Gay Marriage

[TheBigDog]

This is a long thread. I am always happy to see such enthusiasm about a topic, and this one never seems to fail to draw out enthusiasm. I remember engaging in this same debate back in 2006. I guess three years is long enough to wait to do it again. I want to take this simply because it is very easy to get drawn into debate on so many fronts that it is overwhelming (especially when confronted with hoards of opposition looking for any crack to sink their chisels into ;) )

 

As I said, this is a long thread, and if I missed some argument or another I apologize for that fact. I am going to start off by discussing the link between sex and marriage as I understand it...

I do wish you'd listen, Wymer. It's perfectly simple. If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after you've done your scripture prep, when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr. Viney that you've had your chit signed. Now, sex. Sex, sex, sex. Where were we? [sniff] Well, had I got as far as the penis entering the vagina? [sniff]

The penis entering the vagina! I rest my case.

 

And now for the more sophisticated reader...

 

Marriage is a two-fold contract. It is on one hand a legal contract that provides certain benefits of legally shared existence. It is also a personal contract between two people. The state does not enforce the legally protected writes of the members of the contract of its own accord, it only intervenes when one of the parties makes a legal petition that the contract has been violated. Please keep that in mind as I continue because it is important; there are contractual parts of a marriage that are inherent in the law, but only enforced by petition of one of the parties. One of those contractual parts of a marriage is a monogamous sexual relationship. Please read as follows... (I bolded the one line)

A marriage annulment is a legal procedure that dissolves a couple's marital status by establishing that a valid marriage never existed. In effect, it nullifies the marriage, returning the parties to their prior single status. It's a common misconception that short marriages can be annulled, but the length of the marriage is not a qualifying factor. Generally, for a marriage to be declared invalid, one of the following grounds for annulment must be met:

 

* One or both parties were not old enough to enter the marriage contract;

* There exists a close blood relationship between the parties;

* One party was still legally married when the current marriage occurred;

* One party was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage;

* One of the spouse's didn't have the mental capacity to enter into a marriage contract. (i.e. due to drunkenness or mental disability)

* One of the spouses entered into the marriage under duress, threat, or force.

* The marriage was entered into fraudulently. This may be due to the concealment of impotence, criminal history, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.

 

To get an annulment, a person first needs to meet the residency requirements of the state that they live in. The annulment procedure is similar to that of a standard divorce, so it's best to seek the advice of an attorney before your proceed. The following answers may also help you understand more about your own situation.

This is not the letter of the law in any state, it is the general principles of annulment in general. But note that failure to consummate the marriage (engage in sexual intercourse) is grounds for nullifying the contract of marriage. This means that a sexual relationship is explicitly part of the contract of marriage. Now this does not mean that the government peeks in your window or samples your sheets to see if you are doing the hanky-panky, rather it means that one of the people in the marriage has the right to nullify it if the other is unable or unwilling to fulfill their end of the bargain at least once.

 

Another link to sex and marriage is in divorce law. I did not find a nice generic source for this (in my lengthy search :thumbs_up) instead I went to a site that describes Ohio law... (again, I added the bold)

Each state has unique grounds in which a divorce may be granted by the court. When choosing the grounds for your divorce, you should always remember that you must have sufficient proof to the court that your marital situation warrants a divorce by the grounds you are requesting the divorce to be granted.

 

Grounds for Filing: The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage or Complaint for Divorce must declare the appropriate Ohio grounds upon which the divorce is being sought. The appropriate lawful ground will be that which the parties agree upon and can substantiate, or that which the filing spouse desires to prove to the court. The divorce grounds are as follows:

 

No Fault (Dissolution of Marriage):

(A) lived separate and apart without cohabitation for one year;

( Incompatibility

 

Fault (Divorce):

(A) Either party had a husband or wife living at the time of the marriage from which the divorce is sought;

(:rant: Willful abandonment for one year;

© Adultery;

(D) Extreme cruelty;

(E) Fraudulent contract;

(F) Any gross neglect of duty;

(G) Habitual drunkenness or drug abuse;

(H) Imprisonment;

(Ohio Code - Sections: 3105.01)

 

If you do not fall under any of the above mentioned grounds for divorce/dissolution, you most likely should consider trying to save your marriage. Many spouses find that they do not meet the requirements of a waiting period, which can be very frustrating, but it is these waiting periods that are in effect in order to help prevent rash decisions to terminate a marriage.

