Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 4, 2009

LiveUninhibited said:
Well citing the law to support the law is a bit circular, and one reason I distrust the law, but let me correct something. Whatever conservative lawyers might say (most lawyers are nothing but charismatic idiots anyway, as evidenced by Congress), anti-miscegenation laws logically had no more to do with race than anti-SSM laws have anything to do with gender. The relevant issue in both cases is really sexual preference.

I do not agree. Anti-discrimination laws had precedence with other laws. This is how they were able to enact them. And using the law to support other laws is standard in legal and legislative practices in the US.

That's incorrect. The California Supreme Court cited many decisions to support their contention that sexual orientation is a suspect criteria for discrimination. Though again, I care more about who is being harmed. Gay marriage harms nobody.

Not in the context of marriage, as far as I know, but if that is true, please link to the case. And I agree. Gay marriage harms no one.

No, the Constitution is written in such a way that limits what sorts of laws can stand up in court. In order to challenge a law, people have to be wronged in some way. Being denied the legal ability to marry who you want who also wants to marry you is being wronged. In some cases, this is secondary to some other interest. But in the case of gay marriage, the only party with any real stake in the matter are the gays who want to get married. Nobody is being wronged by the gay marriage in a way that counters the interests of the gay couples.

And all of this is irrelevant without law on the books that supports it. Enacting new law is appropriate for the route you are going, but this is an uphill battle because there is nothing shows that the government has a vested interest in couple marrying because "they want to". You must have some reason that can be presented that gives cause for the government to support it.

I already explained why that doesn't make sense. Denying a group of people the right to marry at all was not what anti-miscegenation laws were about, or anti-SSM marriage laws are about. Blacks could get married, they just couldn't marry Whites. Whites could get married, they just couldn't marry Blacks. Everybody could get married, but they're SOL if they happen to like the wrong person. Putting arbitrary restrictions on rights robs those rights of any meaning. Suppose somebody told you that you can marry, but you have to marry a specific kind of person regardless of whether you like them or not. Would you be able to meaningfully exercise your right to marry? Of course not.

Again, your argument lacks merit, standing, and support. Laws were on the books that allowed men to marry women. Discrimination was easily identified when a black MAN wanted to marry a white WOMAN or vise versa. Plenty of precedence and old law just needed to be modified. Here, discrimination applied, as the concept of marriage was already established as man-woman. What we are talking about is NEW law, that needs a different kind of support. Discrimination doesn't cut it. Gays are not being prevented from marrying.

And of course I would be allowed to marry and marry meaningfully.

"want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.

I want to kill someone, so I have a contract with someone to do that for me. There is no legality that supports this, just as there is no legality that supports man-man marriage, nor woman-woman marriage. In order to enact this, a different angle must be used. Showing how gay marriage benefits the government, society, AND the couple and any family they may choose to have bypasses all of the pot holes that those for GM keep encountering.

The dog argument is not comparable, because a dog is mentally incapable of comprehending a marriage contract. And without comprehending a contract, meaningful consent cannot be given. Adult lesbians, however, obviously can consent to contracts.

And there are no laws on the books for either. But if it could be shown how marrying one's dog was beneificial to the government, socieity, and couple/family a case could be made. Since it can't, it would not be allowed. Your issue here is that you are looking at this from a moral/emotional standpoint. I am pro-GM. However, winning this position will NOT be on moral/emotional grounds. It will be on legal grounds. The discrimination position has far to many holes. The government/society/couple/family benefit argument, in as far as enacting new law can win and win easily.

You didn't even come close to shredding it.

Of course I did. Easily.

Love is only one possible motive. It's presence isn't necessary, I was just hoping that those against gay marriage would learn to have empathy for other people.

That's the point I've been trying to make with you. They won't. Which is precisely why you cannot argue from this position. This is why the discrimination argument and "marrying because I want to" argument will not work. Anti-GM folks, most of them at least, could care less about caring about the feelings of gays. The way around this is the government/society/couple/family benefit argument.

The government isn't set up to look after it's own interests, but that of the people. Since nobody has a tangible stake against gay marriage, there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is not only to benefit society. We don't subject marriages to a test to check to see if it would benefit society. The relevant criteria is that both people consent to the contract, and provided that contract doesn't harm anybody there is no basis to deny it.

Of course the government is set up to look after it's own interests. This may not be direct, mostly, but it is certainly indirect in nearly all things. The government is not going to do something that harms it...that would make no sense, since harming the government harms the people.

And marriage benefits society. There is plenty of research that supports that. This is why proving that gay marriage benefits society (of which there is plenty of research that supports this) will win this issue. Easily.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 4, 2009

Redress said:
I am not arguing from a legal standpoint. My whole stance on gay marriage is we need to agree it needs to happen, and then do what needs to be done to make it legal. I am not a lawyer, so the legal stuff is not my department.

Arguing this from a moral standpoint is all well and good, but it will convince no one that needs to be convince. One must argue it from a legal/benefit standpoint to win on the issue.

With that said, there are clear and distinct similarities between anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage currently. To say they have no similarity is patently false.

Morally there are. Legally very little. But try answering my challenge. I'll post it again: Please show where and why the government would have a stake in allowing people to marry who they want...for the sole reason of marrying who they want, no other factors may be included.

Redress · Jul 4, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Arguing this from a moral standpoint is all well and good, but it will convince no one that needs to be convince. One must argue it from a legal/benefit standpoint to win on the issue.

I don't think arguing it from a legal standpoint will have any real impact either, less in fact. Just because there is a legal framework to make something legal does not mean you should. I think that is backwards. You decide something should be legal, and then make it so.

Morally there are. Legally very little. But try answering my challenge. I'll post it again: Please show where and why the government would have a stake in allowing people to marry who they want...for the sole reason of marrying who they want, no other factors may be included.

I do not believe that to be true. I believe in the specific case of gay marriage that it should be made legal, that there is no overriding societal need for gay marriage to be illegal, and therefore should be made legal.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 4, 2009

Cephus said:
It doesn't really matter how they would argue it if their argument is illogical, which it clearly is. You have to remember these are the same people who believe in an invisible man in the sky.

Legally, from a discrimination standpoint, their position is logical, though narrowly so.

And knock off the anti-religious crap.

But there was a time when it was illegal for a white man to marry a black woman and vice versa and the reason that it is no longer illegal is because people realized it was a patent violation of equal protection rights under the law. It's a perfect example of something that was once illegal, like gay marriage is in some places today, an which became legal because it was a basic violation of guaranteed Constitutional rights. We guarantee equal rights for all men (and by extension women), not white men, not straight men, *ALL* men. To give rights to one group and not to another is a basic violation of our guaranteed rights. That's about the best cause you can find.

:sigh:I've already argued this a couple of times in this thread. There is no precedence in existing law. There was for men marrying women, so allowing interracial marriage was a discrimination issue. With no precedence, unless new law is created, more difficult than just modifying old law, specific reasons need to be presented. "Because I want to" doesn't do it. Showing benefits does.

Wrong, it's not. Marriage is a legal contract, any two people who can enter into a legal contract ought to be able to do so. A dog cannot legally enter into a contract, nor can a child. I don't know who you've debated who has failed to point out this very simple fact, but this is simply not a pothole, it's a basic fact.

:sigh: Again, I've already pointed out the fallacy of this argument. "Because I want to" alone isn't enough to win the argument. I want to contract to have someone killed. Not legal. Unless I can show a benefit in this, to have it occur I must create new law, which will be somewhat difficult. Showing benefits is a far more attractive and winnable solution.

I've just shredded your claims, do try again.

Not in the least. You haven't even come close to tearing a tiny hole in them.

But they're not. If a straight person can choose who they wish to marry, assuming the other person agrees and reciprocates, and be married under the eyes of the law, then to tell a gay person that they cannot choose the person they wish to marry and likewise have the same right is discriminatory. Telling them that sure, they can be married, just not to the person they want to marry, is an absurd argument. It's like saying everyone can be married, but only to the people their parents choose for them to marry. That was the custom in many places and it was struck down.

Striking it down will require one to show the benefits, not just "because", since gays can marry. The discrimination argument worked with interracial marriage because there was man-woman marriage precedence. Far more difficult with no precedence. This is why GM is not the law. The movement has place discrimination at the forefront, instead of benefits. I have no idea why, since the benefit argument is so easy to win.

Too bad you haven't presented a single one.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 4, 2009

Redress said:
I don't think arguing it from a legal standpoint will have any real impact either, less in fact. Just because there is a legal framework to make something legal does not mean you should. I think that is backwards. You decide something should be legal, and then make it so.

But both exists. It has been decided that it should be legal, so now, how do you do it? Because "I want to"? Doesn't work. You MUST have a framework, and a winning framework to work with. "Because I want to" has completely stalled.

I do not believe that to be true. I believe in the specific case of gay marriage that it should be made legal, that there is no overriding societal need for gay marriage to be illegal, and therefore should be made legal.

This is a negative reinforcement argument and will not fly legally. Just because there is no reason that something should not be illegal, does not mean it should be legal. No logic. You must prove why it should be legal.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 4, 2009

lincoln said:
Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.

There is no research that shows that polygamous marriage is beneficial to the government/society/couples/family. Therefore, the polygamy slipperslope argument is nothing but a logical fallacy and does not apply.

Redress · Jul 4, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
But both exists. It has been decided that it should be legal, so now, how do you do it? Because "I want to"? Doesn't work. You MUST have a framework, and a winning framework to work with. "Because I want to" has completely stalled.

As I have stated, I am not a lawyer. I am not qualified to design a law to make gay marriage legal. If I start talking from a legal standpoint, I am working from weakness in my case. I believe that laws can be designed to make gay marriage legal, but the actual design of such laws is not my department. As long as it can be done, we can then move into should it be done, which is where I argue.

This is a negative reinforcement argument and will not fly legally. Just because there is no reason that something should not be illegal, does not mean it should be legal. No logic. You must prove why it should be legal.

I do not agree. If there is no compelling reason to be illegal, and the people desire it to be legal, then there should be no problem. I believe that to be where we are at, trying to round up the support of enough people.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 4, 2009

Redress said:
As I have stated, I am not a lawyer. I am not qualified to design a law to make gay marriage legal. If I start talking from a legal standpoint, I am working from weakness in my case. I believe that laws can be designed to make gay marriage legal, but the actual design of such laws is not my department. As long as it can be done, we can then move into should it be done, which is where I argue.

I'm not a lawyer, either, but one should understand some of the legal ramifications to making something legal. I've argued this from many directions. The discrimination argument is weak and has lots of roadblocks...as we see in reality. The benefit argument is an easy win. Next time there is a GM debate at DP, try arguing it from a government/society/couple/family benefit standpoint. You'll win.

I do not agree. If there is no compelling reason to be illegal, and the people desire it to be legal, then there should be no problem. I believe that to be where we are at, trying to round up the support of enough people.

I bolded your confound. As soon as you make this statement, you change the original parameters of your statement. You are no longer making something legal because there is no reason for it to be illegal. People WANT it to be legal. There's your reason. Logic.

Redress · Jul 4, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not a lawyer, either, but one should understand some of the legal ramifications to making something legal. I've argued this from many directions. The discrimination argument is weak and has lots of roadblocks...as we see in reality. The benefit argument is an easy win. Next time there is a GM debate at DP, try arguing it from a government/society/couple/family benefit standpoint. You'll win.

Like this? http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

• More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
• More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
• An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
• An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
• A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.
• Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million

CaptainCourtesy said:
I bolded your confound. As soon as you make this statement, you change the original parameters of your statement. You are no longer making something legal because there is no reason for it to be illegal. People WANT it to be legal. There's your reason. Logic.

I considered the bolded part to be self evident I guess. If it's not something people want, then there is no reason to make it legal.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 4, 2009

Redress said:
Like this? http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

Tip of the iceberg, my friend. You want links? I've got links. :mrgreen:

I considered the bolded part to be self evident I guess. If it's not something people want, then there is no reason to make it legal.

Not what you said originally, though, so your original statement is negated and reverts to mine. Once you want something to be legal, you must prove why and you must do it in a "how" that is successful. Just "I want it" isn't good enough.

joko104 · Jul 4, 2009

LiveUninhibited said:
What social problems has gay marriage caused in Canada?

“The 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) inquired about sexual orientation and results showed that spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. About one-quarter (28%) were female couples and 72% were male couples.”

Source: 2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005

Thorgasm · Jul 4, 2009

Legal is the default. Laws only make things illegal. This issue should fall under the equal protection clause. The government is granting special benefits to a segment of society. They are licensing and regulating marriage with an arbitrary reason for doing so. State sanctioned marriage is unnecessary. You can still have a lifelong relationship with the one you love, have children, and own a home together. This is why it is discrimination. The people excluded are done so arbitrarily.

In the beginning it was necessary. People didn't have legal wills or access to legal representation in the 40 acres and a mule days. Making the transfer of property automatic protected families from losing their property to lawyers and greedy entrepeneurs. Yet, if a gay couple can have a family, why not this benefit?

Remember, gays were breaking the law when they acted on their sexual orientation. Talk about precedence. It's okay to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish as long as you don't go to church/mosque/temple. The discrimination argument is due to the history of discrimination our govt. has employed. People see this as an extension of that. It isn't just our govt. that has discriminated. The vast majority has until the last several decades' increasing acceptance (I'll say since televisions have been a common household appliance. Or since Little Richard did Tooty Fruity on TV.)

There's something like 1,100 benefits afforded to married couples. It's arbitrary as to why straights get preferrential treatment from the govt. In fact, if we cut through the B.S., the reason is religious in nature and since the majority were religious, their side won out. Civil rights are about protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority. As for stats, an injustice for one is an injustice for all.

Thorgasm · Jul 4, 2009

joko104 said:
“The 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) inquired about sexual orientation and results showed that spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. About one-quarter (28%) were female couples and 72% were male couples.”

Source: 2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005

So if these couples weren't married they wouldn't be violent?

Are you saying that marriage causes violence? :rofl

Jerry · Jul 4, 2009

Redress said:
When you have to twist meaning like that, it pretty much always means you are wrong, as you are in this case.

Mere objection is not an effective rebuttal.

Gays can marry gays and gays can marry heteros just as Blacks can marry Blacks and Blacks can marry whites.

Yes, it has to be a man/woman pair, but that's no different then being unrelated, age of consent, unmarried, etc. No one has the right to marry someone of the same-sex, no one ever did, which means equality is already achieved just as Loving said.

Jerry · Jul 4, 2009

Redress said:
I think he is actually. How about I rephrase abit to make it more clear and more accurate. Both interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans deny people the ability to marry who they choose for no reason beyond societal discrimination.

Women's right to vote wasn't a civil rights issue either. SCOTUS agreed that the law only gave men the right to vote. So, we made an amendment establishing this new right, and the rest is history. Imo gay-marriage is the same way. It is not a civil rights issue, so if you want to create it, there needs to be legislation passed establishing it.

But there is no right which gays are being denied today for which they can claim discrimination.

Jerry · Jul 4, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
That's the point I've been trying to make with you. They won't. Which is precisely why you cannot argue from this position. This is why the discrimination argument and "marrying because I want to" argument will not work. Anti-GM folks, most of them at least, could care less about caring about the feelings of gays. The way around this is the government/society/couple/family benefit argument.

Very true.

I love my sister, doesn't mean I support incest. Feelings are subjective and it's very difficult for the typical hetero to empathize how someone would feel towords a gender that hetero is hard wired to sexually repel.

Cephus · Jul 4, 2009

Jerry said:
Right, so long as we understand each other.

Gays want to marry? Fine, great, pull up a chair; but gay-marriage will be what hetero-marriage is for, raising children, and NOT the expression of individual rights, AND gay marriage will be established through perfectly constitutional means, not the court system.

Except that hetero-marriage isn't for raising children. It might include such, but there are plenty of straight people who get married and never have children and plenty of people who raise children and are never married. Therefore, it cannot be "for" something that everyone who engages in it doesn't take part in.

Cephus · Jul 4, 2009

joko104 said:
Do you say that most of those who oppose legalizing polygamy are also ignorant bigots and none of htem understand the basics of morality or logic?

Except you're not finding anyone in this thread who is posting against polygamy, are you? In fact, everyone I've seen who has mentioned it at all said they'd have no problem with it. Are you reading a different thread or just making things up?

Cephus · Jul 4, 2009

Lopettaa said:
Nothing if it is needed. It is not needed here, unless of course, you are a political in need of the vote.

