You're the one who is mistaken.

Read the California state constitution. You won't find anything about marriage being a right anywhere in there. The closest thing to it you're going to find is the equal protection clause, and the courts formed an opinion based on it, that opinion being that California's equal protection clause prevents discriminating against same-sex marriages (Nothing about gays, in general). As the court exists to make ensure that every law is in-line with the Constitution (First the U.S., Constitution, then Federal statutes and then the state constitution), then their opinion would trump a law they deem to be in violation of the constitution (Which Proposition 22 was). Okay. Fine. That's the democratic process at work. Prop 8 was an entirely different monster all together, as it amended the state constitution itself. As such, there is no legal basis on which to claim it's "unconstitutional". The amendment changed the thing the courts are supposed to base their decisions on and the courts have a duty to uphold the constitution, regardless of how "wrong" or "unfair" one might view it to be.

But, see, that's not even the point. The point, as I understand, is whether or not Prop 8 should have even been allowed on the ballot to begin with and, from what I understand, is that the court is going to rule on Prop 8's side on the whole "amendment/revision" issue, since it did not fundamentally alter the state's governing structure. But like I said, I expect Prop 8 to be upheld and all those gays who married before the ballot passed would stay married, as there is nothing in Prop 8 that would indicate it was intended to invalidate all marriages that had been performed prior to election day, which would make sense since no marriages had been performed at the time it was drafted.

But, *shrugs*, we'll see what happens in about 12 hours.

Nothing that you said speaks to or discounts anything that I said.

Oh well, then.

And... The court upholds Prop 8.

Well, I guess they're going to have to wait.

I see. Then by my understanding of the law, we'll (we meaning pro gay-rights people) need to propose a new amendment to counter this one in the next election cycle? Can we do that or is there some sort of waiting period?

I was just looking at some interesting polling numbers on the support for Prop 8.

Apparently, old, heterosexual, upper-middle-class, Christian, gun-owing conservatives are mainly responsible for passing the measure.

Shocking.

There's no waiting period and, yes, you can propose a new amendment to vote on in either 2010 or 2012. Well, assuming there isn't a vote to make it harder to amend the California state constitution first, which I expect will probably be the next step for opponents of gay marriage.

That sure would be ironic. Pass an amendment to prevent the reversal of the policy that you got passed because the system was lenient. Genius.

Also.

Welcome to 1850.

More shocking to the rest of the world is that California has plenty of old, heterosexual, upper-middle-class, Christian, gun-owing conservatives. Yep, we're a microcosm for the rest of the country in a lot of ways.

they did the same thing with their budget and keeping the government floating...

not surprising. they been doing that since I was a kid.

Blame the system, not the people who follow procedures set forth by that system.

Is that anything like "don't hate the player, hate the game"?

Nope.

A shameful decision passed down by a band of cowards.

This is clearly a breach of UN human rights legislation and international law - sadly America is by far not the only country responsible for human rights abuses against homosexuals in this manner - there is hardly a nation in the world who should not hang their heads.

Still, it would not have passed if not for overwhelming support by Blacks.

It would not have passed had it not been for less than 600,000 people, which in California is a relatively small amount. With voter turnout at under 80%, it's not really a big thing.

The fact that the fucking CONSTITUTION can be amended by a 52% popular vote is a goddamn joke

this is why california should have a con-con. so that they can deal with that pesky majority rule thing. still though, it does provide a really good example of why people shouldn't take the whole 'we won, we're the majority, what we say should go' thing seriously.

Yes, that's exactly what it's like, but that's about what I expect from him after his years of relegating gays to second class citizens on this board, so, nothing to see here.

You've probably all read the news today, but here are the results...

Wondering what will happen next.

just a theory, but with the court leaving the 18,000 marriages valid, did they purposefully set this up for a federal 14th amendment challenge?

Excuse me? Not agreeing with gay marriage = "relegating gays to second class citizens"? Strawman, much?

No. They were just following legal precedent. And gay rights advocates would be dumb to take the case to SCOTUS atm, as they're setting themselves up for an almost assured defeat given DOMA and the current make-up of the court. And a defeat there would be worse than a simple defeat in a state court as any decision SCOTUS reaches is legally binding on all state courts.

But it still leaves open 14th Amendment (and other legal) challenges.

which precedent? That there is now no 'equal protection' for the numerous other gay couples that didn't get to marry? or that 18,000 marriages are recognized because they happened to slide in before the lock? I see a 14th Amendment challenge coming.

Laws have never been applied retroactively unless they were stated to be applied retroactively beforehand. Prop 8 never stated this, in part because it was drafted before any same-sex marriages had been performed. As a result, the courts simply decided that Prop 8 couldn't be used to invalidate every same-sex marriage performed in California-- Just those occurring after Prop 8 was passed.

But, like I said, good luck with the 14th Amendment challenge. I don't see that going very far, especially with DOMA in the way. And then there's the fact that Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will almost certainly vote against any such arguments brought forth by gay rights advocates, which would mean that gay rights advocates would have to get the other five justices to vote in their favor. They'd most likely get Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer. I don't know anything about the new lady, so I can't comment. I don't see Kennedy siding with the more liberal wing, as while he's generally supportive of gay rights, he's always stopped short of insinuating that the government should have to legally recognize any relationship that gays enter into. So, at best, I'd see a 5 - 4 split against gay advocates, at worst a 6 - 3 split.

I'm pretty sure gay rights advocates know this, so they won't try to press the issue in a Federal court. Sure, they could win, but they probably wouldn't and losing there would be a major blow to their cause.

Giving rights to some people and not other people based on immutable characteristics is the very definition of relegating someone to a second class citizen. You not liking what you are doesn't change it.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------

Unfortunately, a 14th Amendment challenge will go nowhere. It's language has been read on numerous occasions to exclude sexuality (homosexuality, transsexualism, etc.) and the current courts do not have the proper make up to change that-assuming that it'd even be a good idea for them to do so. Even being a staunch advocate for gay marriage, I think constitutional amendments are the way to grant them rights, just as we did with sex and gender. Unfortunately, that just means it's going to take some time.

And I agree. Too bad for you marriage isn't a right.

a con-con?

Isn't that the one with Frank Sinatra and Shirley MacLaine?

Ring-a-Ding, Ding, Ding.

right, privilege, Happy Meal Toy.....whatever you want to call it, it's being granted carte blanche to some (heterosexuals) and denied to others (homosexuals). You can play the semantics game all day, but the facts remain the facts

in the end, this is obviously a numbers game. i would hope that another initiative is mounted, and soon, and that this time people who do not support the relegation of people who happen to be gay to a second-class status will find themselves defeated in california as they have been in state after state.

i look forward to that day.


there is no argument, no belief, no system of beliefs that enables folk to arrogate to themselves the prerogative to tell people who are not them who they can and cannot choose to love.

That sounds about right.

well this is totally false. All one needs to do is look up cases that were affected by the Lautenberg amendment.


They'd have to be fools if they do, unless they can come up with a very convincing opinion laying out why equal protection doesn't apply in this particular instance....other than the standard 'we disagree' sentence. Doing so would basically render the USSC irrelevant and people and states would tell the feds to finally fuck off.

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

con-con is short for constitutional convention.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

say what? and you can prove that it isn't? for instance, you can show in any state constitution that it says you can only marry who the state says you can?

Wait. What states are those? Because I must have missed them.

And, for the love of God man, disagreeing with gay marriage does not equal "relegating gays to second class citizenry".

You can love whom you wish. No one's ever debated that.

Well, I have to say that's news to me because the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits retroactive laws.

Not really. You're assuming that sexuality is a suspect class offered full protection under the 14th Amendment.

Huh? 20-something states, I believe, have passed constitutional amendments which limit marriage to one man and one woman.

What facts? What argument? Gays are not specifically prohibited from marrying nor are they specifically targeted by any measure. Your problem is that you assume the latter two statements to be true whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that there is no fundamental difference in limiting marriages based on the genders of the persons looking to be wed and limiting marriages based on age, consanguinity or even number of persons looking to be wed. Yes, I went there.

Passing it off as semantics doesn't make it semantics. It means that you don't fully understand what it is you're arguing about/for. You can argue for same-sex marriages all you want, but to insinuate denying people the ability to enter into same-sex marriages is discriminatory is simply inane.

One would think that, especially since it says right in the constitution that there shall be no ex-post facto laws, but you'd be wrong. I was shocked also, as were lots of other gun owners.

and if this country actually had a supreme court that ruled via the constitution and the rule of law, there wouldn't need to be. We are, however, lorded over by a federal government that makes up rulings on the fly as it wants or needs to.

and for those states, great. They actually went through the process of amending their constitution. It's sad to see that they were goaded in to giving their state governments the power to discriminate though. But that's what happens when we have a nation of cowards.

states where gay folk can marry:

* Connecticut
* District of Columbia
* New Hampshire
* New Jersey
* New York
* Maine
* Massachusetts
* Vermont
* Iowa
* Oregon
* Washington

Well, now I know, though I'm not so sure how that's constitutional, much less legal.

If that were to happen then there would be an awful lot of SCOTUS rulings over the past 40 years that would have been thrown out, which is part great, part not-so-great.

Wait. How were they "goaded" into anything? You don't have to like the process by which they did it, but it's a right allowed to them by their respective constitutions unless the U.S. Constitution, or SCOTUS, says otherwise.

This isn't totally true.

Only four, five in September, allow SSM to be performed within their borders: NH, NJ, Iowa, Maine and Massachutes. The others provide some sort of recognition for same-sex marriages performed out of state but do not perform them themselves. And, even then, I was asking you what state has legalized SSM by popular vote? The answer is none of them. So I don't understand your whole "move out of the way and be defeated as they have in state after state" quip.

You've said this before, and it's still wrong. Gays have insisted on being permitted to marry, and they have been denied.

Because they're gay. That is discriminatory.

The ONLY reason they aren't allowed to marry is because they're gay. They can't marry because they're gay. Gay couples cannot be married because they're the same sex. There is nothing else out of the ordinary. John and Tony cannot get married because they'd need to deny their sexuality and find women to do that. Beth and Tammy have the same problem, except they'd need to break up and find men.

How many other ways can I put this?

Leave minors, consanguinity, and polygamy out of this. Gays aren't going for any of those things any more or less than heterosexuals.

If a member of the clergy is willing to marry gays, what right does the state have in denying that?

Denying same-sex marriage in a way is a refusal to accept gays as "legitimate" couples. It sends a statement to all gay couples: You are not a real relationship.

That's not quite true, though. As this one exchange between you and IL goes, he's right and you're wrong. Gays are allowed to marry under the same conditions that others are allowed marriage. There's really no way around that fact. They're denied - wrongly, of course - their preferred version of marriage, but heterosexuals are denied the same.

A better tact is to question why the government bestows special privileged upon one type of committed union and not this other type. Why do certain heterosexual couples get to file jointly but not any homosexual couples? Why can't homosexuals with kids get the same tax breaks that heterosexuals with kids do? Why can't homosexuals arrange for hospital visitation rights as heterosexuals can?

Or alternately, for those who have a partial deal, why is it that heterosexuals get all these perks in one easy package while homosexuals have to jump through hoops?

It's my suspicion that the anti-gay marriage position is ultimately just plain indefensible without resorting to some theocratic perspective (however veiled), but myspaceish mischaracterizations like "how can you deny people the right to love who they love??!?" really help to muddy questions of each side's relative credibility.

..

my my timalkin, what a noxious little sentence.

since when in NY? We attended a wonderful commitment ceremony of a lovely gay lesbian couple and it was a commitment ceremony beause they couldn't get married in the traditional sense.

or better yet, how.

..

this is a meme that the anti-gay marriage people like to cling to. the options aren't "draw a line here or erase the line entirely". one can choose to move the line. I dont' for a second buy the argument that allowing same-sex marriages opens the floodgates for people marrying their moms, sisters and dogs.

You realize that your exact same argument was made by those who opposed interracial marriage. In fact, you can replace the phrase "same-sex" with "interracial" in nearly every current argument and you'd have a carbon copy of the argument that was made a few decades ago....

^^^^^ Exactly.

Okay, then give us you reasons for denying them the option to marry so we can understand better. Explain how you justify it in a way that doesn't draw the line between two groups of citizens

Children and animals cannot properly consent to sexual relationships.

I've always found this confusing.

Gays shouldn't be able to marry in the same way that people shouldn't be able to marry horses and toddlers.

WTF?

Wait a minute! We should ABOLISH marriage, because there is always the RISK that one day ALL of this will be permitted! Marriage at its essence is too dangerous! Heterosexual marriage can only lead to the marriage to the devil!

Let's abandon this marriage experiment.

I don't understand why folks who aren't involved in a marriage think that it is any less valid than any other. "Because that's the way it's always been" seems like a particularly lazy excuse since slavery, facial hair requirements and unreversable sworn loyalty to a superior (regardless of their competency) all have died out in Western society, and they're all examples of "the way it is." Of course, those against gay marriage also tend to be those who want to keep folks from buying sex toys or alcohol at random times or making sure that none of their precisious snowflakes ever learn to think for themselves.

Then again, my kids have at least 4 friends being raised by same-sex couples, and they're all great parents.

You do know that some of the first mentions of marriage in the bible actually refer to polygamy, right? David, Solomon, Abraham were all polygamists... So the concept of marriage has changed, without necessarily meaning that anything goes.

timalkin: i'll use caps so you follow this one, ok?

The backwater meme you repeated above: it's fucking idiotic.
There's nothing to discuss because it's not worth taking seriously.

Motion seconded.

I'm fine with a complete separation of church and state on marriage. Let church's "marry" who they want, but strip them of any legal rights (priests/pastors can no longer sign marriage certificates, etc.) Make any civil unions be a purely government/paperwork exercise, and don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

-- Sure. As soon as you tell me where the line is.

Remember, I am not calling for Gays not to be able to marry.
I feel the individual states should make the call.

That way when the next group says, "If marraige isn't between a man and a woman, why is it restricted to just two people?" and the battle starts again, individual states can find their own solutions.

So tell me, how are you going to respond to polygomists who say, "My civil rights are being violated because I can't be married to more than one person at once."

Or the 60 year old lady who wants to marry her sister, not out of love but so she will be covered by her health benefits.

Both of those examples come from Anderson Cooper from CNN. Those people at the protests gave CNN those reasons for supporting Gay marraige.

They, by their own admission, don't care about gays. They just want the definition of marraige to change so they can then sue to have it cover them, as well.

I have no say in the matter, so they wouldn't be pleading their cases to me. I would, however, like to hear the arguments.

-- I am not sure if the interviews are on YouTube or not.
Their argument is basically this:

If marraige is no longer defined as just between a man and a woman, then it can no longer be defined as just between two people.

They state that there is no argument for removing just the gender restrictions. If they can remove that, there is no way they can argue against removing the number restrictions.

What argument would they use against expanding the definition further? Tradition? Societal norms? etc. etc. If those arguments wouldn't wash for gays, it wouldn't/shouldn't wash for polygamists.

Same with WHO you marry. Why can't sisters marry if the reason is simply to ensure one has medical coverage or right to life insurance benefits?

They also brought up NAMBLA. Why can't there be a 'marraige' between a man and a boy? Their argument is based on the fact that in some states, a minor can leave school without parent's knowledge to get an abortion. If a child can be thought mature enough to choose to have a surgical procedure, they are mature enough to be married. The way around it would be a promise for it to be a 'plutonic' relationship until age of consent.

So I ask, where woul the line be? And more to the point...how would you justify it?
Apparently 'the will of the people' in a legal vote isn't enough to satisfy.

I don't think labeling over half the population of CA as homophobes is going to fly in the next round.

you move the line one case at a time. The line will never move to incest (even if it's a non-sexual, monetary/benefit based partnership), and the NAMBLA argument is moot because minors can't enter a legal contract.

And again, look at this slightly modified version of your post:

Those who opposed interracial marriage found that slope was nowhere close to being as slippery as they had forecast....

The line for me is consent. Homosexual couples can give knowing consent, heterosexual couples can give knowing consent, polygamous couples (or triples or quadruples, etc.) can give knowing consent and incestuous couples can give knowing consent. I know a lot of people will have trouble wrapping their heads around those last two, but no one is forcing you into those relationships so it's really none of your business. Even if the people next door are in a polygamous homosexual incestuous relationship, it's none of your business just like a heterosexual couple is none of your business.

Children cannot give consent, animals cannot give consent, and non-living objects cannot give consent. Also, some mentally disabled people cannot give consent, which might also cause some head-wrapping troubles.

For the record, Willravel is against the sybian, dildos, vibrators, blow-up dolls, strap-ons, sex swings, anal beads, various fruits and vegetables, the Fleshlight, vibrating panties and any other sex toy that I've forgotten.

Derwood, you say incenstuous relationships will never be approved, even if plutonic but Willravel is already stating that the standard he has would allow it.
I have a sneaking suspicion he is far from alone.


The 'Interracial marraige' argument doesn't fly because interracial marraige still meant two people and a man and a woman. The guidelines for what marraige was considered at the time was one of the main supporting reasons for them to be allowed to marry.

a guideline that is arbitrary and unsupported by the Constitution. "Tradition" is a terrible reason to support anything

Aww crap, good point. Amendment: consent from any life form.
They may very well never be approved by law. Still, the main stigma attached to incest, that offspring would be genetically weaker, is demonstrably false unless incest has taken place over several generations. If that verifiable information can be made common knowledge, the only real objection to incest would be the same as homosexuality: namely religion and "the ick factor". I don't think either of these constitutes a good enough reason to outlaw social rights.

But this is just my opinion, and no it's not all that common. Most social progressives do not support legalization of polygamy or incestuous relationships. I'm in the extreme minority.

Edit: I should get some award for inspiring The_Jazz to type "sybian".

-- Just like Gay Marraige. Yet here we are.

You claim to be fine with gay marriage, yet you vehemently defend those who want it to remain illegal.

If marriage is a legal contract offered by the government, then they cannot use sexual orientation to discriminate who can/cannot enter into that contract.

Really? How sure of that are you? I've got actual historical records in the form of family archives stating that a scientific poll of several counties in Mississippi considered miscegination to be a crime against nature. I've got the actual polling data somewhere on a disk at home. If I can find it easily, I'll post it. When folks consider a black person and a white person to be entirely different things, the playing field changes.

Attitudes change, my friend. They always have. My great-great-grandfather, who was not a particularly good human being by anyone's definition (and was eclipsed in the son-of-a-bitch catagory by his son, my great-grandfather), participated in a lynching in Mississippi of a black man that got caught receiving the services of a white whore. My dad has the postcard that memorialized that particular event. I don't really share their believes on miscegnation, though.

I cannot conceive how people today say "well race is different than sexuality" when people made all the same arguments about interracial marriage not 50 years ago. I guess the bottom line is that nothing about this is logical. It's an emotional response, and you can't really reason with that. You just have to show it reason and hope it comes around.

As an aside, I have no problems with any consensual adult relationships. We have at LEAST two sets of members involved in long term, committed polygamous relationships that are as loving and stable as anything any straight couple could hope for. I can't conceive of any reason they shouldn't share the same rights and responsibilities that I share with my wife. I don't have any specific problem with consensual adult incestuous relationshps either. People can love and fuck who they want to.

Now...I don't think that private organizations should be forced to marry people they don't want to, but I don't think the government has any business limiting who can receive those benefits so long as the parties are both adults and there is no coercion.

three words:
"slippery slope fallacy."

If you are against gay marriage itself, then at least be honest and defend that position.

If you are against incest, bestiality and polygamy, then be against incest, bestiality, and polygamy by themselves. No need to prevent gay marriage to prevent that.

Thanks for being one of the few who use "slippery slope" correctly and recognize it as a fallacy rather than a justification for one's position.

Polygamy could get rather interesting. A single person with great healthcare benefits could marry many other single persons in a state, one way to achieve universal healthcare. I don't think love or sex is a marriage requirement even under today's laws.:)

I think you'll find that it's rare that anyone will admit to being against gay marriage itself, because it is a position that's impossible to defend without implicitly coming out as a bigot. Since most bigots are also cowards, many of them tend to cling to a rather long list of convenient, if skin deep, reasons for being against gay marriage.

For instance,

-God doesn't like it
-Then puppies will want to marry Italians
-Then zombies will want to marry vampires
-Marriage is only for procreation
-Gays can't raise kids
-Blllaaaaaargh State's Rights
-Gays are unnatural

These shallow lines of reasoning really only serve the purpose of helping said bigots deflect any sort of encroaching notions of how little they would actually be affected by the widespread ability of gays to marry each other.

Only really for exceptionally broad definitions of 'bigot'. It's definitely an authoritarian position, and I have difficulty seeing how it avoids being a theocratic position, but you have to water down the word to make it encompass the entire opposition.

I don't know how much farther you can expand it beyond either a biblical verse, "eww", or "Hannity told me so it must be true" (which isn't even a position so much as it is everything that's wrong with our species). I know it doesn't represent every single position, but it's a vast majority.

I combined all of the items you listed into one:

God doesn't like when Italian puppies marry vampire zombies. Marriage for procreation makes raising kids unnatural Blllaaaaaargh!
What?

Minorities have been through situations where the majority gets to decide their rights. It's happened before and the final outcome is probably going to be that we do get the right to marry. It's really a matter of time of when.

Was this a response to me? Yes, those three taken together probably make up the vast majority, but that first 'biblical verse' portion isn't implicitly bigoted. Again, unless you want to water down the term.

And I know he must have a decent-sized fanbase, but I've met maybe two or three Hannity fans in my entire life. Even friends who like Limbaugh or O'Reilly tend to regard Hannity as kinda stupid.

..

What I'm saying is that these people are bigots, and that they only embrace these ridiculous justifications for their bigotry to avoid admitting to being a bigot.

---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------

Can you give any reason why allowing gays to marry has anything to do with allowing incest?

As far as I can tell, the only thing standing in the way of incestuous marriage is popular opinion.

Gays aren't denied the right to marry because they're gay. If they were, that law would be struck down faster than it could reach a court, as it would signal out a specific group of people (Gays). Bans on marriages which don't adhere to the whole, "One man, one woman" mantra, while "discriminating" against gays, also equally "discriminates" against groups who do not fall into the "one man, one woman" category.

No, they can't be married because of who they're trying to marry, not because they're gay.

Correct. The issue is who they're marrying, not the fact that they're gay.

But why? Granted, I'm not saying that SSM is equivalent those other things, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that bans on SSM are equally "discriminatory" to gays as they are to, say, polygamists.

Because marriage is a social construct regulated by the state, not the church.

We've been over this before. If someone's relationship is only "legitimized" by marriage, then I'm not so sure they're relationship is real, anyway.

I can't.

And I couldn't care less. If someone wants to screw and marry his sister or his mom or his fifth cousin, that's not my business. If they want the rights and responsibilities that I gain from and owe to my wife, I'm happy for them to have it. All I ask is informed consent. I mean, I think it's strange. I don't want to do it, but a cursory search of pornography will show you that incest fantasies are downright common.

The "child" line is flexible and arbitrary, as you said, but there's something inherently different about children and their ability to make sexual decisions and adults, even if those adults make decisions you don't agree with. We call people legally children and legally adults based on when we as a society decide they can make informed decisions about their lives-which includes taking into account consequences and long term impacts. If some theoretical society decides that 9 year olds understand "sex" well enough to make decisions about sex, I guess that'd be strange.

But, I think that children, much more so than incest and polygamy, is a total red herring in the gay marriage discussion. The revulsion to pedophilia is much more common and much more extreme because so many more people recognize that it's scary and dangerous TO THE ABUSED CHILD. People don't worry about gay people being harmed by their relationships in the way you worry about a priest or a teacher or a random person abusing a kid, because it's a different concern. Likewise with adult, consensual incest and polygamy. Those relationships make people uncomfortable for, in part, historical reasons and social taboos, not because of a fear that someone is taking advantage of another who doesn't understand the consequences and long term impact of the situation.

Edit: After IL's post, you don't get to say "marriage is for the state" in a post like that. The reason the vast majority people are against gay marriage is religious. If Mormons don't want to marry gays in the Mormon church, that's one thing. I would defend their right to do that every time (though I still disagree with it).

It is an undeniable fact that the very effective campaign against Prop 8 was financed in no significant by the Mormon Church, not to deny gays the right to get married in their church, but to deny them legal rights as married couples. The fact is that churches and people thinking in the context of their church are making decisions that impact other people who are not part of their church. I'm not making a church/state argument, just that it's impossible to extricate the two, given how both individuals and church institutions react when same sex marriage is on the table. I cannot conceive of a legitimate reason that state marital privileges should not be extended to any consenting adults who wish to marry. All the examples people bring up have irrational "ew" connected to them, which means pretty much nothing to me. Governance should not be based on ew.

One could very easily read the Bible as a source of incredible bigotry without any watering down. It's blatantly sexist and racist, no two ways about it, and what little it does say about homosexuality isn't made clear beyond "it's an abomination". There's no argument made other than "God doesn't like it", and even those passages are highly suspect. Verses surrounding anti-gay verses are regularly ignored by all Christians (I don't need to repeat verses about shellfish), which leads me to suspect—though now know for sure—that the Bible is more often than not a thin veil covering just another case of "eww".
I intended to include all the idiot right-wing talking heads with that. ORly, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., anyone dogmatically spewing hatred as a representative of the dark far right.

I'm sorry but all the back and forthing on this issue over the years only leaves me with one conclusion: there is no reason to not permit gay marriage.

Whatever you wish to call it there is no justification for not allowing this that passes the sniff test... it's simple bigotry and foot dragging conservatism.

One thing that this thread is showing is that the "Gay Marriage will lead to Polygamy/Incest" meme is working on many people. If you continue to use the terms in the same sentence over and over, people start equating them all the time. It ceases to be "Gay marriage leads to incest" and starts being "gay marriage = incest"

If you're referring to me, then I think you miss the point. I simply don't care if adults want to get married to each other. And I don't care who those adults marry.

Coercion, rape, force, duress and etc. that occur in those relationships are all crimes and should be punished as such but if people have a healthy otherwise legal relationship, I see no reason to prevent them from getting married.

I don't think that's the point you were making, but just to put it out there.

IL:

Call it what you want. If a gay couple can't get married because of gender restrictions, it's discriminatory against gay relationships.

And I'm not implying marriage is a relationship requirement. I meant that denying access to marriage implies gay couples aren't legitimate couples. That's discrimination.

Are gay couples legitimate couples?

If yes, why can they not marry?

If no, isn't that discrimination?

Why must "marry" mean man and woman? Does God not want gays to form unions? Why or why not?

So why allow marriage at all? After all, following this slippery slope fallacy, regular marriage will lead to gay marriage which will lead to incest and all sorts of things.

At the end of the day, you have to use that because you really can't say what you really think, so you have to come up with these sorts of arguments. Still, you have not explained why gay marriage will lead to any of these things, and why fighting to stop gay marriage is the battle to fight.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

I am sorry, but this is just nonsense.

So banning gay marriage is not discriminatory because they still have the right to marry people of the opposite sex? Are you seriously trying to make this argument?

Following your line of thinking, banning inter racial marriage is not discriminatory either, since everyone can still get married...

And I've yet to understand how same sex marriage leads to polygamy. Especially considering that most polygamous relationships are heterosexual in nature. Maybe we should outlaw straight marriage.

I don't see how.

No, it's not discriminatory because no one, gay, straight or otherwise, has the ability to enter into a same-sex marriage. It's not inherently discriminatory against gays.

The ability to marry a person of the opposite gender, which was available to some, was withheld from others. It'd be the same as if some of the population were allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage while another segment of the population was not for no justifiable reason.

Because if the courts deem that the gender of the person being married is arbitrary in deciding if two persons can be wed, then there is no basis under which they could logically claim that limiting marriage to two persons is any less arbitrary than limiting marriage to three, four or even five persons.

I find this funny, as it's inherently contradictory.

No, it's not discriminatory because no one, black, white or otherwise, has the ability to enter into an inter-racial marriage. It's not inherently discriminatory against blacks.

Seriously, it's not discriminatory because whites can't use the blacks' fountains either...:shakehead:

But interracial marriage laws never prevented anyone from marrying someone from the opposite gender. Everyone had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, as long as they were of the same race. How is that any more or less discriminatory than bans on gay marriage? No one, black, white or Native American, had the right to marry someone of a different race, so it must not be discriminatory, following your logic.

Im sorry, but this is basically an admission that you have no solid arguments that a marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman, and so to prevent it you must link it to other, more unpopular types of unions, with the only link again being that you have no solid arguments to oppose those either, so they must be related, and thus must be stopped.

But if you haven't understood why a slippery slope fallacy is a slippery slope fallacy, here's a question:
if your concern with gay marriage is not gay marriage itself, but that it might lead to polygamy, why not simply pass an amendment against polygamy? Why involve gay marriage at all?

I thought you weren't playing the semantics game.

And you STILL haven't quantified (outside of your slippery slope fallacy) why people shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same gender.

Laugh all you want. It doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Even though you tried, this argument ignores the fact that some group of men/women had the ability to marry another group of women/men they "loved" (I don't really want to use that word, but I will), respectively, while another group didn't. And unless there was a valid reason for denying the second group the same ability as the first, then the restrictions on the second group must have be inherently discriminatory. Indeed, since those restrictions were based on race-- Which is considered to be a fully protected class under the 14th Amendment-- Then those restrictions were discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional.

The entire problem with your argument is that you first assume marriage is a right; that sexuality is a class protected by the Constitution; and by denying gays the ability to enter in same-sex marriages that we're discriminating against gays, when we're not. A heterosexual looking to enter into a same-sex marriage will be denied the ability to do so just as a gay person looking to enter in a same-sex marriage will be denied the ability to do so. Yeah, scoff at that argument as you will, but this fact alone keeps it from being an issue of discrimination.

To claim discrimination, a subset of the population must first be allowed the ability to do something while another subset of the population restricted. If you don't have that to begin with, then there-- By definition and by law-- Cannot be discrimination. Gays aren't disallowed from marrying because they're gay. They're disallowed from entering into same-sex unions because they are not consisting of one man and one woman. And until you realize this, then your argument becomes, essentially, moot because you're arguing something which is simply untrue.

See my response to Hektore.

You asked a question and I answered it. And, for the record, there's nothing wrong with there, either. Not only are slippery slopes not always a fallacy, but you're ignoring the fact that there's no reason the courts would have to determine one arbitrary distinction to be any more or less arbitrary than another distinction.

So let me ask you a question, specifically. Which is more arbitrary? Gender of the person you're looking to wed or the number of persons you're looking to wed. And why?

I'm going to reiterate this once more. A slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Understand? Just because you can throw out the term doesn't invalidate an argument.

But, anyway, it's not up to me to prove why same-sex marriage should be illegal, but you to show why it should be legal, since it is you who is trying to change the proverbial status quo. And, so far, the only reason you seem to have is "Because heterosexuals can get married!" which kinda' ignores the fact that gays can get married to-- Just not in the way they'd most like :P

Because a gay man marrying a woman is pointless? Because the status quo isn't always right? Because there is no reason to make one subset of people have to leap through a million hoops to do something that has no affect on you or me whatsoever?

There is absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment that makes race a "protected class" while denying the same for sexual orientation. As such, the first part of your answer is false.

The second part of your answer is not only false, but silly. The whole "but straight people can't enter into a gay marriage either" wins the cake as silliest reasoning. Following that same reasoning, we can not only outlaw interracial marriages, but we can ban anything that affects any group disproportionately, as long as it affects other groups as well. According to this line of thinking, we can outlaw the yarmulke (the Jewish skullcap), for example, and it wouldn't be discriminatory because gentiles wouldn't be able to wear it either.

The third part is not only false, but dishonest. To claim that it is not discrimination because a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman is circular reasoning, especially in the context of the approval of an amendment that defines it that way.


not all slippery slopes are fallacies, but this particular slippery slope is a major fallacy with capital F. You have not answered my question: if the problem is not gay marriage itself, but that it might lead to polygamy, why not an amendment that outlaws polygamy, and not gay marriage? What pisses me off is this transparent attempt to hide one's own bigotry: "you know, I have nothing against them gays, but if they get married the polygamists win." Fess up to your own reasons why you don't want gay marriage. No need to resort to "but it will lead to bigotry" arguments as that is the precise definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

And again with the dishonesty (or at least short memory): it was prop 8 that changed the definition of marriage. It was prop 8 that changed the proverbial status quo.

I guess two white people can enter an interracial marriage thanks to the 14th Amendment. That's pretty impressive.

It's the little things you learn online, will, that really make the biggest difference.

I find it impossible to believe that someone truly thinks that restricting marriage to just one man and one woman isn't discrimination.

Seriously you can't believe someone could have that opinion? Well I guess it's possible other people might not be able to believe that people in favor of gay marriage don't honestly believe it will lead to people marrying their dogs, cats or even the phone book. I thinks that's wrong and I think gay people should have the right to marry whom ever they love. Doesn't mean I think the other side isn't sincere in their opinions.

As for the trolling comments- maybe I'm missing it. I don't see a post where anyone's trolling. If you see it report it. I'll be happy to take a second look.

I think that Infinite_loser has done an admirable job of defending his standpoint. He is eloquent and well-researched. He has done an excellent job of representing an unpopular opinion.

Whether or not Infinite_Loser believes what he writes, he is presenting an excellent argument. I admire him for his choice to debate in this fashion.

If his standpoint is about parsing the semantics of the constitution, he's doing a bang up job. It's still unclear why he's arguing his case so strongly

I didn't say anything about rights. I was pointing out the incredibly obvious, that your argument is the same as the one used for the 'separate but equal' doctrine; that by your line of reasoning banning interracial marriage isn't discrimination. As long as nobody can do it, then there isn't unequal treatment, and when their isn't unequal treatment there isn't discrimination.

Yeah, I got that. And unless you're intently watering down the word, you're wrong.

You could rephrase your absolute to 'most of these people', but I don't see how you'd manage to support that, either. Opposition to gay marriage just doesn't require intolerance toward other groups or opinions. It just doesn't.

They surely go hand-in-hand for some significant portion of the opposition, but that's about as much as one can say without guessing.

We're not equating bigotry to "you shouldn't do that", are we? Because you shouldn't watch Carlos Mencia. Mencia is an abomination. Eww. Can you only be a bigot if you're intolerant toward something that isn't wrong?

It's certainly not a settled debate that the shellfish and homosexuality portions still had equal weight after the formation of the New Testament, but that's beside the point.

Invoking Bible verses does not in and of itself demonstrate bigotry. You can quote Leviticus all you want, but it's quite another thing to find Christians willing to carry out its advocated punishment. Given any one particular Christian, you might well make the case that they're cherry-picking from the Bible, but that's not equivalent to or implicative of bigotry. If they're still not displaying intolerance, they're still not displaying intolerance.

And here's a hint: intolerance can't simply mean disagreement put into political action at some other group's expense. Otherwise, just about everyone involved in politics - if not everyone - is a bigot. Intolerance has to mean more than that, or bigotry means too much and too little.



I intended to include all the idiot right-wing talking heads with that. ORly, Limbaugh, Beck, etc., anyone dogmatically spewing hatred as a representative of the dark far right.[/QUOTE]