Gay Marriage

[Larv]

Yes larv please see the link provided, I didn't put it there because it was pretty, only 6 states recognize marriage in the heterosexual tradition the rest do not....

Moontanman, I see nothing in your link that shows any of the states have laws that prohibit a homosexual from marrying in the heterosexual tradition. Do you mean to say that if a homosexual man wanted to marry a woman in the heterosexual tradition anywhere in the United States there are laws that would prohibit that?

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, I see nothing in your link that shows any of the states have laws that prohibit a homosexual from marrying in the heterosexual tradition. Do you mean to say that if a homosexual man wanted to marry a woman in the heterosexual tradition anywhere in the United States there are laws that would prohibit that?

 

:hihi: :lol: :) :eek:

 

Are you trying to be funny larv? if so please don't quit your day job, far to many unemployed comedians already.

[GAHD]

I think he's saying "it's perfectly legal for a gay man to marry a woman"

[Larv]

:hihi: :lol: :) :eek:

 

Are you trying to be funny larv? if so please don't quit your day job, far to many unemployed comedians already.

I'll take that as a non-answer, Moontanman. You can do better than that. Once there were laws prohibiting a black man from marrying a white woman in the heterosexual tradition. That was as wrong and bigoted back then then as it would be today if homosexuals were not allowed members of the opposite sex if they should ever choose to do that.

[dannieyankee]

 

Only male community can not survive. Only female community can not survive. Only a community with male-female bonds can survive. This is prima facie evidence. Nothing more is required to conclude that gay relationships are not conducive to civilization. But if that is not enough biologically, then the history informs us that this is true.

 

Yes, you are irrational and I do not wish to engage in irrational discussion. Gay marriage is unnatural, it is counter-civilizational, it is counter state purpose. We can institute it as a fiction to be nice to gay people, but there is nothing in the principles of order of the society that compels gay marriage.

 

THIS is quite irrational and getting on my nerves. You suggest, Lawcat, that allowing gay marriage will result in the destruction of civilization because no one will produce children.

 

May I remind you that the homosexual population is around 5%? Oh God, the horror of 5% of the population not conceiving children! Whatever shall we do?!

 

The principals of society thousands of years ago, when we were a weak population with little technology and a high infant mortality rate, was probably to conceive, as you are correct. But wake up, we are no longer sitting in a cave protecting our young from tigers. We are in comfortable homes, giving birth in hospitals with a very low infant mortality rate. We are surviving longer, we are fertile for longer periods of time. We no longer need every human being on earth to reproduct. 5% of the population not reproducing is not bad. Heck, 20% won't be bad.

 

Allowing people to marry wasn't based on the idea that they will conceive - it is a legal, binding contract that guarantees that they will try to keep their relationship through time. I honestly see no point in marriage, but something that is legal for heterosexuals CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be illegal to HOMOSEXUALS. For God's sake, we aren't going to die if 5 freaking percent of the population does not reproduce naturally! It's called adoption - there are millions of kids out there who have no parents. Think about it, genius.

[dannieyankee]

Moontanman, I see nothing in your link that shows any of the states have laws that prohibit a homosexual from marrying in the heterosexual tradition. Do you mean to say that if a homosexual man wanted to marry a woman in the heterosexual tradition anywhere in the United States there are laws that would prohibit that?

 

I have addressed this issue already in my first post - WHAT USE IS THAT TO HOMOSEXUALS? Please, answer that question. For instance - a heterosexual man, if gay marriage was legalised, could easily marry a straight man. But, excuse my french, what the hell good would that do him? He's not gay. So what use would traditional marriage have to a gay man? None whatsoever.

 

That's like saying 'Give me 100 dollars and I'll give you a library.' to a blind man.

[dannieyankee]

I'll take that as a non-answer, Moontanman. You can do better than that. Once there were laws prohibiting a black man from marrying a white woman in the heterosexual tradition. That was as wrong and bigoted back then then as it would be today if homosexuals were not allowed members of the opposite sex if they should ever choose to do that.

 

I must also respond to this one - It is not about whether the black man could marry a white woman, but whether a black man could marry whom he loved.

 

The same applies to homosexuals. It is not that the gay man cannot marry a man, it is that he cannot marry the love of his life, who happens to me a bad, because he happens to be gay.

 

What on earth escapes you about this?

[Moontanman]

I think he's saying "it's perfectly legal for a gay man to marry a woman"

 

I know what he's saying, he's ignoring what has already been said and trying to trivialize a serious discussion. If you cant do any better than to try and obfuscate the thread larv you should not post here.... You are suffering from a huge case of homophobia, I suggest you try to see homosexuals as people and not pervs who do things you think they shouldn't do. Possibly this would help you see the problem from a human perspective not a sexual perspective... but I doubt it.....

[lawcat]

Can someone explain:

 

1. Why is marriage a State issue and not a Federal issue?

 

2. Why do States allow marriage?

 

3. Why do States require licensing--filing of papers with the State?

 

In essence, what is the purpose of State regulation of marriage? Can't we do without all this?

[GAHD]

exactly my point lawcat, glad you're asking this question too!

[InfiniteNow]

Can someone explain:

 

1. Why is marriage a State issue and not a Federal issue?

 

2. Why do States allow marriage?

 

3. Why do States require licensing--filing of papers with the State?

 

4. Why weren't people asking these questions when marriage was just considered between a man and a woman? Why are these questions seeking to remove the conferment of state benefits and protections to couples only arising now that homosexuals are seeking equal rights, privileges, and protections?

 

 

GAHD (and others), it's the simple fact that the state confers 1,138 different benefits and privileges with the institution of marriage, and evidenced by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and explained here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

 

 

While we can certainly have a fruitful discussion about why the government ever needs to be involved in marriage (such as how to handle custody of children and money to assist with their rearing after separation, how to handle property ownership after death or separation without explicit legal contracts, how to handle hospital visitation, how to handle green card and immigration issues, how to handle health benefits, etc.)...

 

...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 for preventing these same benefits and privileges from same sex couples, and that reason must be in line with our Constitution and governing principle of Equal Protections.

 

The suggestion above that "gay people can marry people of the opposite sex, too" is frankly rather stupid. It's implicitly discriminatory, and fails the Equal Protections test, since the government is allowing one group to marry the person of their choice, but not another... and all for no relevant secular reason.

[InfiniteNow]

The legislative avenue is always open based on the vote of the majority.

The legislature cannot put a law on the books which is unconstitutional, regardless of how large of a majority wants it there. The 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).

 

This change to the constitution would need to be done to the first amendment (the Establishment Clause), the 14th amendment (the Equal Protections Clause), and would need to overturn the long history of SCOTUS rulings regarding both (such as the Lemon Test they put forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman and the antimiscegenation admonishment they put forth in Loving v. Virginia).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice. And so logical, too. But I'm still having a little trouble understanding how sex doesn't play a leading role in differentiating opposite-sex marriage from same-sex marriage.

 

An interesting response. I asked you why a union of two same sex partners could not be called a marriage. You had previously made a point that you're okay with two same sex partners being granted benefits, as long as it's called a "domestic partnership" or a "civil union" instead. I reminded you that it is a marriage, regardless of the genitals of the partners, since the word "marriage" refers to the relationship... and I suggested that there is no good reason to call the union of two same sex partners by a name which implies separateness (such as "civil union" or "domestic partnership").

 

And... how did you respond? By calling it a marriage yourself. That's just classic. Thank you for proving my point.

[Larv]

I'm still struggling to understand how sex doesn't have anything to do with same-sex marriage. Genitalia matter. And what you do with them matters too. How can you say that they don't?

[InfiniteNow]

I'm still struggling to understand how sex doesn't have anything to do with same-sex marriage. Genitalia matter. And what you do with them matters too. How can you say that they don't?

 

I see the source of our disagreement, then. You are missing what I am saying, as the above is completely misrepresenting my point.

 

I am NOT saying that "sex doesn't have anything to do with same-sex marriage."

What I AM saying is that sex/gender/genitals are not relevant to the concept of marriage itself.

 

I am saying that marriage is a term to describe the nature of the relationship, and is NOT a term used to describe which genitals the partners in that relationship must have.

 

On top of that, when referring to the concept of marriage, what type of genitals you have and what you do with them is only peripherally relevant. As has already been amply demonstrated, vast swaths of people are currently allowed to marry and they NEVER have to prove that they will have sex, that they will produce children, or any of the other irrelevancies which continue to rear their silly heads in this discussion.

 

Infertile couples marry.

Elderly couples whom are no longer reproductively viable marry.

People who have zero desire for children marry.

 

To suggest that children are related to this discussion about same-sex marriage is nonsequitur. Further, to suggest that intercourse and coitus is relevant to the institution of marriage is ALSO nonsequitur, since couples are not required to promise they will be sexually active prior to being allowed to wed.

 

So... either way... the larger point was that the term "marriage" describes the relationship... that we don't need separate terms such as "civil union" or "domestic partnership," and your own word choice in your own post amply demonstrated this fact for me.

 

You're welcome to put whatever descriptive adjective in front of the word marriage that you want to, but my point stands that it is still a marriage, and I appreciate the way you agreed with me by calling it a "marriage" yourself.

[Moontanman]

I'm still struggling to understand how sex doesn't have anything to do with same-sex marriage. Genitalia matter. And what you do with them matters too. How can you say that they don't?

 

I'm seriously trying to understand how you can say that genitalia matter or what you do with them matters. Please clarify what gay people do with their genitalia that is different from what opposite sex couples do with their genitalia. It's called sex larv, sex, 99.999% of all sex is done for fun, sex is the glue that bonds couples together, with out sexual desire you would have no couples. If we reproduced via budding with no sex there would be no couples. Sexual desire is what brings couples together.

[lawcat]

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):

 

Something is legaly relevant if it merely vibrates the needle of the relevancy meter. To that end, any hypothetically relevant reason will do. But, it has to be relevant to the purpose of the legislation. That is why the understanding of the purpose of the marriage laws is important: so that you can speak about what is relevant.

 

This change to the constitution would need to be done to the first amendment (the Establishment Clause), the 14th amendment (the Equal Protections Clause), and would need to overturn the long history of SCOTUS rulings regarding both (such as the Lemon Test they put forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman and the antimiscegenation admonishment they put forth in Loving v. Virginia).

 

I am not sure how you envision the change to First and 14th Amendment would affect the change in equal protection. more specifically how does Lemon v. Kurtzman apply to Gay marriage?

[InfiniteNow]

how does Lemon v. Kurtzman apply to Gay marriage?

 

All laws passed in the United States of America must have a relevant secular reason for existing, and must pass the "Lemon Test."

 

 

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test",

 

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
   
   
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
   
   
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
   
   

 

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

 

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.