• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

disneydude said:
WRONG. You are completely wrong from the beginning of your analysis. Constitutional protections such as Equal protection apply to more than just fundamental rights.
There is a higher level of scrutiny applied by the Court when the right involved is a fundamental right. However, Constitutional guarantees apply to all rights/privileges extended by the state.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia.
 
CriticalThought said:
First off, they would need to overturn about 70 years of Supreme Court precedent which holds that marriage is a fundamental right.

Next, they would need to prove that the state has an interest in denying same sex couples the right to marriage on grounds of procreation but also has an interest in providing opposite sex couples who are infertile, too elderly to conceive, too ill to have children, or who simply choose not to have children the right to marry on those grounds.

Also, they need to demonstrate that interest is greater than the 80 findings of fact that Walker laid down that same sex marriage would be beneficial to the state of California.

Finally, they would need to demonstrate that California did pass the appropriate tier of scrutiny necessary for restricting a right along the lines of sex in order to demonstrate that they did not violate Due Process. You might want to look up the tiers of scrutiny if you don't understand the concept, which appears you might not since you are simply stationg that they did not violate Due Process, without actually providing any reasoning as to how they didn't.

I wish both you and them luck in that quest.
Click to expand...

RE: 70 years of precedent.

Well, they would need to do this if it were to held that marriage wasn't a fundamental right, however, if it is as fundamental right, then they only need to articulate why it is fundamental, and to whom it is findamental too.

RE: Denying based on procreation.

It's not just about procreation per se, it is in the meaning of fundamental. If marriage is fundamental, then what is it about marriage that makes it so? As near as I tell, and of all the arguments I've seen in favor of SSM, I've never seen anyone argue successfully that the state has ANY interests outside of procreation. So, assuming the state is in for the kids, then we need to look at the fundamental design of humanity. inter alia, humans, like every other species on the planet are designed to procreate. With some exceptions, all of them do it with some part of the male interacting with some part of the female. So, fundamentally, it is pressumed that men and women are observably consistent with the correct way to bond, and produce offspring. It is intrinsic to humanity, it is pressumptive that when men and women bond, they produce children. That some don't, and that some can't, is immaterial to these intrinsic chacteristics. One thing we do know. Homosexuals cannot, by virtue of their condition, procreate with each other. There is no ambiguity there.

RE: 80 findings of fact.

Well, I haven't read them all, but any list of benefits homosexual marriage would impart on the state is lacking one major fact. See above. What benefits, other than procreation does the state care about? Why should it?

RE: Scrutiny.

Of course I'm aware of the tiers. Either way, the proponents of Prop 8 can win with either argument. Moreover, my argument avoids a 14th challenge if the court finds that marriage isn't fundamental. If its not fundamental, then the 14th doesn't apply.



Tim-
 
disneydude said:
WRONG. You are completely wrong from the beginning of your analysis. Constitutional protections such as Equal protection apply to more than just fundamental rights.
There is a higher level of scrutiny applied by the Court when the right involved is a fundamental right. However, Constitutional guarantees apply to all rights/privileges extended by the state.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but what it does do is keep it out of the federal courts. Either way, marriage was argued by both sides to be fundamental, so any discussion on whether it is a priviledge is immaterial to the instant case. Because they argued it was findamental without laying down the ground work for why it is, the proponents of Prop 8 gave Walker a way to rule against them.


Tim-
 
Deuce said:
Not to mention that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...

Yes but that was heterosexual marriage. It has no bearing on a case where homosexuals want to marry, so there is no precedence, per se. Walker knew it, so that's why he chose the "gender" route. It was his only way out. I went further and argued that gender is the same as identity; of which, gender is only one component.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
RE: Denying based on procreation.

