President Obama caused a bit of a kerfuffle yesterday when he officially came out in support of same sex marriage. I, like most rational people, fall solidly into the "Who gives a shit?" camp when it comes to gay marriage. I also believe that eventually enough of the old bigots and fundamentalists will die and that same sex marriage is a legal inevitability in the US within a couple generations.
So, just for the record, I think legally binding yourself to another human being is a bad idea regardless of gender. Marriage, gay or otherwise, is a bad idea, period. In other words, I don't have a dog in this fight and if I did I would probably take it out back and shoot it for being tiresome. That said, I've often wondered if there were a good, rational reason to forbid same sex marriage and it turns out there probably isn't, but the following is about as close as you're going to get. The argument goes something like this:
You can't allow gays to marry in the United States because it will cost the country too much in lost tax revenue.
Fuh...what? Bear with me.
Legalizing same sex marriage creates a massive tax loophole. The following line of reasoning is somewhat spurious, but don't be surprised if you start hearing it as same sex marriage draws closer to reality.
We have something in the 14th Amendment called the "Equal Protection Clause". In a nutshell, it says we all have to be treated equally. It's a nice idea, seems a mite difficult in practice, but it's in there. So if gays are allowed to marry, a bevy of other special interest groups will demand (and rightly so) the right to do so as well.
The first group often cited in this argument are the polygamists (of course that's bigot code for the Mormons). If the gays are allowed to marry, the polygamists are going to come out of the woodwork demanding multiple marriages and the legal recognition of such.
Well, then if the gays can do it and now the polygamists are allowed to marry more than one person, why can't I marry my dog? (the argument loses a lot of its nuance if you don't throw in a ridiculous dog marriage reference) Under equal protection, if everyone is allowed to marry anyone - and as many anyones at one time as they prefer - why can't I marry my dog? Why can't I marry my neighbor's alpaca? Hell, why can't I marry my mom?
Wait...what was that last one?
That's right. Why can't I marry my mom (or dad)? And that's where the argument gets real. Truly disgusting implications aside, if I marry my parent I become my parent's spouse. And spousal inheritance is not a taxable event.
You see what I did there?
This might be the cleverest way to sidestep the estate tax ever devised. Because they can't un-ring this bell. Once gay marriage is legalized, it opens the Equal Protection floodgates, where the only logical end is a back-door abolishment of the estate tax. And we can't afford to let that happen.
And that my friends, is the argument against same sex marriage. Like everything else, it all comes down to money.
Now I realize this is an emotionally charged issue and I'm not looking to start any flamewars in the comments, so do me a favor and keep it civil. But do you think this argument holds any water?
More to the point, I'd like to get a headcount of young people on Wall Street who actually give a shit about this issue. Do you guys even care? If any of you truly believe that it'll bring about the end of modern civilization, I'd love to hear your reasoning. Does this issue even matter to young people?
Dont care, Let em get married all they want, makes no difference to me
I know the readership of this website falls right of center, but this is kind of ridiculous. I highly doubt the 14th amendment will be used this way and the whole "If we let gay people marry, OF COURSE we have to let people marry their first cousins" is the oldest, worst argument in the book.
Before we get started, I just want to agree that this the most over-hyped, hysterical, ridiculous non-issue of all time. There is so much high emotion on both sides; some people on the right screaming that it'll be the end of civilization if gay marriage is allowed, some people on the left screaming that it's the end of civilization UNTIL we allow it. Neither view is right.
I don't care what people do in private; that's their business and I don't want to know about it. I don't judge based on sexual orientation, because we don't understand everything about it yet. I also agree there are much more important isues than this, and we're spending way too much time on them when there are bigger fish to fry.
But I am against gay marriage for both my own personal religious beliefs as well as "practical" reasons like the ones above.
For fair-minded people, that should be the end of it. But if I said that on live news, I would be called a hateful, insensitive bigot.
I don't care if two gay people get married, I just don't want to see it advertised all over the place. On another note, I lol'ed at the picture.
Aren't you married?
On a more serious note, if straight people don't want gay people to get married, then straight people should stop having gay kids.
I am completely indifferent to homosexuality and have no active external (religious) pressures dictating how I should feel about it.
That being said, I think the fight for marriage equalization attacks a political effect, rather than attempting to cut at its cause. To the extent that activism can only affect political after-effect and not their motivating roots, I am all for allowing gay marriage. However, I think the discourse should not be "Why aren't our partnerships recognized?" it should be "Why are their partnerships subsidized?"
In a perfect world, taxes are nonexistent or nonintrusive to the point where the concept of marriage reverts to a purely social issue affecting individuals and families ONLY, and not a state-sanctioned economic merger. Ideally, government would not only not only NOT be subsidizing such social issues, but not even recognizing they formally exist. Uncle Sam has no business taxing me nor does he have any business knowing who I'm fucking and who I'm making a family with.
ALSO! These:
Thing is - if 2 gay people don't marry, they will cohabitate or something. Legalising marriage is like legalising drugs - makes no different to those who don't care, and little difference to those who use it anyway. haha
IMO so long as all the hot women are still available I couldn't care less. :D
I honestly don't understand religious objection to gay marriage. What does religion have to do with this? If you have a religious objection to gay marriage, are you alright with gay people getting married outside whatever religious institution you "own"?
There are cultures that engage in polygamy, not ours. If we lived in such a culture, then fair enough. Marriage to cousins and close relatives has strong medical and genetic consequences. Gay marriage doesn't. And comparing two gay people to one human and one sub-human is despicable, it's the same argument that was used in north carolina to ban interracial marriage. A gay man is a consenting adult, not a dog.
Personally, I don't give a damn who you marry, marry whoever you wish. Marriage as an institution is older that religion, so for religion to try and define it is somewhat presumptuous.
EDIT: The argument is about the "rights" that straight people get and gay people don't. In my opinion, I see no reason why one can't add his partner, regardless of gender, to his company-paid insurance.
Eddie, no... that's not entirely the case.
You're misunderstanding and misapplying the EPC. The question concerning any Equal Protection claim is whether or not there a class of people has one of their fundamental rights intruded upon. The entire purpose of the EPC is to protect a clearly disadvantaged group and afford to it the same protection as a non-disadvantaged class such that the disadvantaged class's rights are being violated upon. Polygamists, Sheep Fuckers and incestuous families don't qualify for the EPC because their life, liberty and right to property is, for the most part, unhindered assuming that they are not LGBT. The LGBT community is being discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The collective you gave (and yes, I know you can quote morality all you want but Scalia's fucking idiot here. I know what he said in Romer and Lawrence all to well) are not being discriminated against for something everyone else can do. They are being told that, on a statutory level, what they are doing is wrong, illegal and is an act of criminal conduct, but they are not prohibited from marrying someone pursuant to the action not being illegal. There is a big difference between the two.
You can make an argument that the LGBT community is both a protected class and is having a fundamental right, the right to marry, being taken away from them. Between Loving, Zablocki and Turner, the court has said marriage is a fundamental right. If that is the case, why are we preventing a group that should be covered under the 14th amendment and the Carolene Footnote 4 clause from having access to a right that every other group does. And to wit with your arguments about Mormons - they do have the right to marry. The law, however, limits their right to marry to one person and doesn't deny them a fundamental right to marry. The claim of polygamy under a religious context wouldn't work either because the law isn't impeding on the rights to practice their religion but limits certain contexts within the scope of the laws of this country (which is permissible under the structure of the Free Exercise clause). As to the incest and dog fucker claims, I'm pretty sure I can find some legal argument against them too.
You can have limits on a fundamental right as strange as it may sound which would prevent everything from degrading to familial marriages. We have the fundamental right to free speech but at the same time, there are limits on what the right to Free Speech allows us. The Freedom of Religion is another great example. I can practice whatever religion I want to, but there are certain things I can and can't do within the scope of practice that may or may not be protected. It's part of how the courts and society work.
Couldn't one argue the same point with gays? The law doesn't limit their right to marry, just the gender they tie the knot with. Couldn't a gay guy marry a gay woman, thus the government isn't restricting their right to get married, just limits who they can marry?
Why aren't those involved in incestuous relationships considered a protected class of people? Do they have to register someplace? I'm not being a dick, just playing devil's advocate to your argument...but how can one make the claim that two consenting adults should be able to marry one another if they choose yet turn around and say it's different for a brother and a sister or son and mother, etc.? The only real difference is that their child could be deranged, but isn't that the same with straight marriages where one parent might be genetically predisposed to a certain disease or defect? The government doesn't have the right, at least not at this point, to say whether or not a person can get pregnant regardless of whether their baby will have potential medical conditions...so why is it different with an incestuous relationship?
Like I said, I'm not trying to start shit, just look for legit, intelligent answers.
Regards
At the state and federal level, I support it. We're supposed to be a country that runs on logic and reason.
But my holy book says people of my religion aren't supposed to get mixed up in that. So I don't support it in the church.
I think the notion that Christians should actively oppose the private sins of non-Christians on a political level is stupid and unbiblical. A lot of this is rooted in the political views of St. Augustine and the post-Constantine church. Augustine believed the Romans should forcibly convert people and also promoted the view that the earth was flat.
Political agendas have never worked well for Christians. In the 4th century, it twisted "Jesus is Lord" into "God hates pagans and the earth is flat." Today, it twists "Jesus is Lord" into "God hates abortionists and gay people, and man walked with dinosaurs 7000 years ago."
In terms of tax, various laws about marrying relatives cover Eddies' inheritance situation. Also, it only works for single children unless we decide to allow polygamy.
Don't give a shit, let them marry and be miserable if they want. Have very much respect for Edmundo for all the thought provoking contributions, but don't think that's a clever argument at all. Pprobably because there isn't really a clever argument to be found. Props for trying though. It's like basing a decision on a specific cash flow forecasted 20 years ahead... it's just too many layers of assumption.
We have freedom of religion but you can't make up your own religion requiring you to walk around butt naked. Marriage is a contract, you can't marry your dog because your dog can not enter into a contract. Ok so fine, supposing you could marry anyone or anything, your immediate family would still be "incestual" so you would have to that law repealed. And even if your sole purpose in marrying a parent was for tax purposes (and enough people were actually willing to use it that way) it would probably just be closed.
I was reading about Obama's remark yesterday and started thinking about something.
I'm just genuinely curious if anyone can comment or provide a rational explanation of how people in the US can cry foul for gay marriage to be legal every time a state bans it or the discussion of the topic intensifies, yet Americans believe they are a "One Nation Under God" and you hear and see "God Bless America!" and "In God We Trust" in everything and everywhere from speeches, money, and in court to the Pledge of Allegiance recited by millions (possibly) of children every morning. It's obviously not the same God that Christianity is based on, the same God and religion this country was presumably built upon, so which god is it?
What I'm getting at is how a country can be so vocal in using religious references and take pride in the fact that it was found based on Christian principles and ideas , yet at the same time try to legalize gay marriage? What happens when a married Vermont gay/lesbian couple is called to stand trial and they are asked to swear on the Bible? The same Bible that condemms homosexuality. I would imagine most wouldn't attach too much weight to a tradition such as the swear-in process, but does this,and the above mentioned, not present some type of a contradiction/hypocrisy given that Christians largely go back to the Bible to support their views?
Just wondering out loud that's all. Maybe I'm making this to be bigger than it is.
Eddie's right, it's only a matter of time before gay marriage will be legal across the nation, but marrying your dog, cousin, mother or lamp would need to gain support on a mass level which even if you consider the state of moral decay US (and the world) finds itself in, even at that trajectory it would take hundreds of years for something like that to get to the same level of discussion on gay marriage.
You don't have to swear on the bible anymore, at least in N.Y now and pledge of alligance is optional most schools don't do it anymore in NYC.
I realize you're making an argument for the sake of making an argument, Eddie, but this may interest you:
I hate it when people act like this is a religious issue. First of all, marriage is no longer a religious institution except in the minds of very few. It transcends religion and is a social issue; many non-religious people want to be married now-a-days.
But since it isn't recognized as such, we have to speak to the religious aspect. It completely boggles my mind that people act upset about gay marriage ruining the sacredness of marriage. Newsflash: 50% of marriages end in divorce, just how sacred is marriage now-a-days? Also, I really hate how some religious people consistently select a few "teachings from the bible", in this case to make otherwise blatant bigotry okay, and yet ignore most others. For instance, fornication (premarital sex) and lust are both sins.
And yet those salient facts are ignored by most religious people --- but homosexual marriage? That's in my bible as a sin, YOU CAN'T DO THAT!! Note again, they do something labeled a sin by their holy book and yet other people can't do the same. Do as I say not as I do...
As a social issue, who cares if gay people can get married? We are in the 21st century, this should be an nonissue by now, but unfortunately it's not. Fortunately though, the antigay marriage people are on the wrong side of history here and it's only a matter of time.
The "50% of marriages end up in divorce so marriage is not sacred" arguement is a fallacy. Marriage is not sacred anymore because 50% of the people in America, and about 27% on average around the world, enter into it totally unprepared, under the wrong assumptions, for financial reasons only, or one of a dozen other reasons why these marriages fail. Did it ever occur that maybe it's the actual people that are the reason marriage doesn't work out for most married couples? Consider the GSS (General Social Survey) that presents divorce rates denominated by religion. Active Catholics have a divorce rate of 23%, less then half the national average. Given the moral state the world is in these days, marriage should not be seriously considered by most people outside of India and Sri Lanka where the divorce rate is less than 2%. I wonder how that is possible, especially given the prevalance of arranged marriages. Take a look at historical divorce rates and tell me there is not a strong correlation between those and the progress of moral decay.
Personally, I could care less, for what it's worth.
You're absolutely correct, I did not look further into the statistics but I figure what you said to be the case, which is why I tried not to extrapolate too much from that statistic and only briefly touched upon it. I think that statistic is well suited for the argument of marriage being a social issue rather than a religious one though; most people want to get married asap for social or financial reasons, thereby ignoring the religious aspect of it.
I am interested though, in your and other Christian peoples thoughts on the latter point of my argument:
Also, I really hate how some religious people consistently select a few "teachings from the bible", in this case to make otherwise blatant bigotry okay, and yet ignore most others. For instance, fornication (premarital sex) and lust are both sins.
And yet those salient facts are ignored by most religious people --- but homosexual marriage? That's in my bible as a sin, YOU CAN'T DO THAT!! Note again, they do something labeled a sin by their holy book and yet other people can't do the same. Do as I say not as I do...
As a social issue, who cares if gay people can get married? We are in the 21st century, this should be an nonissue by now, but unfortunately it's not. Fortunately though, the antigay marriage people are on the wrong side of history here and it's only a matter of time.
That's because those sins don't gross out the people preaching this stuff. The Christians need people to persecute, people to point at and call sinners and since gay people are different they are are committing sins that are pretty much done by everyone, they are easy targets. Without souls to save, the whole Christian business model goes bankrupt. However, everyone has and loads of premarital sex, especially and mostly the people calling themselves Christians. I live in the Deep South and couldn't count all the babies born of wedlock here to these same people who post Bible verses for Facebook statuses and talk about how these evil Obama and his gay agenda are out destroying the country.
I've stopped viewing modern Christianity as a religion and more like a geo-political philosophy for rationalizing hate. Perhaps the higher up in the Republican party really don't care about the sanctity of marriage, but they know they can capitalize on the hate of their constituents. I say "hate" because that's really the only reason why you would oppose gay marriage when presented with all these logical and rational arguments for why it should be legal and why it's legality has absolutely zero effect on the lives of the people voting away these other people's rights. So when someone say's "I oppose this for spiritual reasons" or any linking of opposing gay marriage to God, they are basically saying "I don't like it because someone else told me this God I believe in doesn't like or hates gay people" and since their is no God, that person basically hates gay people on their own. They're adopting and agreeing with the opinion of a non-existent entity or what a human being is selling them and calling the opinion of the non-existent entity. Basically the thought is there in your brain that you hate or have some kind of problem with gay people and God and The Sanctity of Marriage or whatever made-up believes lets you effectively rationalize away the hate.
That's how I personally interpret them, anyways.
I love the point you, SECIB, make. It's the point I've been hammering for years. I seriously want to get elected to Congress and introduce the Protect The Sanctity of Marriage Act that would effectively make it illegal to have sex without being married. I'd use every argument used to vote down gay marriage to push this ridiculous shit back on the American people.
"You want to use the Bible as the rule book? Okay, STOP FUCKING! How about that?!"
See what type of arguments they come up with to vote this down.
I was just wondering about this today. How many of you guys actually oppose gay marriage, as opposed to either supporting it or just not giving two shits? I've heard it said that younger people tend to fall in the latter groups, even among Republicans and conservatives.
Personally I've never come across college-aged and twenty-somethings opposed to gay marriage (I live in the North east). However, there are plenty of people in their 40's and above, perhaps the majority, who are pretty opposed to it. It pretty much looks like the 1800's when marriage between a black man and a white woman was considered not a marriage. Older generations will always be more opposed to equality because they grew up with a more narrow sense of what is "traditional" than the generation that followed them.
I support equal rights, regardless of whether or not I agree with the people concerned. So it matters little whether or not I approve of gay people, my support for their right to get married is unwavering.
@Frieds I liked you better before law school, lol.
@SECfinance That infographic is classic. I love that you can marry your first cousin in California but not in Mississippi, lol. (actually, I know a guy who married his first cousin but he was Mexican - as in, from Mexico - and I'm not sure what the laws are down there)
Eddie, your right. I liked myself more too. However, now I'm more educated and have a much better grasp on constitutional issues. The thing is, I'm not saying anything that's out of the realm of possibility. These are fairly standard arguments from the constitutional side of things. The whole same-sex marriage thing comes down to two issues. First, is there an EPC issue and second, is it a States Rights issue? If there is an EPC claim, the EPC would allow Congress, under Section 5, the rights to abrogate state sovereignty on an issue in order to comply with the EPC. IF it's not an EPC issue, but a question of States Rights, the question becomes whether or not Congress wants to step in and make this a federal issue or not. If they do, then they pass legislation which challenges that of the states and we have a question over which law is right and go from there.
Typical New Yorker's perspective:
"I don't care, just get out of my face."
So true.
I support gay marriage, if they wanna get married let them. I doubt its going be an issue in several years after it becomes legal.Remember when the 13th amendment passed, followed by Jim Crow laws it was llegal for black and whites to get married and was considered a sin. But today we aren't protesting that black and whites shouldn't get married, if gay marriage becomes legal I doubt this will be a hot topic afterwards.
Actually, the court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1967 when the SCOTUS heard Loving v. Virginia. The SCOTUS relied on the EPC and identified marriage as a fundamental right. The court was clear on this, stating that “these statutes (prohibiting interracial marriage) also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Even then, it still took a while for it to become much more accepted, particularly in the South. Time is the only factor which we can't account for - how long will it take for something previously prohibited to become normalized within the folds of society.
Who the hell cares. Let them marry all they want.
Gay people have every right to marry, and can do so as they please.
A man just cant marry a man, and a woman just cant marry a woman. Thats something different from marriage entirely.
I knew there would be one on here, I fully support gay marriage. A relative of mine is gay, and I have to say the shit he deals with is ridiculous - used to get beat up, people yell shit at him frequently, the works. I have no idea why anyone would be against letting two people have the same rights as another two people, unless of course at some level you are bigoted towards gay people.
^Don't lie to yourself, you just hate gay people.
Incorrect. You, however, are an ass who doesn't have the self control to stop from spouting off stupid shit long enough to actually think about what you're saying.
So supporting gay marriage is supposed to be a consolation prize to your cousin getting his ass kicked? and the general purpose of heterosexual marriage i.e. normal marriage is the development of the next generation of humans--I know, I know what about sterile couples....but they really are the exception and not the general case. If you applied the concept of gay marriage to your life personally, you are basically OK with the idea that your father or mother can be swapped by either sex. So whatever life lessons your mother/ father taught and the way they were taught to you are irrelevant and actual biology be dammed. Would you personally want a butch lesbian for a mother? would you want an effeminate male for a father? are you comfortable with the idea that a man is screwing your father? Again these are all questions and scenarios you have to apply personally when you support gay marriage, nut just support and wish the outcomes on someone else--otherwise its a hypocritical position.
not an argument against gay marriage but I'm with you on this one. gonna laugh when the first highly publicized gay divorce comes out
Religion is hilarious.
I don't know why people think this is a religion issue, it isn't. This is about hate. Some people just hate gays.
Regardless, this is simply about benefits and entitlements. Marriage is a ceremony, a promise and a symbol. Marriage is not about a certificate from the government. Anyone can get married, but right now only certain people can get that certificate which entitles them to tax deductions and other benefits.
This issue REALLY is about the transfer of wealth from single, childless people to breeders and married people who get benefits when they shouldn't.
I just wish we could con Americans into accepting a child bearing certificate like the sheeple line up for their government authorized marriage contract. Nothing like people fighting to be inside the matrix.
I really agree. Marriage is hardly sanctimonious anymore as a lot of people in heterosexual marriages aren't even religious. Also I think divorce rate is about 50%? And religious views really hold no merit in this arena seeing as half the quotes extracted from the Bible also prohibit sex before marriage under penalty of stoning. This argument is really irrelevant. Even as mentioned above in this thread, people who are personally against it really don't seem to care or project their morals on the lives of others.
Yes, but the people who are virulently against gays and gay marriage often use religion as a shield against being called a bigot. "Durr, you can't call me a bigot, it's my religious beliefs!" Even though, obviously, religious beliefs don't change the fact that they hold bigoted views.
To Eddie:
--I hear the argument, but that's not really an argument against gay marriage, it's simply an argument against giving tax benefits to married people, period. Also, you can't marry a dog or an alpaca because they cannot enter into a contract. Anyone who makes that argument, like Rick Santorum, is a moron.
There are no practical arguments against gay marriage. It's all religious dogma and bigoted non-sense. A bunch of people who see that the world is passing them by, that their lives are only getting worse and harder, so they lash out at a minority group. They feel better about themselves because there's still one group of people who have it worse and they can hold onto a bit of the "real America" that only exists in their minds.
Seriously, any argument against gay marriage falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny or rational thought. And if irrational Old Testament logic is used, well, then why don't we follow ALL of the rules of the Old Testament? Own slaves, stone disobedient children, have rape victims marry their rapists, don't work on sundays, and NEVER get divorced.
First off, in some cultures, that certificate is important regardless of whether you get the secular benefits or not. That is something to consider. Now, I do take offense to the fact that you say religion isn't an issue and it's all about hate. I do think that, to some extent, religion is an issue and will always be an issue. If you grew up in a home with at least some sense of moral and religious upbringing, then you'd be familiar with the entire concept of sodomy and same-sex relationships being taboo and punishable by stoning. Translate that into today's speech and it turns into Same-Sex marriage is wrong. That belief still holds true with many of the evangelical denominations of Christianity, the Catholic Church, a number of sects of the Ultra Orthodox Jewish population and other religious groups. These aren't the people who see it as a tax implication. These are people who see it as a form of moral corruption that needs to be stopped. Not everyone sees the world for tax purposes, so stop assuming it's the sole basis for things.
And as to hate, if I recall, the Catholic church has updated their stance towards homosexuality a bit. From what my friend, a Roman Catholic clergyman, was telling me, everyone, regardless of sexuality, deserves respect, justice and pastoral care. Some of the motivations for hate are based on religion (which makes the religious argument even stronger). Some are based on isolationist views and tendencies. Some are based on the irrational view of supremacy as the sole dominating factor. Some are based on the grounds that you're not as observant as we are and therefore are not even of our faith (and I've seen that one first hand).
Most importantly man, you can find something that you disagree with from a religious perspective yet still accept it from the secular point of view. Religion will always be an underlying source of pain in this debate. It's just a question of how far you choose to take your religious beliefs.
You're wrong there. If you're Antonin Scalia, it will lead to Polygamy, et al. Second, and more importantly, a Civil Union is not necessarily equal under the eyes of the law. Equal would be akin to saying that a Civil Union confers all of the benefits of marriage, not almost all of the benefits of marriage. Equal would also mean that every state recognizes a civil union or same-sex marriage the same way. If you want to let same sex couples have a civil union, then require it to be recognized in all 50 states instead of creating the possibility for conflict if something happens in one of the 20 states that either do not recognize or have an outright ban same-sex marriage and a number of different same-sex unions or 10 involving a couple that had their union/marriage in one of 7 states that recognizes a same-sex marriage or the 10 states that have recognized domestic partnership/civil unions. Then what happens? You have a fight over the legality of a situation that now drags in the courts from two states, may be a federal question, and effectively challenges the law in both states. Ultimately, it sounds like you want to give same-sex couples the rights to be separate but equal. That sounds like the argument made in Plessy v. Ferguson. So, how do you want to reconcile that one?
Marriage is an institution for men and women to wed, hopefully where they are not related either for genetic diversification preservation. I don't think gays should be allowed to marry under the institution of marriage from a religious perpsective. Nevertheless, from a legal one, civil unions should be allowed. Let them get unionized and divorced with their hetero counterparts and experiecne the misery of "marriage" and the lucrative practices it brings to more divorce attorneys. NC's ruling banning civil unions and virtually eliminating all shared rights (healthcare for ex) was completely stupid and will only serve to increase taxpayer burden if gays now having lost partner's healthcare coverage turn to the state for health care services (medicaid/state assisted programs funded through tax revenues).
I'm not a major supporter of gay rights, but the argument purported above that giving gays the right to marry will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia holds no merit. Let them be in civll unions, not marriage, and equal under the eyes of the law, it shouldn't be so complicated. Civil unions is the most basic contract afforded to man by law, even retards can marry, let the gays have their unions.
So which "perceptive" do you actually believe, religious or secular?
I also love this wrong side of history argument. Get real. No one cares. You think people whose relatives had slaves sit up and night, crying and moaning how their relatives were on the "wrong side of history" lol.
Gay marriage benefits will eventually pass and be provided. Right now people are upset and do not want to allow married gay couples to receive these benefits. History will look back at this denial of tax deductions as silly, but big deal.
Of course not, my family was one of the biggest slave owners in Virginia and nobody would or should feel that way. I don't see how you think that is the argument. My point about "the wrong side of history", is that throughout history there have been people discriminated against for various superficial reasons and the side being discriminated against consistently, eventually, get the rights they deserve.
I actually don't think it's an argument, it's just a statement of facts regarding past issues of inequality and how they relate to the present issue of inequality.
Based on the rest of your post I think you agree with that point, so I'm not sure exactly what you meant in your first paragraph.
TheKid, I realize this, but it was also one of the last vestiges of the Jim Crow laws to get overturned. They started getting overturned in 1917 with Buchannan v. Warley and it took a very long time in between (A depression and a war will do that, ya know) before you saw cases like Brown v. Board of Ed, Gebhart v. Belton, Briggs v. Elliot and NAACP v. Alabama making a much more unified stand against Jim Crow legislation.
Justice Harlan, a very forward and progressive thinker, was the lone dissenter in two of the most famous civil rights cases of the 13th amendment, The Civil Rights cases and Plessy v. Ferguson. His dissent in Plessy should be read by everyone. It's a shame that it took more than 50 years to get Brown v. Board of Ed. The fact that we still have groups of people in this country being viewed as unequal under the constitution is appalling.
Justice John Marshall Harlan, wrote in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the lone dissent in the case, that "the white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.'
Harlan makes all the justification necessary for why this shouldn't be an issue and we should allow same-sex marriage. This was said over 100 years ago and it still rings true today. Chew on that one...
The legal precedents to support the gender neutralization of marriage have been put in place over the last 3 years, and the interpretation of pre-existing doctrine can (and will) be reinterpreted around it. Marriage is the public regognition of a family structure, the merging of assets, lineages, relationships, and the collective general direction of all parties involved. Exluding blacks, women, gays, or any other group from full participation from public life is detrimental to the civilization as a whole. In addition, the overwhelming majority of people in the gay community see the focus as being to extend the traditional definition of marriage to all citizens, so there is a compromise implicitly built into the assertation.
The theoretical concern raised is that radically altered family arrangements are now on the table: (in no particular order) Corporate persons, artificial life forms, animals, pedophiles, immediate family members, etc... The pragmatic response is that the laws reflect the acknowledged will of a significant portion of the population over an extended period of time within the definitions set forth by the constitution. The aforementioned have close to zero public support, and unlikely ever will. For further ethical consideration of those, sci-fi is the closest we'll get in America.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, represents a statistically significant portion of the population and does not come at the expense of the pre-existing form, so there is very little ethical ground on which to oppose it. The laws will be changed to reflect this awareness. Conservatives can also take comfort in the knowledge that the cultural blowback will be deflected towards ensuring that gay marriages, and marriage in general, will recieve more attention as a priority. It's been neglected for some time and this will probably make traditional marriage stronger. As for first cousing or polygamous arrangements, I have no idea, I don't know anthing about that.
Personally, I'm not gay and this doesn't affect me, but I applaud the president. I think Chris Rock said: "The gays want to get married? Good. Now they can be miserable like the rest of us." I also think it's in the best interest of the country to put this issue to rest so that we can focus on things, like the budget, that will severely impair all citizens. Enough bandwidth has been expended on this topic, the solution is obvious, it's time to move on.
How could anyone applaud the President? He has been in office for over 2 years, elected official for longer and NOW he comes out.
Get real. Obama (and all politicians) would support execution of gays if ~60% of voters supported it. The Prez made a calculated political move, nothing else.
This may be the case, but why would he have not done it earlier (last election campaign)? It seems that the democratic constituency has always been supportive of gay marriage and that this would be a seemingly easy way in the past for Dem's to pick up a few more votes?
The statement is conspicuously timed though.
Obama's youth was filled with "I could have's" and "I should have's" but in his current and future state he is very consistent with what he says versus what he does.
I'm not saying it wasn't a calculated political move, and I don't like Obama, but he's the first sitting president to support gay marriage. That says something.
You're confusing the motivations I think. Obama's declaration is a reflection of shifting attitudes, not the other way around. If you want to be proud, admire the cultural shift, not the political mirror that just shows you what you want to see.
My guess is Obama has prob supported gay marriage since before he ran for president, the fact that he grew a spine and stood up for it this late in the game, only when convenient, isn't particularly admirable.
For example, as a Californian, I have to ask where the fuck Obama was in 2008 during Prop 8 when he definitely had the political celebrity to shift that vote, as many argue it was the disproportionate voting of the (more religious) Black community coming out to the ballots for him that helped pass it.
Oh, and btw. I say, let people marry multiple partners, their siblings, parents, whatever. NO SIGNIFICANT % OF THE POPULATION WOULD ACTUALLY DO THAT SHIT.
Seriously. No one is going to fucking marry their sister. Do you know why? Because you'd be a social fucking pariah. If one of my friends told me he was marrying his sister, guess what? I wouldn't be friends with that person. He'd be a fucking creep.
If someone wants to be a fucking creep, let them!
Sorry, I just had to
Just checking-in. I'm for it. Especially if it means we can put this non-issue behind us, and concentrate on shit that actually matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.1 Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.2 But marriage licenses were not required until after the civil war.1 Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license.1 At least 32 nations have established significant prohibitions on same-sex marriage.3
When we give the government the power to decide and benefit marriage we give them license to discriminate. The goal should be to end all government sponsored marriage, not add another group to the fucked up system.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-obama-embraces-gay-marriage
Sort of interesting, despite its constant "conspiracy" slant.
Haha, I laughed. Punching Biden would be funny
I just don't understand why people feel the need to mask their hate. No one needs to rationalize why they love someone or something (Obama supporters case in point). Why do we need to rationalize hate.
A lot of people think gay marriage is nasty and probably hate gays. Instead of just embracing their hatred they try and use the Bible, which only says gay sex is a sin along with a shit load of other things. And to be honest, the Bible really just talks about sodomy which has been discussed and looked down on since the dawn of time, most likely for health reasons, etc.
If you look at the incidence of HIV transmission, sodomy reigns supreme. Not saying it should be banned or that I care, but the ass doesn't like being attacked I suppose lol.
One thing I will point out, after reading ANT's post, is that people are getting super emotional over this thing. I know plenty of people that are fairly liberal, almost always vote democrat but oppose gay marriage. I don't understand why having an opposing view automatically qualifies you as a bigot. What happened to the days where there were opposing views and people lived with it?
I find it exceptionally ironic that the side screaming for equality and tolerance are the same people that demonizes anyone that opposes their views. There was a friend of a friend on FB that posted something like, "If you are so hateful that you can't support the cause then just remove me as your friend"...then 5 minutes later she post one of those funny e-cards that says, "North Carolina: A place where you can marry your cousin, just not your gay cousin."
Is that irony lost on anyone? I realize that the card itself is intended to be funny, but are these people yelling so loud about hate that they are unable to hear their own discontent for the 'other side'?
Clearly there is a one-way street when it comes to tolerance in this country and it's slowly wearing me down.
Regards
Bullshit. If the intolerance of gays is based on illogical thinking and/or unprovable and misunderstood religious faith, then it's not an argument to be taken seriously.
You don't have to respect people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Why? Because it's demonstrably false. There is no evidence to support it.
Would you respect my view if I didn't believe in gravity because it's only a "theory?" No, you wouldn't. Because I'd be an asshole if I said that shit.
Same thing with those who oppose gay marriage / gay rights. There is no logical or rational reason for their arguments. It's simply intolerance or cherry-picked religious beliefs based upon unprovable, often contradictory, and often already debunked non-sense.
If someone wants to use religious reasons as a means to stop others from having equality, then they need to prove that a theistic god exists and that he cares about who we marry and fuck. Otherwise, it is without evidence and laughable.
I didn't say they were stopping gay marriage, just not supporting it. Not agreeing with it, in my opinion, doesn't mean you are a hate filled bigot, though it's possible that some/many/most are.
Regards
CPHBravo:
The best counters to the whole slippery slope argument that you are alluding to by saying that incestuous relationships should have equal rights are as follows:
1.) Who cares if someone wants to marry their sister. It's not something that will have any meaningful impact on society because doing so would make you a social pariah. No significant percentage of people would do this. It would be a social faux pas beyond most anything we could imagine.
2.) The problem with the slippery slope argument is where does it start? Why does it start with gays getting married? Why not with marriage in general? If straight people can enter into a contract that gives them certain rights and privileges, why not gays? Why not any two consenting adults.
3.) The whole "definition of marriage" thing is bunk. It's been redefined so many times throughout history. It's an abstract social construct that we created for purposes of easily passing down property and such. It's not based upon the bibble. That's right I said bibble!
4.) I'd also argue that, for health concerns, it wouldn't be great for siblings to marry and have kids and what not. But, honestly, I just don't fucking care because it's not going to happen en masse. It's a non-issue brought up by people who have an irrational dislike of gay people.
I don't give two shits about gay marriage, complete bs to think the govt. has the right to not let 2 people marry that want to marry. FWIW this is a stupid ass post, marrying a dog, really?
CPH, I totally get it.
First, to the Mormon issue. There are two key points. Although marriage is protected as a fundamental interest, there is no clear definition that a marriage is limited to a heterosexual couple. By limiting marriage to solely a man and a woman, then a clear stance is being taken that may infringe on a fundamental right. In our society, it falls to the courts to determine how far that fundamental right goes. If you have a heterosexual pairing, regardless of sexual orientation, you still have a heterosexual coupling regardless of sexual orientation and are limiting what a fair coupling can be. The issue with polygamy is that bigamy is also codified as a general intent crime under almost all common law jurisdictions at this point. Unless the government wants to come out and say same-sex marriage is a crime (which will be overturned under both Romer and Lawerence), limiting the scope on who you can and cannot marry will be a constitutional issue that will be forced to be heard by the courts. Second, and this is an easy one - you can raise a gender discrimination claim under the 19th Amendment over this one because you have a doubly impacted class of people which would seek to invalidate the limited scope of who can and can't be married. You essentially are forcing a subsection of the female population, an insular minority, if you will, to subscribe to something that can violate their fundamental right to marry. Again, it comes down to a constitutional question about what is the scope of marriage.
As to the incest arguments, a lot of this has to do with codification of the law to prevent such things from happening. The other point with this is that to be a protected class, you need to prove that the laws are clearly prejudiced against a discrete and insular minority that would require protection under the 14th Amendment. You would also need to prove that not being able to have an incestuous relationship is a violation of the substantive due process afforded under the 5th and 14th amendments. Unless you can prove that this falls under the protection of substantive due process, you don't have much of a case for allowing an incestuous relationship since incest is not a fundamental right.
Maybe people hate incest in North Carolina also, it just flies under the radar. You don't see incest proponents bringing their issue to the forefront.
Also, why does hate have to be justified. Seems to me that whenever someone disagrees with someone they look for a reason to attack or devalue their opinion. If someone hates something, fine, hate it. Who cares.
Plenty of atheists who commit horrible crimes, just as there are "religious" people committing hate.
Aren't the (very) few people that want to marry their relatives just that, a minority? They are being denied the right to marry in nearly every state . The mere fact that there are so few basically implies they are a discrete and insular minority. I see what you are saying, as far as what would be necessary, but I guess I fail to see why it wouldn't be a valid argument as some have claimed/stated. And I realize you aren't necessarily arguing the point, just clarifying the legal aspect.
I'm certainly no legal scholar, so I can't argue this point myself, but my question would be, how would this apply to gays, but not those that participated in incest? The law doesn't stop gays from having sex, though it does with those that would like to participate in incest. The law, in most places, doesn't allow gays to marry, which is basically the same for incestuous partners, expect probably more restrictive.
I guess my questions is, what is the 'fundamental right' that gay people have, that isn't being applied to those that would like to participate in incest?
And just to clarify, I'm firmly in the 'I don't really care' category...in fact, I probably lean more 'left' on this issue because it seems petty to me. As someone pointed out before, there are lots of things that occur that violate people's religious principles (lying, premarital sex, adultery, etc.), but not all of those things are legislatively opposed. Allowing or not allowing marriage isn't going to stop people from being gay...chances are they are dating and sleeping with the person they want to marry, so you are merely changing a title...sorta. As others also pointed out, this is more of a financial and benefits argument. If the government didn't provide subsidies to married couples, this would all be a private market issue and the private market would handle it. If you opposed gay marriage, you would attend a church that did too and get married there, or if you weren't religious but still opposed gay marriage, then you would go to Bob's Wedding Shack and get married there, because they only do straight weddings. On the flip side, gays could choose to get married at places that only do gay weddings or that do both and not give business to the stores or wedding shacks that don't support their lifestyle.
Now, I realize this is all easier said than done. The one issue that arises with the scenario above would be discrimination. If someone held a religious belief that men shouldn't marry men and they refused to cater a gay wedding, could they be sued for discrimination? The answer, at this point, is probably yes...so that would have to be addressed.
Regards
By Discrete, I should have meant clearly defined on the basis of a defining characteristic such gender, race, sexuality, alienage, religious affiliation, etc.. Someone who practices incest may be a minority, but they aren't in a discrete group that can easily be defined. Someone who engages in incest could be a white catholic as much as it could be a gay black Jewish French Canadian.The engagement in an action doesn't inherently put you inside the scope of a classification of people. so while it may be practiced by a minority of people, there is no discrete collection of people who have similar classification to fit the bill. This is why issues like race, gender and now sexual orientation are being discussed because it falls into a clear and discrete classes. If the people that want to challenge the laws against incest really have the desire to, they can go ahead and challenge the law in the courts and try to pull an Equal Protection Claim case themselves. Unfortunately, it's hard to do when you have vast histories of legal precedent and tradition on the subject (incest) versus a topic where there is legal discussion (same sex-marriage) that is still in its relative infancy.
To the SDP analysis, I can either do a full one here (and it would wait until Sunday because to really write up a proper SDP analysis would take me a rather long time to do) or I can give you the overview in a PM. However, with Substantial Due Process, it comes down to whether or not the violation is something that is an affront to our fundamental rights afforded to us by the Constitution or not. The right to engage in incest is not one of said rights that is guaranteed under the law and wouldn't be covered under SDP. The right to marry, however, is a fundamental right as affirmed by the courts. The question here is whether a class of people are being denied a fundamental right to marry with respect to their own classification. Someone who practices incest doesn't fall into a "classification" under either an SDP or an EPC framework in the least bit because incest is illegal (I know, cop out argument but I really don't want to do a substantive analysis on incest. I'll keep it at the common law viewpoint). However, someone who is LGBT clearly falls into a discriminated class who are having their rights challenged, which makes it different because people are clearly being discriminated against for sexuality. I don't think I know of anyone that commits incest let alone is being discriminated for it. Ultimately, it's a question of civil rights regarding one's sexual orientation and whether the discrimination based on that fact should or should not be legal in this country.
The only people facing inequality are single, childless people. Gay married couples are just pissed they cannot get the benefits that should never have been given to married people to begin with.
CPH, it's hard to keep emotion out of this. Trust me, I'm doing my best to keep my posts as objective and unbiased as possible but it's hard to do.
TheKing, that's the problem with the slippery slope argument. Once you open Pandora's Box, how far do you let things go before you realize how far things have changed.
CPH:
But, they ARE stopping it. Very clearly. Again, there are no practical arguments against gay marriage. Basically everyone who votes against it comes out and says "we can't redefine marriage, it's against god" or some derivative of that. It's bigotry because it has no rational or evidence as its basis.
It doesn't necessarily mean they are ALL hate filled, they might just be misguided. I imagine most of them are dealing with a great deal of cognitive dissonance.
Marriage is a contract by which rights are constricted. The purpose of marriage has evolved over time as a means to protect women, who have tended to put a greater investment in to things like producing/raising children and so forth that aren't economically viable means of providing for self sufficiency. Marriage has been meant as a means to protect women, who have made such unequal investments, in terms of alimony, child care payments and so forth. Society has an interest in making such a distinction clear - there is no comparable reason for men to be worried about losing their investment if they are to divorce a woman. The same goes for same sex couples.
Same sex couples can make their own contracts re: whatever they want, and have whatever ceremonies they want. What they/gay activists seek by pushing same sex marriage is not "equal rights." It is a societal stamp of approval on their actions.
Furthermore, you can say that homosexual relations are noones business but that of the people who engage in them, and that what happens behind closed doors is noone elses business. However, you cannot then say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it. You cannot have both. Consider this article by Thomas Sowell on the matter: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage/pag…
You see, the contradiction here is that homosexuals can make whatever contracts they want - they always could. When they moved away from saying that what they did in private was noone elses business though, they started saying that society had to put its stamp of approval on it. In that same sense, if you allowed for any/every type of marriage arrangement, you would have to put your and societies stamp of approval on them all equally, including "their siblings, parents, whatever (presumably to include pedophilic and other sorts of relations). If you want marriage re defined, you have to allow for the possibility of everything being considered necessary to be approved.
So if you vote against gay marriage you hate gay people huh? Seems like Fox News mentality.
Maybe people think it is disgusting (the action).
Maybe people truly believe marriage is a religion institution and is between a man and a woman (without hating anyone).
Maybe people don't give a shit and prefer the status quo.
See, this logic that unless you support what I support you are a mindless bigot is simply verbal terrorism. You defame someone as a bigot, using words to injure and intimidate.
Could someone tell me the law that says gay couples are forbidden to hold a ceremony, exchange rings, live and sleep together, open joint bank accounts, give each other power of attorney, adopt and live with a child, change their last name to one another?
Can someone point to these laws? If not than this isn't about marriage, but simply about tax benefits and insurance coverage.
Surely you aren't serious, are you?
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/05/09/cable-news-ratings-for-tues…
Regards
That same argument was posed when black people had separate drinking fountains, separate bathrooms etc. The argument goes, as long as they keep their shit separate, it's fine as long as what they have is equal. According to the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, separate is inherently not equal and violates the 14th amendment (you can read more about it if you don't believe me).
...and verbal terrorism, are you serious? If they think the act is disgusting, the church doesn't support it, or that marriage is an institution - then they are trying to keep what 'we' have separate from what 'they' can have. This is a form of hate, well documented hate I might add, that needs to stop. Also, when I say hate, all I mean is that you don't think they are as much of a person as you are, which is wrong.
The fact of the matter is you are born gay. My step-brother has ALWAYS been gay, and it is not easier to be gay. He won't say it, but being gay makes his life much more difficult and he would probably like to be straight, but he can't change it. Think about it this way, what if one of your college buddies came out - he would still be the same person wouldn't he? I don't know about you, but if one of my college buddies were to come out - I wouldn't give a fuck, and if he got married I'd throw him a sweet bachelor party, just like I would for any good friend.
I have plenty of gay friends and agree, you are born gay. People are born all different ways and that doesn't make discriminating against them ok.
How come I don't get a single person tax deduction? How come married people do? Why is it ok for the government to discriminate against me?
So let me understand this. Not only am I fucked by paying for married people to get favorable tax status, but now I am to pay for gay couples? So it is OK for the government to reward and punish certain groups, as long as they don't have different sexual preferences?
And it is It 100% is verbal terrorism. Someone disagrees with your social stance and you call the a bigot, full of hatred, ignorant, stupid, on and on. You don't get your way and throw a fit.
Maybe people are all those things. Maybe they just have a different opinion on what marriage is. Considering the debate is not on MARRIAGE, but simply on what the government sanctions and rewards, all of us as tax payers have a right to voice our opinion on what groups get tax benefits.
Using derogatory names just means you didn't get your way and you want to 2012 scarlet letter someone.
Yes, it is clearly about having the marriage recognized by the gov't so that they can have equal rights and privileges as those that straight married couples have. What is your point? Your argument is "well, they can get married, they just can't get the benefits!" The fact that they can't get the benefits and recognition from the state is WHY THIS IS AN ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE. No one denies this.
Again. This isn't hard folks. There are no rational, evidence based arguments against gay marriage. All we have is cherry-picked religious "rules" with no basis in reality and "it's icky" arguments. Both of which are horse shit.
Seabird -
The entire argument is that, even though they can enter a contract and call it "marriage," they don't get the same benefits, rights, and recognition from gov't as straight people who get married. It would not be recognized under the law in the same way that I can write up a document that says that I'm married to my shoe...but that doesn't do anything for anyone.
Your argument is still based upon a distaste for homosexuality. That somehow, we shouldn't condone it. That's non-sense.
The 'holiness' of marriage is certainly a debatable topic, as is anything else, I guess. But I see it as not really a holy institution, but really a human invention that is offered up as a sacred institution. If God ordained it to be sacred, how did Hindus, Animists, Pagans, or the billions of people throughout history, who never heard of God, pick up on the idea? Perhaps it would be wise to ask the opinion of prominent people who have respected the holy institution greatly- like Newt Gingrich or John Edwards?
Marriage can be whatever it is, I guess. Marriage laws have always been, and always will be, about property rights.
Just my $.19 ($.02 *CPI base year 1950)
Alright. I've got way too much to do. Least of which is go back and forth with people who care enough to make spurious arguments against gay marriage. Have fun everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
@OP Logical fallacy, bullshit argument
TK: The argument being that the "benefits" of creating a contract (which are a negative to begin with, mainly as a series of obligations) do not require the legal status of marriage. You just need a contract that has conditions which has been agreed to by both sides. All property and so forth can be split up as they see fit.
Again, Ill try to break this down as much as I can for you. Marriage exists as a way to protect the potentially decades long investment by women in marriages. Men have more economically viable activities that they tend to involve themselves in during marriages, making their potential for loss lesser. Laws benefitting and promoting marriages have been for the purpose of promoting the man/woman/child family unit. There is no proclivity in same sex couples to produce children, and thus there is NO SOCIETAL INTEREST IN WHAT THEY DO. Seriously, what people do behind closed doors is their own business. Stop trying to force others to put all these laws re: marriage between a man/woman, which have evolved over centuries, which have no applicability to same sex couples (think about applying the rules of baseball to another sport, football for example, it just doesn't make any sense), and you see how silly it is.
Same sex marriage is too fundamentally different from man/woman marriage, because of the distribution of labor inherent in man/woman couplings, and there is the lack of similarities such that it is just preposterous to say they should be treated the same. If you want more "rights," then legislate that companies have to give specific rights to same sex couples. Don't just force them all down peoples throats at once via claiming "equal protection/rights" for such a completely different type of relationship.
Again, who cares what they do. We can't control if their gay anymore than they can. Gay people just want to get married, because that's what people do. They grew up in the same society as we did, and marriage means just as much to them. Letting them get married won't effect your life, what the fuck is the problem? It seems like your trying to make your argument sound 'economically charged' when in reality you really just don't view gay people as equal.
An adopted child straight parents get full legal endorsement, so why should not a gay couple's child live within that same sanctioned environment?
Exactly.
E - I will preface this by saying that I take great offense to the implication that you have to hate gay people in order to not be for giving all the same rights that straight married couples have to same sex couples.
That said, gay people can marry. Noone is being stopped from marrying. However, marriage is (in 41 states), between a man and a woman. Laws about it, as I have said, have evolved over centuries in order to protect the womans investment and the children, which there is no proclivity of same sex couples to produce. This is something that is in terms of an action - marriage - which ANYONE can do. Gay activists say it is like racial segregation on busses in the 50's. Its not - blacks and whites were doing the same thing, riding the bus. Saying that you have to allow for all sorts of types of marriage in this way is like saying that where as you have highways where people drive cars, where everyone is allowed to drive cars, that it is discrimination that people cant ride bikes on the highways. Anyone can get in a car and drive down the highway - similarly, anyone can get married. The difference comes with the rather unsubtle distinction of how legal designations of marriage are meant, again, to protect women and children's investments and involvements in marriages, the proclivities to produce children and the significant and inherent distribution of labor which exists in man/woman couples not existing in same sex couples. If same sex couples want to make contracts, have celebrations and call each other their spouses, married partners or whatever, fine. That doesn't change how they aren't going to be involved in the same behaviors and relationship types that women/children have benefited from the via the legal protections involved in marriage as it has evolved (alimony, child payment laws etc).
As far as I can tell, the majority of the country aren't mouth foaming gay bashers. They just realize that the protections of marriage are for the specific purposes I laid out - and I will repeat, gay activists are a special interest that just want more tax money/rights/whatever while the inherent and significant distribution of labor which exists in straight marriages DOES NOT EXIST.
That may be true, I believe your argument for the economic interests is spot on. However, that is not what I am arguing. I believe that just because you are born gay, you shouldn't be precluded from having a state sanctioned marriage. It may not be anywhere near as bad as it was during the civil rights movement, but it is still bad. Because in reality, they are not being allowed something because of what they have been born with. This is equivalent to discrimination against people for the color of their skin, or discrimination based on gender.
You are arguing that the economic interests do not support gay marriage, and I agree with you. But, I still believe that we she give them that right. I believe this because although marriage started out as a union between a man and a women for economic interests, like it or not, marriage has evolved into something of a right of passage. Not allowing gay people to marry is effectively excluding them from our society.
Be offended if you like, but this argument matches the definition of discrimination - and you sir, are discriminating.
Well then youre just getting down to semantics, and in that case, I frankly have no idea what it is that you're actually arguing for.
A state sanctioned marriage? Celebrations aren't "state sanctioned." You don't go to the marriage office and apply for a permit to have a wedding. Anyone can have whatever celebration they want, and further, anyone can have whatever contract they want. A same sex couple can make out a contract stating that they have whatever protections they want from each others breach of the limitations of what would otherwise be their rights, then have it notarized and it could be legally admissible in the case of a violation.
To the best of my knowledge, the laws passed by states do not stop same sex couples from having celebrations or making contracts. They just say that same sex couples cannot recieve the same state/locally subsidized benefits that man/woman couples have access to, and frankly, given the purposes of protecting the woman/child and promoting their sticking together in order to better raise the children and dissuade the man from divorcing the woman and potentially ruining her because of her uneconomical focus of labor, I cannot see what you'd be looking to get at.
And yes it is discrimination - but at the same time, you wouldn't apply the rules of baseball to football just because you thought they were nice rules. Theyre just not the same thing.
So marriage is a "right of passage." Then have your celebration and contract. Noone is stopping any gays from marrying and having celebrations and contracts! Really! They can even put together a contract themselves and have it be even more personalized, with all the limitations anyone could want! They just dont get the benefits that are meant to protect from the unequal distribution of labor and the child!
And you can still legislate every other right you can imagine so same sex couples have the same rights, or more if you want, that same sex couples have. Go for it. Noone is stopping those things from coming to the polls.
The role definitions in a gay couple need not be any different than a straight couple. And while we're on the topic: the days of the woman staying home and the guy being the only one working have been gone for a while now. Plenty of straight couples play around with gender roles, it's not all so cut and dry.....and sometimes it's fun :D
Very true. Straight couples can live very similar lifestyles as same sex couples, and many people do for instance live with their boyfriend/girlfriend while not taking on the whole man being the breadwinner, woman making and raising children etc. method. However, the proclivity is still there that women do have to produce the child, and that many do tend to look after the children where as the man will be out advancing his career and whatnot. Some men even do stay at home and take care of the kids while the woman is out working, and in this case it would seem like the man should be able to get alimony and whatnot from the wife.
Its like Oliver Wendell Holmes said though, the life is the law has been one of logic but of experience - this is what actually happens. And because of that, there are laws to protect women, because they tend to put more of an investment in to child rearing and long term relationships than do men (who obviously become unviable as mates far later than women).
This is boring - you know exactly what I'm arguing and I'm sick of repeating myself. UFO said it best above, I'm out.
I honestly have no idea of what you are arguing in favor of.
I think the government should get out of the marriage game completely. Make civil unions the only binding commitment available (between two non-family-related people) and make marriage a purely private/religious affair.
And we have a winner.
It's kind of a grey area with regard to sexual orientation. SCOTUS classified gender under sexuality when it was first used as an EPC class prior to the 19th Amendment. Sexual Orientation has definitely been discussed but there is no clear definition as to whether at falls into suspect classification or not. I mean, you have Rowland v. Mad River School, where, in 1985, Justice Brennan's dissent over a denial of cert made it clear that he thought sexual orientation was a distinct and discrete class that should have been protected because they are "particularly powerless to pursue their rights openly in the political arena."
You have Romer v. Evans from 1996, which I've mentioned already, that struck down an amendment to the Colorado constitution because it was singling out the LGBT community as a single class and awarding them a disfavored legal status in the eyes of the law, something (clear discrimination against) that is clearly not a governmental interest. Antonin Scalia dissented (is anyone shocked?) and basically said that this law was an attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically power majority to revise the laws of the state. He went onto state that Amendment 2 (the name of the bill) was designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is an appropriate means to that legitimate end.
Then you have Lawrence v. Texas from 2003 which is about a Texas law that banned the practice of Sodomy between homosexuals but no one else. The only real important thing is that comes out of here that is relevant are the due process argument expanding the nature of what is considered a private act and O'Connor 's concurrent opinion as part of the majority which stated that this should have been heard under the EPC on top of due process. And then you have Scalia... who essentially said in his dissent that there will be a parade of horrible acts now trying to be made legal if we take morality off the table because it will be difficult to justify other laws that are passed based on moral judgments such as incest, bigamy, bestiality etc…
So it's one of those things that is still getting some recognition but hasn't been fully decided upon yet.
I'd actually point out a fair number of married couples actually pay more taxes than if they were taxed as 2 individuals. See marriage penalty / AMT.
A fair number of the legal rights provided by marriage / civil union are non-financial in nature, e.g. inheritance rights, adoption rights, etc.
"
That's a complete bullshit argument. If the sole purpose of marriage is to protect women as lessor partners, then it stands to reason that a woman with greater income / assets than the male partner is not eligible for a wedding.
Rights by definition do not need to be legislated. Anything granted by legislation is a privilege.
The "force gay marriage down people's throats" is the most moronic, idiotic statement in the gay marriage debate. No one is asking Christians and religious conservatives to accept gay marriage is right or wrong, only to not impose their religious views on others. It's like making it illegal to be a Yankees fan because people in Boston are offended by Yankees.
FL: Individual cases are irrelevant. Were talking about laws about marriage that have evolved over hundreds of years, presumably not randomly, but because of how people saw things as being IN GENERAL and with them reacting accordingly. Through out history, women who have been earning more than men have been the exception, not the rule.
Same sex marriage activists are in fact forcing acceptance of their lifestyle down other peoples throats. Evidence for this is how they bring things like this to the courts, rather than accept electoral results, i.e. prop 9 and the incorrect manner in which justice Walker ruled on it (which is a ridiculous over reaching of equal protections clause, which will be overturned if/when it goes to the SCOTUS).
If society has to choose between: (1) Having to "accept" someone else chooses to live their lives contrary to one's personal beliefs vs (2) Having to live one's life differently because someone else's beliefs are offended, it's quite simple who the oppressor is.
That's why government is set up with checks and balances, so that legislative action by the majority can be nullified by the judiciary when it's contrary to the constitution. Just because the legislature voted a measure doesn't mean its constitutional.
There was an interesting and thorough study done a few years ago that revealed that most people staunchly opposed to gay rights were actually gay themselves.
How many Republicans have been forced to come out as gay after being caught? And how many Democrats? I rest my case.
Those in this thread who are opposed to gay marriage, it's fine, you're free to stay in the closet as long as you want.
Are you saying that you dont think the SCOTUS will strike down Walkers overruling of the law? That seems extremely unlikely to me; Walker stated in his opinion that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage;" that seems to really be the basis for his asserting that any laws which regard marriage as being only between a man and woman would be discriminatory.
However, this seems like a weak claim to bring the SCOTUS - practically speaking, judicial conservatives on the SCOTUS have a majority and will take the side that there were specific criteria of things that can be overturned - specifically that the 14th amendment applies only to protecting different races and the things relevant to their protecting themselves i.e. how it would be necessary for them to from the danger inherent from discrimination in the post civil war south. There seems to be a lot less of the substantive due process clause protecting different, non enumerated rights/penumbraes these days. Maybe 50 years ago, or even 30, but not now. So practically speaking, while they could nullify this ruling, they won't, not only because its not discriminatory, but also because fewer rather than more of the justices are willing to claim that it is discrimination protected in the 14th.
Ill also note that 76% of the rulings from the 9th circuit, and parts of 94% of the rulings from there, this term. Just throwing that out there.
Ah. Watching gay-haters get flamed warms my heart.
I still do not see any logical reason for gay marriage to be opposed. You think that modern-day marriage is some kind of sacred bind? Straight people have been shitting on that notion for decades, now. It defies all common sense to continue opposing gay marriage, when there is no real reason to do so.
Here's a reasonable argument against gay marriage. Doesn't seem bigoted or hate-filled to me.
Regards
^Well, aside from the fact that that guy could beat me in a debate any day of the week, he seems to be missing the point. He's arguing semantics instead of the actual reasoning behind those semantics. Although obviously intelligent and an incredibly eloquent speaker, it still seems like at some level, he is probably against gay people marrying for purely emotional reasons. Even if it does undermine the original "meaning" of marriage, I would still argue that gay people marrying is a net positive for society. Societal structures are meant to change, he is arguing that change because our traditions are to be protected - which is a known logical fallacy, see "appeal to tradition."
What's the point of consolidating power if there are no offspring to carry on?
Regards
PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE! MARRY YOUR DAUGHTER TO DONALD TRUMP SO YOULL GET A PIECE OF THE ACTION!
MAMMON IS FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES!!!!!
I kind of believe marriage never really evolved out of this mentality, really. It's always a power grab for someone or both individuals. I usually say it's the female upping her social status and wealth without having to lift a finger. I see so many marriages where male basically takes his income and pays for all the real bills where female just continues to buy her own stuff, make up, jewelry, clothes, you know things she can keep in the divorce because he has no use for them and she can sell to make up for the lack of income! They live these lifestyles they would never come close to her on their own dime and their merit.
Damn, I'm cynical tonight.
There's a point where you have to go beyond the roots of the institution. Plenty of people get married nowadays with no intention of having babies. Is it fair that they get tax advantages in spite of disregarding the "fundamental purpose" of the institution?
That seems to be more of a flaw of the individuals in the system, and not a condemnation of the system itself.
I agree with this. But when everybody keeps saying that the purpose of this institution is pro creation, since when? I think society has done fine without it up until its apparent universal acceptance as a pro creational institution.
Does anyone even know when "marriage" was created and what the original purposes were? I really don't, but it just seems like food for thought.
wikipedia linked response soon to follow I'm sure
am I the only one who's tired of this "MARRIAGE IS BAD NO MATTER WHO'S DOING IT KNOWWHATI'MSAYINBROS!!!!!????" shtick?
god damn it gets old coming from people that have either a) had horrible marriages, or b) have never been married
Sure, but why would the system be accommodating of some people's "flaws" as opposed to others? Giving people a right based on their abilities (in this case procreation) doesn't sit particularly well with the concept of everyone being born free and equal.
I stand corrected. This woman has the most coherent and well reasoned argument against same sex marriage. Note to self: Never run for city council.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nMANMIe0ZZI
Eddie, my god... where the hell did you find it?
I know, right? Fucking 9.7 on the Richter scale for crazy. They had it up on BroBible.
Even her monotone scares me. She looks like someone who'd kill her own grandkid if she thought he/she were gay.
Christ... that's just fucked up. And I thought tearing into my liberal friends for shoving the idea that I need to "evolve" my views on same-sex marriage was the worst it could get. Now I think I have a whole new set of fodder to use on the anti-gay marriage side and that makes me, according to my friends, an intolerant bastard unless it's being intolerant over something they agree with, in which case its fine. Man... why can't we all just get the fuck along?
Girlfriend and I just watched that. Still laughing. Glorious.
So much #WINNING. I don't even know where to begin with her statistics, but they should definitely be taught at the college level.
"Anal licking causes sepsis, which leads to death in 30 minutes."
Pure awesome. Must be a lot of dead porn stars buried somewhere.
Voluptas consequuntur dolorem magnam libero sit. Dolores est vel eos consequatur. Ullam deleniti facere qui nihil nisi dolor porro porro. Quis quas odit odit. Ut enim eligendi harum odit earum dolorem voluptatem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Est dolores quia autem est. Error aut consequatur reiciendis tenetur sint.
Numquam voluptas iure et. Deleniti maiores repellendus quod similique enim fugiat odit. Et ut rerum voluptatibus in aliquam sed sapiente quam. Ex corporis veniam quibusdam asperiores. Minus aut consectetur at ut omnis temporibus dolorum. Suscipit rerum eum at dicta.
Corrupti tempore saepe nihil. Reprehenderit modi autem vel inventore ut labore consequatur.
Laboriosam atque nihil minima sunt. Fugiat temporibus quas eaque tempora consequatur tenetur. Provident voluptas quod eius quia at. Animi non magnam quia adipisci non enim.
Voluptas velit nobis hic rerum quo. Eos atque qui voluptate voluptates. Praesentium aut modi velit et. Veritatis in nihil neque aut et. Est eius doloribus et itaque ipsa sunt. Et qui eos reiciendis ea quibusdam maiores.
Impedit perspiciatis molestiae nihil qui quidem natus. Quis omnis ullam sit odio rerum. Est et aut soluta minus.
Sed qui sunt exercitationem possimus ut. Vel eaque voluptas optio accusantium. Qui inventore eos adipisci in dolorem excepturi.
Ea maxime sit debitis quasi dicta odit. At tempore praesentium architecto. Sed sed quo voluptas ut asperiores consequatur. Ab quam debitis ea et.
Ipsum assumenda itaque voluptatem commodi. Fugit dolorum quisquam omnis. Quisquam iste explicabo nesciunt qui amet.
Ut quam voluptatem ut rem dolor cupiditate repellendus. Aut rerum explicabo exercitationem omnis consequatur ut. Perferendis voluptatum quod omnis. Tempora illo vel reprehenderit earum assumenda. Aperiam ad vel sapiente voluptatem odit qui ipsam. Sit quaerat sed quae laboriosam deleniti voluptatem.
Voluptas optio iure omnis at magni molestiae. Voluptatem nisi numquam sapiente voluptatibus quasi alias fuga. Voluptas veritatis quos molestias est maiores corporis qui. Animi tenetur voluptatem facere totam quis ab. Iste doloremque ut ut repellat.
Non corrupti nihil rerum est voluptas. Sunt perferendis eaque fuga molestiae occaecati aut debitis. Rerum asperiores minus reprehenderit minus iure in autem. Molestiae et aut voluptatem dolorum laboriosam dolores modi.
Possimus autem quidem aperiam ipsa velit eum cum. Corrupti suscipit assumenda consequuntur alias sit esse. Itaque eaque omnis rerum.
In ut est sint optio. Molestias voluptates ea debitis eaque alias. Voluptatem placeat quis labore unde.
Ullam officiis qui ut cum dolore provident aut. Dolorum totam itaque numquam eaque. Consequatur non iure debitis vero consequatur et qui. Dolorem numquam natus quibusdam quae qui ipsa. Enim ratione voluptatem quo quia. Beatae sed voluptatem voluptates ad qui impedit eius.