Federal Marriage Amendment Debate and Discussion Thread (v. 2.0)

...continued

 

Good to see a new thread . Should bring in a few new people out there who might have been hesitant to join in such a lengthy thread and discussion.

Perhaps someone can repost some essentials from the original thread.

 

Great! A new thread


I'll do my best to sum up (very brifely) both sides's arguments:

Arguments for the legalization of gay marriage:

1. It is an equal right of the people, protected by the Constituion and interpreted by the courts.

2. There can be proven no just cause (as called for in the United States) to prevent the granting of same-sex marriages

3. Same-sex marriage does not infringe upon exisiting rights, thus meeting the reuquirement put forth by the 14th Amendment.

Arguments against the legalization of gay marriage

1. It is not a right granted by the law or the Constituion.

2. There is available evidence for just cause regarding it's banning

3. Same-sex marriage's legalization would be harmful to American society.

Some, not all, of the main points brought up and argues for by both sides. I personally extend a warm welcome to any new comers. Let your voice be heard!

 

Citizen, you are against gay marriage, no? I thought you did a pretty decent job summarizing the pro-equality argument.

My main beef with the anti-marriage people is this notion that gay marraige in any meaningful way threatens straight marriage.

What are the actual concrete consequences to society? How do you explain Massachussetts? What harm is going to be done there?

 

Agreed. Good job presenting them without bias, CK.

As for the argument...well, I'm with OWM.

M. Scott

 

Thanks guys. I appreciate it


For the offical record, yes I am against gay marriage.

 

I'm for gay marriage......






In France!!

 

I'm Canadian, and I can safely say that civilization has not ended up here, as gay marriage is gradually legalized.

 

Yes, wonderful job summarizing it, CitizenKane. For a minute there I thought that you wouldn't (kidding).

I'm Canadian, and I can safely say that civilization has not ended up here, as gay marriage is gradually legalized.

Have you been harmed (or have you rights been "infringed" upon)? I'm just curious - didn't know if you were harmed in any way, seeing as how people are dieing by the truck loads down here (due to the result of two women obtaining a marriage liscence).

Just look at that last part - and you'll see how absurd it really is (saying same-sex marriage will "harm you").

 

Citizen, reply to my post from the last thread. You said it infringes on your rights, how is that?

 

To get the arguements flowing, I'll re-post my last comment in the old thread, which wasn't alive long enough to get replies. Here it is, for anyone who missed it:

You have yet to prove that gay marriage is a right granted in the Constitution

I'm still standing by equal rights - which is a good enough reason for me.
Enjoy life in the box.

I was using sarcasm there, but it would not surprise my by any means.

Try reading my posts.

I've read them and I still can't find any reasons that change my opinion or that would make same-sex marriage illegal.
Exactly. The ability for homosexuals to marry has no effect on anyone who is not homosexual. OK, that?s not quite completely true ? I?ve got an invitation to see two of my friends get married this spring.

At least another person here sees reason on this topic. I wish your friends the best of luck and I hope they have a happy marriage and a wonderful life ahead of them. I hope that they don't hurt anyone with their marriage (and I hope that it doesn't infringe upon my rights).
Homsoexuals cannot have posterity with their partners. It is simply not biologically possible.

They can adopt - as many heterosexual couples do (should they not be allowed?). I also get upset about how same-sex couples cannot adopt a child, which is absurd and disgusting to me (which I see no reason for, but that's for a different debate). By those terms (if the couple cannot produce their own children, they shouldn't be allowed to marry), my parents would have to have a divorce, because my mother had the operation which her uterus and ovaries are taken out (I cannot think of the name, excuse me). If you're going to try and deny that (that if a couple cannot produce children, they shouldn't be allowed to marry) that is the one of the head arguements in a book given to me by my Church, which has a list of a bunch of 'moral topics' and where the Church stands (and why).

Give me your reasons as to why we should process the homosexuals request to destro... redefine marriage.
It's not a request by homosexuals, by any means. I'm a supporter of gay marriage, through and through, are you trying to say that I'm a homosexual? Anyways, if the 'destro...' was going to be 'destroy marriage', then it already has been - seeing as how many couples divorce each year, the relationship with other partners while in marriage, 'forty-eight hour' marriages, ect. Having two women marry is not going to "destroy" marriage by any means - whatsoever (and it's ludacris to think that it would).

Same-sex marriage = infringement of my rights (I do not want my rights to be redefined and given to a special interest group)

I'm trying to control myself, before I puke and hurt someone. I want to know how two women infringes on your rights and harms you, in any way, shape or form. You don't want your rights "redefined" and "given to a special interest group"? Well, guess what? Denying a couple their rights, which has no effect on you, actually does infringe upon other people's rights.