That's like saying there was nothing wrong with slavery, we didn't need to change anything. Inequality is inequality and it's a violation of the most basic rights guaranteed in this nation.

Cephus · Jul 4, 2009

LiveUninhibited said:
One would assume that assets would be distributed on an equal-per-person basis, except in cases of special pre-nuptial agreements that were notorized and presented at the time of adding a partner.

As for children, one would simply need a hierarchy of criteria. Given the premium put on college for having a good future, human capital would have to be the first criteria. Though we would want to consider the preference of the child, depending upon maturity, and biological ties.

I also don't really think the courts would be clogged because few people would choose to be polygamous. Our culture enshrines the "two become one" sort of idea. Good luck finding a lot of women interested in multiple-person marriages. I have known a person in exactly one successful 3-person relationship, so it can be done.

Without derailing the thread too much, there are problems with it. Determining how much property each person is entitled to when one person leaves is going to be a disaster waiting to happen. Say three people start a relationship. Two years later, one leaves. Another year later, two more join. Then six months later, one leaves. Who gets what? If there's a single residence involved, do they all have to sell it so that one person gets their fair share? Children are another problem. Can a group of people legally adopt a single child? If so, how do you determine visitation rights, legal rights, etc. if the group breaks up? I'm not saying it can't be done, only that we currently don't have the case law to iron out the kinks. At least with gay marriage, we already have tons of case law for divorce, property, etc. Polygamy is wandering around in uncharted waters. Before I could give complete assent to having polygamous marriage, I'd need to see that we have an equitable system in place to deal with these problems.

Cephus · Jul 4, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
Legally, from a discrimination standpoint, their position is logical, though narrowly so.

And knock off the anti-religious crap.

No, this is a legal argument and people making emotional, religious arguments are just whistling Dixie. Religion has no place in legal matters, we live in a secular society with a secular government and our laws are made on a secular basis.

There was for men marrying women, so allowing interracial marriage was a discrimination issue.

No, there was precidence for white men marrying white women and black men marrying black women. You had to modify that to allow white men to marry black women and in many cases, strike down laws prohibiting same. But we can make the same argument, we already have law allowing two legal adults to marry, we just have to strike down laws that demand what the gender of those legal adults must be.

I want to contract to have someone killed. Not legal.

Because you are contracting an illegal act. Are you telling me you can't tell the difference?

Just because you refuse to acknowledge them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

And just because you refuse to acknowledge that your arguments are asinine doesn't mean they're not.

Baralis · Jul 4, 2009

LiveUninhibited said:
Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't necessarily mean they could adopt. I wouldn't mind if they adopt, but bear in mind that sex offenders can get married, but they certainly can't adopt.

This is true but do you really thing they would stop if they did not have equal adoption rights? I mean if they wont stop because of a label why would they stop here?

Jerry · Jul 4, 2009

Cephus said:
Except that hetero-marriage isn't for raising children. It might include such, but there are plenty of straight people who get married and never have children and plenty of people who raise children and are never married. Therefore, it cannot be "for" something that everyone who engages in it doesn't take part in.

You're pointing to exceptions which prove the rule as though those exceptions falsify the rule.

Every time you point them out, you loose.

Redress · Jul 4, 2009

Jerry said:
You're pointing to exceptions which prove the rule as though those exceptions falsify the rule.

Every time you point them out, you loose.

You have not proven that legally, strait marriage is about children though Jerry. You are the one who makes that claim.

The Baron · Jul 4, 2009

“Religion has no place in legal matters, we live in a secular society with a secular government and our laws are made on a secular basis.we live in a secular society with a secular government and our laws are made on a secular basis.” – Cephus

Religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

4. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

Seems to me that this is an issue of morals based upon two basic groups (an over-generalization I realize) of “religion”. One group is based upon a traditional, moral belief system and the other “religion” is based upon a secular, agnostic or atheistic belief system (another over-generalization).

To say that “religion has no place in legal matters” is simply an attempt to shut one group out of the debate.

Make no mistake about it, this is an issue in which one group of people will have their morals forced upon another set of individuals.

Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?

Yes, I would vote to make gay marriage legal

No, I would vote against making gay marriage legal

I am undecided and wouldn't vote

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Liberal Fascist For Life!

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Knight in Shining Armor