Clause, and states the following:

 

 

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

 

The Supreme Court, in Griswald v. Connecticut (a case dealing with contraception usage and the right to privacy) put forth the following to clarify how the 9th Amendment/Enumeration Clause should be interpreted. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion:

 

The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.

 

 

As I'm sure is clear by now to those of you who have been reading my posts to this thread, I think it's painfully obvious that the rights of same sex couples are being infringed upon. The state grants benefits and privileges to opposite sex couples, and (in 43 out of 50 states, or 86% of our nation) disallows those same rights from being obtained by same sex couples, and all for no relevant secular purpose.

 

Much like Craig, it baffles and bewilders me how any single person on this planet could think this differential treatment is aligned with our guaranteed rights of liberty, equality, and with the founding principles on which our nation was founded.

 

 

 

Thank you, Craig, for the stillness and calm which your post brought to this storm. You continue to impress me, and I am without doubt a better human for being exposed to your regular contributions here.

[modest]

However, whether the children of gay marriage – or children, or adults in general – are endangered by gay marriage or not is, I think, in a very important way involving US law and its underlying moral philosophy, not ultimately important in deciding whether it should be permitted.

 

Many behaviors married people and/or parents, both straight and gay, increase or decrease the likelihood of good or bad things happening to their children and those of others. The heart of our theory of government, however, is ultimately one of assumed liberty. Our highest laws proscribe, for the most part, not what is forbidden to people, but what is forbidden for government to forbid to people. They do not declare that the overriding purpose of our society and government is to insure the safety of children – no matter how emotionally compelling such a purpose may be.

 

For me, this is the most fascinating aspect of the whole thing.

 

What you say, Craig, seems like it should always be true. When the court weighs discrimination and denial of liberty against a perceived danger, one would think the court would always approach the question from the standpoint of liberty being presumed and needing a good argument to uphold a law limiting liberty or discriminating against a group. I would think the court would assume equal protection under the law should be denied only when necessary.

 

But, this is honestly not the case. When the federal or a state government writes a law which discriminates against a group or denies that group a liberty which non-members have then the government can be taken to court by a member of that group who feels wronged. The court's response depends on which particular group feels wronged.

 

If, for example, it is a religious group, a group based on race, or nationality then the court applies "strict scrutiny" which means the court will require the government to prove that the law being challenged serves a *compelling* state interest, that the law is *necessary* to serve that interest, and that there is no way other than the challenged law to serve the interest. They court essentially requires the government to prove a negative.

 

As an example, if the law is a ban on interracial marriage—the government could argue that the law serves the interest of protecting children from the ridicule of being biracial, or to protect stable family relationships (implying that interracial families are not stable). The court would require the government to prove that these were "compelling" interests of the state and that the only way to achieve stable family relationships is the ban on interracial marriage. In order to do this, the government would have to prove that interracial marriage was detrimental to the stability of families... otherwise the court would overturn the law (the ban on interracial marriage)

 

Of course, the government could not prove that argument, so "strict scrutiny" is a virtually guaranteed victory for equal protection under the law (if you are the target of state discrimination as a group of race, religion, or national origin... and to a lesser extent, gender and illegitimacy).

 

But, when your group is homosexuality you have no such protection. Your quote above, Craig, is not how things are judged for members of a group which do not have "suspect classification".

 

In that case, the government can pass a discriminatory law (such as DOMA) which disadvantages a group (such as homosexuals) and all the court requires is that the law be "rationally related" to the government's claimed interest. The burden of proof is on the discriminated party to prove that the law is unrelated to the proposed legitimate state interest.

 

As an example, gay people have challenged DOMA (and other state restrictions on gay marriage) in court. The state / federeal government has claimed that children are better off when gay people cannot marry. They say that limiting marriage to one man and one woman "encourage the creation of stable families that are well suited to nurturing and raising children". The court requires the minority group to prove that the law (DOMA) is *unrelated* to the state's interest in protecting children. The government is under no obligation to show that the law would have its desired effect.

 

Of course, a law involving marriage is *related* to a government's interest in "encouraging families... nurturing and raising children" simply because they both involve the same topic. The supreme court has actually said that a group without suspect classification must prove that the law is "wholly irrelevant" to the government's claimed interests for it to be overturned. :confused:

 

However, whether the children of gay marriage – or children, or adults in general – are endangered by gay marriage or not is, I think, in a very important way involving US law and its underlying moral philosophy, not ultimately important in deciding whether it should be permitted...

 

The heart of our theory of government, however, is ultimately one of assumed liberty. Our highest laws proscribe, for the most part, not what is forbidden to people, but what is forbidden for government to forbid to people.

 

I really do wish this were the case. As it stands, the government doesn't even need to argue that children are endangered. They only need to say that banning homosexual marriage encourages stable families. And, they don't have to be right about that, so long as nobody can prove that the law isn't "wholly irrelevant" to the goal and that the goal is a "legitimate" interest. :doh:

 

Here is part of the Florida Supreme Court's decision denying an equal protection under the law challenge to DOMA which shows this system in horrific action:

The burden is on the Plaintiffs to negate “every conceivable basis which might support [the legislation], whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record.” Id. at 818, (quoting Heller 50 U.S. at 320-21).

 

The United States has “no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification.” Id. (quoting Heller, 50 U.S. at 320). “A statutory classification fails rational-basis review only when it ‘rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective.’” Heller, 50 U.S. at 324 (quoting Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 71 (1978)). The United States asserts that DOMA is rationally related to two legitimate governmental interests. First, the government argues that DOMA fosters the development of relationships that are optimal for procreation, thereby encouraging the “stable generational continuity of the United States.” (Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 39), pp. 15-16). DOMA allegedly furthers this interest by permitting the states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and by adopting the traditional definition of marriage for purposes of federal statutes. Second, DOMA “encourage

the creation of stable relationships that facilitate the rearing of children by both of their biological parents.” (Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 39), pp. 15-16). The government argues that these stable relationships encourage the creation of stable families that are well suited to nurturing and raising children.

 

Plaintiffs offer little to rebut the government’s argument that DOMA is rationally related to the government’s proffered legitimate interests. Rather, Plaintiffs repeatedly urge the Court to apply the more rigid strict scrutiny analysis.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION (page 15-16)

 

Related links:

 

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

 

Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Three-Tiered Framework

 

~modest