Homosexual marriage

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Yea, I made a mistake and mixed up the two, but thank you for thoroughly clarifying that mistake instead of responding to my thought on the matter. Next time a simple "no, your wrong its not that... it is this" would be greatly appreciated.

Oh it was no problem believe me. And I did respond to your point also - the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage or about whether people are equal. The Constitution protects people from the INTRUSION of government - such as in their bedroom, but it does not answer the question of gay marriage at all. Marriage is a STATE institution - not a federal one. The only thing that the federal government says is that a marriage in one state would be recongnized in another, since it is a binding contract (but even then I think there are exceptions allowed). You get a STATE marriage license - not a UNITED STATES Marriage license. Therefore - as far as I'm concerned - gay marriage is a STATE issue and each state must work it out for themselves.

[jerseydevil]

first post on page problem

[Count Comfect]

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 (Amendment 14)

That seems to me to say something legally similar to "all men are created equal" - all persons born here are citizens, all citizens have the same rights.
As to whether the specific right to marry with love is a legally guaranteed one, that can be argued. But remember

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Amendment 9)

And as the Supreme Court put it in 2002

Far from possessing "ancient roots," American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century ... this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code ... the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice (Supreme Court of the United States, Lawrence et al., v Texas, 2002)

Of course, whether that reasoning about the constitutionality of laws about homosexuality holds for marriage as well as sodomy (which was the topic of the case) is highly debatable. But that was Supreme Court's last word on the legal status of homosexuals (overturning the 1986 decision Bowers v. Hardwick).

Just putting out there some legal facts - I personally think they point in the direction of marriage to someone of their own sexual orientation being a right everyone should have, but that's debatable. As are all things

EDIT: And the precise legal point of contracts being upheld between states in the Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. (Article IV, section 1)

and marriage may or may not fall under that. According to the 1997 Defense of Marriage Act, though

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

so there is an exception (although the Constitutionality of that can, of course, be debated. As always )

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Oh it was no problem believe me. And I did respond to your point also - the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage or about whether people are equal. The Constitution protects people from the INTRUSION of government - such as in their bedroom, but it does not answer the question of gay marriage at all. Marriage is a STATE institution - not a federal one. The only thing that the federal government says is that a marriage in one state would be recongnized in another, since it is a binding contract (but even then I think there are exceptions allowed). You get a STATE marriage license - not a UNITED STATES Marriage license. Therefore - as far as I'm concerned - gay marriage is a STATE issue and each state must work it out for themselves.

Yes, but my point also reffered to religion which has a huge impact on influencing people's opinions on the matter. Is it just that homosexuals should be denied marriage because Christians and Catholics don't agree with it? Why can't a homosexual raise an adopted child, or other use other recently developed reproduction methods ( Intracytoplasmic sperm injection or use a surrogate mother) and have the benefits of marriage at the same time? Is it is because traditionally marriage was meant to be for a man and woman. Is it on that precedent that we must follow tradition even though it is wrong and discriminating? Why should homosexuals be denied their right to pursue happiness?

[Insidious Rex]

Eesh. Lief, your bias is showing.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Let me explain this in part. If we have marriages performed between homosexuals, it will be a declaration of the state that a man can take the place of a woman in a marriage, or a woman the place of a man. It says that the traditional man-woman marriage is not superior at all.

It would say no such thing legally. It would simply say there is no reason to discriminate against people based on their sexual persuasion when it comes to marriage. The concept of "superiority" and "inferiority" wouldnt enter into it. Thats your particular take on it.

Now let's say I have a family. My kids are going to be growing up in an environment where these marriages are called the same thing as mine. Society in general will be against my view. It would be very hard to give my children a traditional Christian upbringing while we are in such an environment.

wait wait... you want the US government to legislate discrimination for your particular religious reasons? And alarm bells didnt go off immediately when you wrote that lief? You cant do that. You have the right to follow your own religious beliefs and raise your kids according to them but you dont have the right to control other people because its part of your religion. If my religion tells me that non-whites shouldnt be allowed to show their face in public I cant simply expect the government to make this a reality. EVEN if the majority of people also follow my same religion.

Furthermore, in my view there are risks of this marriage-alterring going even further. Society may say that three men can marry one woman, or that three men can marry a donkey. It would be very tough for me to shield my children from views thrown at them by society, views that marriage isn't something beautiful and God-created but is a term tossed around for a hundred things.

So what do you tell your children when Brittany Spears makes a joke of the institution of marriage? What do you tell your kids when The Church of Elvis does more marriages in a year then most churches in the entire country? What do you tell your kids when we have 50%+ divorce rates? Those things are all ok but two men who love each other and want to be married and live together for the rest of their lives and share the same kind of recognition that you have are an abomination and destroy the sanctity of your marriage?

But there also is the issue that it would be simply painful to live in a society where these . . . other kinds of relationships are called equal with my own bond with my wife.

You know it wasnt too long ago that people had the exact same attitude about minorities in this country. That they were less then humans and it was a fundamental part of their religious and their social belief system. Well now we know thats just patently ridiculous and simply was an excuse for society wide state sanctioned discrimination. And the very same thing is happening here with gay marriage. I have very little respect for people who use religious or moral reasons to discriminate against other people. I think its pretty vile quite frankly. I DO have more respect for people who may not like something (the concept of gays getting married) but that realize its not their place to restrict other people from being able to do what they already can do simply on the basis of religion. Its dead wrong. This is not Afghanistan under the Taliban. We can have religious beliefs but we cant impose them on others indiscriminately.

most men do not stay in relationships with other men over the long term. Also, both male and female homosexual couples do tend to be more promiscuous.

Again, these points (even if we are to just take them as true which they are not) are IRRELEVANT to the point of if homosexuals should be allowed to marry. OTHERWISE you will need to create a promiscuity test and those who fail (both heterosexual and homosexual) will be BANNED from marrying. Are you willing to take this step?

And all you have to do is look at the Gay Pride rallies to see it. When I was looking at BBC articles on the subject, the pictures showed them dressed like prostitutes and transvestites.

you base your whole concept of homosexuals on a few stock shots of queens prancing around in a parade? Thats awful awful scary lief. Why do you choose to ignore the vast vast majority of gays that DONT do that exactly? Should I base my concepts of germans on what the nazis did? Should i base my concept of christians on what David Coresh did? And you have many perfect examples of NON-flamboyant gays right here on this very message board. We have many many gays who are VIRGINS by CHOICE. AND we have heterosexuals who post about doing highly sexual things with other heterosexuals. We have heterosexuals who post about making bad choices and getting pregnant in high school and cheating on their boyfriend. And you can somehow filter all this out and say gay marriage is bad because of transvestites? Good grief. Talk about having some serious blinders my friend.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Eesh. Lief, your bias is showing.

Bad luck for me.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It would say no such thing legally. It would simply say there is no reason to discriminate against people based on their sexual persuasion when it comes to marriage. The concept of "superiority" and "inferiority" wouldnt enter into it. Thats your particular take on it.

When you legally cause homosexual marriage to be equal with heterosexual marriage, you are equating the two. This is true whether it is civil unions we're talking about or "marriages". The state would be equating the two. If they are each called marriage, then they are considered equal. It may not be written down in the law itself, but it's obvious and implicit.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

wait wait... you want the US government to legislate discrimination for your particular religious reasons? And alarm bells didnt go off immediately when you wrote that lief?

It's not discrimination to keep people from marriage, when marriage has traditionally and historically belonged to heterosexual relationships. Marriage has a certain definition, and is about to be redefined. It's no more discrimination then it is to keep a dentist from doing a job that traditionally and historically has always belonged to a surgeon.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You cant do that. You have the right to follow your own religious beliefs and raise your kids according to them but you dont have the right to control other people because its part of your religion.

I have the right to vote for what I want and to legislate for what I want. And you have the right to look to minority laws or anti-discrimination laws for your defense. Whether I choose to vote because of medical reasons, child-upbringing reasons or some of the other reasons, I am allowed to vote from whatever motivation I want to. If I feel hatred for homosexuals and want them all dead, I am allowed to vote based upon that. You cannot legislate against motivations.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If my religion tells me that non-whites shouldnt be allowed to show their face in public I cant simply expect the government to make this a reality. EVEN if the majority of people also follow my same religion.

But you are allowed to take the matter to court. Thank goodness for that!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So what do you tell your children when Brittany Spears makes a joke of the institution of marriage? What do you tell your kids when The Church of Elvis does more marriages in a year then most churches in the entire country? What do you tell your kids when we have 50%+ divorce rates? Those things are all ok but two men who love each other and want to be married and live together for the rest of their lives and share the same kind of recognition that you have are an abomination and destroy the sanctity of your marriage?

Those things are not okay. Britney Spears we can keep out of the house for a significant amount of time, though. Trust me, it's been done in my house. None of us care for her music or her behavior as a person, so we simply cut ourselves off from her. If the government wanted to back Britney Spears for a high office though, then we would probably object. She's her own person and can believe and behave as she wants. The government is not publicly saying that those kinds of behaviors and actions are fine, good, and even equal with the behaviors and actions of . . . more sane people .

Divorce is extremely sad. Many Christians are doing their utmost to cut down the divorce rates. We are an extremely bad witness in this area though, because of the example we ourselves have set. It isn't something new though. Divorces have been happening for hundreds of years. It's not a redefinition of something that has been always sacred (like if they started publicly using altars as ping pong tables).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You know it wasnt too long ago that people had the exact same attitude about minorities in this country. That they were less then humans and it was a fundamental part of their religious and their social belief system. Well now we know thats just patently ridiculous and simply was an excuse for society wide state sanctioned discrimination. And the very same thing is happening here with gay marriage.

That's how you view it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I have very little respect for people who use religious or moral reasons to discriminate against other people. I think its pretty vile quite frankly.

I won't argue with you, since you use the word "discriminate".

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I DO have more respect for people who may not like something (the concept of gays getting married) but that realize its not their place to restrict other people from being able to do what they already can do simply on the basis of religion. Its dead wrong. This is not Afghanistan under the Taliban. We can have religious beliefs but we cant impose them on others indiscriminately.

I responded to this in my first . . . no, second paragraph.

I'll respond to the rest of your post soon.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

That seems to me to say something legally similar to "all men are created equal" - all persons born here are citizens, all citizens have the same rights.

The key phrase in your quote is "and of the State wherein they reside.". The problem with marriage that a lot of states don't like is that a gay couple goes from Kansas to Massachusetts to get married and then Kansas being forced to recognize it even though they don't support gay marriage. Civil Unions are only state based and are not required to be acknowledged from one state to another.

EDIT: And the precise legal point of contracts being upheld between states in the Constitution:
and marriage may or may not fall under that. According to the 1997 Defense of Marriage Act, though
so there is an exception (although the Constitutionality of that can, of course, be debated. As always )

What you just mentioned here - I already brought up. I just didn't quote the constitution though. I had stated already that MARRIAGE is a legal contract that by the constitution is required to be honored by all the states. However - I also stated that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act which allowed states NOT to honor same-sex marriages that another state may allow. However - states are also afraid that AFTER same-sex marriages are allowed - that the defense of marriage act will be deemed unconstitutional, in whch case they will be forced to acknowledge the gay marriages.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Again, these points (even if we are to just take them as true which they are not) are IRRELEVANT to the point of if homosexuals should be allowed to marry. OTHERWISE you will need to create a promiscuity test and those who fail (both heterosexual and homosexual) will be BANNED from marrying. Are you willing to take this step?

Much greater promiscuity in homosexual unions is a sign that the kind of relationship is different from the kind that takes place in marriage. If the relationships are different, perhaps a different name should be created for these bonds. Perhaps we should look more closely at what those kinds of relationships really are before we give them equivalent rights with heterosexual marriages. If they are sufficiently different from heterosexual marriages, perhaps different rights should be given them, and certainly a different name. These unions, though. They are not the same as marriage. I don't mind them having some legal rights. What legal rights precisely are given depends upon what the relationship is. But it is not the same as marriage. A man-man relationship is not going to be the same, physically or emotionally. Men cannot give one another the same thing that women can. A father cannot give a child the same presence that a mother can. The relationships are just not the same.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

you base your whole concept of homosexuals on a few stock shots of queens prancing around in a parade?

No. I have seen it in several other places outside of BBC. Though I would think that the gay and lesbians' own Gay Pride rallies ought to be possible to consider an evidence. (quirks an eyebrow)

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thats awful awful scary lief. Why do you choose to ignore the vast vast majority of gays that DONT do that exactly?

What in your opinion is the vast, vast majority. I don't agree. I won't get into my own experiences with this, though. All I can do is tell you that it is not my personal experience.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

Much greater promiscuity in homosexual unions

common misconception

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

common misconception

I agree it is. Men are naturally more promiscuous actually - it has nothing to do with being homosexual. Lesbians are less promiscuous than anyone.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Much greater promiscuity in homosexual unions is a sign that the kind of relationship is different from the kind that takes place in marriage...

The huge rate of divorces in this country is a sign that relationships between Swedes are different from marriages in other, more religious countries. Let's issue a UN resolution or something that prohibits all Swedes to marry. Doesn't matter many, many Swedes actually stay in their first marriage all life. No, it's not worth the risk to let any of us marry at all. God forbid.

Really, statistics that compare heterosexual marriages to homosexual relationships shouldn't matter at all. Love is love.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with Chrys, JD, and IRex. Hm... something useful to add myself...

Well, IRex already pointed out that you can't legislate promiscuity. I'll add that swingers are heterosexual couples, can be married, who like to share. Would that become illegal? Would these couples no longer be married?

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The huge rate of divorces in this country is a sign that relationships between Swedes are different from marriages in other, more religious countries. Let's issue a UN resolution or something that prohibits all Swedes to marry. Doesn't matter many, many Swedes actually stay in their first marriage all life. No, it's not worth the risk to let any of us marry at all. God forbid.

Really, statistics that compare heterosexual marriages to homosexual relationships shouldn't matter at all. Love is love.

Well said, Jon.

[Count Comfect]

Also, comparisons between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages are inherently unfair: the comparison should be homosexual relationships vs. heterosexual relationships of any type (dating, engaged, married, etc) because the fraction of heterosexual relationships that end up as marriages are already more committed than the average, while the homosexual relationships aren't distinguished as to whether they would marry if it were possible or not. That is, if I date someone and cheat on that person that only counts towards "promiscuity" in the homosexual statistics, not the heterosexual ones (since we weren't married).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with Chrys, JD, and IRex. Hm... something useful to add myself...

If you believe what JD said, you're somewhat falling into my hand already by simply acknowledging that there are definite differences between males and females, differences related to gender.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, IRex already pointed out that you can't legislate promiscuity.

Like I said earlier though, you can take it as a sign that the kind of relationship involved is different. Even on a purely biological level, this is logical. Men and women have different minds, different and complementary natures. This is so, so visible in modern marriages. All one has to do is know a genuine married couple (I think most of us do), and they'll see how they work together and complement one another. The masculine role and the feminine role working together. For those of us that grow up without parental separation, we (or many of us) have seen how the family structure functions. Your mother was there for you when you hurt yourself, when you were young. Your father was there when you had questions about the way the world worked. Each filled a vital role in your upbringing. Or did they not, really? Is it possible that your mother could have explained to you how the world worked just as well as your father did, or that your father could have shown you the compassion and empathy your mother did? I know I'm generalizing in these examples, but surely some of you know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'll add that swingers are heterosexual couples, can be married, who like to share. Would that become illegal? Would these couples no longer be married?

It's annoying to be put in the position of trying to defend immorality. Divorce and adultery are blights on a relationship that is meant to be between one man and one woman, in my opinion for life. If one took the promiscuity argument and left it alone as the sole argument against homosexual unions being called marriage, I'd say you and Jonathan had a point. However, there's more to it then promiscuity. There's a lessness, as I see it. A man cannot be a woman- cannot take the place of a woman either for a man or for a child. Sure he can satisfy the sensual desires of another man and they can have deep feeling for one another. But that kind of union cannot be the same- men and women's different genders show them to be different from one another while drawing them to one another. For those who cannot accept what I said about lessness, I hope that you at least will acknowledge what I have said about difference. Because men and women are different from one another and complementary to one another, they fill special roles in one another's lives and in the children's lives. All of you have experienced this in your own upbringing (provided there wasn't separation between your parents, which I sincerely hope there wasn't). You should be able to see.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Really, statistics that compare heterosexual marriages to homosexual relationships shouldn't matter at all. Love is love.

No, the statistics do matter. They matter a great deal, and I'll tell you why they matter. They show whether this kind of relationship is the same as heterosexual relationships or different. They show whether homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, by measuring the two in comparison to one another. Such comparisons must take place, must be performed if we are going to implement laws that have the statement fundamental to them that heterosexual unions are the same as homosexual unions. That is fundamental. By calling homosexual unions marriage and giving them the full legal rights of heterosexual marriages, we will be stating that they are the same. Now if we are going to legally and in name say that they are the same, we must have good reason to believe that they are. That's where the statistics come in.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

morality is only that which one perceives to be immoral or moral, to you dancing in a tin bucket my be immoral, whereas i may enjoy it so much that it can not possibly be immoral

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Also, comparisons between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages are inherently unfair: the comparison should be homosexual relationships vs. heterosexual relationships of any type (dating, engaged, married, etc) because the fraction of heterosexual relationships that end up as marriages are already more committed than the average, while the homosexual relationships aren't distinguished as to whether they would marry if it were possible or not. That is, if I date someone and cheat on that person that only counts towards "promiscuity" in the homosexual statistics, not the heterosexual ones (since we weren't married).

I think you're right about how the statistics should be done. How do you know that they aren't already done that way, though? I don't know how the statistics are done . . . Do you know better?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

morality is only that which one perceives to be immoral or moral, to you dancing in a tin bucket my be immoral, whereas i may enjoy it so much that it can not possibly be immoral

I think it's obvious that how much one enjoys something is not an indicator as to whether something is moral or not. Some sadists have really enjoyed their cruelty, I'm sure. Thieves have greatly enjoyed their winnings. However, I think that in every society up to now, people have held to certain basic moral laws. Inked has posted some splendid stuff on this in other places, like I think in the "Why you believe what you believe" thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think it's obvious that how much one enjoys something is not an indicator as to whether something is moral or not. Some sadists have really enjoyed their cruelty, I'm sure. Thieves have greatly enjoyed their winnings. However, I think that in every society up to now, people have held to certain basic moral laws. Inked has posted some splendid stuff on this in other places, like I think in the "Why you believe what you believe" thread.

Morality is determined by society and routinely changes. Today Marc Anthony would be in jail for child molestation - yet in roman times it was common for adult men to have 13 year old boys as lovers. This is just an example of how morality changes through the years.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Morality is determined by society and routinely changes. Today Marc Anthony would be in jail for child molestation - yet in roman times it was common for adult men to have 13 year old boys as lovers. This is just an example of how morality changes through the years.

I guess this is the wrong thread for the discussion. Else I would analyze and then begin to argue.