Actually, you're trying to overthrow DOMA, which you are trying to redefine marriage.

So, what? We're trying to overthrow a law. Are we not allowed to now? By those terms, you wouldn't be allowed to overthrow Roe v. Wade.

Gay marriage is harmful to me.
(trying to stay calm). How is it harmful to you, at all. I think it's hilarious that you cannot even provide reasons how it does (because it does not).

Don't demand prodf, BTW, because then you're under obligation to demand proof that gays really are born that way.
That makes no sense, at all. We're not allowed to ask how two women having the right to marry harms you, because we're not under obligation to prove to you that gays are born as a homosexual? I'm confused, but anyway. I don't know if they're born homosexual, obviously. However, I am (almost) 100% sure that one does not choose to be a homosexual. I can, however, prove this in a number of ways. (1) Go up to a homosexual person and, s

 

I have another point to make. Would someone here do me a favor and ask one of their friends in Canada if they have been harmed at all (and in what way) from the marriage of two women. Also, if you have time, would you ask them if their marriage, the sanctity of marriage, and marriage as a whole have been destroyed because of the legalization of same-sex marraige. I would like to know the answer to those - thank you.

Nope, I haven't been harmed.

 

I'd love to see that argument attempted anywhere else.

"Why should we have vegetarian options at restaurants? Vegetarians can still eat anywhere they want. They just have to eat the way everyone else eats."

Ok, now who's being rediculous? Comparing gays to vegans? First off, being vegan is a choice, and therefore no special accomidations have to be made for them. Restaurants simply choose to make accomidations for them because it is economically beneficial to them. Homosexuals, however, are in a totally different boat. Really nice thought though.

In the law, if something is not stated EXPLICITLY, it is IMPLICITLY so. Because it was not stated "Marriage between a man and a woman", then it is valid for marriage between any two consenting adults that it is a basic civil right of mankind.

So then there is no Constitutional baring for roe v wade? I mean it doesn't say proteciton of body in the 4th amendment, and so therefore the comparrison isn't there? That argument does not fly. Especially coming from some one who is trying to say that it is implied in the COnstitution that marriage is a fundamental right to be given to all, without definition.

We're not trying to redefine marriage. You're trying to redefine the law.

Not to be rude, but... WTF? THere is no current law that guarentees the right to have gay marriage. If there were, gay marriage would be legal. You guys are trying to override the DOMA. Which is a law BTW... so yeah... That argument is realitously unsound.

As I said, it is you who are redefining law.

And as I said... We're not trying to redefine a presently legal action/law. But hey, I'm sure it made sense at the time.

Gay marriage is harmful to no one, whereas denying it is harmful to gays. When the law is meant to uphold the good of the people, in such situations where the majority will not be harmed by rights granted to the minority, there is no legal grounds to deny those rights. A legal system denying rights for no good reason than because it always has is corrupt.

I see. So we're back to the idea that "because I think it's right, everyone should"? I will accept that to you this is quite true. However, you do not speak for the entire American population. We feel it is harmful, and therefore, you cannot say it harms no one. If we feel we are being harmed, then how can you say that we are wrong for feeling so? You can disagree, but you have no authority to tell us that we aren't feeling harmed. That's ludicrous.

Secondly, the law is meant to hold up the WILL of the people. If you look in the theories of John Locke, (a contemporary American Philosopher) he describes that the Governments first and formost purpose is to display the will of the people. And the will of the people, is good, because that's what we want. By saying that the minority can trump the opinions of the majority, isn't a philosophically sound idea. If we are foudned upon the Government portraying the WILL of the people, then we must abide by it: Come hell or high water. You can't say that the majority's opinion means nothing here. Because, it was the majority who gave homosexuals the right to be a protected class in America. You can't be on both sides of the fence on this one.

Do prove that such definition existed for such an extent of time. If you're going to propose that we are trying to change the definition of marriage, it's up to you to cite sources demonstrating that marriage was EXPLICITLY defined as being sex-specific to include one of each. The fact that it "always has been" is not explicit, it is implicit, and invalid.

I'm not quite sure I understand your logic here. So, things must be explicit correct? (While I vehemenently disagree with you. Merely for arguments sake I will ask)Where then, does gay marriage come from? If gay marriage isn't EXPLICITLY mentioned in any law or rulings, then how can you say it is a right? Again, you are playing both sides of the fence. And you can't, logically, do that

 

I have another point to make. Would someone here do me a favor and ask one of their friends in Canada if they have been harmed at all (and in what way) from the marriage of two women. Also, if you have time, would you ask them if their marriage, the sanctity of marriage, and marriage as a whole have been destroyed because of the legalization of same-sex marraige. I would like to know the answer to those - thank you.

Let's move from the political to the economic: if the government institutes a price fix to keep the price of apples artificially high, it hurts other industries (like oranges and peaches) because the consumer has less money to spend on those other goods.

Now, an orange grower is thus adversely affected by that act, but it's really, really hard for a grower to prove that, and some orange growers may be completely unaware of the harm.

Does the subtle nature of the effects of that law mean there are no effects? No, so a question like yours proves very little.

 

So we're back to the idea that "because I think it's right, everyone should"?

And you're back to the whole "because I think it's wrong, everyone should". We're not asking anybody to accept gay marriage, you don't have to like it, you don't even have to say the words, all we're asking is for the government not to discriminate.

So you can use tradition as an excuse, but I don't care.

You can use the current law as an excuse, but I don't care.

You can use the bible as an excuse, but I don't care.

You can say it'll redefine the word marriage, but I don't care.

You can say it would damage society (which is a stupid notion anyway), but I don't care.

It's a matter of principle, and I've yet to hear ONE good reason why gays can't marry someone of the same sex.

We have a 133 page discussion on it but behind every single disguise those against gay marriage would like to use it came down to "ewww it's gross" "I don't like it" "it's against my religion". That's it, hardly justifiable reasons for discrimination.

 

I think that both sides should abandon their "hurts scoiety" logic, for a very simple reason: it will and it won't.

Obviously, gay marriage will not hurt people who are okay with it. Now it will hurt people who don't see it as okay (demanding proof would just prolong an already inevitably fruitless discussion).

So, we can't speak definitively one way or the other, I'm starting to see. So, IMO, both arguments are a little worthless. Let's move on to other, more broadly debateable arguments.

 

Legalizing same-sex marriage does not infringe rights. It is not forcing you to take any action if you don't want to. In fact, it would grant you more rights as you could choose to marry someone of the same sex as you.

I don't see it as destroying the 'sanctity of marriage' either. As far as I know, people can still love one another no matter what their sexual orientation is, and that seems to be the cornerstone of marriage. Two people getting married purely for economic or appearance reasons would seem to hurt the 'sanctity of marriage more'.

Finally, I'd throw out that it could be possible (In fact, it seems more likely to me) that same-sex marriage could even help divorce rates. Maybe couples who would otherwise have divorced would try to preserve their marriage so they wouldn't feel somehow morally inferior to a married gay or lesbian couple.

 

nd you're back to the whole "because I think it's wrong, everyone should". We're not asking anybody to accept gay marriage, you don't have to like it, you don't even have to say the words, all we're asking is for the government not to discriminate.

And we're just asking the Government to uphold it's basis of the will of the people. Should we abandon the ideology behind America, because you said so? THat's absurd.

So you can use tradition as an excuse, but I don't care.

You can use the current law as an excuse, but I don't care.

You can use the bible as an excuse, but I don't care.

You can say it'll redefine the word marriage, but I don't care.

You can say it would damage society (which is a stupid notion anyway), but I don't care.

You don't seem to care about a lot of things. SO what your really saying here is: "I'm right, and you are not. I don't care what you say, because I'm right." Wow, you are the most open minded person I know. Very proud of ya. I'm glad you're so sure of yourself.

It's a matter of principle, and I've yet to hear ONE good reason why gays can't marry someone of the same sex.

Correction, one good reason that you accept. We've given good reasons, you just may not like them. And there is a difference.

We have a 133 page discussion on it but behind every single disguise those against gay marriage would like to use it came down to "ewww it's gross" "I don't like it" "it's against my religion". That's it, hardly justifiable reasons for discrimination.

From some one who is telling us to not generalize gays. And not discriminate, your doing quite the opposite to those who disagree with it. I've yet to see either kk, ck, bubba, j-rod, or myself say "I don't like it", "it's against my religion" or "it's gross" as a basis for argumentation here. You may not like our reasonsings, but they do exist. And quit generalizing those who disagree with you, because you are profoundly incorrect in your assertions/assumptions. Plus, you know what assuming does... ANd I think that seems to fit quite nicely with you after that post.

JMA

 

You don't seem to care about a lot of things. SO what your really saying here is: "I'm right, and you are not. I don't care what you say, because I'm right." Wow, you are the most open minded person I know. Very proud of ya. I'm glad you're so sure of yourself.

Or maybe they care more about its effects on people than writing, books, or vague, poorly-supported predictions?
Tradition has changed in the last 50 years. Laws have been changing to fit the times since they existed. There have been many, many different versions of the bible and not everyone lives by it anyway. Language evolves.
Society also evolves, and no one can really say "It WILL damage society" because no one actually knows exactly what will happen to American society if gay marriage is legalized. Although I think it's safe to say that gay marriage has not noticeably damaged the societies where it is present.

 

Or maybe they care more about its effects on people than writing, books, or vague, poorly-supported predictions?
Tradition has changed in the last 50 years. Laws have been changing to fit the times since they existed. There have been many, many different versions of the bible and not everyone lives by it anyway. Language evolves.
Society also evolves, and no one can really say "It WILL damage society" because no one actually knows exactly what will happen to American society if gay marriage is legalized. Although I think it's safe to say that gay marriage has not noticeably damaged the societies where it is present.

That argument went further in opposite directions than any I can think of. You said they care more about it's effects on people more than writing, books, etc... but you also said nobody knows what will happen to american society? So which is it? Surely you don't think that statement is logically on one side do you?

JMA

 

J_M_A:

THere is no current law that guarentees the right to have gay marriage. If there were, gay marriage would be legal. You guys are trying to override the DOMA. Which is a law BTW... so yeah... That argument is realitously unsound.

Perhaps there is no law, but there may be legal principle. Furthermore, even if there is no law explicitly guaranteeing it, there may be laws implicitly guaranteeing it. It's pretty plain to me that the DOMA is unconstitutional as it seeks to nullify the Full Faith and Credit Clause as pertains to a specific area of law. It may also be unconstitutional on the basis of the Fourteenth. I'm sure those arguments will have their day in court. But just because the law does not explicitly say something doesn't mean it is not legally so, as laws have consequences not explicitly enumerated (for example, the First Amendment mentions nothing about the variety of media other than the voice that can be used for speech, but the legal principle is applied to everything from books to lap dances). And just because something is, for the moment, the law does not automatically mean that it can be, that it is not contradicted by a law or legal principle with precedence.

Secondly, the law is meant to hold up the WILL of the people.

Disagreed. The law is meant to uphold the rights and freedoms of the people. It exists explicitly to protect unpopular but harmless or consensual actions that are unpopular. There's no need to protect what's popular; it will win by default, if the unpopular is not afforded some form of protection.

And the will of the people, is good, because that's what we want.

Disagreed. The will of the people can be good, and it can be bad, but the thought of its having absolute power is truly terrifying to me in a way few things are. Fortunately the founders agreed with me, and created a system limiting the power of the people both by removing power from them and giving it to elected representatives, and, more significantly, by reserving certain abilities from the government and ordering it to allow people to make decisions individually or societally, without the legal ability to control each other.

Autocracy may actually be preferable to true rule of the majority (Plato's philosopher-king, wot?), because at least autocrats are often (for example in monarchial systems) raised well-educated and informed. I'd have a hard time choosing between the two systems if put to the test, as both are horrifying possibilities.

By saying that the minority can trump the opinions of the majority, isn't a philosophically sound idea.

On the contrary, I think it's very philosophically sound when the majority seeks to restrict or treat unequally a harmless minority. The government exists to protect people from each other; using it to exercise control or restriction over people who are not doing harm is, in my opinion, a subversion of its purpose.

If we are foudned upon the Government portraying the WILL of the people, then we must abide by it: Come hell or high water.

But I don't believe we are founded upon that notion; I think both the fact that we are a representative republic rather than a democracy and the fact that we have a constitutional system -- and, significantly, one with a Bill of Rights -- suggest that we are absolutely not meant to be founded upon the will of the people.

Because, it was the majority who gave homosexuals the right to be a protected class in America. You can't be on both sides of the fence on this one.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow. You're going to have to explain what you mean by this.

You can't say that the majority's opinion means nothing here.

No, I can't. The majority still possesses a great deal of social power. And I will do my hardest to open as many eyes to the possibility of homosexual relationships as equ

 

Calling me on etymology? Funny how you guys use that word, and provide no opposing etymological references. But, if you want etymology. Here:

(Etc.)

Now THAT'S what I call an argument.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to address it; I'm going to have to do some research. But, no sarcasm, that was good. I've been looking for a strong argument like that from the opposition for quite a while now.

M. Scott

 

That argument went further in opposite directions than any I can think of. You said they care more about it's effects on people more than writing, books, etc... but you also said nobody knows what will happen to american society? So which is it? Surely you don't think that statement is logically on one side do you?

I do. Society is typically used to denote the mass of people as a big group. Basically a generalization. You could say that Football and Baseball are important parts of American society; but forcing everyone to watch Football or Baseball would not be a good thing.

Go back to the days when it was commonly held that women were incapable of learning the same things as men due to physical handicaps, were more mentally unstable, etc etc. You could make an argument then that it would hurt American society, because new and unstable ideas might become mainstream, and all the activities that once helped build camaraderie between males would suddenly be hurt by introducing women into them.

But when you get to caring about people, you might realize that people tend to not like to be thought of as inferior to another person. That people like to have the same respect and rights as other people.

Finally, people make up society. Society helps to shape people, but in the end, people can change society.

 

Secondly, the law is meant to hold up the WILL of the people.

Is it? The founding fathers initially gave the right to vote only to people they hoped would be educated, not the masses. They also intentionally set up checks on public opinion such as the electoral college so the "educated" electors could override the decisions of the public when they felt it was appropriate. The U.S. government was never intended to do what the majority of people wanted it to do. It was intended to do what would presumably be best for the largest number of people in the long run.

Also, as Paul points out, we were founded as a republic and not a democracy.

And the will of the people, is good, because that's what we want.

100% disagreed. The masses decided it was a good idea to kill Jesus. The masses turned the supposedly noble French Revolution into a bloodbath. The masses elected Hitler. When people get together in a group, the collective intellect of them immediately sinks to the lowest common denominator, and they frequently end up making dumb decisions they might not have made when thinking on their own. That's how things like riots start. The masses, frankly, cannot be trusted with everything.

By saying that the minority can trump the opinions of the majority, isn't a philosophically sound idea.

This is a rather extreme example I'm about to give, not analogous to gay marriage, but I'm doing it anyway to point out the absurdity of the statement. If I, personally, don't want to die, and a group of people come by and they would like to stone me to death, is it philosophically unsound to say my feeling should trump the feelings of the majority?

In short, JMA, I think we have very different readings of Locke. I'm extremely Hamiltonian in my take on his philosophy.

Yes, but does that make them reproductive? In etymology that seems to be a big qualification. Adopting isn't exactly reproducing.

I know this has been said many times before, but how are gay couples any different from old people or sterile people or anyone else who can't have children?

 

I have absolutely no idea who you're replying to in your post, shinjo_jedi, but I'll reply to him/her anyway.

You have yet to prove that gay marriage is a right granted in the Constitution

Well, how about just plain marriage, without qualifiers? The ability to marry was declared a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendment in 1967. The case was Loving v. Virgina, and involved an interracial couple who'd been convicted under Virginia's miscegenation law. From the Virginia judge's decision:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend the races to mix.

So there you have it--God says these people can't marry, so they can't.

The Supreme Court thought otherwise, however. As part of its (unanimous) 1967 decision, the court wrote: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Since marriage is a constitutional right, the justification for denying it to a group of people is unclear. At least on paper, there has to be a compelling state interest for denying someone a fundamental right--for instance, depriving criminals of their liberty is legal because we have a compelling state interest in not being killed or robbed. The strongest state interest (I won't call it "compelling" in this case) involved in banning gay marriate is states' rights, and the argument that "We don't want those people marrying around here."

Of course, a *federal* gay marriage ban actually *reduces* states' rights, so that particular argument doesn't really apply in this thread. I can't think of any other state interest that's even remotely compelling, but be that as it may,

On the subject of state-level gay marriage bans--the idea that "we don't want those people marrying around here" was basically the same argument used in Loving v. Virginia, and it didn't fly then. What is different about same-sex marriages that would allow the same logical process to succeed this time?

Homsoexuals cannot have posterity with their partners. It is simply not biologically possible.

The same is true for post-menopausal women, and people who have had an illness or surgery that has left them sterile, and men who don't produce viable sperm, and women who are not healthy enough to carry a fetus to term. Should we deny marriage to them too?

Same-sex marriage = infringement of my rights (I do not want my rights to be redefined and given to a special interest group)

The state of Colorado passed an amendment barring civil rights for homosexuals based on an idea similar to yours. They argued that allowing gay people to live wherever they wanted violated straight people's rights to freedom of association. This was pretty much exactly the argument for segregation in the challenges to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. The Supreme Court struck the challenges down at the time. It struck the Colorado amendment down too, in Romer v. Evans, 1996.

When the fundamental rights of one group clash with the sensibilities of another, the fundamental rights win out.

Don't demand prodf, BTW, because then you're under obligation to demand proof that gays really are born that way.

Well, if you want . . . here's a collection of studies on the subject. Homosexuality cannot be linked to one particular gene, but then, almost nothing can, particularly not behavioral traits. Homosexuality does appear to be linked to a complex of genetic and early-life environmental factors, and does not appear to be particularly "voluntary," any more than a tendency to find taking risks "exciting" versus