SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

mac said:

The right to define marriage in keeping with its values....in this case.

Click to expand...

Your answer is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy???

By the way... I know of know "right of definition". :lol:

mac said:

There is as much as there is for the minority's desire to do the same.

Click to expand...

Please quote from the Constituton where the "right to define" is.

mac... this is REALLY getting bad when you are resorting to something like this.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Please quote from the Constituton where the "right to define" is.

mac... this is REALLY getting bad when you are resorting to something like this.

Click to expand...

You won't find all your rights spelled out in the Constitution.

mac said:

Perhaps there is no harm to you, or at least any harm you recognize. There is harm to a great many, or so they say. Who are you to judge them false?

Click to expand...

Their harm is because they are offended. Since they have no right to not be offended, their harm is irrelevant, legally and Constitutionally.

Jerry said:

No, being straight does not give one specific rights, because rights are not based on sexual orientation. Just because you're hetero doesn't mean you can marry just any opposite-sex person you want. There are all kinds of restrictions on the 'right to contract' as no right is universal or absolute.

This includes the right to marry.

Click to expand...

In the case of marriage, being hetero gives you special rights that gays do not have. Straights can marry someone they are attracted to. Gay cannot.

Jerry said:

Quite right, so I did, badly. I apologize :doh

Click to expand...

Thank you. I figured.

X Factor said:

Actually I thought the federal government called that a fraudulent marriage. While I think this can be done, it wouldn't change her status automatically. I think there are requirements you have to meet to prove that the marriage is not just for that reason.

Click to expand...

The government would find it fraudulant if they found out. And yes, there are lots of hoops and proofs people have to go through in this situation. I was offered to do this about 5 years ago, but I refused for ethical reasons.

Same-sex marriage is in fact immoral and shouldn't be outlawed. Gays should remain free to do their own thing, but society has to draw the line at gay marriage.

StillBallin75 said:

so I have a right to have sex in public right? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Whether it offends me or not is irrelevant to it's legality.

X Factor said:

Why wouldn't it fall under the same scrutiny, especially if one believes in polygamy for religious reasons?

Click to expand...

You've a right to PRACTICE your religion under the law, but the law isn't required to endorse your religion. For it to be discrimination based on religion, the law would need to be allowing those attempting to be polygamous for reasons other than religion to be married and thus the reason that religious polygamous people can't be recognized is due to their religion.

However, that is not the case, they are not being discriminated against due to their religion because they can't do it regardless if their religion allows it, doesn't allow it, they aren't religious, etc.

You could say they're doing something other religions can do, which is have their version of marriage recognized by the government. However, that's more of a circumstantial issue than a direct one, since the government doens't directly say "christian marriages" or "jewish marriages" are allowed.

Take for example some orthodox Jews who won't use electricity on the sabbath. The government isn't discriminating against them by continuing to use electricity during the Sabbath, even though by doing so it tacitly may be doing something some religions thinks are okay but the jewish religion may not. However, if it were to forcefully stop orthodox jews from being able to do it in their private setting, then you have an issue of religious problems.

Religious discrimination would be something more along the lines of "Anyone can be married in the United States and have it recognized by the government except for Mormons". In this case, the law is specifically disallowing a group of people due to their religion and making the law unequal towards them...that is religious discrimination. Such isn't the caes with regards to polygamy.

As such, it doesn't fall under any of the middle or upper tier categories, making it at best a lower teir and not even a a "second-order rational test" lower teir entity like some things are.

X Factor said:

I think Mac is worried, as I am, about the domino effect. I've seen a couple arguments here that suggest that to be for gay marriage, you have to chuck any meaning marriage has beyond just a contractual one. I also don't want to have to support public nudity or public sex. Does supporting SSM mean that morality no longer has a place in the law, at all?

Click to expand...

Slippery slope is not a legitimate argument, or not one that holds a lot of water. I find it funny that people like you point to the "domino" effect here. Yet did you point to the potential Domino Effect and speak so worriedly about it when we moved from a nationa agenda of defensive to pre-emptive offensive in regards ot foreign policy? Did you and mac go on and on about the potential "Domino Effect" of the Patriot Act? The potential "Domino Effect" of allowing "enhanced" interrogation actions? The potential "domino effect" of having out of country prisons that are not subject to the US constitution? And on and on...

Or do you just care about the "Domino Effect" on issues you don't agree with, and thus need an extra excuse to argue against them? Why is it that the "Domino Effect" seemingly only exists in cases of things people dislike?

Support for Gay Marriage or unions of some kind is at the very least right around the 50% market. I dare say far higher than the mark for people agreeing with the notion of people walking around nude wherever they please. Not to mention that one does not directly correlate to the other so trying to argue against one because it may somehow, someway, potentially, lead to a thought process that might, potentially, possibly, in some way lead to the other happening. Its ridiculous and on par with saying we shouldn't reform Medicare in any way because it could lead to use stripping all veterans of any form of insurance due to the "domino effect".

People have such a hard problem actually finding and presenting legitimate fault in THIS argument that they have to reach for hypotheticals that are absolutely unprovable and unknowable and attempt to argue against those things as a means of trying to discredit the issue at hand. "If this happens it may cause a thought process that might possibly lead to x happening" is not a good argument against the initial thing, unless a distinct, measurable, realistic expectation of the latter possabilities can actually be presented. That's not the case here.

Furthermore, the purpose is not to chuck away at the meaning of marriage to just one of contractual. If it was there'd be talk of banning the use of the term in the private sector, which simply isn't the case. Ones marriage cna continue to be as holy and special to them as they wish it to be. However, by having it involved in government it MUST be constitutional...no matter how much it might offend your christian morals...or else you're chucking away the meaning of the CONSTITUTION.

I find it funny that you X, a person who so routinely speaks of the constitution and being a conservative and caring about "limited government" are at the same time so horribly concerned with the GOVERNMENT interjecting itself into peoples lives to tell them what to do. Might I ask, what portion of the constitution suggests it is the role of the government to tell the people how to live a moral life? You and others like you ask where in the constitution it says we have a right to health care, or where the government has the ability to tell us what to eat, or what cars to drive. Well, where does it have the authority to tell me how to live my life morally when its not directly infringing upon the rights of another person?

Marriage is hardly the only morality based law. Hell, up until this debate it wasn't even deeply rooted as a morality based law. To suggest that somehow allowing any two people instead of one man and one woman to get married is somehow going to destroy the notion of morality based laws is ludicrous and akin to suggesting that tweaking welfare means the end of all entitlement programs. (oh, if only).

Its a slippery slope argument not based on reality but pure apocolyptic fantasy out of fear that the persons sensabilities may be offended.

I find it hillarious that Mac speaks about the "will of the people" and how "important" it is...and yet, with poll after poll showing more and more support for gay marriage, I somehow doubt that when 51% of "the people" show that their "will" is for its legalization that Mac would be sitting there saying "Well, its important we follow the Will of the people so make it legal".

Maybe someday there will be some big movement to allow people to bang wherever they want. That said, there's no such movement now. There's no significant public support for it now. There's not even as sound of constitutional arguments in favor of it as there is in regards to gay marriage. So attempting to use that as a shield for why we shouldn't legalize gay marriage is a bit ridiculous.

X Factor said:

I think you yourself have made an argument that marriage between two people will no longer be about family, as any two people of consenting age will be allowed to marry for whatever reason. Honestly, I would be less bothered by allowing only gay people (I know, how would you prove it?) to marry someone of the same sex, because I don't care for the cheapening of marriage that, what you advocate for, would cause.

Click to expand...

Marriage is already no longer about family.

Where on the marriage contract does one have to signify that they'll have a family? When is it that a man and woman getting married agree to pop out kids? Where is the law that keeps sterile or infertile people from having children? If its about a "healthy" family, where's the law keeping people with significant genetic disorders from getting married? Or keeping women over the age of 45 from being able to be married?

The law doesn't do or require what you suggest it does now. It only does so IN YOUR PERCEPTION. Your perception is fully and completely under your control, and if gays or people of the same sex gain the right to marry, it only cheapens marriage if you allow your perception of it to change to such a way.

Marriage is sacred? How's that square with a nearly 50% divorce wait. Its for a family? Then why is it perfectly acceptable not to raise a family and get married while a gay couple raising an adopted (or even one of them's biological) child not able to get married? If its to have a healthy family, why do we allow people far more likely to have an unhealty baby get married yet we ignore studies that show a child can be perfectly healthy growing up in a gay house hold? If its to simplify the tax burden on individuals living in a household and sharing ownership of things, why are we lieing to ourselves by saying only two people of the opposite sex can have that happen?

I suggest to you that this isn't changing any deep rooted meaning of what marriage is or represents, at worst its changing your personal perception of it which is entirely an individual issue.

CriticalThought said:

You have it backwards X. The Constitution states that the government cannot establish a state religion. As such, the government is not obligated to respect the practices of any religion.

Furthermore, freedom of religion does not entitle anyone to the privileges and rights of marriage. Those privileges and rights come from the state and no religion is entitled to them.

Click to expand...

You either ignorantly or intellitionally ignored the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

The only time such can be done is when there is a situation where one persons right to free exercise of their religion comes into conflicts with someone elses rights. Such as the case where a religion suggests its okay to stone their daughter for being raped, the free exercise of that religion would infringe upon the rights of the daughter.

In the case of polygamy, frankly, as long as nothing illegal is occuring it should be perfectly legal to engage in for religious reasons. The state is not required to recognize it in any way though, as allowing you to exercise your religion and recognitizing and condoning your religion are two seperate things.

But the government absolutely must respect the practices of a religion, in so far as they can't legally force you to violate your rights to free exercising of that religion unless there is legitimate cause that such exercise will infring upon someone elses rights.

X Factor said:

You forgot part,

A religion that advocates polygamy sure has an argument that they are prohibited from their "free exorcise thereof".

Click to expand...

You're correct, but not in the way you're speaking.

Some states actually make it illegal to be living with multiple adult women of non-relation in a polygamous unit even when done fully in a private setting.

I agree with you 100% that those laws are unconstitutional...not due to EPC but because of the 1st amendment.

However, its not unconstitutional in regards to the marriage contract, because there is no "religious group" that is being discriminated against. "Polygamists" is not a religion, "The number of people one wants to marry" isn't a religion. If it stated that "Mormons" are not allowed to marry more than one person, that'd be discrimination based on marriage. However, that's not the case.

mac said:

I think it safe to say that you would not recognize any harm because you have decided it's completely harmless. I'm of the opinion people either think it is harmless and therefore completely dismissive of any harm induced by ssm or they think it is very harmful and therefore overly sensitive to its perceived harm. I think there are very few in the middle of those two extremes.

Click to expand...

There is no harm. It may be perceived or imagined but it is NOT real. If you can show me REAL harm, with NO comparisons involved, then we can entertain that possibility existing.

In other words, if nobody is buying gays being born, then nobody is buying harm being inflicted. Capisce?

Jerry said:

Women do not have the right to marry men. Men do not have the right to marry women.

Click to expand...

You are correct. They do not. However, they should. Gays are being penalized for being exactly who they are.

X Factor said:

Just because the discrimination is not the same, doesn't mean that laws against polygamy aren't also discriminatory. Please, people compare types of discrimination all the time, even if they're not exactly the same.

Click to expand...

My birthday is in 25 days. In honor of thereof, I think it would be simply swell if you stopped comparing SSM to everything under the sun, and stuck to the topic. Deal?

Jerry said:

Meh, so is 'family relation', and siblings are born that way also. Incest ftw?

Click to expand...

BDBoop said:

My birthday is in 25 days. In honor of thereof, I think it would be simply swell if you stopped comparing SSM to everything under the sun, and stuck to the topic. Deal?

Click to expand...

And you as well.

BDBoop said:

My birthday is in 25 days. In honor of thereof, I think it would be simply swell if you stopped comparing SSM to everything under the sun, and stuck to the topic. Deal?

Click to expand...

This kind of talk leads to stuff like birthmonths. Madness.

X Factor said:

I think Mac is worried, as I am, about the domino effect. I've seen a couple arguments here that suggest that to be for gay marriage, you have to chuck any meaning marriage has beyond just a contractual one. I also don't want to have to support public nudity or public sex. Does supporting SSM mean that morality no longer has a place in the law, at all?

Click to expand...

I think you ladies need to cease with the histrionics. You all are trying so hard to muddy the waters that you've frightened yourselves.

roguenuke said:

Actually, I believe marriage is very much for making a family

Click to expand...

And many, many gay couples would agree with that assessment, I believe.

to clarify - a couple can technically be considered a family without having children.

welliott_08 said:

I really don't see how two homosexual couples getting married is anybody's business but their own. I believe in freedom and I just really can't see the logical reasoning for why this would ruin traditional marriage. As Americans we ignore a lot of things like other countries eating dog or Korea letting off missiles in the ocean but we all seem to take this personal and make it the biggest deal. It also seems that the ones who are most concerned with this are homophobic. And we all know what's wrong with homophobes: they are worried they themselves could be swayed to the gay side lol

Click to expand...

Interesting first post, and welcome to the forum.

Zyphlin said:

It doesn't need to be more discriminatory then.

45 mph in a 45 mph zone isn't speeding. 45 in a 34 mph zone is. 45 mph isn't any faster than 45 mph, but that doesn't mean its not speeding in one case.

The discrimination may not be any more than in the case of age discrimination, but age discrimination is a lower tier of the EPC than age, so it doesn't necessarily NEED to be more discriminatory.

Click to expand...

Understood, however I still disagree that banning SSM is gender discrimination since both genders have equal access to the same rights and are both dissalowed the same rights equally.

For the record though, I am waivering on whether or not it's equivalent to "seperate but equal" which I of course oppose.

CriticalThought said:

It doesn't matter if it is equal discrimination. A law stating that you are only allowed to marry your own race would be equal discrimination and would be equally as unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I disagree simply becuase the idea of race is false. Genetically we are all the same, not so with gender.