So I want to understand better what the arguments are against gay marriage and civil unions. I want to also hear more things that are positive about the possibilities for if they were to be allowed. For the last two days of lunch, me and a kid I know have been debating this and he seems to have all these ideas about why gay marriage/civil unions are bad.
He told me today that I was like a kindergarten teacher who only lets a class have cupcakes if the whole class can have them.
These are my questions for all of you:
Do homosexuals deserve to be treated equally to every other human being or should their rights be abridged?
Why should homosexuals be allowed civil unions or marriage?
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to have civil unions or marriage?
Are homosexuals lesser humans than heterosexual humans?
Should the government be able to regulate marriage at all?
What do you think of civil unions for all and making marriage a thing that is only present with in the private sector (religion)?
Please answer the questions you feel comfortable answering and feel free to answer from any angle you would like. I really would appreciate a variety of different answers.
*So that everyone knows, I tried to phrase the questions so that each was angled a little bit different as to raise arguments from all different levels. In no way do I view homosexuals as lesser persons. This is not because of comments on this note, but to ensure that those who read this note and prompt are aware that the intent of this is to try and obtain as many different opinions as possible on this issue.
From: www.nuworldstory.blogspot.com
I live in Georgia and the "Gay Marriage" debate is alive and well in this Red State. As I see it, being the gay male that I am, there's so much frustration in the community as a whole that I cannot take a random sampling from the gay population that will accurately portray that real data...
For instance, I might ask 100 gay men if they believe in gay marriage. Most if not all will say, "yes". However, these gay men will not commit themselves to monogamous relationships... And therefore, why do their opinions even matter?
A lot of gay people I know want to have their cake and it it, too. And I don't think that's right. If we want equal rights we need to act like equal citizens, and this involves us stepping out of the bars and into the real world where people don't sleep on a continual basis.
But more than that: I do not know why tax exemptions should be given to two-couple relationships. Why can't any number of people who occupy a house (say, roommates) be allowed home tax exemptions? Why do we have this dual-relationship ideal?
Please feel free to read my blog and offer advice/comments!!
-S Hartwell Brooks
www.nuworldstory.blogspot.com
I live in Georgia as well in a more are less liberal area, but this debate is pretty well and alive. I just don't understand why it matters to people that gays have a right to marriage. It really shouldn't impact them, but they turn it into this moral issue and that really does bother me. I have an uncle that is gay. Him and his partner have been faithful for at least 15 years. I would hate to see one of them put in a situation where the other is sick and not able to make medical decisions because they can't get married. This is a real issue and I don't know what the solution is. Personally I don't think it is necessary for the government to recognize marriage at all. I think the government should only recognize civil unions and that marriage should become a private practice that can be performed with in a religious or cultural background.
homosexuals deserve to be treated equally to every other human being or should their rights be abridged? They most deffinatly do deserve to be treated equal. Since when does the constitution say that men and women should be treated equal...unless they are differrent?
Why should homosexuals be allowed civil unions or marriage? Homosexuals are still human, no matter how different they are, and humans have a need to be loved. If it is alright for a man and woman to be married, why is it not alright for a man and man or woman and woman. Who are we to tell someone else what they have to think is 'right?'
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to have civil unions or marriage? They should be able to.
Are homosexuals lesser humans than heterosexual humans? This question makes me think of early america (with the slaves) and Hitlar with the Jews. The Blacks and Jews were thoguht to be 'lesser humans' because they were different, and look what happened to them. The idea of a 'lesser human' is an evil idea that needs to be done away with compleatly.
Should the government be able to regulate marriage at all? I think the idea of a sigle husband or wife is necesary since, if you are allowed more than one they could become propety, a way of showing wealth or status. In turn, causing the idea of a 'lesser human' to appear. The law of a single husband or wife shoule stay in effect, but to the exent of a man must marry a woman and vise versa.
What do you think of civil unions for all and making marriage a thing that is only present with in the private sector (religion)? I think we should do away with Civil Union in the sence of a couple bound together in a marriage like state. What is the point in not just letting them be called married. They are a married couple in every since of the word other than in name, so what is the point. To me, civil means living inpeace with people and union is to be together. Civil Union soulds like something that is for a group of people, a state or country. Not a marriage. Just let them get married!
☼~Olivia~☼
☼ Olivia ☼
I don't mean to be picky, but visa versa and Hitler. Not Hitlar.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
Karl Marx
I honestly couldn't really address each of the questions individually, but I still felt that I should say my piece. I'm proud to identify as 'not-heterosexual', but like any other little girl I spent nights dreaming about a beautiful wedding, with miles of organza and white roses - however the goverment has the right to regulate marriage in terms of preventing a 50 year old man from marrying a 12 year old girl, and a woman marrying her cat, etc.
But damned if the not-heterosexuals shouldn't be able to do as they please! We deserve the right to all the privilages a male-female married couple recieved even if the government is afraid to call it 'marriage'.
Do homosexuals deserve to be treated equally to every other human being or should their rights be abridged?
I'll let the Constitution of the United States (or more precisely the Fourteenth Amendment thereto) answer this one for you...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Yes, the Constitution affords the rights it enumerates to ALL of our citizens, and not just to the "straight" ones.
Why should homosexuals be allowed civil unions or marriage?
There is a flaw in the premise of your question. Constitutionally speaking, gay people don't owe anyone an explanation for how or why they wish to exercise their fundamental rights as U.S. citizens. On the contrary, the burden of restricting these marriages lies plainly with the State, which must present at the very least a "rational purpose,", and more likely--considering that questions of marital rights are generally considered to fall under the Fourteenth Amendment's implied requirement of "heightened scrutiny"--a "compelling State interest" for the prohibition of these marriages.
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to have civil unions or marriage?
There is no rational, constitutionally consistent reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages.
Are homosexuals lesser humans than heterosexual humans?
No.
Should the government be able to regulate marriage at all?
Yes. Marriage is at its core is a form of contract designed to link to individuals into a single legal entity, and one of the legitimate roles of government is to regulate the execution of contracts.
What do you think of civil unions for all and making marriage a thing that is only present with in the private sector (religion)?
I think that this plan would satisfy a lot of people, on both sides of the argument. However, to "give" marriage away to the religious groups who wish to claim ownership of an institution that did not in fact originate in a religious context, and which in fact belongs as ALL public institutions do in this country to The People, would represent a plain infringement on the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment to our Constitution.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Do homosexuals deserve to be treated equally to every other human being or should their rights be abridged?
No. But there is an inherent bias in this question. Marriage is not, nor should it be, a rights issue.
Why should homosexuals be allowed civil unions or marriage?
Well, first, civil union and marriage should not be considered interchangeable terms.
Homosexuals should be allowed civil unions, but it should not be considered the equivalent as marriage. And a civil union concept should be allowed for any kind of couple who want to share certain rights and responsibilities, including inheritance rights, parental rights for one partner’s child and visitation rights at hospitals. Basically, a civil union would simply be a much more convenient way for couples to gain these rights without tons of legal paperwork, plus a few bonuses that aren’t currently legally allowed like family visitations.
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to have civil unions or marriage?
Homosexuals should certainly be allowed to have civil unions, but not marriage, because the marriage tradition has to do with lineages and legacies, and the family bloodline. And it has been that way for quite a few thousand years across essentially all cultures. Such a tradition has produced a system where every natural-born child has a family tie to both his mother and father’s families, and all future and past generations of this family unit, whether or not there is a divorce. Whereas with homosexuals, if they were allowed to marry, it would create a system where a natural-born child would automatically not have a tie with one side of his family. In adoptions cases, this is already sad enough. We should not make it the default.
Are homosexuals lesser humans than heterosexual humans?
Of course not.
Should the government be able to regulate marriage at all?
Yes, because the government should certainly be allowed not to recognize certain marriages. Otherwise the government might have to recognize marriages between two objects, or man and animal (depending on the culture).
What do you think of civil unions for all and making marriage a thing that is only present with in the private sector (religion)?
That’s a bad idea. Marriage has little or nothing to do with religion.
Well marriage and religion historically coincide. There are religious traditions that make the two intermingle. For those who do not believe in a religion, allow a private ceremony by a judge for all means. Why should the government make any difference show between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship?
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
Karl Marx
I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court of the United States. Per the High Court in the case of Loving v. Virgina (1967)...
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Considering that the list of benefits you describe are virtually identical to those afforded to married couples, your proposition strikes me as suspiciously similar to the "separate but equal" arrangements that our Court struck down in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
There is two serious flaws in this assertion. The first is that the idea of marriage as a means of establishing "family bloodlines" is a complete red herring, since in fact there is not even ONE legally recognized right or priviledge associated with the parent-child relationship that is contingent on the marital status of the parents. It is also interesting to note that heterosexual couples who wed in this country are not required to produce children or even to sexually consummate their marriages (which in the past could result in a legal anullment), nor are they required to demonstrate either the desire or even the ability to procreate. In fact, opposite sex couples who are completely incapable of having children are regularly granted marriage licenses.
The second serious flaw in this is that the argument respresents an "appeal to tradition," which our Supreme Court has already established as an invalid argument for cases that defend a "traditional" form of discrimination. Quoting from the decision of Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
"History and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry...the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack."
This assertion is factually incorrect. In fact, there are a wealth of historical examples (both ancient and modern) of societies from all over the world that have at various points offered legal recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples. There are literally dozens of examples from the African continent alone, included the including the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name the most well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. The Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the practice of Shudo (in Japan) respesent similar culture who fully accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation. On the contrary, when you step away from the always ego-centric myopia of judaeo-christianity and islam---and the often quite imaginary versions of redacted history that they tend to espouse--the rabid opposition of homosexuality that we see today seems more than a little odd.
The flaw here is that our laws already recognize marriages in the context of de facto families. Opposite sex couples who adopt, or who bring children from a previous relationship into a second marriage are afforded the right to establish a legal relationship that has no bearing whatsoever on any biological relationship. Your argument also assumes that if these marriages are not recognized, that there will not be families (both parents and children) in these situations that need access to the protection of the laws. Whether the State chooses to recognize these families or not, they exist. If the goal is honestly to protect the interests of children, then to deny their families the equal protection of the laws seems like a funny way to go about achieving that goal.
With all due respect, this argument is completely rediculous. This is just a bogus, hyper-exaggerated example of the "slippery slope" argument. All marriages in this country represent a form of legal contract, and neither "objects" nor "animals" are afforded the ability sign contracts. The only people who would be enabled to marry in the realistic same-sex scenarios involved are people who already qualify as individuals to enter a marriage contract.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Considering that the list of benefits you describe are virtually identical to those afforded to married couples, your proposition strikes me as suspiciously similar to the "separate but equal" arrangements that our Court struck down in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
No, I am asking it to be separate AND unequal. Civil unions should not be the equivalent of marriage. Civil unions are for legal issues, marriages are for lineages.
There is two serious flaws in this assertion. The first is that the idea of marriage as a means of establishing "family bloodlines" is a complete red herring, since in fact there is not even ONE legally recognized right or priviledge associated with the parent-child relationship that is contingent on the marital status of the parents.
No, you do not get married just to establish bloodlines. You don’t need to get married at all to do this. Today, however, by default, married couples have children that carry on the family lineage. That’s a good thing.
This assertion is factually incorrect. In fact, there are a wealth of historical examples (both ancient and modern) of societies from all over the world that have at various points offered legal recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples.
It isn’t factually incorrect. Marriages have been about lineages for a few thousand years. Throughout the centuries, however, quite occasionally, a few societies and cultures have popped up that allowed same-sex marriages. However, overall, and consistently through all cultures, heterosexual couples have been allowed to marry.
Opposite sex couples who adopt, or who bring children from a previous relationship into a second marriage are afforded the right to establish a legal relationship that has no bearing whatsoever on any biological relationship.
Right. But natural-born children today are bound to every married couple more than just through a legal relationship. Married couples today always have a shared lineage with their child. Again, that’s a good thing.
Only through adoption would married couples not have a biological relationship with their child, but why would anyone want to make this the default case with every child born to a homosexual couple? Adoption cases are sad because they’ve been orphaned or discarded or neglected, and it’s the best case out of a bad situation. We should not be doing this to every child by default.
Whether the State chooses to recognize these families or not, they exist.
Certainly they exist. As they should. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a family composed of homosexual couples and their children. Homosexuals also should have legally recognized civil unions so they can share all legal rights. However, we should not be calling this a marriage.
Families can comprise of any group of people who love you including cousins, friends, etc. But we also do not give them the status of married couples.
Today, whether or not heterosexual married couples choose to have children or not, any natural born child they do have will automatically be related to them.
And being married means you are combining your two lineages. Some cultures don’t even take into account love, as with arranged marriages popular in many Asian countries.
When you say you are part of the Smith family today, it means that you share a variety of experiences with a shared family history, all the way down to your physiology. Once again, it won’t be the case with adopted children, but we should not make it the default case for all children.
With all due respect, this argument is completely rediculous. This is just a bous, hyper-exaggerated example of the "slippery slope" argument.
No, it is not ridiculous at all. Some cultures certainly do allow marriages between man and objects and man and animals, but it is not an officially recognized tradition. Marriages are about much more than a legal contract. It is about a blood lineage.
I am sorry, but your attribution of the purpose of marriage is unsupportably limited. Marriage is a legal relationship created between two individual citizens who may or may not at their own option choose to have children. There is no legal requirement to continue a "lineage," and in fact opposite sex couples quite commonly marry just because they want to be together. Also, there is nothing in our marriage laws that changes the relationship between a parent and a child. A child with an unmarried mother and father is just as much a part of his family's "lineage" regardless of his parent's marital status.
Then by all means, find a willing partner and marry them for this reason if that is your wish. But what seems to escape you is that different people get married for different reasons, and the freedom to marry relies inherently upon the reasons of the individuals who choose to exercise this fundamental right.
Your dismissal of the many cultures that have embraced same-sex marriages speaks of a poor understanding of just how prevalent in history this practice has been. There are two main cultures that underpin Western Civilization. One of them (Judaeo-Christian Asia Minor) was quite oppressive in regards to this kind of relationship, but the other (Ancient Greece) considered the practice common-place. To dismiss the cultures the Greek and Roman Empires, Feudal Japan, Ancient Egypt, Native America and the three largest ethic cultures on the African continent as "occasionally, a few" seems rather rediculous to me.
I am sorry, but legally speaking this is simply not true. The legal connection between a biological parents and their children is made no stronger, nor any weaker by the fact that one parent is married (or not) to the other. The same goes for adoptive children. A child who gets adopted is legally afforded the same relationship to his adoptive parent or parents as a child who is biolgically related to the parent. Some very shallow people might view an adoptive parent-child relationship as being less meaningful, but as far as the law goes there is no difference at all.
Again, you argument is avoiding the fact that these children exist and are a part of these families whether or not you choose to grant their families any legal protection. This rather obvious oversight suggests to me that the welfare of these children is really the farthest thing from your mind, since you seem willing to sacrifice their well-being in order to "protect" a discriminatory institution.
Why not? What is it about the term that compels you to categorically exclude an entire class of people from accessing it? You said yourself that you would not afford an equal status to a civil union, and that flies directly in the face of the Fouteenth Amendment to the Constituiton, which guarantees the Equal Protection of the Laws to ALL citizens...not just the straight ones.
Your response is non sequitur. Our laws require that similarly situated citizens be afforded the same rights and privileges. Nothing about a same-sex marriage would effect the way that cousins or friends related to married couple.
Your definitional limiting of marriage as the connecting of two lineages is not legally supportable. Lineage is a completely separate issue from marriage, as demonstrated by the ability of a child to terminate his or her legal realtionship to a biological parent through the process known as Emancipation of Minors. Love is personal choice, and is wholly outside the asupices of the Law. The point (again) is that people have the freedom to choose why they wish to marry one another. This is a firmly established legal fact, upheld consistently by out Courts. In the landmark decision of Perez v. Sharp (1948) for example, the Court stated...
"In determining whether the public interest requires the prohibition of a marriage between two persons, the state may take into consideration matters of legitimate concern to the state...Such legislation, however, must be based on tests of the individual, not on arbitrary classifications of groups or races, and must be administered without discrimination on the grounds of race."
Your position invidiously relies on an arbitrary group classification, and ignores the fact that as individuals, all of the gay folks seeking to marry as such have already satisfied all of the States legitimate requirements to qualify as a candidate for marriage. To say that a citizens is a legitimate candidate for marriage, but that the State has a stake to play in deciding with whom among the other legitimate candidates the citizen may choose to exercise his or her basic rights is constitutionally wrong-headed.
None of this has any relevance to the question, since the relevance of "shared family history" is a matter for each family to establish. It is not a legitimate role of government to dictate what can only be categorized as an opinion on the nature of the family. There are many people who are estraged from their families, either by fate or by choice, and their marriages are no less binding despite the uttler lack of any meaningful connection to their "lineages."
Also, your conclusion that same-sex marriage would supplant the more common relationships among families, thereby becoming the "default for all children" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My marriage to my partner, and our relationship with our children does not in any way that I can discern alter the marriage of you to your parnter, or of your relationship to your children. Unless you can demonstrate a meaningful vector of harm that our family relationship then your argument lacks the standing to be considered relevant.
For example? Can you give us an example of a culture that allows its citizens to engage in a "marriage" that is in any meaningful way similar to the institution we are discussing? And even if you can, what relevance would such an arrangement have here, since there is not even the remote suggestion that those seeking same-sex marriage would want to engage in the ludicrously exaggerated practices you describe?
Your opinion in this is not founded in a good understand of the Law. As the Court in Perez pointed out, "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice..."
Your personal opinion about what you think that marriage should be is irrelevant. Our Constitution require that all citizens be afforded the Equal Protection of the Laws, and that they be afforded the same privileges and immunities. Your position runs contrary to those requirements, and I oppose your reasoning on those grounds.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm not commenting on what is lawful, I am commenting on society as it is today. I am commenting on the fact that I like this system of marriage we have in place creating long lineages over multiple generations within a family. I like it when children realize for the first time that their great-grandpa looks like them.
Right now, a good number of states have ensured that the definition of marriage stays between a man and a woman, and state courts have thus far stopped any challenges.
Even if you think you're right about the law, now is certainly not the time to be bringing any "liberal" issue to the SCOTUS. The current makeup seems perfectly willing to ignore precedent and rule based on conservative values.
Fortunately (for gay people), the Law is the only thing that matters in this debate. The fundamental rights of citizens are not subject to the whims of the mob. That is, actually, one of the main reasons that the U.S. was founded as a Constitutitonal Republic, rather than as a Direct Democracy.
In that case, your comments are wholly off-topic, and irrelevant, since none of that is really a part of our marriage laws. Your personal opinion about what YOU think marriage is all about is not the issue. The only question that matters is whether or not the Law supports the efforts of those who wish to see all of our citizens treated equally, or does it support those who favor this form of invidious discrimination.
And, a similar number of States have rejected these moves. It might interested you to know, however, that at the time of the Loving decision, a similar number of States had passed their own measures to ensure that marriage stayed between members of the same race. The Supreme Court ended all of those measures quite handily. Also, regardless of what some State courts have ruled, there have been some significant victories for marriage equality in the State Courts, and all of the relevant cases that have made their way to the Supreme Court of the United States have gone in the favor of protecting the rights of gay people. I think it also says a great deal about the anti-gay marriage amendments that have been passed in many States. Seeking such an amendment is a tacit admission that the position being advanced is inherently unconstitutional. After all, why would you need to amend a constitution that agreed with your point-of-view.
Something that many (usually religious) republicans often forget is that most traditional conservatives place a high value on privacy and personal liberty, and really don't like the idea of the government interfering in the personal decisions of citizens. In fact, there is a significant faction within the conservative movement (such as my own party, the Libertarians) that have a BIG problem with the government telling two adult citizens in what kind of contracts (and legally, that's all marriage is) they can engage. That is why on the federal level, the attempts by religious conservatives to amend the Constitution have met with such dismal failure.
The bottom line is simple. Citizens, gay or otherwise, don't owe you any explanation for why or how they wish to exercise their basic rights. The State however is required to provide such an explanation, and that explanation must be consistent with our Constitution. So far, both the State and you have failed miserably to respond with a rational legal argument to support this prohibition.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
In that case, your comments are wholly off-topic, and irrelevant, since none of that is really a part of our marriage laws. Your personal opinion about what YOU think marriage is all about is not the issue.
Actually, I'm the one posting on topic. Tell me if you think the questions in the original posting are legal questions. Unless you somehow think the Supreme Court has decided that homosexuals are lesser creatures, none of them are legal questions.
You're the one forcing this to be framed as a legal debate when the original poster seems to frame it as a philosophical, ideological debate, and you are off-topic.
Citizens, gay or otherwise, don't owe you any explanation for why or how they wish to exercise their basic rights.
No. And I won't give answers. But what citizens will do is make sure their own ideals and values are reflected in the laws of the land. And that is where laws banning homosexual marriages will succeed as they have 99% of the time thus far.
You seem to think that laws have absolutely nothing to do with a society's personal customs and values, and that is just wrong the vast majority of the time.
Even though you also frame this as a sort of civil rights movement, if surveys are to be believed, African Americans and most other minorities do not think it's right to even try to link this to that movement.
Very well, let's review...
Do homosexuals deserve to be treated equally to every other human being or should their rights be abridged?
This certainly sounds like a legal question to me. Our rights as citizens are protected by...what? Oh, yes...the law.
Why should homosexuals be allowed civil unions or marriage?
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to have civil unions or marriage?
Civil unions and marriages in this country are institutions of what? Yep, that's right...the law.
Are homosexuals lesser humans than heterosexual humans?
Now, this one at least leans philosophical. I think that your answer to this question above, however, was not honest. You said, "Of course not," but your responses since seem to indicate that you do see gay people as a form of second-class person, less deserving of the rights and priviledges of citizenship.
Should the government be able to regulate marriage at all?
The government's regulation of marriage is effected through what? Right again...the law.
What do you think of civil unions for all and making marriage a thing that is only present with in the private sector (religion)?
Enacting civil unions for all and shifting marriage to the private sector would require what? You win the brass ring if you said...the law.
I am sure that you would LIKE for to avoid a discussion of the law, but since marriage in this country is a legal instiution, and since it is through the law that gay people are being denied the freedom to marry (a basic legal right guaranteed to all citizens), and since the only relief in this conflict will come either from an act of our Congress or the eventual decision (one way or the other) of the Supreme Court of the United States, you will have a hard time discussing the subject in any other context than the law.
Fortunately, our founding fathers were wise enough to enact a Constitution that protects the rights of individual citizens from the predations of the mob. That Constitution, and especially our Bill of Rights contains a few ideals and values as well...ones which our citizens have traditionally held to be central to our culture. The one most relevant here, of course, is the ideal that ALL citizens should be afforded the Equal Protection of the laws. Whatever you might hold as a personal value, if it conflicts with the Constitutional value of Equal Protection, must step aside.
Well, I'll save you the pain of a lecuture on logical fallacies (though you might want to look up the argumentum ad populum), and simply point to the fact wide-spread public opposition to interracial marriages didn't stop the Court from striking down the laws that prevented them, either. In fact, same-sex marriage in the U.S. is doing a lot better than you seem to think. Massachusetts is the only State that has instuted full marriage equality for same-sex marriage couples, but Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and New Hampshire have created parallel institutions that offer virtually all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon and Washington likewise have created significant legal protections for same-sex couples, and though they do fall short of what anyone would call a "marriage," they are a step in the right direction.
And, YOU seem to think that YOUR values are more widely spread than in fact, they are. Recent polling data shows the country fairly evenly split on the issue, with a slight majority in support of either civil unions OR marriages. Only a relatively small percentage of people oppose BOTH, and mostly those that do come from the oldest and most conservatively religious cross sections of the population...both of which are shrinking demographics in our country. (LINK)
In response to that, I will leave you with the words of the late Mrs. Corretta Scott King...
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice...But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'...I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." (Reuters, March 31, 1998)
"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination." - (Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000)
"For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.... I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950’s and ‘60’s. The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice." ~ (press conference on the introduction of ENDA, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994)
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
So you think that a question about whether or not homosexual "deserve" to be married is a legal question. I wonder, what is your legal opinion on what a particular group deserves as opposed to what they have a civil right to?
You also think that marriages are legal institutions, even though you understand there are several marriages that are not officially recognized such as the several polygamist sects we have and the several religions that allow human and object marriages. Just because something is not lawfully recognized doesn't make their marriages any less. However, I will just as strongly oppose officially recognizing polygamist and object marriages.
But anyway, you want to frame this only as a legal-only issue, so I will let you. Everyone else posting gave their personal opinions whereas you like to spout court case after court case, so that should give you an idea of who's posting on topic and who's not.
I think that your evasion intentionally misrepresents what was actually asked...
Do homosexuals deserve to be treated equally to every other human being or should their rights be abridged?
The question as it was originally phrased quite obviously references a legal context
The question of what one citizens may or may not think another what another citizen "deserves" is not relevant. The rights and priviledges of citizenship are guaranteed to each individual citizen, to exercise as he or she sees fit. YOUR opinion on how others exercise their own freedoms is simply not germaine, and in fact our Constiutition (and especially the Bill of Rights) was written in large part to protect the rights of individual citizens from being infringed upon by the fickle opinions of the mob.
They are. To suggest otherwise is really rather rediculous, especially in the context of the issue of same-sex marriages.
Your straw man arguments are tiresome. I have previously asked you to provide an example of a group that allows humans to marry "objects" in any relevant context similar to this issue. You have not done this. As for polygamy, I really don't see the problem (or the legal basis) for making the practice illegal so long as all of the involved parties are willing, legal adults. This is still a straw man, however, since the topic at hand is same-sex marriage, not polygamy.
Factually incorrect. There are hundreds (more than a thousand, actually) of very specific rights and priviledges that are associated with the legal insitutiton of marriage that are not available to arrangements which do not carry the same legal recognition.
Fell free to oppose whatever you wish. The decision to recognize marriages of these sorts are no more within the realm of your personal opinion's control than the issue of same-sex marriage. The reasons justifying the prohition of your strawmen's "marriages" are either legally compelling, or they are not.
LOL...as if you had any choice in the matter. The issue IS "legal-only," despite your magnanimous decision to allow the Courts to do their job.
Many people have opinions, but not all opinions are equally well informed. The issue here is a pretty basic question...are the laws which prohibit same-sex marriages consistent with our Constitution? I think that they are not, and the cases that I have cited are relevant because they speak directly to that question.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'll just leave with this one last comment. (Again, for a reference on what is and isn't on topic, refer to every other poster and compare it to yours.)
In arguments, it almost seems as though the first person that accuses the other of straw-man tactics is the winner, but it's ironic in your case, you are the only poster using these tactics.
I stay on topic by speaking of marriages and tell of all sorts of marriages that are traditional, yet not official recognized, including polygamy.
You, on the other hand, use straw man arguments. First, you redefine the context of marriage, and you will only argue any and all posts based on your own, very narrow definition. That IS the very definition of straw man arguments. I ask you for your opinions, and you give me only your narrow lawful interpretations.
But know that your straw man tactics makes for a weak argument.
I would suggest that the one should compare one's comments to the original blog, if one wishes to measure how far from the original topic one's comments have strayed. Appealing to the popular mob might make you feel better, but it doesn't make your arguments any more on topic (or convincing).
I disagree, obviously, for the simple fact that marriage in this country is a legal institution, and how the law will eventually deal with these relationships is the only relevant point to consider. Your arguments rely on a purely subjective point-of-view, that has absolutely no weight or force in the ultimate dispensation of the question. Thus, I think that my original accusation of the straw man which is central to your argument stands.
Actually, what I asked you for (repeatedly) was an example of a group or culture that allows humans to marry "objects" in any relevant context similar to the issue of same-sex marriage. I see that you are still refusing to back up your comments, which is I suppose to be expected.
Acutally, the definition of s straw man is when "the author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument." (LINK) And in fact it is you, not I, who wishes to arbitrarily limit the definition of marriage by excluding those cultural and historical examples of societies that have in fact included same-sex couples in their marital institutions. Also, I would suggest that since the issue of same-sex marriage is a question that is being litigated in our Courts, and which will in all likelihood be resolved (one way or the other) through the decisions of those Courts, the thrust of my argument is dead on target, whereas yours relies on the irrelvancies of your religious philosophy, rendered thus by the protections of our Constiution.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Anything you can do I can do better :)
Your arguments rely on a purely subjective point-of-view, that has absolutely no weight or force in the ultimate dispensation of the question.
It's strange that you could think that your argument have "weight." Babbling as much as you do about court cases, does that mean you know how any judge would rule? My opinion has just as much weight, if not more, because, obviously, virtually all the court rulings have been against your side of the argument. That is the power of popular opinion. It shapes laws.
Actually, what I asked you for (repeatedly) was an example of a group or culture that allows humans to marry "objects" in any relevant context similar to the issue of same-sex marriage. I see that you are still refusing to back up your comments, which is I suppose to be expected.
And this is an example of a straw man, too. You ignore everything else I say that is valid, and focus on one thing that you like to argue on. Yet, even in this case, you would still be wrong. Some dalits in India have been known to marry idols because without a husband, widows may be shunned or ostracized. However, this practice is not officially recognized by the government.
I bring it up only because, as I have already said (please stop ignoring it), there are many, many instances where particular marriages are not recognized by the government. Some are reasons of tradition, some have to do with ideology.
And in fact it is you, not I, who wishes to arbitrarily limit the definition of marriage by excluding those cultural and historical examples of societies that have in fact included same-sex couples in their marital institutions.
And you have ignored all other arguments besides the one that you want to promote (namely, issues with law). That is the definition of straw man. Yet, again. You also ignore that I have already said that the examples you cite really aren't relevent because even though homosexual marriages have popped up in civilizations throughout time, the only constant is heterosexual marriages. You shouldn't compare these rare occurances in history to a constant.
whereas yours relies on the irrelvancies of your religious philosophy, rendered thus by the protections of our Constiution.
Atheist. Not religious. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The constant in all cultures, whether or not they believed in a religion or not, is heterosexual marriages. It has created a system of diverse legacies. Heck, I have a friend who can trace his ancestry to the Mayflower and beyond. That's just nice.
I simply argue that it is a few millenia-old system that should not be so arbitrarily dumped because of the next politically-correct movement that happens by.
Now, I'm truly interested in what straw man arguments you come up with next. Which individual sentence are you going to try to pick apart ignoring each and every other thing I've said in the same paragraph?
Not necessarily, but I have studied the relevant case-law at some length, and think I have a pretty good grasp on the legal issues involved.
Acutally, your belief that "virtually all of the court rulings have been against" the pro-same sex marriage side of this debate is not very well informed. In fact, the decisions in the lower courts have been somewhat mixed, though virtually all of the relevant precedents at the level of the Supreme Court have favored the arguments I have offered to you. I would suggest that you review the link provided by RossKressel, below. The legal decisions do not favor you as solidly as you seem to think.
Actually, I have addressed each of your points in some detail...I keep going back to this because it demonstrates the essentially hollow nature of your concerns. I would be interested to see a credible resouce that discusses the practice you allege, but for the moment, let's pretend that it works just as you have suggested. How would that practice be IN ANY WAY enabled by the recognition of same-sex marriages? Our laws describe marriage as a contract, and contracts cannot be entered into by non-human parties.
It seems to me that you have picked a very obscure example, and I would still like to see you support it with an actual resource of some sort. Even so, the closest example to what you describe would seem to me to be the catholic practice of Nuns who become "wives of christ." If our legal and social cultures can deal with that practice (and they do) without impacting our marriage laws, what leads you to think that this is in any way relevant to this issue?
The idea of a "constant" institution of marriage is a fantasy. Every culture thoughout history has its own nuances that it applies to the practice, and the practice of same-sex marriages are not nearly as rare as you suggest. And, you seem to be operating under the additional fallacy that as a country we have a single, unified cultural history. This is simply not true. Marriage is a fundamental freedom guaranteed to individual citizens, and the whole point of naming it as such (i.e. a freedom) is that it is understood that the institution means different things to different people.
My apologies.
To suggest that this was the constant in "all cultures" is simply false, and I have already given you numerous examples to that effect. But, what you are attempting here is an appeal to "tradition," which our SCOTUS has already warned is not a valid argument in defending cases of this sort.
What about a same-sex marriage "dumps" the currently established system of marriage? Are you suggesting that because same-sex couples get married, heterosexual couples will suddenly STOP doing so? There certainly is no evidence to support that proposition. Frankly, your arguments seem akin to the story of "Chicken Little." Same-sex marriage has existed and continues to exist in many culutres both ancient and modern, and despite your worries, the evidence would seem to indicate that those cultures did and are doing just fine.
I'm more prone to setting straw men on fire than I am in offering them up to my opponents, so I will instead refer you once again to the fact that the only relevant question here is whether or not the laws limiting same-sex marriages are consistent with our Constitution.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I have a lot of friends who are gay or lesbian and I can say that the whole thing is absurd. I don't understand how, for the most part, our world can get over racism, but we can get pas two people of the same sex having feelings for each other. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are not a "group" of people. They shouldn't be looked at different in anyway. When the law for marriage was made I believe that covered any two people who cared about each other and wanted to commit themselves to just that other person. It shouldn't be a matter of sex, color, age, anything. Love and care is just that, love and care. It makes no exceptions. My best friend is probably the best person I know, hard worker, she works everyday, she is loyal, shes just all around beautiful on the inside and she was born a lesbian. SO WHAT, because some person somewhere doesn't like the idea of a girl loving another girl, my best friend can NEVER commit herself to another person, she can't show her true love like everyone else, only because the person she would choose to share her life with is a girl also. It makes me so upset to hear anyone say that they don't deserve it, there is no difference.
http://www.lmaw.org/freedom/tr_docs.htm#federal
That link has a list of numerous court decisions that may be helpful to readers.
Ross Kressel
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/rosskressel