Page 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 506

Thread: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

  1. #411
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Does it (the term marriage) belong to polygamists? Does it belong to straight males who want to marry one another for monetary benefit? Does it really belong to everyone for any reason?
    It belongs to society. There is no issue with them wishing to use the term "marriage". If a state allows multiple spouses legally, then there is nothing wrong with the state calling those "marriages".

    Now, this does not mean that restricting marriages by number or the number of spouses by number is unconstitutional. It would come down to what the state claims is the state interest being furthered by a restriction on how many numbers of spouses a person can have legally recognized by the state. There can be stated a legitimate state interest here in several areas. That bar is actually really low. It is when they try to limit marriage based on sex/gender that we find that the state cannot even meet that low bar because tradition is not a valid state interest (or it would have worked when it came to restricting marriage based on race). They cannot prove that marriage is restricted on sex/gender based on procreative ability because that is not a consideration taken into account for opposite sex couples. They cannot prove that children are worse off with same sex couples than with opposite sex couples, and that has zero to do with marriage to begin with (procreation nor childrearing is a requirement of marriage, nor can it be shown to be the purpose of marriage being recognized by the government).

    There would be nothing illegal in itself for straight males to marry one another for monetary benefits alone when same sex couples are allowed to marry. There is no test for love or question about what sexuality people are when they seek a marriage license from the state. It would be wrong and likely deemed unconstitutional for the government to even investigate such a thing unless the couple is asking for some significant benefit directly from the government that they must approve, such as military benefits for spouses or immigration benefits for a spouse. The government cannot prove love, which is why love nor attraction is a legal requirement of marriage.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #412
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    My "socially unacceptable" comment was not directed at ssm only. I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that there are arbitrary limits to what is acceptable as marriage. It is no more discriminatory to exclude gay marriage than it is to exclude polygamy, or any other arrangement that people could consent to. Therefore allowing SSM does NOTHING to remedy discrimination, it only moves the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
    Not all limits on marriage are "arbitrary". Many have purpose. Age limits on marriage serve a purpose (the same purpose as consent to sex limits and/or limits on those under age entering into legal contracts). Limits on number of spouses serve multiple purposes, an example being the same purpose as only allowing a person to have one legally recognized person named in a medical power of attorney, which is one of the many legal contracts/agreements that a spouse automatically agrees to when they are legally recognized as a spouse when they get legally married. Limits on close relations getting married is seen as a furthering the state interest of limiting offspring with known high potential of genetic problems that can place a burden on society. Whether either of those limitations (number of spouses, previous kinship of spouses) are legally rational state interest being furthered, would be up to the SCOTUS if they are challenged. They come down to the arguments the state can make for those restrictions, not the arguments being made by the states for restrictions based on sex/gender on marriage.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #413
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.
    The church is involved in personal marriages for a lot of couples. That does not change the fact that the legal marriage is recognized by the marriage license, which is not legally required to involve any church or religion.

    It doesn't matter what "the vast majority of Americans" might believe. They are wrong. They either are not aware of the law and history (specifically the origin/history of marriage) or they wish to deny it for their own personal religious beliefs.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #414
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Poor example. children cannot legally consent therefore there is no basis to charge discrimination. try again.
    It is discrimination. There is a state interest furthered in why children cannot legally consent. That does not mean that their not being allowed to consent is not discrimination. Children cannot own guns, again because there is a legally recognized important state interest in age restrictions on gun ownership, despite gun ownership being a recognized right to all citizens according to our Bill of Rights. Children have been recognized as having the right to freedom of speech, right to due process, right to not incriminate themselves, and many others when the state cannot show that restricting these rights on the basis of age furthers an important state interest.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #415
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Is it your position that only those statements of fact which can be empirically measured or tested, are true?
    That is what objectivity requires. Unless it can be empirically measured and/or tested, it is subjective.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #416
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Yes people are objecting to a specific form of discrimination, and in so doing are calling into question the character of those who oppose their point of view. Using terms like "bigot" to impugn the character of advocates of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, others are undergoing discrimination without anyone giving it a second thought. Why? Because as you said all discrimination is not equal. How do we decide? Social norms. Therefore the traditionalist is no more bigoted than the social liberal that does not believe that polygamy should be allowed. The courts are not ruling on the discriminatory nature of excluding consenting parties from marrying. The courts are actively working to adjust social norms for the benefit of a certain class of individuals.
    We decide based on evidence, not emotional appeals, which you are attempting in mentioning how some for "traditional marriage" (a misnomer) are treated by some of those for same sex marriage being legal.

    There are plenty who actually do care about some other forms of discrimination taking place. But that does not mean that it is connected to this issue at all. It isn't. The arguments the state would present for the state interest being furthered and what state interest is furthered by restrictions based on something like number of spouses a person can legally have at the same time or prior kinship to a spouse are going to be different from the arguments the state has and is presenting for the state interest furthered by restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #417
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    The government has traditionally deferred to the judgement of the church in social matters finding that the church should be a nontaxed entity because of the "important state interest" in allowing the church to serve the people as it sees fit.
    Not in a long time.

    Whether the church is or should be a nontaxed entity has absolutely nothing to do with whether they should have any say in what is constitutional or not or what does or does not further an "important state interest". They are not related at all.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #418
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Where in the constitution does it address marriage?
    9th Amendment and 14th Amendment.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #419
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.
    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    The government has traditionally deferred to the judgement of the church in social matters finding that the church should be a nontaxed entity because of the "important state interest" in allowing the church to serve the people as it sees fit.
    Premise 1:
    Religion and therefore religious organizations have a traditional role in marriage and the government should deffer to their judgement.

    Premise 2:
    Under the First Amendment to the Constitution the government must recognize all religious views and therefore religious activities performed by a religious organization equally, especially on social issues. Religious activities cannot normally be restricted and require the highest level of scrutiny where the government must prove a compelling interest not achievable through other means.

    Premise 3:
    Religious organizations have been providing religious marriage to same sex couples for decades including some Christians Churches, Jewish Synagogues and others.




    Conclusion:
    If the government is to defer to religoius organizations and recognize under Civil Law marriages performed by religious organizations, then they must (as a function of the 1st Amendment) recognize ALL marriages performed by those organizations that comport with other applicable Civil Law and where the government has adjudicated a compelling government interest as to why those religious marriages cannot be recognized.

    Therefore the government should be recognizing Same-sex Religious Marriages for purposes of Civil Marriage.

    >>>>

  10. #420
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    1. The reason for the criteria is that human judges cannot use the supernatural to decide the law. That which humans cannot observe, the law cannot dictate. And America is built upon a foundation of individual liberty. My personal, moral disapproval of someone else's actions is not enough reason to restrict their freedom to that action. Our government is hamstrung by the constitution. It is not allowed to restrict our freedom without sufficient justification. It is not allowed to classify its citizens differently without sufficient justification. Such justifications have to come from something identifiable. To restrict someone's freedom, you need to demonstrate why. I don't approve of Scientologists. Their beliefs are reprehensible. In my opinion, it's a cult that tricks people to get their money. But my disapproval is not enough to prevent Bob from joining them, or believing what they believe.

    I want tighter gun control. But the government can't do that without a good enough reason. And because gun ownership is a right stipulated in the constitution, the bar for this is quite high. The need must be great, and the measure must be the least restrictive measure possible. Well, marriage is also a fundamental right. Marriage is a basic component of the family unit, which is the building block of a society. The right is so fundamental that we cannot even deny it to a criminal. Someone currently in jail still must be allowed to get married, and those are people who have undergone due process, those are people who have had the most basic rights imaginable stripped from them. Any restriction on who can marry who has to be met with a powerful justification.

    While you might personally believe that this family unit must be based on a man and a woman, the government doesn't have the luxury of leaning on belief alone. If the legal contract exists, any private citizen must be allowed to enter into it barring a sufficient state interest in preventing it. Because the government is hamstrung by our constitution, and we made it that way to preserve individual freedom. Under the 14th amendment, a distinction of gender must be justified by an "important state interest" that the measure is "substantially related" to furthering. That's it. That's the test. Marriage contract, business contract, speed limits, doesn't matter. That's the test you need to pass for the state to sanction a distinction of gender.



    2. As for your question, I believe that if it's not measurable, or empirical, "truth" will always be subjective to some degree. Your belief in God's will may be absolute, and that a particular reading of his word is absolute. Thing is, there's another guy who has a different reading of the same words, and he believes that to be absolute. A while back, people said similar things about Zeus. A mortal court system can't judge these things. Robbery causes specific, measurable harm to the victim. A wiccan casting a blood curse upon you does not. So the wiccan gets to chant their words over a bowl of newts, or whatever it is they do.
    1. I haven't made any appeals to the supernatural, my arguments on this thread are based on human nature.

    2. Then your position, since it can not be empirically verified, is self-refuting.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I'm curious about this. My brother is gay, and so far as I can see he has three options.

    1) Live a life alone
    2) Pretend to be straight and live a lie
    3) Be gay, hopefully spend his life with someone he loves.

    Now you're saying the third option is the one that would result in his life being 'unfulfilled?' I don't understand how you'd believe that. Maybe you think there is a fourth option, become straight? It's the only thing that might sense in this context, but of course it's not an actual option.
    Option 1, except that it doesn't mean he is "alone", as he can have familial and platonic relationships. I see no reason why it would be impossible for him to lead a fulfilling life as a celibate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Who or what does SSM negatively affect?
    Already explained.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Is it your position that opinions based on faith or philosophy (that do not directly infringe on the rights of others) should be made law and/or forced on people who do not believe the same?
    Yes, truth is truth and law is law.

    Quote Originally Posted by blarg View Post
    what's immoral about gay marriage?
    Sodomy is immoral, as already explained.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    That is what objectivity requires. Unless it can be empirically measured and/or tested, it is subjective.
    Self-refuting.

Page 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •