Gay Marriage

[Minionman]

With the crackhouse comment people could start an argument about legalizing drugs.

Anyway, the main difference between how a crackhouse and gay people effect society is that actual stasticics seem to show that a crackhouse would increase crime, and probably has other effects that have been shown bt that I can't think of right now, with little or no positives. Allowing gay marriages, and improved gay rights in general, hurts some people's belief systems, but for sure it helps another group of people psycologically by getting them more accepted, into the prycologiand letting them cal advantages of marriage, which has more of an effect than the belief systems. A crack house has actual negative effects, while having better gay rights has some negative effects that people know for sure happen, but also some positive ones that are worth more than the negative ones that people know for sure will happen. Whether better gay rights destroy the "moral fabric" is something that people disagree on, and also is something nobody can show.

I mention gay rights because gay marriage is a part of them and my opinions stretch to other arguments that may come up.

About whether the argument is infallible, no ti isn't, but it's still pretty good.

[Obi2Kenobi]

Ok, I'm going to post an argument that I wrote a while ago as an opening to a thread like this one. In it, I refute the opposition's arguments before they are made, seeing as how most arguments against it always contain the same problems with it. So I address more points than currently need to be, but I hope that it will stop them from being brought up in the future.

This thread is not whether you yourself would *like* homosexuals getting married, nor is it about whether you think homosexuality is a sin/immoral/otherwise not good. The question being asked is simply, "Do you think we should allow, in the United States of America, a ban on homosexual marriage?" What I am asking is simply a question of legality and civil rights, secularity, not theocracy. Far too often does the question of gay rights devolve into a religious one rather than a secular one.

I am in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. Civil Unions are not enough. There are 1,049 federal rights and provisions specific to marriage and not civil unions, along with (on average) about 400 state rights. One such right is hospital visitation. Imagine, for a second, that your spouse (assuming you are married) gets into a car accident and is sent to the hospital with a very poor condition. (S)he is floating in and out of consciousness, and cannot speak. However, you are not allowed to visit, as you are not considered "family". This is absolutely unacceptable. Policies and laws whose goals are to provide separate but equal rights only obtain half of that which they set out for.

“...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...” (excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment)

To save time, I'm going to refute some of the opposition's argument before they have a chance to make it.

THE SLIPPERY-SLOPES ARGUMENT
"If you allow a man to marry another man, then what's to stop a man from marrying his dog, or his toaster, or a child?"
The problem with this argument is that pets, children, and household objects have no legal standing in court and cannot sign a marriage contract.
"And what about a man who wants to marry three wives?"
Well, I really have no problem with polygamy, so you're going to have to ask this one to someone else. The current marriage benefits would have to be rewritten, though.

THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE ARGUMENT
"Allowing homosexuals to get married would degrade the value of marriage."
Now for the sanctimonious bologna (see, I kept my message clean!). Hate to bring this up, as it is such a cliché nowadays, but when Britney Spears marriages are allowed... Or when people can get married by an Elvis impersonator, that's not exactly what anyone would define as sanctimonious (well, you could, but you'd be wrong). The Census Bureau of America estimates ~50% divorce rate, yet you still call it sanctimonious.
If anything, allowing homosexual marriage would at least lower the average divorce rate. The reasoning behind this is simple. Many homosexuals have worked hard to get these rights, and thus would have it as very important. Not many would want to throw away what has been worked for so hard.

THE TRADITION/MARRIAGE IS A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION/REDIFINING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ARGUMENTS
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman under god, and has always been this way. Don't go about trying to redefine words to suit your purpose."
Marriage predates Christianity. So unless whomever first thought up this whole "marriage thing" happened to be a pre-Christ Egyptian Nostradamus... I mean, the earliest recorded marriage was somewhere around 500 BC, if my memory serves me correctly. And many Egyptologists agree that it had been around long (millennia) before that.
Also, if you'd all really like to go back to the traditional Christian marriage, there would be no divorces. There would be no marriages between people of differing color. There would be no marriage between people with differing socioeconomic status. Woman would be property. This, of course, would all be ignoring a little thing I like to refer to as secularity, more commonly known as the separation of church and state (as ruled by Gitlow vs. New York). The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Never be so deeply rooted in traditions so that your only reason for doing things is that they've always been done that way before.

THE UNNATURAL ARGUMENT
“Homosexuality is unnatural, and thus should be illegal.”
Unnatural? This argument is so bad; I’m going to refute it not once, not twice, but three times!!

Let’s just assume for a moment, that if something occurs fairly regularly in nature, it is, in fact, natural. I think it’s something along the lines of 90% of all male elephants have actively participated in homosexual sex. That’s just one example, and I can cite more if you’d like, and back it up with links.

Or if you’d prefer: Much like eyeglasses, synthetic fibers, and marriage itself.

Or how about: Why is it that, just because something is different, people feel it should be illegal? What harm is done to anyone? In fact, I’d say homosexuality is, in fact, better than heterosexuality. You see, hundreds of thousands of children (in the US alone) have no parents. Adoption is a very important option. And seeing as we aren’t close to the risk of being under populated, it lessens the need for more food.

THE ALLOWING IT WOULD ENCOURAGE IMMORAL BEHAVIOUR ARGUMENT
Many scientists are saying that it is genetic. So this argument is akin to saying “Allowing short people to get married would encourage other people to become short.”
(Note: This argument also rests on the [in my opinion, of course] fallacious idea that homosexuality is, in fact, immoral.)

I think that about sums up my argument on the points brought up. If not, just point it out to me.

[Deadlyman]

Obi2, you make some valid points.

Lets look at one thing that has not been brought up. Age of consent to get married. Most states have the minimum age that someone has to get married. Now that would have to be apply to homosexuals. Now you talking about Man love Boys. I know the gay/lesbian assocations frown or disapprove of that kind of associations.

A lot of minor details would have to be worked on before opening the floodgates on allowing gay marriage. They would have some of the same restrictions that normal marriages have.

Sorry for having to play devil's advocate here.

[Urza-DSF]

Most states have the minimum age that someone has to get married. Now that would have to be apply to homosexuals.

Wouldn't it just overlap? I mean if the legal age for a male to marry a female is 18 then why wouldnt the legal age for a male to marry a male be 18 as well? Same for females, though I believe their legal age is lower in many states (something that I would personally like to see removed).

[Taeme]

Good stuff Obi.

I don't want to get into this argument since it boggles my mind, but I rather like that post of yours.

[eppie]

You used some good arguments there obi.
About this issue in the US (I have to talk about the US because in my country gay marriage is allowed): what does the land of the free exactly mean?. And more specifically why would a country, especially a first world country (one that is a "melting pot" of cultures) make it illegal for gays to marry?


On one hand they say, the state should give civilians their liberty to do what they want (something always used in the legal firearms discussions), while at the other hand for certain things the state just does not allow you something. And especially in the US, (politicians are always talking how great the US because everybody is free and can think, say and do everything they want) it seems strange to me that something (with which you harm absolutely nobody) like gay marriage is not allowed.

So does that actually mean that " the land of the free" is only for heterosexuals?. Or that we don't have to take it so literaly and that it just means "land of the free ...compared to "axis-of-evil" countries and afrika"??? :D

[Tal]

With the crackhouse comment people could start an argument about legalizing drugs.

Anyway, the main difference between how a crackhouse and gay people effect society is that actual stasticics seem to show that a crackhouse would increase crime, and probably has other effects that have been shown bt that I can't think of right now, with little or no positives.  Allowing gay marriages, and improved gay rights in general, hurts some people's belief systems, but for sure it helps another group of people psycologically by getting them more accepted, into the prycologiand letting them cal advantages of marriage, which has more of an effect than the belief systems.  A crack house has actual negative effects, while having better gay rights has some negative effects that people know for sure happen, but also some positive ones that are worth more than the negative ones that people know for sure will happen.  Whether better gay rights destroy the "moral fabric" is something that people disagree on, and also is something nobody can show. 

I mention gay rights because gay marriage is a part of them and my opinions stretch to other arguments that may come up.

About whether the argument is infallible, no ti isn't, but it's still pretty good.

And the "other side" could make the counterclaim that gay marriages would lead to an increase in the AIDs infections which does affect everyone. If you play with blanket statements expect a blanket party. Now as I said before, I did grandstand on my statements about the crackhouse/brothel/child abuse center comparison but the main point that I am driving at is that the argument that it doesn't effect a person can't be defended. It isn't infallible. Whenever you come across someone who is passionately against something they will find a way to state how someone else's activities are effecting them negatively. For the record I am for legalization of gay marriages but only entered the fray when I saw the "infallible" argument. ;)

[LemmingofGlory]

About this issue in the US (I have to talk about the US because in my country gay marriage is allowed): what does the land of the free exactly mean?

It's an idealistic catch phrase that has no real legal meaning.

And more specifically why would a country, especially a first world country (one that is a "melting pot" of cultures) make it illegal for gays to marry?

A portion of the U.S. uses their religion in determining what sorts of laws should exist. For these people, "religious good" always dictates or dominates "social good." These people justify laws because "God said so, and that should be good enough for everyone." I am not exaggerating. I live in Montgomery, Alabama. These people write in to the newspaper all the time. They even attack other Christians for not being "true Christians" and begin frothing at the mouth about how they'll burn in a lake of fire with Lucifer, the atheists, and the homosexuals.

Now, surely this portion isn't the only opposition to same-sex marriage, but it's the group I'm most familiar with.

And especially in the US, (politicians are always talking how great the US because everybody is free and can think, say and do everything they want) it seems strange to me that something (with which you harm absolutely nobody) like gay marriage is not allowed.

You're looking at the situation this way:
(1) Examine the stated ideals/laws of the country
(2) Examine the social condition
(3) Examine the suggested change
(4) Conclude whether it's reasonable/unreasonable, legal/illegal to allow the change

They look at it this way:
(1) Become confused at the prospect of a new social change
(2) Attend religious worship and be told what to think
(3) Disperse among the populace and tell everyone else what your God wants them to do

Other opponents of same-sex marriage may have a different method of examining the situation. Again, I'm mostly familiar with the froth-at-the-mouth, fire-and-brimstone types that correlate same-sex marriage with "Why do you think we have so many tornadoes in this country?" and other insane "God is punishing us" garbage.

So does that actually mean that " the land of the free" is only for heterosexuals?

To channel the spirit of an old television commercial*, it's the land of...
Speaker1: "You got your religion in my politics!"
Speaker2: "Good."

-Lemmy

*Footnote: The original commercial showed two people colliding.
Speaker1: "You got chocolate in my peanut butter!"
Speaker2: "You got peanut butter in my chocolate!"
And the chance collision resulted in the creation of chocolate-peanutbutter treat.

[Munkay]

I really enjoyed your post Obi. Thanks,

Munk

[wakim]

Crush intolerance!

[Guest]

Nothing I said was "emotional". Some of my positions were definetly opinion, but I think I showed the the counter arguements were also matters of opinion.

Maybe I'm a little unclear on what you've said your posts? Can you recap all of your arguments that were solid facts and infalliable logic?

[Minionman]

And than I would say that gay marriages would cut down on multiple partners, which would lower AIDS, and than think of other arguments for convincing undecided people, and it would go on and on. You did make your point though about the "infallible" bit.

[Tal]

Opposing gay marriage implies some degree of fear of homosexuals, and I just don't see where that's coming from. Technically, gay marriage is constitutional in my view since all people have the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness according to the United State's of America's constitution.

Summary: I used tags, It's the pursuit of happiness, which is in the first sentence of the constitution.

Get your facts straight. The Constitution does not guarantee that all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The line you're referring to is in the Declaration of Independence and is in the second paragraph. This in itself does not guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness per se either. As jailing someone for commiting a crime, putting someone to death for a murder would certainly violate these "rights". I won't even touch the definition of happiness except to say that I don't know of too many who are happy to pay taxes every April. ;)

You may also want to take a look at the Bill of Rights which also does not guarantee life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. :)

Just clearing up the muddied waters.

[Tal]

You did make your point though about the "infallible" bit.

I should have covered the "pretty good" part of the argument too.

[Tal]

Nothing I said was "emotional". Some of my positions were definetly opinion, but I think I showed the the counter arguements were also matters of opinion.

Maybe I'm a little unclear on what you've said your posts? Can you recap all of your arguments that were solid facts and infalliable logic?

Infallible logic doesn't really enter into a discussion of this kind. Both sides will feel that only their reasoning is logical and neither will particularly see the issues at hand from the other's perspective. Even the vaunted facts that you are looking for can be spun rather artfully to show the exact opposite of what you're striving to prove. In other words you're looking for the one "right" answer in a situation where no one can really decide on what the question really is.

As a side note it is very presumptuous of you to ask Ghostiger to recap all of his posts in this thread simply because you don't follow his brand of logic.

[Griselda]

Well, since this has actually turned into a real discussion, I think I'll add my two cents. For me, this issue has caused me to wonder why the government is in the business of legislating *anything* that religious people feel so strongly about. With that as a given, there is no way to come to a successful resolution that I can see. (actually, that's a whole can of worms, but I'm trying to use it to frame my suggestion, below, so keep those worms in the can for now)

So, in my opinion, the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Leave that to churches. Each church could decide what sort of marriages they would allow. Now, there are a lot of rights that go along with legal marriage. So, the government should continue to issue civil unions that would come with all the rights that are now given to people who are legally married. Marriage is such a loded word, even though the issue is primarily a legal one.

Of course, that will happen about the same time pigs start flying. But, it's what I'd like to see (no, not the pigs, silly, the civil unions).

[kandrathe]

I'm a little burned out on this topic, but I felt compelled to respond to your points if for no other reason than to help you strengthen them.

Slippery Slope
You gravitated to the extreme and ludicrous examples, but say we kept, children, pets, and inanimate objects out of the argument. What if 4 women and 4 men wish to create a polyandrous union and call it marriage? Say this collection of individuals produced offspring. What are the rights of the individuals involved, or the children? Is our legal system prepared to untangle these types of knots?

The Sanctity of Marriage
Again, you delve to the extreme of the trite and unholy unions. What about people who "truly" believe? Since marriage to them is a religious act, by sanctioning gay marriage the state is beginning to trample on the traditions of most major religions. Consider this article and reflect on what the problem is with divorce. It is not that these people considered their marriages a sham.

Tradition
Your argument takes the word marriage as it has ever been used in history and mashes into today's context. 9 in 10 marriages occur in a church with a religious ceremony. That is the tradition we are speaking about, and not what happened in Mesopotamia 3000 years ago. You then attempt to use the First Amendment argument to justify secularity, while the converse of that argument is the reality. The state shall impose no law restricting the practice of religion. In effect the attempt by the state to define marriage is contrary to the First Amendment.

The Unnatural Argument
I'm not sure you had an argument for this one. Are you saying that humans are animals, so anything animals do is ok for humans to do? Not quite compelling, as we have some greater level of self control. I've tried not to interject my opinions too much so far, but here I must offer one. My stance is that whatever a persons sexual practices are, it is no business of the state as long as they are "legal". We can quibble about the legality of sexuality, but suffice it to say that not all sexual behavior should be permitted. Some things, such as, involving children, or other incompetents we can all agree upon being wrong. But, generally, I think most people would agree that whatever consenting adults do in private is no business of the state.

Encouraging Immoral Behavior
You offer a weak argument against this ludicrous attack, and maybe that is why you present only the "science says" argument. Science also says that people with frontal lobe damage are more likely to become psychotic killers. The point is that ~10% of the population have same sex relationships, and some fraction of those people identify themselves as homosexual and live the lifestyle. There is no other demographic difference in this group, other than the rate at which they are discriminated against and/or are the victims of hate crimes. My experience has been in my friends and associates who are homosexual is that by far they are the most caring and responsible people I know.

My view on the whole issue is that "marriage" is a religious word and has many connotations which are religious and not the states concern. Therefore, the solution I would feel most comfortable with would be that the state remove any recognition, boon, tax, or any language referring to "marriage" from its coda. Not an easy task as it was an assumption taken for granted by the founders 200 years ago and has been the working principle up until now. One alternative would be to create something "equal" to marriage like "domestic partner", as long as there were zero difference in how the state treated that status. Another, less likely, would be that the dominant religions think themselves out of the dark ages and take a more modern stand on homosexuality.

So, in summary, I feel that religions have the right to adhere to there dogma and exclude gays, and gays have the right to feel hurt and rejected by them. The state needs to govern both groups and if the two cannot form a compromise, then the state must accomodate both in the best way it can.

[Tal]

Tradition
You then attempt to use the First Amendment argument to justify secularity, while the converse of that argument is the reality.  The state shall impose no law restricting the practice of religion.  In effect the attempt by the state to define marriage is contrary to the First Amendment.

Actually what the government enforces is the marriage contract (that license that a clergy signs after the wedding takes place in a church). You can be just as married through another sanctioned office, such as Justice of the Peace, Internet Ordained minister, judge, even Captain of a ship as you would if you got married in a church. In essence what the Government is legislating is who may apply for a marriage license and who may not. This in itself brings up its own problems as that goes contrary to the prevailing doctrine of citizens being equal in the eyes of the law. Where the Legislators go wrong is dragging religion into the topic. ;)

I'm thinking that this question will actually play out in the Supreme Court after a state makes a law declaring marriages between gays illegal. I then expect someone will sue under Amendment XIV of the Bill of Rights. That is of course if the Federals don't pass their own amendment. I expect that will also be challenged as unconstitutional under Amendment XIV. ;)

[kandrathe]

Slate : Abolish Marriage -- 7/2/2003

[kandrathe]

In essence what the Government is legislating is who may apply for a marriage license and who may not. This in itself brings up its own problems as that goes contrary to the prevailing doctrine of citizens being equal in the eyes of the law.

True. I know many secular heterosexuals who would be more comfortable being labeled as domestic partners, rather than married.

I'm thinking that this question will actually play out in the Supreme Court after a state makes a law declaring marriages between gays illegal. I then expect someone will sue under Amendment XIV of the Bill of Rights. That is of course if the Federals don't pass their own amendment. I expect that will also be challenged as unconstitutional under Amendment XIV.

I think that is why the opponents of gay marriages are being careful not to use that language. Instead the focus in on defining what "marriage" is, rather than on what it is not. I have some questions myself about why "civil unions" performed by a justice of the peace would legally be able to exclude same sex couples. But, in the end I think you are right. The Supreme Court will be to determine whether the denial of gay marriage is a violation of equal protection.