I bolded two lines there. Adultery means that marriage is a contract for exclusive sexual relations (monogamy) between the parties in the contract. This means that you can't go sniffing around for sex from someone else, you have to get it only from your spouse or they have grounds for terminating the contract.

 

The second is more to my point. Here is an expanded definition of Any gross neglect of duty. (I have added bold again)

In the context of divorce law, gross neglect refers to a willful failure to perform a marital obligation. Gross neglect of duty refers to an omission of a legal duty. Precise definitions vary by state.

 

For example, under Ohio law, a husband and wife owe each other obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support. Case law has interpreted the term to include, among others, a substantial failure to provide financial support when able to do so, failing to support each other in a time of great emotional distress caused by the death of their child, and lack of sexual relations accompanied by other aggravating factors. However, the term gross neglect of duty is incapable of any concrete definition which can be applied to all cases. Its application depends upon the circumstances of the particular case.

As my own scum sucking divorce lawyer told me, "other aggravating factors can be anything; don't worry about them." So the state of Ohio (and many/most others) recognize sexual relations as a right of a person in a marriage. If you ain't getting any then you have the right to break the contract.

 

Let me reiterate my earlier point; the state does not enforce these rights, they respond to petitions to end the contract on these grounds.

 

What I hope to have established at this point is that sex and marriage are linked by definition of law. If a married couple is having sex is entirely a private matter unless one of the parties decides to involve the state in a petition to end the contract. By entering a marriage the two parties are by law agreeing to have an active monogamous sexual relationship.

 

The flip side of this is that the state must approve sexual relations between the married parties. That is part of where current restrictions on marriage come from. Incest is illegal; you cannot let a marriage exist that would result in an incestuous relationship. There is an age of consent; you cannot allow marriage for those legally too young to engage in sex. (I am going to defer from going into sodomy laws right now because I don't want that hornet's nest to derail where I am going with this.)

 

So, you may be asking where I am going with this. Bear with me here....

 

Let us look at the tradition that has lead to our current laws. Laws as they were written prior to 1996 primarily made no specific indication that marriage was between a man and a woman. Why? Because it was not required to state the obvious. If I tell you that today is the 40th anniversary of man landing on the moon, I do not need to identify which satellite orbiting the earth, which "moon" I am referring to. The earth has many moons, but only one is "the moon". This is universally understood; and that is why laws written before 1996 did not need to specify that marriage was between a man and a woman. Now you can point to foreign law, you can point to ancient times when same sex marriages took place, but the discussion is the understanding of the definition of marriage prior to 1996 in the United States. The law books did not need to say "between a man and a woman" because everyone knew that was what marriage explicitly meant. Denying this fact makes people look silly and desperate. Acknowledging this fact does not make a person homophobic.

 

Then came a movement to legalize gay marriage. This movement is working on multiple fronts with conflicting agendas. One group states that they want "gay couples to have the legal rights afforded to straight couples". Domestic partnerships provide this, but this is not enough for the next group; in fact the idea of domestic partnerships (separate but equal) is attacked as being just another form of bigotry. Only "marriage" of same sex couples will suite them. Then the definition of marriage comes into play. Marriage still means what it always has; union of a man and a woman (see previous paragraph). So one side argues that "the law does not specify man and woman" (it does not need to when it is explicitly understood in the definition of the word) and they petition the courts on this ground. They then accuse anyone who who objects to the change in definition of being a seething hateful homophobic bigot; even when people support same sex rights but prefer it be by some other mechanism. Others attack the definition itself as being hateful and that alone is a reason that it must change. This again descends into those who choose to acknowledge the accepted definition of marriage as being seething hateful homophobic bigots. (see previous paragraph, please)

 

So many, myself included, wonder what the real goal of the movement is. Is it equal rights, or is it mainstreaming homosexuality to be not just the equal but actually the same as heterosexuality? You get different answers depending upon who you ask. Regardless, opposition to the change of the definition of the word marriage does not equate to not wanting equal protection under the law; it is simply a rejection of a change of the meaning of a word when other language choices are available that provide the same equality of protection.

