• 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!

Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?


  • Total voters
    113
But the point is, I am not arguing with the general public. I am arguing with people who know the argument. What would be the point of me telling you something you clearly know already?

And there's another positive to the argument. If you argue this to the general public, folks who are unaware of this argument, you can educate them on a level they understand and can related to. Everyone has a family.
 
You are partially right that time will sway things. But I do not agree that I cannot sway folks with my argument. I've done it here. DP is the world on a smaller scale. GM advocates do not use this argument on a large scale. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they did.

Kinda in line with what I just said to CL, the argument is clearly there. It is clear that many gay people have children, if for no other reason that these days most people know gay people, and are therefore exposed to this fact. Therefore, clearly being able to marry and create a more stable environment for children is self evident to my mind. I am all too familiar on a personal level with the problems inherent in gays with children not being able to marry, and how that effects the children of those gay people.

By the way, DP is not a good model ofthe real world. Most people do not have the inherent interest in politics it takes to be an active member of the board. We are freaks man.
 
The first part over-rules the second. You have been arguing from a non-governmental intervention standpoint, not from a non-discriminatory standpoint. Further, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, arguing from a non-discriminatory standpoint will not win...and hasn't won. Arguing from a family benefits standpoint will and has. And it is irrelevant as to whether you believe that family benefits exist. They certainly do, again, as has been pointed out many times in this thread.

I agree that my non-government stance over rules the discrimination stance. However, until there is a platform to argue against government involvement altogether, I will argue that as long as the government wants to keep their grubby paws involved in our personal relationships, then they should do so fairly.

As far as it not winning... well, it's winning little by little. It will only be a matter of time. It just hasn't won in every state YET. Six down, so far.

As for the family benefits, it's been mentioned several times in the thread, sure. But there's nothing substantiating the premise that loving, responsible parents with a piece of paper are somehow better off than loving, responsible parents without one.
 
Kinda in line with what I just said to CL, the argument is clearly there. It is clear that many gay people have children, if for no other reason that these days most people know gay people, and are therefore exposed to this fact. Therefore, clearly being able to marry and create a more stable environment for children is self evident to my mind. I am all too familiar on a personal level with the problems inherent in gays with children not being able to marry, and how that effects the children of those gay people.

Now you're getting it. ;)

By the way, DP is not a good model ofthe real world. Most people do not have the inherent interest in politics it takes to be an active member of the board. We are freaks man.

In a sense you are correct. We are more up on politics and can debate and discuss a wider array of issues then most. We also are more knowledgeable. However, human reactions are the same all over. What works here, will work out there.
 
The gist of what you guys are saying is "make nice with the bad guys and they'll more readily accept your position". In other words, the anti-gay marriage folks think that marriage is for and about raising children. So focus on that and win them over. I get the logistical incentives to do that. However, it would require compromising MY values and beliefs in order to argue that. How? Let me try to explain a little better.
First off, calling folks who advocate the proven benefits marriage affords child rearing the "bad guys" is setting a fight that is wholly unnecessary, and wholly unwinnable.

Healthy society is built with healthy families. Healthy families are statistically more likely when the parents are married than when the parents are not. If government is going to regulate marriage, then it is best if it do so in such manner as seems most likely to strengthen the family unit. For most folk, that is the pre-eminent concern regarding laws governing marriage. Distill away religious rhetoric and moral vocabulary, and what remains is the desire for strong, healthy families, to build a strong, healthy society.

Calling folks who desire strong, healthy families the "bad guys" accomplishes nothing more than making enemies unnecessarily.

It requires that I go along with that presumption that "marriage is for the children". Even acknowledging that it's a valid argument for their side requires that I compromise what I actually believe.
How?

Even if you personally do not consider marriage to be relevant in child rearing, the weight of statistical evidence as well as the experiences of generations shows unequivocally that marriage on average benefits children. This is not presumption, this is not belief, this is empirical fact.

Arguing that gay marriage is "in the government's best interest" goes against what I believe, because marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government AT ALL, much less be "in their best interest". It's not about the government. It's about individuals and their position of equality in the eyes of the government.
The argument is not that same sex marriage is in the best interests of the government. The argument is that same sex marriage facilitates same sex couples in building the same strong, healthy family units that heterosexual couples are presumed to desire. The argument is that same sex couples' desires for marriage arise from the same source and are broadly based on the same social principles as heterosexual couples--the desire to build strong families and to be the foundations of strong communities. The "pro-family" argument is the argument of equality; it is the argument that defines common ground for all couples desiring marriage.

The argument is that same sex marriage is in the best interests of people, of families, and of society. The argument is not about government, but is made to government.

See, if I just wanted to debate or make an issue about raising children, then I would simply argue that gays should be allowed to adopt regardless of marital status. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about marriage, which exists independent of children, is not about children, and not necessary for child rearing.
Marriage benefits families. People are generally in favor of benefiting families.

There is no need to say same sex marriage is exclusively about children or even families; merely advocate and explicate that same sex marriage holds the same potentials for benefiting children and families as heterosexual marriage.

So for me to turn my argument FOR gay marriage to child rearing issues, it requires that I actually believe marriage is necessary for, or even better for child rearing. But I don't. So I can't.
Marriage is not necessary for child rearing. That it is beneficial is not a matter of belief, but of empirical fact. Arguing that it is not beneficial is a losing argument from the outset.

ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative: Benefits of the Healthy Marriage Initiative

Benefits of Healthy Marriages

For Children and Youth

Researchers have found many benefits for children and youth who are raised by parents in healthy marriages, compared to unhealthy marriages, including the following:

  1. More likely to attend college
  2. More likely to succeed academically
  3. Physically healthier
  4. Emotionally healthier
  5. Less likely to attempt or commit suicide
  6. Demonstrate less behavioral problems in school
  7. Less likely to be a victim of physical or sexual abuse
  8. Less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol
  9. Less likely to commit delinquent behaviors
  10. Have a better relationship with their mothers and fathers
  11. Decreases their chances of divorcing when they get married
  12. Less likely to become pregnant as a teenager, or impregnate someone.
  13. Less likely to be sexually active as teenagers
  14. Less likely to contract STD's
  15. Less likely to be raised in poverty
Now, can I argue that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as hetero? Of course. But that has jack all to do with marriage rights.
In that, you are wrong. Raising children and marriage are inextricably linked, and have been since the dawn of civilization. Every society predicates family structure on a marital dynamic; I submit this is not by coincidence.

One can point to specific unmarried couples who are better parents than specific married couples. That does not alter the broader reality that, on average, married couples have a higher probability of being successful parents than unmarried couples.

Does any of this require that you personally consider marriage to be a prerequisite for child rearing, or that you personally view marriage to be justified solely for child rearing? No, it does not. It merely is a means for capturing the empirical data that unequivocally proves marriage is a net benefit for children and families, and leverages that data in support of laws permitting same sex marriage.
 
I agree that my non-government stance over rules the discrimination stance. However, until there is a platform to argue against government involvement altogether, I will argue that as long as the government wants to keep their grubby paws involved in our personal relationships, then they should do so fairly.

As far as it not winning... well, it's winning little by little. It will only be a matter of time. It just hasn't won in every state YET. Six down, so far.

As for the family benefits, it's been mentioned several times in the thread, sure. But there's nothing substantiating the premise that loving, responsible parents with a piece of paper are somehow better off than loving, responsible parents without one.

Except this. Research shows that folks who are married with that piece of paper, statistically, do better in all of the areas that I have mentioned. Even with the high divorce rate, the psychology of commitment and security is beneficial. This is why the government has interest in the institution, and since this can be proven, this is why GM should be legal.
 
First off, calling folks who advocate the proven benefits marriage affords child rearing the "bad guys" is setting a fight that is wholly unnecessary, and wholly unwinnable.

Healthy society is built with healthy families. Healthy families are statistically more likely when the parents are married than when the parents are not. If government is going to regulate marriage, then it is best if it do so in such manner as seems most likely to strengthen the family unit. For most folk, that is the pre-eminent concern regarding laws governing marriage. Distill away religious rhetoric and moral vocabulary, and what remains is the desire for strong, healthy families, to build a strong, healthy society.

Calling folks who desire strong, healthy families the "bad guys" accomplishes nothing more than making enemies unnecessarily.


How?

Even if you personally do not consider marriage to be relevant in child rearing, the weight of statistical evidence as well as the experiences of generations shows unequivocally that marriage on average benefits children. This is not presumption, this is not belief, this is empirical fact.


The argument is not that same sex marriage is in the best interests of the government. The argument is that same sex marriage facilitates same sex couples in building the same strong, healthy family units that heterosexual couples are presumed to desire. The argument is that same sex couples' desires for marriage arise from the same source and are broadly based on the same social principles as heterosexual couples--the desire to build strong families and to be the foundations of strong communities. The "pro-family" argument is the argument of equality; it is the argument that defines common ground for all couples desiring marriage.

The argument is that same sex marriage is in the best interests of people, of families, and of society. The argument is not about government, but is made to government.


Marriage benefits families. People are generally in favor of benefiting families.

There is no need to say same sex marriage is exclusively about children or even families; merely advocate and explicate that same sex marriage holds the same potentials for benefiting children and families as heterosexual marriage.


Marriage is not necessary for child rearing. That it is beneficial is not a matter of belief, but of empirical fact. Arguing that it is not beneficial is a losing argument from the outset.

ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative: Benefits of the Healthy Marriage Initiative



In that, you are wrong. Raising children and marriage are inextricably linked, and have been since the dawn of civilization. Every society predicates family structure on a marital dynamic; I submit this is not by coincidence.

One can point to specific unmarried couples who are better parents than specific married couples. That does not alter the broader reality that, on average, married couples have a higher probability of being successful parents than unmarried couples.

Does any of this require that you personally consider marriage to be a prerequisite for child rearing, or that you personally view marriage to be justified solely for child rearing? No, it does not. It merely is a means for capturing the empirical data that unequivocally proves marriage is a net benefit for children and families, and leverages that data in support of laws permitting same sex marriage.

I was about to run off and get a link to all the proven benefits. You beat me to it. :2razz:
 
Except this. Research shows that folks who are married with that piece of paper, statistically, do better in all of the areas that I have mentioned. Even with the high divorce rate, the psychology of commitment and security is beneficial. This is why the government has interest in the institution, and since this can be proven, this is why GM should be legal.

How in the world anyone in their right mind sees marriage as "security" is beyond me. Guess folks can make themselves believe just about anything.

However, do better than whom? Comparatively with near identical couples who did not have that piece of paper?
 
But the point is, I am not arguing with the general public. I am arguing with people who know the argument. What would be the point of me telling you something you clearly know already?
Consider it practice. Consider it an opportunity to work through the particulars of an issue, so that when the day comes for a same sex marriage law or initiative in Michigan, you will be armed with potent arguments to support a cause you believe in.

A cause which, I might add, needs potent arguments, as the ones advanced thus far in Michigan have failed to persuade:

Michigan Court Rules Against Same-Sex Benefits - May 8, 2008 - The New York Sun

Michigan Messenger Same-sex marriage advocates call for 2012 equality push
 
First off, calling folks who advocate the proven benefits marriage affords child rearing the "bad guys" is setting a fight that is wholly unnecessary, and wholly unwinnable.
Those who oppose me are the bad guys. Always. :2razz:

Healthy society is built with healthy families. Healthy families are statistically more likely when the parents are married than when the parents are not. If government is going to regulate marriage, then it is best if it do so in such manner as seems most likely to strengthen the family unit. For most folk, that is the pre-eminent concern regarding laws governing marriage. Distill away religious rhetoric and moral vocabulary, and what remains is the desire for strong, healthy families, to build a strong, healthy society.

Calling folks who desire strong, healthy families the "bad guys" accomplishes nothing more than making enemies unnecessarily.


How?

Even if you personally do not consider marriage to be relevant in child rearing, the weight of statistical evidence as well as the experiences of generations shows unequivocally that marriage on average benefits children. This is not presumption, this is not belief, this is empirical fact.


The argument is not that same sex marriage is in the best interests of the government. The argument is that same sex marriage facilitates same sex couples in building the same strong, healthy family units that heterosexual couples are presumed to desire. The argument is that same sex couples' desires for marriage arise from the same source and are broadly based on the same social principles as heterosexual couples--the desire to build strong families and to be the foundations of strong communities. The "pro-family" argument is the argument of equality; it is the argument that defines common ground for all couples desiring marriage.

The argument is that same sex marriage is in the best interests of people, of families, and of society. The argument is not about government, but is made to government.


Marriage benefits families. People are generally in favor of benefiting families.

There is no need to say same sex marriage is exclusively about children or even families; merely advocate and explicate that same sex marriage holds the same potentials for benefiting children and families as heterosexual marriage.


Marriage is not necessary for child rearing. That it is beneficial is not a matter of belief, but of empirical fact. Arguing that it is not beneficial is a losing argument from the outset.

ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative: Benefits of the Healthy Marriage Initiative



In that, you are wrong. Raising children and marriage are inextricably linked, and have been since the dawn of civilization. Every society predicates family structure on a marital dynamic; I submit this is not by coincidence.

One can point to specific unmarried couples who are better parents than specific married couples. That does not alter the broader reality that, on average, married couples have a higher probability of being successful parents than unmarried couples.

Does any of this require that you personally consider marriage to be a prerequisite for child rearing, or that you personally view marriage to be justified solely for child rearing? No, it does not. It merely is a means for capturing the empirical data that unequivocally proves marriage is a net benefit for children and families, and leverages that data in support of laws permitting same sex marriage.

All of the above seems to rest on your link that states:

Researchers have found many benefits for children and youth who are raised by parents in healthy marriages, compared to unhealthy marriages, including the following:

Do you not see the problem in that qualifier? I would NEVER argue that an unhealthy relationship of any kind would be equal to or better than a healthy relationship of any kind. Thus, the link is irrelevant as far as I"m concerned since that is - in no way - my position. Nor does it even remotely help the position that marriage is better for families.
 
How in the world anyone in their right mind sees marriage as "security" is beyond me. Guess folks can make themselves believe just about anything.

That's nothing more than your opinion. Plenty do and read celticlord's post to see the benefits.

However, do better than whom? Comparatively with near identical couples who did not have that piece of paper?

Yup. With those and those who are single.
 
That's nothing more than your opinion. Plenty do and read celticlord's post to see the benefits.



Yup. With those and those who are single.

His link has nothing to do with the discussion since it compares "healthy" relationships to "unhealthy" ones. That is not even remotely what we're comparing.
 
His link has nothing to do with the discussion since it compares "healthy" relationships to "unhealthy" ones. That is not even remotely what we're comparing.

I have read numerous pieces of research that show that the health benefits of marriage exceed those of those who only co-habitate...no piece of paper. I have did them up, but I'll be logging off, soon, so it will have to wait. I will tell you that the research is pretty conclusive on this fact.
 
I agree that my non-government stance over rules the discrimination stance. However, until there is a platform to argue against government involvement altogether, I will argue that as long as the government wants to keep their grubby paws involved in our personal relationships, then they should do so fairly.
In this, I agree.

My personal view of marriage is that it is a religious sacrament far more than it is a civic institution, and that its social dynamics arise from faith and not from law. As such, government regulation of marriage is violative of the First Amendment, for such laws are unequivocally laws respecting the establishment of religion. The benefits that derive from marriage are grounded in the equally inarguable benefits of a vital and active faith.

However, the view of American society, and American civic and legal institutions in particular, is that marriage is a civic institution and is well within the State's police power to regulate. Loving v Virginia affirmed that principle explicitly. While I disagree with the principle philosophically, it would be foolish to pretend it did not enjoy force of law in American society; despite my fondest desires, marriage is and will likely remain regulated by the state.

I will always campaign to remove marriage from the purview of the state. I will never concede that the state has any proper interest in regulating a religious sacrament, and I will always argue that government can best achieve its legitimate interest in furthering healthy society predicated on healthy families by registering civil unions, and transferring to all such unions the same rights and obligations currently ascribed to the marital union.

However, as my stance is very much a minority stance, my counsel to those whose primary focus is the permissibility of same sex marriage is, as has been argued here, a focus on the benefits marriage brings to family, and that extending the marital privilege to same sex couples, within the currently accepted regulatory scheme of marriage, furthers a legitimate societal interest in strong family structures.
 
I disagree that a piece of paper is beneficial for families. It is, to me, an outright lie.

Loving, caring, responsible people are beneficial for families. No piece of paper required.
Marriage is and always has been more than a piece of paper. The paper is but a token, as are the rings man and wife place on each other's hands. Marriage is what these outward signs betoken, and what they betoken is of extraordinary significance.
 
Equal justice under the law. Either we believe in equality or we don't. As long s Gay's are not equal under the law then it leaves the door open to speculate on who is equal and who isn't.

I can't believe that Americans cannot understand this simple premise. We can't say all are equall except this group or that group. If we are not all equal as Americans it leaves the door open for all of us to be discriminated against.
 
Consider it practice. Consider it an opportunity to work through the particulars of an issue, so that when the day comes for a same sex marriage law or initiative in Michigan, you will be armed with potent arguments to support a cause you believe in.

A cause which, I might add, needs potent arguments, as the ones advanced thus far in Michigan have failed to persuade:

Michigan Court Rules Against Same-Sex Benefits - May 8, 2008 - The New York Sun

Michigan Messenger Same-sex marriage advocates call for 2012 equality push

Technically, the marriage I am interested in seeing would be in Georgia, but point taken.

By the way, this has been an enjoyable discussion tonight. Thanks guys and gal. Good night though.
 
Technically, the marriage I am interested in seeing would be in Georgia, but point taken.

By the way, this has been an enjoyable discussion tonight. Thanks guys and gal. Good night though.

Usually, when we don't have fools running around saying "gays are sick" or "it isn't natural" or the like, this is a very good discussion. We've been doing this nightly for about 3 days, now. Very enjoyable. Good night all. :)
 
Usually, when we don't have fools running around saying "gays are sick" or "it isn't natural" or the like, this is a very good discussion.
So, let me get this straight, a person who holds the belief that Homosexuality is not natural is probably a fool?
I see Courtesy, I see.
 
Hold on, have to Google "anti-miscegenation" to find out wtf you're talking about.....oh, you're talking about interracial marriage. It simply doesn't apply because interracial marriage shares nothing in common with gay-marriage.

Seriously? Did you even read my posts? Broadly, both had to do with denying a certain group of people (in both cases, people who are attracted to who they are not supposed to be attracted to), the right to marry the kind of person they want to marry. Both were popularly justified by some nebulous threat to children and/or society, and appeals to tradition.

Why? That's not something I believe. Besides, you would first need to prove that there is a heterosexual-purity equivalent to the racial purity stance supporting anti-interracial marriage first.

The equivalent is the imaginary threat to children and society. In the case of interracial marriage, it was them producing so-called mud-blood babies who would not be able to function in either Black or White society. In the case of homosexual marriage, there is the idea that marriage is about children and will confuse the young about what marriage is for. Both were seen as a threat to traditional conservative values.

And in any case, anti-miscegenation had about as much to do with race as anti-SSM has to do with gender. Both are more incidental to the actual mode of oppression against sexual variance/deviance.

She asked, I answered, so you have no point.

The point is that democratic/legislative processes cannot be relied upon to ensure minority rights.


Gays can marry gays, though....I mean, yeah sure the other gay has to be of the opposit sex, but they also have to be of age and unrelated...etc..so, so what?

They have nothing in common. Create gay-marriage if you wish, but it's not a civil rights issue.

As I stated before, saying that gay people can just marry the opposite sex is not a meaningful choice because being gay is a part of who they are. It's like having a law that you have to marry outside of your religion, or having a law stating you have to marry somebody totally unlike the kind of person you like/want. Sure, everybody could still get married under such laws, but they can't get married to the kind of person they want to, so they are effectively denied meaningful access to marriage.

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.

Your faith in the law is disturbing, but a rational reading of the law is on the side of SSM advocates anyway.

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.

In contexts including but not limited to gay marriage. When they struck down prop 22, they reiterated it. State's top court strikes down marriage ban

Though I should be clear that the level of suspect classification is state-specific. California, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont all use sexual orientation as intermediate scrutiny:

The Supreme Court has additionally recognized national origin and religion as suspect classes and correspondingly analyzes any statutes discriminating against these classes under strict scrutiny. [2]
Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Quasi-suspect class, with its intermediate scrutiny, is typically reserved for government sponsored discrimination on the basis of sex or legitimacy.
Rational basis scrutiny is applied to all other discriminatory statutes. Rational basis scrutiny covers all other discriminatory criteria—e.g., disability, political preference, political affiliation, or sexual orientation (in every state in the United States except for California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa).
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification]Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Here is Iowa’s Supreme Court citing the Connecticut case:

In summarizing the rationale supporting heightened scrutiny of legislation
classifying on the basis of sexual orientation, it would be difficult to improve
upon the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut:
Gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long
history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that
continues to manifest itself in society. The characteristic that
defines the members of this group—attraction to persons of the
same sex—bears no logical relationship to their ability to
perform in society, either in familial relations or otherwise as
productive citizens. Because sexual orientation is such an
essential component of personhood, even if there is some
possibility that a person’s sexual preference can be altered, it
would be wholly unacceptable for the state to require anyone to
do so. Gay persons also represent a distinct minority of the
population. It is true, of course, that gay persons recently have
made significant advances in obtaining equal treatment under
the law. Nonetheless, we conclude that, as a minority group that
continues to suffer the enduring effects of centuries of legally
sanctioned discrimination, laws singling them out for disparate
treatment are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure
49
that those laws are not the product of such historical prejudice
and stereotyping.
Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 432.

http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf

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.

I suggest you fully read the Iowa case to show that, even in terms of legality, there is a case for SSM. Though relying upon the law for determining what is right is extremely dubious.

If people were to rely on the law in the colonial days, then Blacks in the South were considered property and marrying them would have made no more sense than marrying your dog. The assertion of the humanity of Blacks came from the federal branch, not the legislative and certainly not the populace of the South.

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.

The man-woman requirement was never even articulated until the law few decades. And here we have plenty of precedence anyway, given that we have an equal protection clause.

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.

Blacks weren't being prevented from marrying under anti-miscegenation either. :doh And actually, gay people did start getting married in these liberal areas until laws were passed against it.

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

If the category of people you want to marry is excluded from your choices, then you cannot have a meaningful marriage in terms of it being a relationship you want.

Quote:
"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.

Please be serious. You already acknowledge that gay marriage harms nobody, so don't start with murder-for-hire comparisons. A contract between two people is their business. When a 3rd party is killed, it become's the government's business.

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.

That's ridiculous. Infertile people don't have to show that their marriage will benefit society in some way outside of providing a stable environment for kids. Judicially, gays are not being treated the same, so no legislative intervention is appropriate nor required.

Incidentally, though, it would benefit society. If marriage promotes stability in relationships, then it will cause less transmission of STDs among the gay and bisexual, and due to bisexuals the heterosexual populace. It is also more efficient for people to cohabitate under one household. While this would be a great case for polygamy, it applies to expanding the definition of marriage as well if we assume marriage encourages cohabitation, which it does even if it merely promotes relationship stability.

But to say that benefit to society beyond treating a minority unfairly is a prerequisite for a law, even if you were to insist a legislative angle, is totally baseless. Gays are harmed by being denied the right to meaningfully marry. Why wouldn't that be enough?
 
Last edited:
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.

Everything must be approached from a moral standpoint, which is based upon logic, not emotion. This should include the law, which is quite obviously illogical most of the time when it relies upon its own traditions to make policy. To treat somebody unequally under the law without gain to society is extremely counterproductive to the well-being of society.
You didn't even come close to shredding it.
Of course I did. Easily.

At this point, I'm not even sure you comprehended it.

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.

I know some Christians are heartless Christbots (or Paul/Mosesbots, quite frankly), but I know some of them are also capable of empathy.

If you insist on arguing from a legal standpoint, it is still quite simple. Heterosexuals DO marry based upon love, lust, wealth, or whatever criteria they want. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether society benefits from their union. Homosexuals should be treated the same way. It's that simple.

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.

Where do you get that from? The fact that bureaucracies begin to function for the sake of their own self-preservation is a FLAW, not their purpose.

Do you seriously believe that what is good for the government is good for the people? If so, I'm not sure how you can be reasoned with. Do you remember Nazi Germany? Was what was good for the Nazi's good for Germany? No, obviously not.

It's an extreme example, but is morality subordinate to the laws of Nazi Germany if you live in Germany? Of course not. The law does not determine what is right and wrong.

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.

Marriage is an individual right, its benefit to society is incidental.

More from Iowa SC:



We are firmly convinced the exclusion
of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not
substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature
has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely
important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.
There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
determination.

We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.
Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa
Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise
would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people
must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive
justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal
protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by
the Iowa Constitution.

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and
lesbian people as a class.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is and always has been more than a piece of paper. The paper is but a token, as are the rings man and wife place on each other's hands. Marriage is what these outward signs betoken, and what they betoken is of extraordinary significance.

Those things of extraordinary significance are obtained without the piece of paper. The government involvement is not necessary for the relationship to be a good relationship and have significance in both lives. So, since the two things (the legal document and the good relationship) are completely separate and not dependent on one another in any way, shape, or form, one must conclude that the legal document is just a piece of paper and the relationship is significant and good because the individuals taking part in it wish it to be.
 
I don't think the "it's for the children" argument will win many hearts out there. I can totally see where you all are coming from with that and it's a good solid argument. However, the majority of people who oppose gay marriage that I've come across do so because the idea of same-sex relationships repulses them on an instinctual level. They see it as abnormal, unnatural, sinful and disgusting. The idea that these people they look upon with such scorn are actually raising children is even more shocking to them. I've even heard the argument that the best thing for these children would be to take them away from this "damaging" environment. Solid as the argument may be, I highly doubt it will sway any significant number of gay-marriage opponents.
 
Those things of extraordinary significance are obtained without the piece of paper.
Strange as it may seem, no they are not. There is a qualitative difference between an unmarried but loving couple and a married but loving couple. Both can be profound and meaningful relationships, but they are different. I can attest to this from direct personal experience on both sides of that equation.

Perversely enough, the same sex marriage debate itself is the proof that lays this canard to rest, for if it were as you claim, same sex couples would not feel compelled to pursue a quest for a right to marry.

I want to take a moment to reiterate an important point here: "different" is not universally "better". Not every loving couple requires the sacrament of marriage to fulfill the potential of their relationship. Each individual, within their particular relationships, must decide whether the sacrament of marriage will or will not enhance their relationships. That is not in question here.

However, society in general does take a more positive view of married couples as opposed to unmarried couples, and the empirical data is quite clear that the sacrament of marriage positively correlates to stronger, healthier relationships, as well as healthier individuals. As healthy relationships, leading to healthy families, are the foundation of a healthy society, if government is going to regulate marriage--which it will for at least the foreseeable future--having such regulation be guided by a principle of facilitating strong relationships and strong families across the broad swath of society is prudent and proper.
 
Back
Top Bottom