NCB

Attacking someone for an argument you cannot defend is not an argument.


Just because they do, doesn't give them the constitutional power to do so. Having 1,3, or 5 judges deciding what should be and what should not be law is not a good thing for a democracy. Communism, yes, but not a democracy.

__________________

guy44

Yeah, I gotta agree with Manx. The judiciary should not be a more or less vestigial organ of the government, existing only to settle disputes with generally predictable outcomes. The judiciary should be a full third of the government, striking down legislation that violates the Constitution (or a state constutution, or whatever) and playing an active role in the governmental process. I'm way way way way more scared of tyranny of the majority than when the Courts actually do their job.

By the way, and I'm just asking, what was your opinion of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore? The way they actively interfered with the state government's right to judiciate itself? After all, elections are state business, and the Bush v. Gore court was very activist.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

NCB

The USSC made the correct decision. If you look at what the FLA courts were doing, they were rewriting election law on the spot. That's not their job. The US SC came in and said that the FLA courts went beyond their duty. What do you think of it? Do you think they should have been rewriting the election law during the middle of an election count?

__________________

Manx

What are you talking about?
Just because they are preventing unconstitutional laws from taking effect doesn't give them the constitutional power to do so? I don't know what that means. Every decision a judge makes is based to some degree on the Constitution.

NCB

Where in the constittuion does it indicate that homosexuals have the right to marry?

__________________

Manx

Where in the Constitution does it indicate that only hetersexuals can marry? It's a question of discrimination. Discrimination is unconstitutional.

But now I understand. You are simply expressing your displeasure at the ruling by claiming the judge did something he shouldn't have. You interpret the Constitution differently than the judge and therefore you disagree with the judge. That doesn't mean the judge has "overstepped his bounds" - it just means you disagree with the outcome.

Which is what I suspected.

arch13

Funny, I just read The Constitution and can't find a mention of hetrosexual marriage either. Or marriage at all.
So are you going to argue that Hetro-sexual marriage is somehow implied in that document?

I wouldn't recomend that argument, as it also entails implying that hetrosexual marriage is by some means more favored and deserves special status.

That document does not address mariage, and stating that it is implied by any of the founding documents of the country is bupkiss. Implied isn't on the page, it wasn't written.
The guiding principals we have are what was written down for us by the founding fathers. Not one ever deemed it important enough to write down, otherwise they would have bothered.

We don't know how they would have felt on the issue, so don't bother trying to claim you have any clue what they would have thought or felt.
All we know is the issue was never mentioned, so the issue is now our responsability to address.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

guy44

NCB, we're better than that. You know and I know and everyone knows that this is a silly statement with no meaning. Where does it say in the Constitution that abortion is legal? Where does it say that schools must desegregate? And yet, somehow, miraculously, the Supreme Court managed to rule on those issues.

It does say in the Constitution that the courts have the rights to decide whether legislation or government rules are constitutional.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

NCB

Silly argument. I can counter with where does it say in the Const. that you cannot do 90MPH in a 55MPH zone, but that would be equally as silly.

So to answer my own question, the homosexual lobby makes it's argument that it's found under the EPC. However, their argument falls short because homosexuals are not prevented from marrying.

__________________

Manx

Are you joking? It's a silly argument when I use the exact same argument you started with?

C'mon!
Nonsense. They are prevented from marrying. Are heterosexuals prevented from marrying the person they want? No. But homosexuals are.

But this is beside my point. I have no interest in debating gay marriage with you. You stated the judge overstepped his bounds, and I pointed out the fallacy of that argument. That's all the interested me here.

guy44

NCB, homosexuals ARE prevented from marrying. That is the whole point of what the California court overruled.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

NCB

No they're not. They're prevented from redefining the institution of marriage to suit their wants. They can marry anytime they want, hence, they are not discriminated against.

__________________

filtherton

Who defines marriage?

arch13

So your saying that "civil union" is marriage, right?
Well then you should be in complete support of removing the marriage laws from the law books of the states and replacing said laws with the laws for civil unions as they are currently worded.
After all, if it is the same thing, then there isn't a difference anyway. Why bother with the word Marriage for hetro or homo if civil union is the same. Unless of course their's a difference between the two you'd like to comment on...

And I'm glad to see we all agree that your mentioning of the Constitution was utterly deviod of any meaning or argument. In that case, you wouldn't mind going back and editing it out.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Manx

Black people wanted to redefine the institution of public schooling. They could have gone to school anytime they wanted, hence, they were not discriminated against.

Black people wanted to sit at the front of the bus. They could have sat at the back of the bus, hence, they were not discriminated against.

NCB

No. Try again


Our society has defined marriage for centuries based on traditional Western values.