 

There are far more relationships than just heterosexual and homosexual. Note that both of these relationships are by definition "sexual" (which goes back to my opening discussion of the tie between sex and marriage). I have a son who is 18 years old and suffers from mental illness. In a few months he will no longer qualify for medical benefits under my insurance because he will be done with high school (he is not going to college). So I said to myself, I am getting divorced, why can't he become my domestic partner? While Ohio does not have domestic partnerships by law, my company does recognize them for the purposes of benefits. Well, in order to qualify for a domestic partnership I would need to be "living together as a man and wife" or essentially saying that I am having a sexual relationship with my son. I love my son and he loves me; does that mean we have the right to marry each other? After all, love is the test of why people get married. And we are being put in a financial burden because of the insensitive laws that exist. The retail cost of his prescriptions run in the neighborhood of $2000/month. Why should we have to suffer when opposite sex couples can simply marry and get these benefits?

 

Marriage carries with it the burden of sex. Sex carries with it social taboos, disease, child bearing, child rearing, fun, and the full spectrum of emotions. It is social taboos that are at the root of the passion in this issue.

 

The racist laws of the past that prevented inter-racial marriages in some states were founded on the basis of social taboos. The taboo being inter-racial sex. Homosexuality pushing for mainstream acceptance, but it is culturally widely seen as taboo still. This continues to become less so, but it is a long road to get there. Passing laws will not change this attitude, and arrogantly forcing people to change and pushing homosexuality into their faces will not help close the gap. And pretending that gay and straight are the same does not fix it either. In an ideal world it doesn't matter legally if you are gay or straight, but in that same perfect world people still want to be known for who they are. And "married" is part of that identity, not to be wrongly changed in the name of some elusive equality.

 

Should I be able to marry my son? When will that taboo be worthy of so much enthusiastic activism? By going after "marriage" you are discriminating against non-sexual couples. By removing the sex from marriage you remove so much of the meaning of the bond. But only by removing the sex can you have a truly universal relationship. I prefer instead of a universal relationship to state relationships for what they are, and have as many words as are required to describe them all. The law will still be there for everyone, more so than today, and more so than the way the current activist pursuits will provide.

 

Bill

[lawcat]

Do you present strawmen intentionally, or are you just oblivious? . . .

 

Whatever. you fail to read, and argue your point without any regard for what is written. The DOMA will be before the U.S. Supreme Court. I suspect that the result will be a split as follows:

 

1. State can still decide for themselves: no State needs to treat.

 

2. Federal definition of marriage will be unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment because the Fed must treat equally gays married in Massachussets, with heteros elsewhere.

 

3. Gay marriage is not fundamental.

 

Gay Blogosphere Erupts Over Obama's DOMA Defense | On Top Magazine :: Gay & Lesbian News, Entertainment, Commentary & Travel

[CraigD]

As hypography is a science-oriented forum – and I am not a lawyer or judge – I’m reluctant to engage in or encourage purely legalistic discussion, but as this thread has delved into the US Defense of Marriage Act in some details without addressing arguably the most common and obvious legal criticism against it: that it violates the US Constitution Art 1 Sec 1, the full faith and credit clause.

 

DOMA includes the text

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

While Art 1 Sec 1 states

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

The Constitution here prohibits to the states a specific power: to deny credit to the legal acts of other states. DOMA explicitly grants to the states the power to deny credit to a single kind of legal act of other states: same sex marriage. However, as DOMA is US code, not a Constitutional Amendment, it must not set aside a part of the Constitution.

 

At first glance, DOMA appears to clearly violate the Constitution. However, as with much of the constitution, a few words carry much meaning. The Full Faith and Credit clause’s “and the Effect thereof”, as I understand its interpretation, grants Congress the power to not only prescribe essentially administrative rules to assure that the legal records of on state are recognized by another, but to what effect legal effects the acts of one state have in another.

 

As an unrealistic example, according to this interpretation of Art 1 Sec 1, Congress could, in Constitutional principle, pass law not only permitting states to not recognize out-of-state drives licenses, put prohibiting them from doing so. In the case of DOMA, Congress has passed a law under which states must recognize that the same-sex marriages recorded in other states occurred, but are not compelled to grant the same effects – benefits, privileges, etc – to the spouses of those marriages when they are within their boundries.

 

To some extent, this is de facto true of all marriages and other state-granted statuses of individuals, couples, families, and other collections of people. For example, a state insurance commission may require that all health insurance policies in force in their state must charge certain maximum premiums for married couples and families relative to for individuals. The permitted business practices granted to the insurer by their license in one state, and the rights of the insured in that state, do not transfer, and may differ significantly, from state to state.

 

:thumbs_up I don’t much like the conclusion I've reach about US law, because I personally like many gay couples with whom I'm acquainted, and, in general, couples and married people. Although I don’t personally know any married gay couples, I like the idea of them. Rather than feeling, as many do, that gay marriage is an affront to strait marriage in general, or my strait marriage in particular, I find it flattering.

 

However, much as I would like to find a strong, explicit Constitutional requirement that gay marriage be recognized by all states, I don’t. Rather, I find that it grants Congress the power to require states to recognize gay marriage, or allow them to recognize it or not as their legislatures see fit. At present, Congress has chosen the latter, in the form of DOMA, which appears to me to be Constitutionally correct law.

 

I’m heartened, however, by objective data showing a strong correlation between age and support of gay marriage (eg: Lax and Phillips 2009 analysis of survey data since 1994), which suggests that, just as eventually interracial marriage became widely accepted and legal in all US states, as old people die and young ones gain political power, gay marriage will also.

[TheBigDog]

Bill - I know you hate my guts and would be much happier if I were no longer allowed to post at Hypography ever again, but I'm not a mind reader. Can you please, using direct and plain words, elaborate on what you mean with the above?

Post 232 of this thread.

[lawcat]

 

Let us look at the tradition that has lead to our current laws.

 

Bill

 

Bill, first, good luck with your son.

Second, I do not think the proponents of gay marriage want to recognize the traditions. This is all about changing the tradition. So, whatever you say about the tradition is automatically wrong. Tradition is the enemy. Whatever the reason for allowing the hetero marriage is, it is not good enough if it denies the gays that same right. If it is the tradition, then it must be changed.

 

The courts and legislature have EXPRESSLY stated, the reason for State's allowing the marriage is simple: our existence, survival, procreation, biological parentage. But no. Gays want to have a family and children just like everyone else, even though they can not by nature be both biological parents. But so what? If it can be done legislatively, it must be allowed and the State has no say in it. They must allow, and incentivize it.

There is no end to unreasonableness.

[Cedars]

Isnt one of the huge quagmire issues here the fact that by law, if a state issues a marriage license it has to be honored in all 50 states? So if Iowa legalizes gay marriage, Minnesota has to recognize this legal contract and all of its (minnesota) rights are bestowed on the couple from Iowa if they move to MN or just as they visit (next of kin issues should one half of the partnership drown, which isnt out of the realm of possiblities in the land of 10K lakes and streams)?

[InfiniteNow]

Isnt one of the huge quagmire issues here the fact that by law, if a state issues a marriage license it has to be honored in all 50 states? So if Iowa legalizes gay marriage, Minnesota has to recognize this legal contract and all of its (minnesota) rights are bestowed on the couple from Iowa if they move to MN or just as they visit (next of kin issues should one half of the partnership drown, which isnt out of the realm of possiblities in the land of 10K lakes and streams)?

Precisely. The issue here surrounds (as mentioned by Craig above) Article IV, Section 1 of the constitution. It's known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and basically says that any contract which is legally binding in one state MUST be recognized as valid in all others. DOMA clearly is maligned with this part of our constitution, and hence itself unconstitutional (and that's even BEFORE we talk about the 14th amendment, most commonly referred to as the Equal Protections Clause).

 

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________

 

Marriage is a two-fold contract. It is on one hand a legal contract that provides certain benefits of legally shared existence. It is also a personal contract between two people. The state does not enforce the legally protected writes of the members of the contract of its own accord, it only intervenes when one of the parties makes a legal petition that the contract has been violated.

Not really true. Your argument ignores the issue of immigration and green cards whereby the state is DIRECTLY involved despite petition or suggestion of contractual violation. The same holds true with hospital visitation and issues of benefits.

 

 

Please keep that in mind as I continue because it is important; there are contractual parts of a marriage that are inherent in the law, but only enforced by petition of one of the parties. One of those contractual parts of a marriage is a monogamous sexual relationship. Please read as follows... (I bolded the one line)

Tell us why exactly two same sex partners cannot be monogamous and sexually active? I fail to see your point.

 

 

But note that failure to consummate the marriage (engage in sexual intercourse) is grounds for nullifying the contract of marriage. This means that a sexual relationship is explicitly part of the contract of marriage.

Again, you appear to be implying that two same sex partners cannot engage in sexual intercourse, which is plainly untrue.

 

 

I've trimmed much of the rest of your post since you continue on and on and on about sexual intercourse, despite the fact that same sex couples and opposite sex couples are identical in this regard (they both have the same ability to be sexual). Also, it's odd to me that your argument in opposition to same sex marriage revolves around the understanding that sex is required. I am aware of no laws or legal codes requiring that two individuals promise to have sex with one another before they are allowed to have their marriage recognized by the state. If you wish to argue this point that sex is required (all the while implying that same sex couples are not sexually active), then at the very least perhaps you can present us with the precise law stating this requirement that the state won't recognize a marriage unless intercourse is involved.

 

 

 

Let me reiterate my earlier point; the state does not enforce these rights, they respond to petitions to end the contract on these grounds.

And let me reiterate mine that this is an invalid assertion as evidenced by issues of immigration, and also health coverage, hospital visitation allowances, and others.

 

 

What I hope to have established at this point is that sex and marriage are linked by definition of law.

Okay, you cannot possibly think that same sex couples are unable to have intercourse, so you must be conflating the term for "intercourse" with the term for "gender." While we often use the term "sex" to describe both, you are suggesting that the expectation of coitus somehow transfers to the concept of which genitals the individual has. This is equivocation, and is not a valid form of argument.

 

You are arguing about sex, and (as I have shown above) same sex partners are PERFECTLY able and willing to have intercourse, so your attempt to use this as a differentiating criteria between same and opposite sex partners fails.

 

 

Incest is illegal; you cannot let a marriage exist that would result in an incestuous relationship. There is an age of consent; you cannot allow marriage for those legally too young to engage in sex.

The difference here is that there IS measurable harm in these circumstances, so your comparison of incest and pedophilia with homosexuality is unfounded.

 

 

(I am going to defer from going into sodomy laws right now because I don't want that hornet's nest to derail where I am going with this.)

And the SCOTUS has struck down those laws repeatedly as being unconstitutional, in such a cases as Lawrence v. Texas. So, perhaps it's a good thing that you chose not to argue this point, since you would have been shown wrong there, as well.

 

 

Regardless, opposition to the change of the definition of the word marriage does not equate to not wanting equal protection under the law; it is simply a rejection of a change of the meaning of a word when other language choices are available that provide the same equality of protection.

Ahh... and now we're back to post number 2, this thread, made by me.

You assert that there is some "traditional" definition which people are trying to change, however, you have conceded yourself that marriage laws have not "traditionally" included any reference to gender. You have deflated your own argument with that concession.

 

Further, as I have noted several times (despite the length of the thread, perhaps it would behoove you to read it prior to responding and repeating the same tired arguments which have already been debunked), marriage is a term describing the relationship, and does not relate in any way whatsoever to the genitals the partners in that relationship are required to have. My point is further evidenced even in the posts of those who oppose the issue, as they themselves continue to refer to it as a "marriage." They simply add the word "gay" or "same sex" to the front, but their own choice of words betrays their argument that it is NOT a marriage since that is what they are calling it themselves.

 

On top of that, the traditional argument fails since the Christian church itself performed same sex marriages as far back as the 8th century, very commonly in the 11th and 12th centuries, and it wasn't until the 1800s that this practice lost favor. Additionally, if you want to argue "traditional," perhaps you should refer back to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks who married same sex individuals thousands of years ago.

 

The point is... you can only successfully argue the "traditional marriage" point if you cherry pick your temporal starting point to be one within the last few decades. If you go beyond that, you will see that it is those who wish to restrict marriage to only opposite sex partners are the ones truly trying to "redefine" marriage.

 

 

 

Now... With all of that said... Let me note this.

 

You STILL failed to address my question to you. You basically put forth a bunch of red herrings and false assertions, and evaded the question itself. Let me repeat it so you can take another swing.

 

Besides genitals, in what way(s) do you suggest that the relationship of two same sex partners is NOT the same as the relationship of two opposite sex couples? Please, try to keep your reasons relevant, and recall that marriage is not contingent upon children or the ability to have them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________

 

Second, I do not think the proponents of gay marriage want to recognize the traditions. This is all about changing the tradition. So, whatever you say about the tradition is automatically wrong. Tradition is the enemy.

See my response above to Bill. It is YOU who is misrepresenting the tradition. The tradition of marriage relates to the nature of the relationship, not which genitals the partners in said relationship are required to have.

 

 

There is no end to unreasonableness.

Apparently, not. This is directly evidenced by your posts to this thread.

[Larv]

The penis entering the vagina! I rest my case.

I’m waiting for the Infinite One who lives under a bridge to come out and say that that’s not the only place a penis can enter. And he would be right. But none of this has anything to do with “gay marriage,” or legalizing it, because marriage is an institution established by tradition to legitimize a penis entering a vagina. I’ve never heard of a society or culture that institutionalized a marriage tradition that legitimized penises entering places besides vaginas.

 

Now, penises can enter whatever they please behind closed doors (with reasonable limits, of course), BUT in a constitutional republic like the United Sates there needs to be a official interpretation of what the Constitution allows in terms of legalizing where penises can go in a marriage context. Thusly, this nifty constitutional device settles the matter completely.

 

Now, I see two kinds of posters here on this issue of "gay marriage": those who would defer to a supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of ”gay marriage,” and those who would eschew a supreme court’s ruling in favor of their own arrogated opinion.

[InfiniteNow]

I’ve never heard of a society or culture that institutionalized a marriage tradition that legitimized penises entering places besides vaginas.

Nice. Argument from incredulity... yet another logical fallacy.

 

Either way... read here... second half of the post (you know... where I corrected you the LAST time you made this same unfounded nonsensical argument):

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/17804-is-homosexuality-unnatural-10.html#post263888

 

 

 

Now, penises can enter whatever they please behind closed doors (with reasonable limits, of course), BUT in a constitutional republic like the United Sates there needs to be a official interpretation of what the Constitution allows in terms of legalizing where penises can go in a marriage context. Thusly, this nifty constitutional device settles the matter completely.

This is now the THIRD time you have suggested that our constitution dictates where a penis must be entered and who is allowed to marry.

 

I directly challenge you to point to where in the constitution ANY of this is written.

 

 

You keep asserting the same point, and have failed to support it EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU'VE BEEN ASKED.

 

 

Put up, or shut up.

[TheBigDog]

Besides genitals, in what way(s) do you suggest that the relationship of two same sex partners is NOT the same as the relationship of two opposite sex couples? Please, try to keep your reasons relevant, and recall that marriage is not contingent upon children or the ability to have them.

I was not answering your question. I spent several hours last night working on my post, and you asked the question someplace in the middle of that. I am working now, but I plan to post again when I get home tonight. It will probably be late tonight.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I was not answering your question. I spent several hours last night working on my post, and you asked the question someplace in the middle of that. I am working now, but I plan to post again when I get home tonight. It will probably be late tonight.

Cool beans. I look forward to it. Since your post came after mine, I assumed you were responding to it.... a misunderstanding which I'm sure you can understand.

 

Also... Any chance that you're gonna respond to my rebuttals of your other points, or concede those parts where you were mistaken?

[Larv]

...This is now the THIRD time you have suggested that our constitution dictates where a penis must be entered and who is allowed to marry.

 

I directly challenge you to point to where in the constitution ANY of this is written.

 

You keep asserting the same point, and have failed to support it EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU'VE BEEN ASKED.

Put up, or shut up.

I have the U.S. Constitution right here before me and I can't even find the word "marriage" mentioned anywhere in it. Nothin' in there about penises or vaginas, either, or where to stick what. But I haven't been appointed to any supreme court yet, and I doubt that I will. So, I'm perfectly happy to let them do their job.

 

But you're not. You think you know more about constitutionality than they do. And if your opinion were to be overruled by a supreme court you wouldn't accept it. Why? because you don't understand what it means to live in a constitutional republic.

[InfiniteNow]

I haven't been appointed to any supreme court yet, and I doubt that I will. So, I'm perfectly happy to let them do their job.

 

But you're not.

This is false. Now, can you please support the assertion you made that the constitution somehow indicates where penises should go, and that the word marriage cannot be applied to partners of the same sex?

 

 

You think you know more about constitutionality than they do.

This is false. Now, can you please support the assertion you made that the constitution somehow indicates where penises should go, and that the word marriage cannot be applied to partners of the same sex?

 

 

And if your opinion were to be overruled by a supreme court you wouldn't accept it.

This is false. Now, can you please support the assertion you made that the constitution somehow indicates where penises should go, and that the word marriage cannot be applied to partners of the same sex?

 

 

because you don't understand what it means to live in a constitutional republic.

This is false. Now, can you please support the assertion you made that the constitution somehow indicates where penises should go, and that the word marriage cannot be applied to partners of the same sex?

[dannieyankee]

I’m waiting for the Infinite One who lives under a bridge to come out and say that that’s not the only place a penis can enter. And he would be right. But none of this has anything to do with “gay marriage,” or legalizing it, because marriage is an institution established by tradition to legitimize a penis entering a vagina. I’ve never heard of a society or culture that institutionalized a marriage tradition that legitimized penises entering places besides vaginas.

 

Now, penises can enter whatever they please behind closed doors (with reasonable limits, of course), BUT in a constitutional republic like the United Sates there needs to be a official interpretation of what the Constitution allows in terms of legalizing where penises can go in a marriage context. Thusly, this nifty constitutional device settles the matter completely.

 

Now, I see two kinds of posters here on this issue of "gay marriage": those who would defer to a supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of ”gay marriage,” and those who would eschew a supreme court’s ruling in favor of their own arrogated opinion.

 

Marriage does not legitimize penises entering anywhere. Penis can go anywhere without marriage. The fact is, sex is biological. Marriage is legal. The penis and the vagina are not part of marriage. If that were the case, then there would be no point in marrying two people if either of them have mutilated genitals. For instance, if a man were to have his penis savagely eaten off by a bear (that includes his testicles, sorry), he would still be allowed to marry, even though he clearly can no longer have children. He cannot help it, how was he supposed to defend himself against a bear? Now, a gay person is born gay. They can't help it, they didn't ask for those urges. However, the logic in the anti-gay argument is that the gay acts upon impulses that he should simply hide. Well, that man whose genitals were ripped off acted upon the impulse to fall in love. It isn't a requirement to survive, but he did. Just like the gay person falls in love. Now, answer this question: Why?

[jackson33]

The 14th Amendment by it's wording is used to indicate Constitutional Authority for 'Same Sex Marriage'. In 1868 (Date A14 Ratified), long before and in one or more States until 2003, under morality 'Same Sex Couples' or the practices perceived by the general public were 'under law' illegal and/or immoral. There would be no reason or purpose for the Constitution or any law to specifically address the issue. If homo-sexual activity is perceived acceptable to the General Public, a right they wish for their family, friends or children then for goodness sake, say so and not skirt around the real issue with who loves who or what. Sodomy is today a legal practice and for all persons in the US. Even as a fetish, I can't oppose sodomy or it's true color. In my life, personal fetishes changed a dozen time general based on the simply human response to being sexually turned on. There is nothing wrong with this, has happened to everyone posting many times and by no means restricted to a current spouse.

 

IN; I wrote the above the other day for another purpose; Your playing games with Larv, much like you do with every person who may disagree with you. You most certainly do know the founders frowned on Sodomy, it's practices and opposed in the laws of all 13 Colonies. You also know hundreds of issues are not mentioned in that document that were assumed 'common sense' of the day. The fact that 'common sense' no longer prevails in ALL American Society (prevails in 80% of the Worlds population) will not negate the founders personal beliefs or the morality of the day, IF indeed different today. If you like I'll go back over some of those State Laws, three of which punished conviction by death or that Jefferson himself offer legislation for dismemberment for placing that 'penis' in the immoral place.

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Larv

And if your opinion were to be overruled by a supreme court you wouldn't accept it.

 

A decent question, frankly one I would also like you to answer, although we ALL know you would not, blaming George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Larv, jackson33, Kriminal99 or any number of people many of which today DO NOT OPENING OPPOSE gay/lesbian rlelationships, including many in those relationships that understand the diversion from normal conduct.

 

This is false. Now, can you please support the assertion you made that the constitution somehow indicates where penises should go, and that the word marriage cannot be applied to partners of the same sex?

Are you taking medicine, having a sugar attack or do you get your kicks typing that word. As for the last part, a legitimate question; Because in the MAJORITY of States their Constitution defines what constitutes a marriage, ONE MAN - ONE WOMAN.

 

dannieyankee

"Marriage does not legitimize"; Actually it would legitimize how sex is performed, but today how sex is performed is up to two consenting individuals. Most religions in the US do not recognize Gay/Lesbian Lifestyles (not all) but if government were to recognize such couples Church's or religion itself would be pressured to accept the lifestyle or lose either funding or tax free status, which itself is unconstitutional.

 

 

Beliefs of the Founding Fathers: Religion, Morality, and the U.S. Constitution | Suite101.com

 

Morality and the Founding Fathers

Although the founders’ religious beliefs differed, they formed a general consensus on morality. This consensus, however, lay with competing authorities. Most of the founders believed morality was bound to religion, but some also entertained the possibility of a secular moral framework. In a letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814,Thomas Jefferson asked, “whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists.” On the other hand, John Adams believed morality could not exist without religion. In a speech to the military in 1798, he claimed, “our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people.” Their views, therefore, reveal how complex the founders’ positions were on the issue of morality. They did not collectively agree on the foundations of morality and defined it in both religious and secular terms.

[dannieyankee]

The beliefs of the fathers are not how the law is ruled. Most of the fathers were religious. Should their religious beliefs be law? No. They frowned upon homosexuality. Yet didn't they specify the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Homosexuality is a pursuit of happiness; the pursuit to be able to love whomever you naturally favour.

 

The Churches do not need to be forced to do anything. This is not the same as a church not allowing black people into their church; there is nothing in the bible or various religious documents that say 'Thou shalt not be black'. Most religions DO have religious doctrines forbidding homosexuality, so the government would NOT need to tax them. (I personally believe they should be taxed anyways, but this is unrelated.)

 

Second of all, one of the big issues here is whether or not the majority has to approve to allow homosexuals the right of marriage. The common argument is that it is a free country (to which I would reply 'DONT MARRY A GAY PERSON IF YOU DON'T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE' but of course you'll say that they are being surrounded by something they don't like). Well, say the majority of the country becomes uncomfortable with...say, interracial marriage, or allowing Muslims into the country. Would there be laws forbidding either? NO. So, is it a problem of majority rule or freedom?

[InfiniteNow]

You most certainly do know the founders frowned on Sodomy, it's practices and opposed in the laws of all 13 Colonies. You also know hundreds of issues are not mentioned in that document that were assumed 'common sense' of the day.

They also frowned upon black people having freedom.

They also frowned upon women having jobs, or leaving the house.

They also frowned up many things which we all know are okay in today's society.

 

I find your argument specious and weak, and completely irrelevant.

 

 

A decent question, frankly one I would also like you to answer,

Read the thread, Jackson.

I HAVE answered it, numerous times.

 

A SCOTUS ruling is not the final interpretation of the constitution, just the current one. My agreement is irrelevant, since rulings are often overturned (hell, just look at how cases like Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education... the parallels here are overwhelming). The rulings of the court, ESPECIALLY as pertains to issues of bigotry and discrimination, are FREQUENTLY overturned as time passes.

 

So, as I've previously stated, I find the question "would I drop my arguments if SCOTUS say same sex marriage is unconstitutional" (itself a rather laughable proposition)... I find the question silly and completely irrelevant to arguments I've put forth.

 

I have focused on the similarities of same sex and opposite sex relationships, and have repeatedly asked for relevant secular reasons why they should be treated ANY differently.

 

The reasons put forth have ALL been shown to be without merit, irrelevant to marriage, based on false premises, and laden with logical fallacies.

 

So... my point stands, regardless of how the courts rule. Rulings can be, have been, and often are overturned, especially when those rulings pertain to discrimination of this kind.

 

 

 

 

 

although we ALL know you would not, blaming George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Larv, jackson33, Kriminal99 or any number of people

 

Speaking of logical fallacies.... :eek_big:

 

 

many of which today DO NOT OPENING OPPOSE gay/lesbian rlelationships, including many in those relationships that understand the diversion from normal conduct.

Care to try that one more time... this time, in English?

 

 

 

Are you taking medicine, having a sugar attack or do you get your kicks typing that word.

And yet you suggest it is ME who is making the poor argument. Well done, sir. Very well done, indeed. I sure can't argue with rock solid logic like this. :hyper: