Jedi Council Forums - What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/14/04 10:32pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Cheveyo... "Here is what is granted to 'everyone else,' of which this "minority" is seeking EQUAL CONSIDERATION..." A homosexual seeking marriage can get exactly all of those exact same benefits by following the exact same process that "everyone else" is required to follow. So, "equal" protection for a homosexual wishing marriage is obviously not the consideration. What is being sought is a new protected construction, not currently recognized for "everyone else." That new protection is recognition of an intangible union which holds the same rights as an individual. What is being argued is that this protected intangible union somehow has the same rights of living, breathing people. That it has a right to the same things allowed for a homosexual or heterosexual in terms of marriage. You have not shown what the compelling reason to grant homosexuals wishing to enter into a same-sex union special status above and beyond what a homosexual, heterosexual, male or female gets recognition for? Your listing of the rights of marriage, which married homosexuals and heterosexuals receive is not any such compelling reason. -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/15/04 2:21am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/15/04 2:42am (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	Genghis, I concede that there is simply no fact (already argued and won in court) that I (or anyone) can present that would at least draw you to understand our point of view. Forget everything I have typed (assuming you even read it) and continue to believe the way you do, lacking any idea of what the opposing opinion represents. I'm going to agree to disagree with you, and be thankful that the judicial system of this country (whose purpose it is to interpret the constitutionality of law) is doing its job, albeit gradually, and that you do not wield any power over anyone's social decisions but your own. Those who wish to see the reasons can find them easily enough. Those who wish to play with words to remake definitions and deny the existence of hatred and fear will be forced to live with that. It's a pity, really. So who dictates who can marry and who cannot? Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. No valid reason has yet to be proven to any court of law, hence the rulings in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Vermont. What is the real issue here: Marriage or Homosexuality? Passing state or federal legislation that specifically denies the act of marriage to couples because they belong to a certain group or class is discrimination: a violation of Civil Rights. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances sexual preference. Despite countless attempts to argue against same-sex marriage, no reason has come forward on these boards or elsewhere that tenders validation of a law making illegal same-sex marriage without falling victim to Civil Rights violations. Meanwhile, the argument for legalization has been made by utilizing legal precedence, such as Loving v. Virginia, wherein descrimination against inter-racial marriage was declared unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Further argument is made in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, wherein it states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Who is hurt by recognizing equal rights for same-sex marriages? No evidence has been brought to light identifying harm on the part of any individual or community as a result of the marriage of a homosexual couple. Given all the above, denying and/or making illegal same-sex marriage violates Civil Rights as described in the Constitution, and serves no purpose (i.e. "lacks rational thought", in the words of Chief Justice Warren). A note about this forum: It seems that all the rational arguments against same-sex marriage have been addressed so effectively as to have been dropped altogether from the debate (child-bearing argument; traditional family argument; etc), and so the debate falls to the idea of redefining and twisting meaning so as to suggest that what has already been shown to have been illegal in many states now suggests to be legal and completely available. This lacks a certain element of reality, for had the judicial system believed in this same criteria, the judicial rulings would have been in agreement with these fantastic alterings. Instead, the Judicial system agrees that there has been cause for complaint on the part of gay couples, and that without a valid reason, such prohibitions are unconstitutional. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/15/04 5:42am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/15/04 5:46am (1 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	Cheveyo... "Genghis, I concede that there is simply no fact (already argued and won in court) that I (or anyone) can present that would at least draw you to understand our point of view." Well, that's because from what you (and anyone) has presented has been incorrect, erroneous, or otherwise not based in reality, fact or law. Which is part of the reason why I have been attempting to understand such a point-of-view. I suppose you could disagree and you don't have to present any reasonable support for your opinion, but that's the beauty of this forum. "Those who wish to see the reasons can find them easily enough. Those who wish to play with words to remake definitions and deny the existence of hatred and fear will be forced to live with that. It's a pity, really." I finally agree with you. Numerous compelling reasons for marriage have been given, despite your insistence they have not. You've been playing semantic arguments with "sex," "gender," and "sexuality" to try to argue a point not based on fact - that homosexuals cannot marry. And you've been trying to remake the very definition of "marriage," the key issue for this very thread. I don't know your personal feelings whether you hate or fear the items you've been trying to remake, so I'm not going to address that part of it. A note about this forum: It seems that no rational arguments showing how homosexuals are discriminated against through marriage laws have been made, so the debate falls to the idea of redefining and twisting meaning so as to suggest that what has already been shown to have been legal in many states now suggests to be illegal and completely unavailable. This lacks a certain element of reality, for had the judicial system believed in this same criteria, the judicial rulings would have been in agreement with these fantastic alterings. Instead, the Judicial system agrees that there may have been cause for complaint on the part of some homosexual couples, but that with a valid reason, such prohibitions are entirely constitutional. Some would like to ignore that the U.S. Supreme Court is neither at its heart deliberately obtuse, disingenuous or unduly crafty. When it says that discrimination can occur given compelling reasons, it does not believe between its words in setting up an impossible task, because no such reasons exist. Given a compelling reason, gender discrimination, sexuality discrimination, racial discrimination, etc. can all very much legally occur. What some may argue that simply because they don't agree with something that it is therefore not compelling, which is fallacious. -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/15/04 6:26am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	A note about this forum: It seems that all the rational arguments against same-sex marriage have been addressed so effectively as to have been dropped altogether from the debate (child-bearing argument; traditional family argument; etc), and so the debate falls to the idea of redefining and twisting meaning so as to suggest that what has already been shown to have been illegal in many states now suggests to be legal and completely available. Hold on a moment. You know these forums as well as I do. Just because one aspect of a discussion is not currently being discussed does not mean that it was conceded or proven false. I haven't posted as much in this thread for several reasons (time, other priorities, sick of going around in circles, etc.). Does that mean that I've conceded any points? Not at all. Not everyone, not even moderators, can spend every waking moment in this thread writing lengthy discourses on the subject. Silence does not mean consensus. Also, I would point out that there has been more than enough "redefining and twisting meaning" on both sides (such as redefining any contrary position to being solely based on bigotry or intolerance). Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
EnforcerSG Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 1/15/04 7:05am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	If the Supreme Court rules that marriage between two homosexual men or two homosexual woman is legal, or if an amendment is made to that effect, would you agree that then marriage include same-sex marriages in a legal sense? -----signature----- The more you fight, the more the sacrifice for peace becomes a waste If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no. I don't know: I would tell you if I did!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/15/04 7:11am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Enforcer... "If the Supreme Court rules that marriage between two homosexual men or two homosexual woman is legal, or if an amendment is made to that effect, would you agree that then marriage include same-sex marriages in a legal sense?" Tell the whole story of that issue, since the opposite is also true, that if the Supreme Court rules that marriages don't have to recognize same-sex partners given a compelling reason, or if an amendment is made that marriages don't have to include same-sex partners, would you agree that then marriage doesn't have to include same-sex partners in a legal sense? -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 7:36am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	No valid reason has yet to be proven to any court of law, hence the rulings in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Vermont. Again, this isn't true. Let's at least keep the examples used in the proper context. Just to clear up the misconceptions here, so we are all on the same sheet of music: Vermont does not address same sex marriage, it provides for alternate civil unions. These unions do not automatically have to be recognized outside of Vermont. The Hawaiian supreme court ruled that Hawaii had no provisions in its constitution forbidding same sex marriages. So, the voters in the state amended the constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman, which it remains today. Massachustts is now in the same boat as Hawaii. The Mass. Court did not authorize same sex marriages, it ordered the state leglislature to address the issue. If the voters in Mass, amend the constitution, same sex marriages will be prohibited similar to Hawaii. Or they may allow the practice, but at least it is up to the voters to determine. (or, for now, the elected offcials in the leglislature) -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 9:58am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/15/04 10:32am (1 edits total) Edited By: Bubba_the_Genius
	Returning briefly to my argument, that a judicial ruling in favor of gay marriage would create a precedent that could lead to polygamy and adult incest... anakin_girl: If polygamy were legal, there would be some inheritance issues. If the husband dies with six wives, do all six inherit equally? The courts would have to make a law regarding this. Indeed, but that's not reason enough for the courts to keep polygamy illegal. Even now, there are issues when a widow dies with multiple children. That issue is usually handled with a will, and I don't see why this would present an insurmountable obstacle. Also, "The Gettysburg Address runs about 270 words. The Declaration of Independence has 1,337 words. The Holy Bible runs about 773,000 words. Our income-tax code runs about 7 million words and is still growing." If the government can support a tax code of 7 million words, it can surely support a legal code that would handle polygamy. As far as adult incest, it could be allowed if one partner agreed to permanent sterilization first, given that inbreeding causes birth defects. I don't believe it always causes birth defects, nor do we sterilize other people who appear to have a good chance of passing on genetic disorders to their children. We are not -- and should not be -- a nation that engages in eugenics. But, more importantly, this argument runs contrary to your own position that marriage should not take procreation into account. -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
EnforcerSG Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 1/15/04 10:05am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Genghis12 I don't care and I asked first. I feel that many of the arguments you use are either not valid in this case or semantic in nature, but I really don't care too much one way or another. To me, words are subjective lables we put on everything (or God subjectivally puts on things). Legally though, if they did rule or make into law that marriage is just between a man and a woman, then I would accept that that is the legal defination. Not stop evading and actually answer the question. Also, neither is 'true,' just each is possible. Everyone has gone in circles about the validiy of their sides of the debate, and honestly I feel the jusitifications you and others have given as to why same-sex marriages should not be aloud. But that is not why I posted. I am posting to get you to actually clearly answer a question. -----signature----- The more you fight, the more the sacrifice for peace becomes a waste If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no. I don't know: I would tell you if I did!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/15/04 10:34am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Enforcer... "[i]If the Supreme Court rules that marriage between two homosexual men or two homosexual woman is legal, or if an amendment is made to that effect, would you agree that then marriage include same-sex marriages in a legal sense?" I would agree that marriage can include all legal allowances, if it is so chosen by the proper authority to do so. Just as I would also agree that no marriage laws can include any illegal allowances and remain legal. But, I'm also forced to note that the simple act of recognizing that marriage between two homosexual men or two homosexual women may be legal does not automatically mean that States will then be required to include such provisions in marriage laws. That's a different matter. And because there are competing interests on that note, given that the State (whether legislative or judiciary) allows discrimination on gender provided there is a compelling reason to do so, then even if something is legal, it may not necessarily be forced into a requirement. The Supreme Court would have to overhaul its entire philosophy used as a basis for affirmative-action, etc. to get to the point where a state would have to recognize such a fact. However, the flipside is more clear. If the State (again either judiciary or legislative) bans same-sex unions from marriage, then the matter stops. If it's illegal, it's illegal at face value. Whereas if it's legal, it may or may not still necessarily be a requirement. Pretty clear, IMO. -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 11:31am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	You have not shown what the compelling reason to grant homosexuals wishing to enter into a same-sex union special status above and beyond what a homosexual, heterosexual, male or female gets recognition for? But, by your own argument, this wouldn't be "special" status, since heterosexual males and females could still enter into same-sex unions. Given a compelling reason, gender discrimination, sexuality discrimination, racial discrimination, etc. can all very much legally occur. So, then we need to see the compelling reason for discrimination based on gender in marriage laws. What some may argue that simply because they don't agree with something that it is therefore not compelling, which is fallacious. Well, I'll say this: just because I don't consider procreation something the government needs to support, doesn't mean they couldn't use that as a "compelling reason" to support something that encourages procreation. However, I will say that, whatever the "compelling reason" for offering a certain benefit, any discrimination must also correspond to that compelling reason - Meaning that it should only extend to those who can contribute to that compelling interest. If it is going to exclude anyone because they do not support that compelling interest, it must exclude everyone who cannot support that compelling interest - otherwise, it's a way to sneak in unnecessary discrimination under the guise of a compelling interest.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/15/04 11:50am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/15/04 12:12pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	womberty... "So, then we need to see the compelling reason for discrimination based on gender in marriage laws." Please see this thread for many of them. Numerous ones have been given. "However, I will say that, whatever the "compelling reason" for offering a certain benefit, any discrimination must also correspond to that compelling reason." Not quite. The U.S. Supreme Court has already allowed, or stated through such things as affirmative action, "diversity" in colleges, gerrymandering of electoral precincts, etc., that the State can have certain high-level "goals" or "concepts" it is trying to achieve, and can fabricate a long, circuitous apparatus to achieve them through implicit, and not necessarily explicit linkages. "- Meaning that it should only extend to those who can contribute to that compelling interest." No, meaning that a number of unrelated factors can be used, as long as they add up to the goal the State is trying to achieve. "If it is going to exclude anyone because they do not support that compelling interest, it must exclude everyone who cannot support that compelling interest - otherwise, it's a way to sneak in unnecessary discrimination under the guise of a compelling interest." I do admit the philosophy they have used to decide acceptability of "legalized discrimination" does in fact allow for the chance that "unnecessary discrimination" might be snuck in, as this has happened in other areas such as race-related legalized discrimination. But, that's the philosophy they've chosen to use. And it shouldn't necessarily just be altered on a whim, because the philosophies are larger than the current specific issue of choice. If this is alterered, then every facet of every "legalized discrimination" will be affected by that alteration. The question is now... Given that discrimination can be allowed, given a compelling reason, do you believe that a compelling reason exists for the discrimination against same-sex partners in marriage. Forget that it may or may not be any of the reasons given here or anywhere else on the web, and ignore that you may or may not have seen it in your lifetime (or may or may not ever see it). Do you believe a compelling reason exists on this matter? -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 12:13pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Please see this thread for many of them. Numerous ones have been given. Numerous reasons have been given for offering marriage, but not for the gender discrimination used in limiting it to one man and one woman. The arguments for restricting it to one person of each gender have to be about procreation, because for most of the other cases, you cannot show that a union between two members of the same sex does not support the same compelling reason. So, the question is - is procreation at the heart of the "compelling reason" for government to offer marital benefits and limit those to the unions consisting of one man and one woman?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/15/04 12:22pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Answer my question first. -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 12:25pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Maybe it's all a conspiracy undertaken by the vast reach of the uber-powerful wedding dress lobby? -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 » - Previous | Next | Reload