It's not just about procreation per se, it is in the meaning of fundamental. If marriage is fundamental, then what is it about marriage that makes it so? As near as I tell, and of all the arguments I've seen in favor of SSM, I've never seen anyone argue successfully that the state has ANY interests outside of procreation. So, assuming the state is in for the kids, then we need to look at the fundamental design of humanity. inter alia, humans, like every other species on the planet are designed to procreate. With some exceptions, all of them do it with some part of the male interacting with some part of the female. So, fundamentally, it is pressumed that men and women are observably consistent with the correct way to bond, and produce offspring. It is intrinsic to humanity, it is pressumptive that when men and women bond, they produce children. That some don't, and that some can't, is immaterial to these intrinsic chacteristics. One thing we do know. Homosexuals cannot, by virtue of their condition, procreate with each other. There is no ambiguity there.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't see how this argument - the belief that men and women have a 'correct' way to bond, and that this "fundamentally correct way" is the very basis for determining marriage legality - eliminates the inclusion of homosexual couples into the institution. In addition, it still has not provided an adequate explanation as to why infertile couples can be included whereas homosexual couples cannot. You can say it's the 'correct way to bond', but clearly if infertile heterosexual couples are trying this so-called 'correct way' and it isn't working, then what? Are they eliminated from the institution?

Furthermore, 'correct' implies a subjective moral position here. A man a woman engaging in sexual intercourse may be the 'correct way to bond' (implying male/female copulation), but so is IVF, otherwise you've still eliminated infertile couples. Unfortunately for the 'correct way to bond' argument, there is no basis for exclusion, as there are a few 'correct ways to bond' nowadays - some of which don't require marriage. I believe that this argument is merely a doctored-up version of the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument - nothing more.

Another thing: If "assuming the state is in for the kids" as you say, then why do we need "to look at the fundamental design of humanity" as an argument for excluding same sex marriage? The "fundamental design of humanity" as far as which parts go where has nothing to do with the actual raising of children, and if the state is in fact in it for the kids, then it seems that you have provided the proponents of same sex marriage some amunition, as there are plenty of homosexual couples who are willing to adopt and provided loving homes for children.
 
Last edited:
Singularity said:
Unfortunately, I don't see how this argument - the belief that men and women have a 'correct' way to bond, and that this "fundamentally correct way" is the very basis for determining marriage legality - eliminates the inclusion of homosexual couples into the institution. In addition, it still has not provided an adequate explanation as to why infertile couples can be included whereas homosexual couples cannot. You can say it's the 'correct way to bond', but clearly if infertile heterosexual couples are trying this so-called 'correct way' and it isn't working, then what? Are they eliminated from the institution?

Furthermore, 'correct' implies a subjective moral position here. A man a woman engaging in sexual intercourse may be the 'correct way to bond' (implying male/female copulation), but so is IVF, otherwise you've still eliminated infertile couples. Unfortunately for the 'correct way to bond' argument, there is no basis for exclusion, as there are a few 'correct ways to bond' nowadays - some of which don't require marriage. I believe that this argument is merely a doctored-up version of the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument - nothing more.

Another thing: If "assuming the state is in for the kids" as you say, then why do we need "to look at the fundamental design of humanity" as an argument for excluding same sex marriage? The "fundamental design of humanity" as far as which parts go where has nothing to do with the actual raising of children, and if the state is in fact in it for the kids, then it seems that you have provided the proponents of same sex marriage some amunition, as there are plenty of homosexual couples who are willing to adopt and provided loving homes for children.
Click to expand...

RE: Infertile couples.

I stated this in my previous post, actually the post you quoted from?? When we look at fundamental, we must search for the very basic reason for marriage. Only after the human desire to mate, intrinsic to us all, apparently also to homosexuals, does everything else start to add up, and eventually culminating in the decision to make the bond lasting. We mate first for sex, and then what follows varies depending on who you speak too. This is why marriage is fundamental, and the why is mate and produce offspring. That it doesn't happen this way for everyone, or that some choose not too, is immaterial to what makes marriage about procreation - fundamentally speaking!

RE: subjective moral position.

No, rather, objective, I prefer to think!

RE: No basis based on the correct way to bond.

It most certainly applies in a discussion about what makes it fundamental to marriage, and why the state should even care.

RE: doctored-up version.

Well, homosexuality is atypical shall we say. Does that make you feel better?

RE: Another thing: If "assuming the state is in for the kids" as you say, then why do we need "to look at the fundamental design of humanity" as an argument for excluding same sex marriage

Did you just say that? You know, it's almost like you ignored my entire argument?

RE: The "fundamental design of humanity" as far as which parts go where has nothing to do with the actual raising of children

By themselves, no, but it is my belief that the effects of homosexual parenting have no been fully vetted. No worse, or better than any heterosexual bonding that is also harmful, or potentially dysfunctional. That said, I am not opposed to homosexual parenting. I've not made up my mind on it yet, and I personally know two homosexuals that are parents, and they're darned good ones. So, no, a good home is a good home regardless of sexuality. One cannot stop homosexual parenting, but it is not intrinsic to humanity, nor is it required by the "nature" of the homosexual bond.

So, do you think the state is in it for the kids, and only for the kids, or is there some other rationale that says the state should be involved in marriage because... Fill in the blanks for me.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
RE: 70 years of precedent.

Well, they would need to do this if it were to held that marriage wasn't a fundamental right, however, if it is as fundamental right, then they only need to articulate why it is fundamental, and to whom it is findamental too.
Click to expand...

Ah, now you are changing your game up. You can't deny the Supreme Court precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and so you are trying a different tact.

RE: Denying based on procreation.

It's not just about procreation per se, it is in the meaning of fundamental. If marriage is fundamental, then what is it about marriage that makes it so? As near as I tell, and of all the arguments I've seen in favor of SSM, I've never seen anyone argue successfully that the state has ANY interests outside of procreation. So, assuming the state is in for the kids, then we need to look at the fundamental design of humanity. inter alia, humans, like every other species on the planet are designed to procreate. With some exceptions, all of them do it with some part of the male interacting with some part of the female. So, fundamentally, it is pressumed that men and women are observably consistent with the correct way to bond, and produce offspring. It is intrinsic to humanity, it is pressumptive that when men and women bond, they produce children. That some don't, and that some can't, is immaterial to these intrinsic chacteristics. One thing we do know. Homosexuals cannot, by virtue of their condition, procreate with each other. There is no ambiguity there.
Click to expand...

Wow, that was amateurish. Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with life, liberty, or property. It just so happens that marriage deals with all three. It has nothing to do with procreation. The government has historically supported marriage because it provides stable homes for children. That stability comes from the sharing of life, liberty, and property between two consenting adults in a harmonious relationship. The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well. Please, for gawd sake, actually go read Walker's ruling before you try to comment on why it was wrong.

RE: 80 findings of fact.

Well, I haven't read them all, but any list of benefits homosexual marriage would impart on the state is lacking one major fact. See above. What benefits, other than procreation does the state care about? Why should it?
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that the state has never made the ability to procreate a test for marriage. Elderly couples who cannot conceive are allowed to marry. The reason for that as I said above is that the state never had in interest in promoting procreation, they had in interest in providing stable homes for children.

RE: Scrutiny.

Of course I'm aware of the tiers. Either way, the proponents of Prop 8 can win with either argument. Moreover, my argument avoids a 14th challenge if the court finds that marriage isn't fundamental. If its not fundamental, then the 14th doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Only because you don't understand what "fundamental" means.

Stop trying to be a Constitutional lawyer when you don't even understand the most basic legal terms.
 
Last edited:
Singularity said:
Well for one, anyone under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor (although this varies), and does not reach adulthood until that age from a legal standpoint. As a result, a minor gains privileges through emancipation, not because he is simply a citizen.
Click to expand...
So, you do see, there -are- reasons that the protections of the 14th do not necessarily apply to everyone - that certain people -can- be denied privilges enjoyed by others without violating the 14th.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you do see, there -are- reasons that the protections of the 14th do not necessarily apply to everyone - that certain people -can- be denied privilges enjoyed by others without violating the 14th.
Click to expand...

Duh. That is why there is Due Process. Levels of scrutiny?
 
CriticalThought said:
First off, they would need to overturn about 70 years of Supreme Court precedent which holds that marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...
If marriage is a fundamental right, explains what happens to that right when:
-The state repeals its laws regarding marriage, eliminating it as a legal instituion
-The state does not have any laws creating it as a legal institution in rhe first place.

That is, what happens to that 'fundamental right' if, say, Texas decides to guarantee that there will be no same-sex marriages by repealing its marriage laws in toto.

(be sure to put some critical thought into this, as an intellectually honest answer necessarily leads you to the conclusion that marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge, not a right)
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Duh. That is why there is Due Process. Levels of scrutiny?
Click to expand...
Just so long as you are clear that the 14th does not guarantee that -every- person has a right to -every- privilege granted by a state, as some people here seem to think.
 
CriticalThought said:
Ah, now you are changing your game up. You can't deny the Supreme Court precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and so you are trying a different tact.
Click to expand...

No, it is the same argument, put another way. I periodically have to do that here from time to time, because people can't read. :) Besides, the only "precedence" I see in Loving, is that marriage is fundamental to heterosexuals, since it was heterosexuals that brought the action. You understand how precedence works, correct?


RE: Wow, that was amateurish. Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with life, liberty, or property.

Oh, really, it "deals" with it? How about this for a defintion and tell me which one is the correct interpretation of what is fundamental.

Such rights thus belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction

Link

The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well
Click to expand...

No argument, but it doesn't refute my assertion that fundamentally marriage and the states interests are about children, and their production. Period!

Please, for gawd sake, actually go read Walker's ruling before you try to comment on why it was wrong
Click to expand...

I've read most it. I read the really important parts, I promise, k.

The fact of the matter is that the state has never made the ability to procreate a test for marriage
Click to expand...

No, but it has offered the lack to procreate as a way to exit the marriage contract without penalty, or loss of priviliedge.

Only because you don't understand what "fundamental" means.
Click to expand...

Well, actually I do, it is you that seems to think it is about life, liberty, and property.

Stop trying to be a Constitutional lawyer when you don't even understand the most basic legal terms
Click to expand...

Well thank you. That's quite a compliment. I so glad you thought that I thought I was a constitutional lawyer. I understasnd it all, in crystal clear, glass pond, put away the umbrella it's sunny out, clarity. :)


Tim-
 
Singularity said:
One group can do what another group cannot, yes?
Click to expand...
No - you did not read what he said..
Under (certain) current law, straight men cannot marry another man. Gay men cannot marry another man.
As such, -every- group is denied the privilege of marrying a person of the same sex, and as such, there's no discrimination againt gays because the same restriction applies to everyone.
 
Deuce said:
Not to mention that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...
If marriage is a fundamental right, explains what happens to that right when:
-The state repeals its laws regarding marriage, eliminating it as a legal instituion
-The state does not have any laws creating it as a legal institution in rhe first place.

That is, what happens to that 'fundamental right' if, say, Texas decides to guarantee that there will be no same-sex marriages by repealing its marriage laws in toto.

(Be sure to put some thought into this, as an intellectually honest answer necessarily leads you to the conclusion that marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilge, not a right)
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
No argument, but it doesn't refute my assertion that fundamentally marriage and the states interests are about children, and their production. Period!
Click to expand...

Dude! The state gives marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to make babies. That is undeniable proof that you are wrong that the state has asserted any interest in promoting procreation. That is the reality. You can deny it in your own mind, but it doesn't change the reality.

I've read most it. I read the really important parts, I promise, k.
Click to expand...

No. You admitted you haven't read the 80 findings of fact, which are the most pertinent to appeal. You have demonstrated that you have no interest in considering the facts, only in pushing your point of view on other people. The fact that we are dealing with the courts, means that you have to provide decent rational, and you are demonstrating that you won't even consider the facts of this case.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
If marriage is a fundamental right, explains what happens to that right when:
-The state repeals its laws regarding marriage, eliminating it as a legal instituion
-The state does not have any laws creating it as a legal institution in rhe first place.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant for this country. The Supreme Court has established that marriage is a fundamental right. As such, it would require a Federal Constitutional Amendment to eliminate marriage.
 
Dude! The state gives marriage liscenses to heterosexual couples who can't or choose not to have make babies. That is undeniable proof that you are wrong that state has asserted any interest in promoting procreation. That is the reality. You can deny it iin your own mind, but it deson't change the realiity
Click to expand...

I know, are you actually reading my words? There is a presumption! On the face.. Get it?

No. You admitted you haven't read the 80 findings of fact, which are the most pertinent to appeal. You have demonstrated that you have no interest in considering the facts, only in pushing your point of view on other people.
Click to expand...

Oh, then please enlighten me. Show me up, show me a "finding of fact", in Walkers ruling, that refutes my arguments. Hint there are none. :)

The fact that we are dealing with the courts, means that you have to provide decent rational, and you are demonstrating that you won't even consider the facts of this case.
Click to expand...

"Decent rationale".. Huh? Oh I dunno, seems rational to me; but I understand that you don't, it's ok.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Oh, then please enlighten me. Show me up, show me a "finding of fact", in Walkers ruling, that refutes my arguments. Hint there are none. :)
Click to expand...

I've been using two. Walker found that the state requires no test for procreation and that heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to make babies are not denied the right to marriage. That is undeniable evidence that the state has not asserted an interest in promoting procreation through the institution of marriage.

Walker also found that marriage has historically been about providing stable homes for children and that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples.

I have 78 more. But I think I will wait to go into those when you have actually refuted these 2.

"Decent rationale".. Huh? Oh I dunno, seems rational to me; but I understand that you don't, it's ok.
Click to expand...

What rational? You are distorting the word "fundamental" to mean what you want it to mean, not what the Supreme Court has recognized. Arbitary redefinition is not rational, it is a logical fallacy.
 
CriticalThought said:
Irrelevant for this country. The Supreme Court has established that marriage is a fundamental right. As such, it would require a Federal Constitutional Amendment to eliminate marriage.
Click to expand...
So much for an intellectually honest answer - not that I am surprised.

Your answer, arrived at thru critical thought, should have been 'If a state repeals it marraige laws, then marriage, as a legal institution, in that state ceases to exit, as there is no legal framework to define it'.

This means that marriage is a privilge grated by the state, not a right.
 
Walker found that the state requires no test for procreation and that heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to make babies are not denied the right to marriage
Click to expand...

It does allow you to exit a marriage though, without prejudice. Doesn't matter, I don't argue that the state requires no test for procreative capacity to enter into marriage, but what I will say is, he doesn't state why-else the state would care about marriage> In other words, he, himself doesn't answer the question fundamental to marriage itself. Why would the state have ever needed to provide a test for procreative capacity? It couldn't possibly have been imagined as a needed prerequisite. That's what makes it fundamental. The presumption was that men and woman would bond, and produce children. Not all of them would, but to require a test for the exception would have been a completely foreign idea to the men who created the laws. Walker side-steps the historical impact of that argument.

Walker also found that marriage has historically been about providing stable homes for children and that same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is not intrinsic to their "nature", whereas, it is for heterosexuals! There was no need to articulate those precepts into law, CT. The fact that it is now requires that we truly look at what marriage is, and why. It's the whole point of the debate.

What rational? You are distorting the word "fundamental" to mean what you want it to mean, not what the Supreme Court has recognized. Arbitary redefinition is not rational, it is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

I'm not distorting it, you are. Tell me why I'm wrong about the definition of fundamental?

Tim-
 
Goobieman said:
So much for an intellectually honest answer - not that I am surprised.

Your answer, arrived at thru critical thought, should have been 'If a state repeals it marraige laws, then marriage, as a legal institution, in that state ceases to exit, as there is no legal framework to define it'.

This means that marriage is a privilge grated by the state, not a right.
Click to expand...

If you want to get into a phiilsophical debate on rights, then fine.

Rights are the result of a social contract between the people and the state. The state agrees to protect the rights that are important to the people in exchange for the people recognizing the legitimacy of the state.

Your thoughts are simply an irrelevant hypothetical extending from a misconception of the origin of rights. Our Constitution, which is the social contract between the people and the state has been recognized by the Supreme Court to extend protection to marriage. That makes marriage a right. And since the Supreme Court has recognized it as a right, it can only be overturned by a Federal Constitutional Amendment.
 
Singularity said:
One group can do what another group cannot, yes? Legally, heterosexual couples can get married, whereas homosexual couples cannot. I'm not sure what, exactly, you are looking for when you mention parsing this legally not emotionally, because i'm not parsing any sentence, nor any clause, nor any Amendment to the Constitution emotionally.
Click to expand...

But rights are individual things. It's not a right of "couples." It's a right of an individual person to marry.

Are you saying, though, that sexual attraction to each other is a necessary part of marriage?
 
Hicup said:
It does allow you to exit a marriage though, without prejudice. Doesn't matter, I don't argue that the state requires no test for procreative capacity to enter into marriage, but what I will say is, he doesn't state why-else the state would care about marriage> In other words, he, himself doesn't answer the question fundamental to marriage itself. Why would the state have ever needed to provide a test for procreative capacity? It couldn't possibly have been imagined as a needed prerequisite. That's what makes it fundamental. The presumption was that men and woman would bond, and produce children. Not all of them would, but to require a test for the exception would have been a completely foreign idea to the men who created the laws. Walker side-steps the historical impact of that argument.
Click to expand...

Well this will be an excellent opportunity for the state to assert, rather than "presume", that procreation is the state interest for marriage. As it is right now, Walker is correct. The state has not argued that its interest in limiting marriage to a man and woman is based procreation. Furthermore, Walker has provided that the state has another, much more important interest in marriage, and that is providing stable homes for children. Something which same sex couples are will equipped to do, and which would provide a great benefit to the state. So not only will the state need to assert that its interest in marriage is for procreation, but that it is the primary interest in comparison to providing stable homes for children.

I'm not distorting it, you are. Tell me why I'm wrong about the definition of fundamental?
Click to expand...

I will state this one more time. Fundamental, as it is understood in the context of the Constitution, relates to life, liberty, and property. Now you can go find 50 different definitions of "fundamental" but the only one that is relevant to the courts are those that are related to Due Process, which are life, liberty, and property.
 
Hicup said:
RE: Infertile couples.

I stated this in my previous post, actually the post you quoted from?? When we look at fundamental, we must search for the very basic reason for marriage. Only after the human desire to mate, intrinsic to us all, apparently also to homosexuals, does everything else start to add up, and eventually culminating in the decision to make the bond lasting. We mate first for sex, and then what follows varies depending on who you speak too. This is why marriage is fundamental, and the why is mate and produce offspring. That it doesn't happen this way for everyone, or that some choose not too, is immaterial to what makes marriage about procreation - fundamentally speaking!
Click to expand...

And 'fundamentally speaking', you still haven't provided an ironclad reason for exclusion. We agree on a few things, obviously - the desire for sex, and to pair bond under the term marriage. Where we disagree is the exclusion of same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

Let's deconstruct your argument a bit if we may, just so we are on the same page, then we can continue forward. In both of your posts -this one and the portion of #127 that I quoted - you state that marriage is 'fundamental', and you examine the basic reasons for marriage. Sex is one - "the human desire to mate" (post #131), and "some part of the male interacting with some part of the female (post #127). We are on the same page so far, as having sex is one reason that folks get married. Then you mention procreation as another reason, to "mate and produce offspring" (post #130), a position supported by you in #127 as well. So far, we are still on the same page. Two reasons folks get married is for sex and procreation. No disagreement here.

After this, it gets a bit hazy. You claim in #127 that "of all the arguments I've seen in favor of SSM, I've never seen anyone argue successfully that the state has ANY interests outside of procreation." I disagree, but this is a fair observation on your part. However, you go on to add "assuming the state is in for the kids, then we need to look at the fundamental design of humanity...humans, like every other species on the planet are designed to procreate"

1. Concern #1: Why must we look at the fundamental human phenotypic design - specifically that of the sexual organs - in order to correctly argue that the state is involved in marriage 'for the kids' and homosexuals are potentially excluded? What reason does the state need to look at the 'fundamental design of humanity' to determine who may or may not raise a child? Or did you mean something entirely different by fundamental design, and if so, what about that determines if the state either condones the raising of children by people with this characteristic, or excludes them because of it?

In #127, when discussing procreation, you go on to mention "With some exceptions, all of them do it with some part of the male interacting with some part of the female." And you are correct, assuming by 'some part' you mean the sexual organs. You even mention the exceptions, like IVF. No disagreement here. Then you go on to say "So, fundamentally, it is pressumed that men and women are observably consistent with the correct way to bond, and produce offspring" leading to my observation that 'correct' implies moral subjective position here, not merely accuracy or accepted standard.

Then you go on to say, "It is intrinsic to humanity, it is pressumptive that when men and women bond, they produce children"

Concern #2: Saying that "it is intrinsic to humanity to produce children" is not universally intrinsic, as intrinsic refers to fundamental nature or property. It is certainly intrinsic to have sex, but children? That's quite a stretch, as there are plenty of examples where humanity voluntarily chooses not to have children. This doesn't work from the standpoint of intrinsic by desire, either, as you are confronted with the same argument. In addition, in order for something to be labelled 'intrinsic', it's generally a universally identifiable characteristic or property (for example, an intrinsic property of E coli is the metabolism of citrate).

Concern #3: "Presumptive that when men and women 'bond [have sex], they produce children" is not entirely true. No one presumes that every couple that is married or dating is having sex ("bond" as you are calling it here) to produce children. Humanity is filled with examples of people having sex for plenty of reasons besides procreation. What do you mean here? Who presumes that every woman and man have sex simply to procreate?

Then you say, "That some don't, and that some can't, is immaterial to these intrinsic chacteristics"

Concern #4: You haven't given any reason why those that "don't" or "can't" procreate should be included in marriage if they are heterosexual couples, and excluded if they are homosexual. You've based your argument on the so-called 'intrinsic' desire to have children, which is not universally true, but then go on to assume that this intrinsic desire coupled with 'bonding' in some 'correct' manner somehow allows for infertile heterosexual marriage, while disallowing same sex marriage. In philosophy, that's called 'begging the question' - your assuming this unrpoven, so-called intrinsic desire and the bonding issue is sufficient reason to exclude same sex couples.

This needs a LOT more explanation to hold water.

Hicup said:
RE: subjective moral position.

No, rather, objective, I prefer to think!
Click to expand...

And yet, your position is not shared by everyone, nor is it morally suspect to say that one is for marriage equality. No, this is an excellent example of subjectivity, as not everyone would concur with your moral belief, nor is there any universal appeal to wrongness here.

Hicup said:
By themselves, no, but it is my belief that the effects of homosexual parenting have no been fully vetted. No worse, or better than any heterosexual bonding that is also harmful, or potentially dysfunctional. That said, I am not opposed to homosexual parenting.
Click to expand...

Re-read what you wrote - you believe that "homosexual parenting" is "no worse, or better than any heterosexual bonding that is also harmful...that said, I am not opposed to homosexual parenting". What the heck? If homosexual parenting was no better than a harmful heterosexual parenting, wouldn't that be EVERY reason for you to oppose it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom