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

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

« 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
EnforcerSG Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 1/16/04 9:23am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Sorry, but I agree with Bubba. It is not discrimination because no one who wants to marry their own sex can, man or woman, strait or gay, in love or not. Just because it is not discrimination though does not make it any less of an issue though. -----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
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/16/04 10:09am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	No; the law may be wrong, but in this case it doesn't strike me as discriminatory. If it required all races to marry within their own race, precisely who does the law discriminate against? So then, separate drinking fountains must be okay, too. As long as everyone has access to a drinking fountain, who's being discriminated against? The thing is, when a court looks at a law, I believe they ask whether a member of one group is being prevented from having the same privilege as a member of another group. So, if a black man sues because the law allows a white man to marry a white woman, but does not allow the black man to marry a white woman, I think the court would have to conclude that that's discrimination (especially considering the Supreme Court's precedent on "separate but equal"). Saying that he has the opportunity to have something just as good (he can marry a black woman) does not work; he must have access to the exact same privileges as anyone else. Just because a law discriminates against everyone equally doesn't mean it's non-discriminatory.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 11:46am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 12:16pm (4 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	womberty... "Saying that he has the opportunity to have something just as good... does not work; he must have access to the exact same privileges as anyone else." This is not an accurate presentation of the Court's view of "seperate but equal." They were very specific, in Brown vs. Board of Education ("Brown I") with respect to the scope and possible limits it may have: "The 'separate but equal' doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 , has no place in the field of public education." That's it. The US Supreme Court did NOT hold that the "seperate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy has no place, or no place in any situation. They very specific to place any limitations of Plessy and the "seperate but equal" doctrine established by it to just the narrowly focused issue they were dealing with and have generally followed that trend since. Furthermore, with their Brown decision, fault was not found with the doctrine itself in any way. Rather, the conclusion that was reached was that the segregated black schools were not equal to the white ones and could not be made to be equal. It was the converse of Plessy. Brown vs. Board of Education held that racially segregated schools were not equal, and therefore could not be seperate. Hence, the doctrine could not apply because the sitation didn't exist. But, that's the extent of any limitations placed on Plessy. There was no recanting of the concept or philosophy. And this trend definitely has held up, even through 1996's United States vs. Virginia (The Virginia Military Institute case) gender issue. The court did not hold that Plessy's "seperate but equal" is no longer valid. Quite the contrary, they just held that Virginia's somewhat similar program for women, the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership, was not "substantially equal" to the program of VMI. And again, because it was not equal and could not made to be equal, it was not allowed to be seperate. Where the situation of equality does or can exist, the Court finds no fault with application of the so-called "seperate but equal." -----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
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/16/04 1:37pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	DarthYama, "male" and "female" is not an "abstract classification system." Even in the very worst case, a minor bit of genetic testing can determine whether an individual has the XX pair of sex chromosomes, the XY, or a different combination. womberty, I was hoping someone would bring up "separate but equal." Genghis12's response was very thorough, but let me make one observation. If you're going to argue that current marriage laws violate Brown v. Board of Ed, it seems to me that you must argue that men and women are not equal. That doesn't seem like a position any of us would want to take. -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 1:43pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	The situation of equality does not exist here, Genghis. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry the people they want to marry, homosexuals are not. You can say all you want to that homosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not homosexuals have the right to marry the person of their choice, which is going to be someone of the same sex. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they would naturally choose to marry. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry the person they would naturally choose to marry. Therefore, the two situations are not equal. (Since you insist on leaving love out of the marriage equation and seem to think that marriage need not be based on love, I replaced love with choice. The only reason to leave choice out of the equation is if you believe in arranged marriages.) I don't believe in separate but equal in any circumstances anyway, but the situations womberty pointed out do apply. If blacks are allowed to go to certain universities and whites are allowed to go to others, but blacks aren't allowed to go to whites-only universities, who is being discriminated against? If blacks have public restrooms and whites have public restrooms but blacks aren't allowed to use white public restrooms, who is being discriminated against? -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 1:46pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 1:54pm (4 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	Bubba... I agree. Or just as (if not more) distasteful as using Brown vs. Board of Education criteria for gender, the issue of race. You have to remember in their exceptions to seperate but equal for Brown and Virginia that the Court based their opinions on qualitative factors. What was being said when something wasn't found to be equal was essentially that it was inferior. This is made very clear in the Brown and Virginia opinions. But, also just as important to consider with these exceptions to Plessy is that these dealt with inhuman, non-living considerations: school and educational standards (for Brown), physical training and endurance standards (for Virginia). However, like you stated, this takes on a rather disgusting and distasteful tone if one tries to apply it directly to race or gender (or sexual preference for that matter). The accusation is then that a woman is inferior to a man (or vice versa), or for race that a black person is inferior to a white person (or vice versa), or for sexuality that a homosexual is inferior to a heterosexual (or vice versa). That's essentially what is being considered when exceptions to Plessy similar to what Brown did is used as the benchmark. Which is why I don't think one can reach the conclusion on a direct consideration of race or gender that the items are not equal, (and therefore should not be seperate.) -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 1:59pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	If you're going to argue that current marriage laws violate Brown v. Board of Ed, it seems to me that you must argue that men and women are not equal. I'm not following you here. The way I see it, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry and not allowing same-sex couples to marry, you are implying that opposite-sex couples are somehow superior to same-sex couples--which isn't true. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:07pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:10pm (4 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	a_g... "I'm not following you here." The key finding in Brown is that because the quality of black schools were inferior (Brown's "not equal" conclusion) to the quality of white schools, they should (could) not be seperate - as they were not equal they could not be seperate. Apply that to the issue of race, gender or sexuality, and you then suggest that males and females are not equal, whites and blacks aren't equal or homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't equal. And as Bubba said, I don't believe that's a path that any of us wants to head down. Or, if you hold that men and women are equal with respect to gender, whites and blacks are equal with respect to race and homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal with respect to sexual preference, then you are (or can be) subject to Plessy. -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:13pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	But homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal in respect to sexual orientation (it's not preference--"preference" implies that they chose that lifestyle). Therefore, they should be allowed the same privileges, including the privilege to marry their choice of partner, that heterosexuals are allowed. (And their choice of partner means someone of the same sex.) If you want to get technical about it, if we allow same-sex marriages, then heterosexuals could also marry someone of the same sex--therefore, homosexuals are not being given any special privileges. However, that is a moot point, just as your continual insistence that "homosexuals can get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex" is not only cold and heartless, but a moot point. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:18pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	a_g... "But homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal in respect to sexual orientation" If true, then you place yourself squarely under Plessy. If you conclude (which you have) they are equal, they can therefore be seperate, but equal. And hence, no discrimination then. So, the matter is resolved now we're all in agreement? -----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
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:19pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:20pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	But homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal in respect to sexual orientation Nope. Wrong, again. Heterosexual relationships are the only way that the human species propigates itself and was designed to do so. Marriage is the contract between man and wife that they will found and support and maintain a family generally via the only natural way children come about. It's been the perversion of what marriage is over the last few decades that has blurred the lines here. So, the relationships are in no way equal, regardless of how well-intentioned you feel about it, a_g. -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:28pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:29pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	Heterosexual relationships are the only way that the human species propigates itself and was designed to do so. Marriage is the contract between man and wife that they will found and support and maintain a family generally via the only natural way children come about. I can't propogate myself, DM. Am I inferior? I resent the implication that people who can or will reproduce are somehow "superior" to the rest of us. This is not 1850. We don't need for people to have six children to help on the farm anymore. The implication that all married couples are supposed to have children, that it is their "duty", really makes my blood boil. If you conclude (which you have) they are equal, they can therefore be seperate, but equal. And hence, no discrimination then. How is there no discrimination? Homosexuals can't marry the person of their choice; heterosexuals can. How in the hell is there any equality in that--unless you want to use some sort of perverse "technical" logic that says that homosexuals could marry someone that it is against their very genetic makeup to choose to marry? That is like telling a black person in the 60s--"You have a seat on the bus, it's just in the back. You can sit in front of the bus all you want to as soon as you become white. But there's no discrimination--you have a seat on the bus, and your white friend has a seat on the bus." -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:30pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:31pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	I didn't say anyone's 'humanity' itself is superior, a_g. Stop spinning it that way. Heterosexual relationships are the ONLY natural way to propogate the species - and marriage is the civil contract for the foundation and the maintaining of a family. Therefore, simply stated, heterosexual relationships are inherently superior. -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:31pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Well stop insinuating that all married people are "supposed" to have children, or that heterosexual couples are "superior" because they can have children and homosexual couples can't. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:33pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:38pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	a_g... "How is there no discrimination?" Because they're equal. The US Supreme Court would not agree with your assessment that they've used some "perverse 'technical' logic" given that it is the entire basis for the Supreme Court's decisions in Plessy, Brown vs. Board of Education, United States vs. Virginia and anything else remotely related to "seperate but equal" decisions. If you don't agree with "seperate but equal" and argue converse of Plessy as was done in Brown vs. Board of Education, then you have the rather distasteful position of arguing that men are not equal to women (and prove why). However, you've agreed that they're equal, so now that puts you in the (still distasteful) position of arguing why Brown vs. Board of Education isn't a good decision if you want to argue they shouldn't be seperate. -----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

« 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 » - Previous | Next | Reload