Originally posted by no1marauder
What gays seek is to enter into a civil contract (that's the definition in NY and most states) with rights, privileges and responsibilities which are a matter of law in the United States. No one would assert that a gay person should be incapable to enter into any other civil contract; getting a loan, buying a car, etc. Therefore, it is incumbent on those who wish to deny gays the right to enter into the civil status of marriage to give at the very least a rational reason why they should be so discriminated against (discriminated meaning treated differently; whether the discrimination is illegal depends on why you are being discriminated against).
Alright, I'll give it a shot.
Every civil contract, by its nature, automatically disqualifies a certain class of people from entering into it. If one wishes to obtain a (secured) loan, one must prove that the collateral is one's property. The same if one wishes to enter a contract of sale or lease of property. I don't know how it is in the US but, in my country, one must provide a valid driving licence before purchasing a car. These are not examples of people being discriminated against - merely that they are disqualified from entering into a particular kind of contract.
Marriage, as a human institution and a civil contract, has had one consistent feature throughout the history of human civilisation - it has always been between one man and one woman. Even in societies that permit polygamy and polyandry - each individual opposite-sex pairing has been considered an independent marriage, regardless of the status of other pairings involving one or both parties. This fundamental feature of marriage disqualifies two parties of the same sex from entering into it.
Note - gays are not discriminated against when they wish to enter into the "social contract" of marriage with a person of the opposite sex. When two people of the same sex (whether homosexual or heterosexual) are refused recognition of the contract of marriage they are entering into, neither party is being discriminated against due to their sex/gender or their sexuality. Rather, it is the validity (not just legality) of the contract itself that is being questioned. If a contract for the sale of a property was entered into by two parties, neither of whom own the property in question, the contract is not recognised.
One might argue here that the same could've been said about inter-racial marriages. True - certain societies impose additional conditions on the manner in which they recognise marriages. Most governments today would not recognise marriages with minors. Duress, in most cases, is sufficient to invalidate/"annul" a marriage. However, inter-racial marriages have been a fact of life in many parts of the world for centuries where interactions between races has existed. One could argue, therefore, that human history provides a precedent to interracial marriages. In all these cases, however, the age, class, race, religion etc. of the parties has never been fundamental to the nature of the institution itself - the complementary nature of their sexes is. Why is this fundamental? Because marriage is the building block of another of man's oldest institutions - the family. The primary sociological reason for the existence of the family (and hence, marriage) is the procreation of mankind the provision of a secure environment for the upbringing of children.
The striking down of anti-miscegenation laws rested on the fact that such laws rested solely on "arbitrary and invidious [racial] discrimination" (Loving v. VA). The requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman is neither arbitrary nor invidious.
It is unsuprising that gay marriage has not been recognized in the US; it was only last year that the Supreme Court finally said that engaging in homosexual activity couldn't get you thrown in prison! But there is nothing intrinsic about civil marriage that would restrict it to opposite sex couples; the laws regarding tax status, inheritance rights, property rights, etc. of married people have nothing to do with gender.
Intrinsic to the concept of marriage (civil or otherwise) is its primary purpose of providing a social context to the procreation and upbringing of children. This automatically restricts it to opposite-sex couples.
Polygamy is a patriachal, obedience driven system which is incompatible with a democratic free society. Women are left in an inferior position which is contrary to our ideas of equality. As it relies on male dominance, it is also more likely to lead to spousal and child abuse. ... Incest can raise the risk of genetic diseases and abnormalities. Close relatives who engaged in incest would be likely to suffer severe psychological harm. ... Please note I gave rational reasons for the outlawing of incest and polygamy.
One common feature of your refutations of both these types of marriage is the impact it has on the children involved. It is well-known social wisdom that the best environment for the upbringing of a child is in a family with one parent of either sex:
1. "While scholars continue to disagree about the size of the marital advantage and the mechanisms by which it is conferred, the weight of social science evidence strongly supports the idea that family structure matters and that the family structure that is most protective of child well-being is the intact, biological, married family." (Baker, Joshua; Gallagher, Maggie. Do Mothers and Fathers Matter? The Social Science Evidence on Marriage and Child Well-Being., Institute for Marriage and Public Policy , WA)
2. "Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research." (Stephen Nock, sociologist at the Univ. of Virginia, providing his comments on hundreds of studies of same-sex parenting as an expert witness for the attorney general of Canada)
Please return the favor and give me rational reasons for outlawing gay marriage, not just try to eliminate the issue by defining civil marriage in such a way as to forever exclude gays from it.
Refer section above.
Note - I have no opposition to same-sex couples enjoying other benefits of marriage - tax breaks, joint property rights, visitation rights etc. under a civil union. My opposition would be to two things alone - the right to adopt children (for reasons similar to the one listed above) and the term "marriage" (which has a clear, unambiguous meaning in the history of all societies) being applied to such a union.
By the logis c of those courts, the banning of interracial marriage would have been OK because it had always been banned in most of the country until the 1950's; thus the definition of marriage wouldn't have included an interracial couple.
Actually, there wouldn't have been a definition of marriage at all. Marriage then, as now, was commonly understood (in all conversations, legislation and rulings) as being between a man and a woman. Even when refusing the validity of an interracial marriage, no authority could deny that a marriage (as commonly understood) had, in fact, taken place. It is only the legality of that "contract" that was in question. With same-sex couples, however, the question is whether a marriage even occurred in the first place.
Originally posted by nemesioNemesio, why are you willing to debate polygamy and incest but not gay marriage? I gave possible reasons for those laws; you and everybody else has failed to give any reason for to ban gay marriages.
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
Polygamy is a patriachal, obedience driven system which is
incompatible with a democratic free society. Women are left in an
inferior position which is contrary to our ideas of equality. As it ...[text shortened]... ents can be turned against homosexuality.
No go, #1.
Nemesio
many people claim that homosexuality leads to promiscuity and associated health risks to the public.
The reason above is an argument for banning homosexuality (and sex) entirely, which is already settled by Lawrwncw v. Texas that the state cannot. Same sex marriages would reduce promiscuity and any health risks the same as opposite sex marriage does by attaching legal and emotional commitment to one person. So that argument is just wrong; but it's at least an argument.
Remember that many people argue that homosexuals come from
disproportionately disfunctional or abusive homes (relative to the
so-called 'normal' people) and, as a result, have psychologically
unstable relationships.
This is again an argument for banning homosexuality (which legally can't be done). All the psychological and other evidence shows that married people are generally happier, live longer, are less likely to commit crime, etc. etc. Again this is an argument for gay marriage (those emotional unstable people would be in a better psychological state), not against it.
So whether those arguments can be turned against "homosexuality" or not, they certainly can't be turned against gay marriage. And I think it's very revealing that you have used an invitation to make arguments against to ban gay marriage
and to instead use arguments to ban homosexuality.
Why do gays wish to marry? If they can get every single tangible benefit that marriage endows in a social contract, without actually marrying, why do some still wish to marry? No1 has made a convincing argument that gays are being discriminated against by being denied the automatic rights and responsibilities that are inherent in a marriage, but what if those rights and responsibilities were available to people who wished to become a couple without actually marrying? Let's just say by entering into a contract. (This could include heterosexual couples) Would this satisfy gay couples' wishes to have their unions legitimized, or are there some emotional, intangible reasons involved?
Originally posted by no1marauder
Nemesio, why are you willing to debate polygamy and incest but not gay marriage? I gave possible reasons for those laws; you and everybody else has failed to give any reason for to ban gay marriages.
I can't provide a legal argument against gay marriage. I've told you that before. I recognize your well-formed argument about 'compelling state interest.'
However, you will note that I am quick to point out that these same arguments that you provide are applicable to polygamy and incest.
Originally posted by no1marauder
So whether those arguments can be turned against "homosexuality" or not, they certainly can't be turned against gay marriage. And I think it's very revealing that you have used an invitation to make arguments against to ban gay marriage
and to instead use arguments to ban homosexuality.
#1, I know you want to paint me as the bad guy here. You are refusing to acknowledge that we agree that there is no legal argument against gay marriage.
But, just as the arguments that other people make towards 'homosexuality' are bogus (as you pointed out), so too would your arguments against polygamy and incest be considered bogus. Since arguments against polygamy and incest would be untennable, then there is no legal reason to keep multiple people or related couples from marrying.
I'll say it again: I cannot create a legal argument against gay marriage. But, too, you cannot create a legal argument against polygamous marriage or marriage between related people.
The issue at discussion here is 'unions,' and so an argument about the legality of all different kinds of unions and the orientations/proclivities of folk who would desire these unions is perfectly legitimate
If you are comfortable with allowing all unions amongst consenting adults, then we don't have anything more to talk about.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioIf you are comfortable with allowing all unions amongst consenting adults, then we don't have anything more to talk about.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]Nemesio, why are you willing to debate polygamy and incest but not gay marriage? I gave possible reasons for those laws; you and everybody else has failed to give any reason for to ban gay marriages.
I can't provide a legal argument against gay marriage. I've told you that before. I recognize your well- ...[text shortened]... ll unions amongst consenting adults, then we don't have anything more to talk about.
Nemesio[/b]
Nemesio, I said that three and a half months ago! I'll dig up the statement in the August gay marriage thread if you wish. However, your insistence that if you believe that gay marriages must be allowed than you must also logically believe that polygamy and adult incest be allowed is incorrect. It depends on the validity of the interests and arguments against allowing the particular practice. I think the fact that millions of gay Americans would likely get married in the near future if they were legally allowed to make it a far more important issue than polygamy and incest so that's why I talk about it and not them.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sorry 🙁
If you are comfortable with allowing all unions amongst consenting adults, then we don't have anything more to talk about.
Nemesio, I said that three and a half months ago! I'll dig up the statement in the August gay marriage thread if you wish.
I didn't know you conceded the point that polygamy and incest should be legally permissible. 🙁
The reason I think that this is relevant is because, at the fundament of all of this discussion, is
the defintion of the nature of a 'union,' be it homosexual, heterosexual, interrelational, or multi-
sexual (polygamy).
You don't need to dig up the post, this concession is sufficient.
Sorry to have bothered you.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Intrinsic to the concept of marriage (civil or otherwise) is its primary purpose of providing a social context to the procreation and upbringing of children. This automatically restricts it to opposite-sex couples.
Are you saying that a couple who sought to get married but expressed that they would never
have (or could not have) children should be denied their request?
What about couples (irrespective of gender) who planned to adopt? Did their marriages take
place without this so-called intrinsic property of procreation?
The only intrinsic element to marriage is consent (and ideally love, but I wouldn't legistlate that
either).
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you also believe that single people also do not have the right to adopt?
I have no opposition to same-sex couples enjoying other benefits of marriage - tax breaks, joint property rights, visitation rights etc. under a civil union. My opposition would be to two things alone - the right to adopt children (for reasons similar to the one listed above) and the term "marriage" (which has a clear, unambiguous meaning in the history of all societies) being applied to such a union.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere is a lot that is simply not true in this post: marriage is not primarily for procreation now if it ever was (illegitimate births have always been a high percentage of births, people can and do get married who cannot have children, etc.), the institution of marriage has undergone many fundamental changes and the laws regarding it are constantly in flux: it has no "fixed" meaning, what is "well known social wisdom" changes over time, etc, etc. However, since you state you would have no objection to same sex couples having marital rights (with one appalling exception), to me the argument just drops to a pointless semantic exercise except for two things:
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
What gays seek is to enter into a civil contract (that's the definition in NY and most states) with rights, privileges and responsibilities which are a matter of law in the United States. ...[text shortened]... e question is whether a marriage even occurred in the first place.
1) Marriage in the US today is not based on procreation, but is a legal contract granting those who enter into it certain rights, benefits and obligations. If they are to get all these benefits and rights it is absurd to call their union something other than a marriage and the only reason to do so, legally, would be to demean same sex couples and set them apart from everyone else. This would violate the Equal Protection Clause and be an invidious discrimination - we don't want their kind to be called married;
2) Any discrimination in adoption of children would be prima facie a violation of the EPC. There are no studies of how well legally married, same sex couples raise their children as such an entity never existed until May 2004. And note the quote you gave only asserted that there had been "flaws" in the studies of same sex parenting; this is a far cry from proving your bald assertion that all children are better off in male-female households. I assume you would also ban lesbian married couples from being artificially insemminated on the same rationale thus interfering with their basic right to procreate. All based on an assertion that the traditional family is THE proper way to raise children. This is cliche-ridden nonsense.
Gays are entitled to the same rights as everybody else and as Justice Douglas says that includes the right to marry the person of their choice and the right to have children. The only thing that is proven by stating that they have been denied these basic human rights for thousands of years (and often persecuted or even killed for their sexuality), is that its about goddamn time for this shameful treatment of our fellow human beings to end.
1) Marriage in the US today is not based on procreation, but is a legal contract granting those who enter into it certain rights, benefits and obligations. If they are to get all these benefits and rights it is absurd to call their union something other than a marriage and the only reason to do so, legally, would be to demean same sex couples and set them apart from everyone else. This would violate the Equal Protection Clause and be an invidious discrimination - we don't want their kind to be called married; No1
Nobody's demeaning nobody! If I set up a condition whereby gays can enter into a social contract that devolves unto them all the rights etc. of marriage, how are they being discriminated against?
The word 'marriage' is simply a word, yet people are making a huge issue of it both for and against applying it to homosexual unions. Why? Because it has social implications. If a couple is 'married', they get a certain social legitimacy among the populace.
The immense struggle to deny gay people the right to use the word 'marriage' is more than about keeping the dictionary safe. It's not hard to tack on a new definition to the word 'marriage' if we want to, and if we need to (which I am not convinced about). This is a struggle for and against recognizing the equality of homosexual relationships with heterosexual relationships.
I am for homosexuals having the right to use the word simply because it's a gesture of respect for my fellow men and women, and I don't believe it's going to hurt anyone. I cannot comprehend why people so vigorously oppose homosexuals from using the word except blatant discrimination. Nobody has as much passion for a dictionary definition as is being displayed here. How come no one is arguing that women and children don't deserve the same rights as men? (All men are created equal, etc).
Originally posted by KneverKnightIf the US said all marriages between Christians would be called legal marriages, but that all marriages between Jews would be called "civil unions", do you think Jews would not feel discriminated against even if the law treated both statuses the exact same? And don't get hung up on the religious angle: substitute interracial couples, lefthanders, chessplayers or any other group for Jews in the above sentence and ask how would they feel?
1) Marriage in the US today is not based on procreation, but is a legal contract granting those who enter into it certain rights, benefits and obligations. If they are to get all these benefits and rights it is absurd to call their union something other than a marriage and the only reason to do so, legally, would be to demean same sex couples and set th ...[text shortened]... devolves unto them all the rights etc. of marriage, how are they being discriminated against?
Originally posted by no1marauderGood answer, so it's an emotional thing. Such is progress.
If the US said all marriages between Christians would be called legal marriages, but that all marriages between Jews would be called "civil unions", do you think Jews would not feel discriminated against even if the law treated both statuses the exact same? And don't get hung up on the religious angle: substitute interracial couples, lefthand ...[text shortened]... rs, chessplayers or any other group for Jews in the above sentence and ask how would they feel?
Peace
KneverKnight