If the people here who are for homosexual marriage, then logically they should be for polygamy and incestual marriage as well, so long as it's between consenting adults. However, most of y'all are not. So my question is, why is the magic number set on two people?

__________________

arch13

Please point out the states that allow Gay marriage. Fully and legaly, with no caveat that is not found in a mirrored right to hetro-sexual marriage.

Additionally, Western values also included the handing out of small pox blankets to native peoples and that women where not citizens. Thankfully, western values are fluid and change with society. We are in the middle of a change. That change could go either way, but regardless, none of us can claim that we can define western values in such a way that we could reach consensus. If you so choose to use that phrase, it is hereby relegated to mean only your personal opinion of what western values are, much as any statement I make regarding Western values is only my opinion.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

NCB

If you're referring to same sex "marriage", there are no states that allow such a thing (though I think VT has this thingy called civil unions). However, any homosexual can get married at anytime. No one is denying them that right

__________________

Manx

Our society has defined marriage for centuries based on same-race "Western values".

If the people here are against homosexual marriage, then logically they should be against interracial marriage as well. However, most of y'all are not (I assume). So my question is, why is discrimination only acceptable against gays and not races?

NCB

That's great rhetoric for the 1960's Manx, but it's not relevant today. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Marriage is between a man and a woman, any race. My point remains. Any homosexual man can marry a woman and any homosexual woman can marry a man. No one is stopping them. Heck, I know it's silly but a straight man can't marry another man either.

__________________

filtherton

Any colored man can drink at a water fountain, just not a white's only water fountain...

If you can't see the similarities than it is obvious why you can't see the flaws in your argument. At one point, an argument very similar to yours was employed to "protect" marriage from a "redefinition" involving interracial marriage. Fortunately, the traditionalist argument was tossed aside, and as you may have noticed, society didn't crumble.

Marriage has no carved in stone definition. In fact, there are many churches who wholeheartedly support gay marriage. You may claim that it is not in a church's place to "redefine" marriage, but i imagine it would be difficult to do so with a straight face, seeing as how the idea of a traditional marriage has very strong roots in religion.

Manx

Simply stating that it is not relevant does not make it not relevant. Stating that it is apples to oranges does not make it apples to oranges. Stating that your point remains does not mean you have a point to begin with.

You are quite impossible to discuss subjects with - you follow one of three paths once you have made a statement:

1- Ignore any responses and make alternate arguments. A deludge of unconnected arguments does not strengthen your position when you refuse to discuss any of your arguments beyond simplistic talking points.

2- In the exceedingly rare instances where you actually respond to a counter argument, you simply dismiss the counter argument with a flick of the wrist (as demonstrated above). Pretending to discuss a counter argument is ultimately the same thing as ignoring the counter argument. With the same result of a lack of strength in your overall position.

3- Repeat yourself as if no one understood your argument to begin with. Like this:
Yeah - you mentioned that already. It wasn't very compelling the first time, but a few people here were courteous enough to discuss it with you. And you ignored them.

Now I truly am done with this discussion, seeing as how you have designed it to go no where. Hopefully, in the future, you will think through your position in greater detail so that you can avoid falling victim to one of the 3 unproductive methods you seem to prefer.

NCB

1. True, interracial marriage was illegal at one point. Thankfully, we moved past that. However, interrracial marriage still involved a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Will our society crumble? I don't know. Two men cannot concieve a baby, nor can two women. A growing population is essential for any nation.

2. Wrong. Marriage does have a carved in stone definiton. It was reaffirmed in 1998 un the DOM act, signed gleefully into law by Pres Clinton. Now that brings me back to my question: What is the magic number of "two"? Why not allow polygamy and incestual marriages?

__________________

guy44

NCB, are you saying that you believe that allowing same-sex marriages will reduce the population?


First of all, DOMA only applies to Federal law. Secondly, that does not make it right. I think Clinton was an asshole for not vetoeing this.

The allegory to race is apt, NCB - the point is, there is a type of marriage (same-sex now, interracial then) that bigots thought was distatasteful and harmful to society, so they tried to ban it. I think those that fought bans on interracial marriage were heroes, and I think those fighting bans on same-sex marriage are heroes.

Please don't insult our intelligence by arguing that supporting same-sex marriage is the same thing as supporting polygamy or incestrual marriage. It isn't, and just because you think there is some link there doesn't mean there is. I'm just supporting same-sex marriage, and though I don't pretend to speak for everyone on this board, I think others supporting same-sex marriage do too. I'd also like to point out that, should the internet have existed in the 1950s, those arguing against interracial marriage would have asked, "why stop at blacks marrying whites? Why not dogs or polygamy?"

And let me ask you a question: why the magic formula of "one man, one woman?" What is so magical about that, as opposed to "two men" or "two women?"

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

filtherton

Why do you cling to the notion of "one man and one woman" as somehow having any significance at all? If the race of the participants is arbitrary, how is it that gender isn't?

If you have any credible information linking homosexuality and population decline by all means share it. Otherwise this is a red herring.

Well, if the legal one is all that matters, and a court of law, acting within its jurisdiction decides that that legal definition is invalid, than i guess you'd have no problem with gay marriage, correct?

I would imagine, though, under those circumstances you'd fall back to your traditionalist definition of marriage, which probably conveniently ignores recent history where marriage was as much about an exchange of property as anything else.

I don't care. I believe in the idea of trusting consenting adults, do you?

NCB

One man, one woman has been part of our tradition for centuries.

Now, how about answering my question. I understand why y'all don't want to answer the why is two magical question. I just want y'all to say it.

__________________

guy44

No, NCB, you don't get it. I'm not arguing for the complete opening of marriage to any definition possible. If I did, we could get into arguments about bestiality and incest and polygamy. But I'm simply not arguing over any of those things. My argument is STRICTLY limited to same-sex marriage.

I think tradition is overrated. For example, until the last century or so, all of a person's wealth transferred to their eldest son by default. Jews such as myself weren't allowed in Ivy League schools. Blacks were slaves, and then for a century were officially second class citizens. The Spanish Inquisition lasted centuries. None of the "traditions" are anything I would ever want to support.

Just as all those above were wrong, denying same-sex couples the right to marry is wrong. And I gladly, gladly, with a smile on my face, break with tradition when tradition is in the wrong.

And I feel sorry for those who cling to tradition for nothing more than tradition's sake while the rest of the world moves past them. It must get lonely.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

NCB

Ok, I understand that you're not arguing for polygamy and such. So why do you want to limit homosexual marriage to just a union between two homosexuals?

__________________

Antikarma

You know, once upon a time it was tradition in MY family for the youngest caveman to beat the sabre toothed tiger six times then eat his heart. You know, to absorb his essence and all.

Yeah you laugh, but it worked up till we killed all the sabretooth tigers.

I wonder if we could use housecats now? To keep the tradition alive?

I jest, I jest. But realistically, tradition is nothing more than:

Its what the old people in my family use to justify that horrid homemade cranberry sauce on Thanksgiving, and the nay team need something a smidge more substansive than that to justify repressing an entire segment of the Canadian population.

__________________

"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."

NCB

Why are you clinging to the notion of "two people"?

You got me here. I don;t have any proof right now, but I do remember an article discussing the natural population decline in Scandanavia after the redefination of marriage.


Great!! So you would trust the idea of more than two consenting adults (related or not) "marrying", right?

__________________

guy44

NCB, I don't want to "limit homosexual marriage to just a union between two homosexuals," I want to allow marriage to include same-sex couples.

If you can't figure out the difference between the two, well, I can't make it any plainer. Sorry.

And, aside from the ludicrous argument that allowing same-sex marriages opens the door to things like polygamy, your tradition fetish, and a wholly unsubstantiated argument that same-sex marriage reduces population growth, you have provided no reason NOT to allow same-sex marriage. Just pointing that out.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

filtherton

You do realize that i don't, right?

Well, pardon me if i refuse to argue with you about something you lack any real reason to believe is even true.

That's what i said.

NCB

I do now. At least you're consistent in your argument

__________________

NCB

1. You're dodging the question and we both know why. If you come out and say that it's the way marriage has always been (between two people that is), you're arguing against your own argument. With that said.....

2. I can turnit right around on you and aside from the whole "gay is the new 60's negro" argument (I use negro not as a racist term, but rather to illustrate more precisely your argument), you have not given one goos reason for gay marriage

__________________

alansmithee

Before seeing if you should change marriage laws, you should look at what is the reason for the government institution of marriage. Marriage has been around a long time, but there wasn't always government regulation and benefits for being married. It was a ceremony for the economic benefit of two people (and maybe their respective families). It was presided over by some religious officer. Much of what marriage currently entails is new (relatively speaking).

So what reason would government have for intervening in marriage at all? Unlike what some people would like to think, marriage has nothing to do with the happiness of the participants. That can be a side effect, but the government really has no care about that. Government social programs (and laws to enforce social desires) are for keeping society as a whole stable. The government has decided that the best way to promote stable society is to try to provide stable homes for citizens to grow up in. The easiest way for this to be done is by giving certain incentives for married couples, it being assumed that a child is best raised by it's parents in a stable home. This is also a primary reason for the ban on polygamy-it is assumed that having multiple people in a home will not provide the same healthy environment as a couple. The government cares not how much two men love each other. It cares if that couple can produce children, which it's a biological impossibility for a gay couple to do. There is a fundamental difference between homo and hetero couples-one can produce offspring. And thats all the government cares about. Think I'm talking out my ass? Rulings against gay marriage in Florida and Louisiana fuel debate

And as an aside, if you argue for gay marriage and against polygamy, you ARE a hypocrite. Both have to do with choices by concenting adults.

And as another aside, race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. Race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. Race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. Race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. They aren't the same from a legal basis, nor a biological one. Here's once more for good measure-race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. I know minority rights is SO 1960's, but just because "gay rights" is the new pet cause doesn't mean it's the same as those that came before it.

guy44

OK, here: I believe that gay people should have every right that straight people get. Therefore, they should be allowed to be married.

This isn't fundamentally a marriage issue, it is a gay rights issue.

I'm not going to argue for or against polygamy, bestiality, etc. because that isn't the issue at hand.

Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.

They are both biological aspects of a person that they could not change no matter how hard they try. Therefore, they should be treated the same.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

jonjon42

"Traditional western values" change over time...I mean at one point people argued over whether women had souls are not

what, what's wrong with polygamy between consenting adults? Not my cup of tea personally but if they are all in love...together...hmm actually now you've got me interested.
The incest thing brings up some health issues that make it a bit more sticky, but in principle, not my cup of tea, but if their both consenting adults, and in love, why stop them?


and about the population decline thing, I highly doubt that it has anything to do with legalizing same sex marriage, it probably has more to do with the usual trend of mature, developed nations, trend towards marrying later, and having fewer kids. A very good example of population decline from this is Japan. Europe has been trending towards a population decline for awhile.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

alansmithee

There are many gay married people-one prominent one is the former New Jersey governor McGreevey.

Yes they are, the issue is the redefiniton of marriage to fit newly mainstreamed forms of sexuality.

Wrong. Your statement has no basis for fact. I mentioned McGreevey before. Up until recently he lived a perfectly heterosexual life. If it was something immutable, you wouldn't have people "coming out of the closet", there would have never been a closet. I can't all of the sudden decide, "You know, I'm not gonna be black". You CAN decide not to have sex with people of the same gender. Therein lies the difference-sexual orientation is based on actions, race isn't. No matter how much rap you listen to (or any other stereotypical black behavior), if you aren't black you won't become black. But if someone starts having relationships with members of the same sex, BAM you're gay.

And as I said before, it's really irrelevant. It's a definiton of marriage issue, not a "gay rights" issue.

jonjon42

alansmithee
you can be homosexual without having sex with people of the same gender. Most of the homosexuals I know, described just kinda knowing that they found the same sex much more attractive. Alot of times they try to live the "normal" life because they think how they feel is wrong. At least that is what I have noticed with a few of my friends.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

guy44

My God, alansmithee, you really don't get it. At all. You really think that homosexuality is the act of engaging in gay sex.

Unbelievable.

Let me engage with your logic for a moment. If I understand you correctly, "gay = engages in sex with members of the same sex." I assume that, therefore, "straight = engages in sex with members of the opposite sex."

Now, what if you are a virgin? What does that make you? You aren't engaging in sex with men or women. When you were a virgin, did you consider yourself "straight?" If so, how could you? You weren't engaging in sex with someone of the opposite gender?

My guess, and obviously I don't know yet what you considered or consider yourself, but my guess is that you considered yourself straight. The thought of having sex with guys didn't really do anything for you. However, thinking about women...well, that got your libido going. I know it has for me.

So you probably labeled yourself straight, as I did. Even before you ever had sex with anyone.

Therefore, you might understand why I can't quite see how one's sexual orientation is entirely defined by who they are actively sleeping with.

Sexual orientation is something you are born with. My lesbian friends discovered, well before they slept with anyone, that the thought of men did nothing for their libidos, but the thought of sleeping with women did. Vice-versa for my gay friends. It wasn't a matter of who they were having sex with, but a biological factor that defined for them their sexual orientation.

So don't tell me that homosexuality can't be a biological determinate because nobody would ever "come out of the closet." Coming out of the closet is when a gay person reveals to others that they are not straight. Not because they recently made a choice to become gay, or because they just had sex with someone of the same gender. It is because often, a gay person faces discrimination and abuse for simply being themselves. That is why there is the proverbial closet. That is why, because society punishes them so simply for being gay, many make an attempt attempt to have sex with members of the opposite sex and even get married, despite their true feelings. It is assumed that is what Governor McCreevy did.

You are right that I cannot just decide - bam - I don't want to be white anymore. But neither can homosexuals decide - bam - I don't want to be gay anymore. It isn't a choice.

Let me ask you, alansmithee - when was it that you decided that you would rather be straight than gay (or gay than straight, I don't know)? What went into that decision? How long did you think it over? When were you sure?

My guess is that you just always knew, same as me, same as my homosexual friends.

And I'm not even getting into scales of sexual orientation, the mere concept of which may just blow your mind.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"