Actual Reasons, Please?

from PolMach Forums
I was getting extremely fed up with the Montgomery post- where everyone is just repeating themselves and no one- no matter what side you're on- is really giving reasons for why they think what they do anymore. People just say "this is how it is," and I have yet to see very many good "facts" from either side, despite what people are saying.

So, here's my thread. To start off- I would really appreciate it if everyone could keep the personal bashing and leftist/conservative attacks out of this. I've been looking on this site, and there seems to be very few people who are capable of having a rational discussion with someone, so this should be a good exercise in self control for everyone.

Point of this thread is {surprise!} gay marraige. What do you think of it? Is it a right? Is it something else? Why do you see it that way? What evidence do you have that supports your view, all of that. Is homosexuality itself genetic or a choice, should the religious beliefs of the people who make the desicion get in the way of whether or not homosexual marriage should be legalized? If we legalize gay marriage should we also legalize bestiality, incest, etc? Just...I dunno, starting questions, discussion starters, whatever you want to call them. I'm not going to post my opinion just yet; I want to see what other people think of it. Though I'll tell you now I'm firmly for gay RIGHTS- in marriage if nothing else. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex given certain conditions; you should have the right to marry someone of the same sex with those conditions. The reason you can't marry your daughter is because of the possible genetic mix-ups that would be involved, and the increased chance of mental retardation/deformity. I'm not entirely sure why you can't have more than one spouse, but then, I think you should be able to if you really want to. It's religious for some people, and it should be legal- but that's not the topic.

However, if you marry someone of the same sex- as long as they're not related to you, or the other conditions set down by law- it doesn't harm anything. Marriage is a civil right- by the ninth amendment, which says basically that any right not set down by the Constitution and that does not infringe on someone else's right is an unspoken right in the eyes of the Constitution. To me, that includes marriage. Marriage doesn't have to be religious- if I ever get married mine won't be- but you have the right to legally be bound to someone you love. And if that someone you love is male, and you're male, then fine. It's still your right.

It shouldn't even matter if it's a choice or if it's genetic, or if it's just something that happens {I know I said I wasn't going to tell my opinion; I lied}- because it's still your right. But I know I didn't make a conscious choice to be straight- I didn't wake up one monrning and say, "Ok, I'm going to like boys," it was just something that has been there all along. I don't see how it would be different for someone who likes the same sex.

My question is- why would someone choose to be part of a group that is ridiculed, slandered, disrespected, and generally hated by the majority of the population? Why would someone want that? Maybe I'm just being thick and I can't comprehend the mind of society, but to me that seems pretty damn unlikely.

Thoughts?

Cheers, Pads
politics
8,670 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I differ with your concept of "rights". Marriage isn't a right, any more than a driver's license or citizenship is a right. it's a governmentally defined and licensed state one lives in. If this were just about gay people living as married people, it wouldn't even be an issue.

Polygamy always comes up, and I apologize for bringing it up again, but it is valid. If we as a society can choose to deny polygamists or first cousins marriage licenses, then we have ALREADY decided that the government has the right to define it, haven't we?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you think of it? Personally, I find it repugnant

Is it a right? Is it something else?
It's none of the government's business, ESPECIALLY the federal government

Why do you see it that way?
Because I believe in individual liberties

What evidence do you have that supports your view,
The expressed opinion in the Declaration of Independence that, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are "inalienable rights", coupled with the first amendment, and, as regards federal noninvolvement, the tenth

Is homosexuality itself genetic or a choice,
I believe it is a choice

should the religious beliefs of the people who make the desicion get in the way of whether or not homosexual marriage should be legalized?
They should be allowed to decline or choose to marry gays based on their religious beliefs, but should not override federal law.

If we legalize gay marriage should we also legalize bestiality, incest, etc?
Bestiality, no..."Consenting adults" is a key provisio of our liberties. Incest...well, I think it's sick, but again, if consenting adults, presuming they're sterile and will produce no offspring, it should be their choice. Polygamy, polyamory, open marriages: as long as no child marriages are involved (see "consenting adults")

Hope that helps where MY opinions are concerned, at least
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I differ with your concept of "rights". Marriage isn't a right, any more than a driver's license or citizenship is a right. it's a governmentally defined and licensed state one lives in. If this were just about gay people living as married people, it wouldn't even be an issue.


I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "it's a governmentally defined and licensed state one lives in."

And it would be an issue. Everyone who opposes it for reasons other than whether or not it's a right would still be compeltely outraged at the idea- which is where the Separation of Church and State are especially important. Not everyone who opposes gay marriage does so for religious reasons, so that's jsut one group of people who would still be compeltely incensed.

Gideon, thank you. You didn't have to answer the questions directly, that was just me rambling and saying what issues could possibly be discussed. At the moment, there's not much I have to debate with you, considering that from other posts I know your opinions are set, and you haven't really said anything terribly controversial. I know you don't think it's a right, you know I think it is a right, and I doubt we're going to get much farther with that. But thank you very much for simply saying what you feel without making generalizations, or accusations, or calling ym a typical leftist {which you have never done, but I've seen a lot around here anyway.}

Cheers, Pads.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
On this topic, you are one the one hand asking for people's opinions, and on the other asking them for evidence to back it up. Opinions are rarely something that can be backed up with evidence. Facts, yes. Opinions, no.
On to the topic.
My opinion on the matter quite simply is as follows.

Marriage is a legal status established by the government. It grants certain rights and priveledges. If this were not the case there would be no required licensure nor would there be any laws governing marriage.

Yes, I am opposed to gay marriages.

Why? Because as I already stated, marriage is a legal status granted by the government. I believe homosexuality to be a perversion and unnatural. While I do respect the rights of people to do as they please in their private lives, I do not believe the government should give legitimacy to a perverse and unnatural lifestyle.

I am opposed to any law which would dictate what adult citizens may or may not do in the privacy of their own homes, but I am also opposed to the government giving a perverse, unnatural lifestyle the status of a legal marriage.

While I realize that my opinions may well be offensive to some, and they do not follow the PC bandwagon, the topic was presented and I answered honestly.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "it's a governmentally defined and licensed state one lives in.""


What is it, if not that? People can live together if they so choose. They can have kids if they so choose. They can even consider themselves bound by marriage, be married in a church, and tell everyone they are married.

No one is preventing them. The issue here is that the government won't issue them a license and recognize the union.

The opinion seems to be that the government doesn't have the right to decide that kind of thing. We do, though, grant the government that right in terms of polygamy, blood types, familial relationships, etc.

So, you really can't say the government doesn't have the right to restrict marraige in one breath, and then tell them they are okay to do it in another.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Considering I have a sinus migrane, I will the best I can for you.
I am bisexual (leaning on the side of the same sex), and I know for a fact that I didn't choose it. Whether it came about by nurture or nature, it wasn't my choice and I wouldn't have chosen it if I had that option. No one makes a conscious choice as to their sexuality. And it shouldn't matter. if a person chooses to do something that doesn't hurt anyone, their right to do so should be protected. Also, the first section of the 14th amendment says that states aren't allowed to grant certain fredoms and protections to one group of people and not to another. This is relevent because marriage is within the bounds of state law. Also, as I understand it, the supreme court has called marriage a right (I realize it's not a natural right but I'm sure they did too). Since marriage is in the civil domain it is a civil right. When states begin to deny these rights to certain people but not others, it becomes a civil rights issue. No state has the legal right to make anti-gay marriage legislation. As to reigion biasing lawmakers on this point, you must understand that I am a hard-core athiest and then take my opinion for what it's worth. That having been said, religion needs to stay out of government. While seperation of church and state is not directly stated in the constitution, it has been used time and time again as a precdent for many cases and we need to remember to put that phrase to work here. We have seen how well government works when religion gets a great deal of say - in 1700's england, people were opposed to religion in government and crossed the lake to found a new nation. Since a good deal of opinions I have personally heard against gay marriage have been fueled by religion (please note that I live in a christian, military community so it's very likely that this is a cultural factor). These religious opinions need to stay out of government. I see this as being similar on a much, much smaller scale to the vast racism and segregation towards blacks in the ealy and mid 1900s. It doesn't matter what you think of gays, they are being discriminated against and its right under everyones nose and no one is doing a damn thing about it. DH, you know how I feel about this issue and how important it is to me and you know how I love the opportunity to voice my opinions, so I thank you for that.I apologize if I sounded too ranty.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
As far as the rights, I am repeating something I've put on a couple of blogs. A gay man has the same equal right as any straight man as regards marriage; he can marry any woman he wants to. Same for a Lesbian, she can marry any man she wants to. What gay men and women want are special rights not equal rights.

I said on the Montgomery blog that I work in the Ansley area of Atlanta; a bastion of the atlanta gay community. Nice people, basically want the same thing straight people want out of life. I have an uncle who has had the same partner for all of my 36 years. I think of his partner as my uncle as well. I love them both very much.

But I will not fight for their right to marriage. It is not a religious issue for me. I don't give a crap about the whole biblical "a man shall not lie with another man" stuff. No offense to the religious folks, but I don't believe at all in mixing church and state (I'm not real impressed with the results in the Middle East). I actually look at is as a mere biological issue. I believe homosexuality is a genetic trait (only a sadist would choose to live as one of the most persecuted beings to walk the earth). As a straight man, I find it impossible to believe that another straight man could actually choose to look at another man's hairy ass and be turned on. I have been around enough gay men to know that they are just different. I can't put a finger on it, but they are obviously different.

However, biologically speaking, they are not made for marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who more than likely, not always, but more than likely they want to have kids. Simply put, gay marriages are not biologically correct to produce offspring. Please forgive the visual, but a woman does not come with the equipment to either internally arouse her partner and most importantly, does not possess the ability to impregnate her. Likewise, a man does not have an entry point designed for pleasuring another man and neither one has a chance in hell of becoming pregnant.

My uncles did go to a gay marriage friendly state in order to get married, but the reality is that they have ensured their future estates are handled properly with well written wills and powers of attorney. They both have full decision making capabilities with regards to health and finances should one or the other become incapacitated. I guess the only thing they can't do is file taxes and share health insurance benefits.

That's my take and I truly don't mean to be offensive to anyone. I apologize in advance if I have done so.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
See, now we get into the biology of it and that makes it a little different still. Im not offended. Its a terribly valid argument. If we were like other animals, we would just mate and reproduce and that would be the end of it. No, the human anatomy isn't designed for gay sex, but gays still have sex. Why is that? It's because humans are one of the few creatures on Earth who have sex for pleasure, not just reproduction. Some people find sex with the same gender simply more pleasing. Now what does marriage have to do with any of this? Humans also feel love for one another. Combine the desire to have sex for pleasure with the ability to love and some things come out differently than they are found in nature. Marriage is about love and you should be allowed to wed whomever you love. Marriage isn't found in nature either, is it? Tell me if this doesnt make any sense and i will strive to remedy the situation.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Since marriage is in the civil domain it is a civil right. When states begin to deny these rights to certain people but not others, it becomes a civil rights issue. No state has the legal right to make anti-gay marriage legislation."


Then you would say that laws forbidding polygamy are also unconstitutional? What about laws preventing the marriage of first cousins? They don't have to have kids any more than gay people do, do they? Or are you saying that SOME descrimination is a good thing, as long as you agree? Isn't that what those that oppose homosexual marriage are saying?

When you say that states don't have the right to make these laws, you overlook the fact that they have been doing so for a long time, and it is within their power. You just differ with THIS particular law because you say homoesexuals are a group protected from descrimination.

Where is there a blanket rule against descrimination? Liberals would have you think it is all wrong, and then pass laws all the time that restricts certain people from doing particular things. There isn't one. The Constitution doesn't say that people are not allowed to be descriminated against for any reason, it actually defines which reasons are wrong.

Homosexuality isn't one of them, for now.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Marriage is about love and you should be allowed to wed whomever you love.


From a legal standpoint, which is what is being discussed here, marriage is not about love, it is about a legal status established by the government. It is well within the government's domain to define what that legal staus consists of.

Gays currently have the exact same rights as every other citizen in this country. Nobody in this country has a right to same sex marriage, straights or gays.

Now if this discussion were about the laws in certain states which have actually been used to arrest and harass gays just for being gays, then we would be on the same side of the discussion. What people do in their home is their business with regard to sex.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Nobody in this country has a right to same sex marriage, straights or gays."


Exactly. Gay marriage laws are absolutely no different than polygamy laws. If one isn't illegal descrimination, neither is the other. IF it is legal to limit marriage to two people, then it isn't any more illegal to limit the sex of those getting married.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
Marriage is about love and you should be allowed to wed whomever you love. Marriage isn't found in nature either, is it?


I pulled this from encyclopedia.com:

Marriage is a contractual relationship between a man and a woman that vests the parties with a new legal status. Most of the requisites for other binding contracts must also be present in the marriage contract. Thus, the parties must have been competent to act, must have acted free from duress, and must not have made fraudulent representations; otherwise the contract may be dissolved by a judicial decree of nullity of marriage . However, marriage is unlike other contractual relationships in that it creates a status that may not be terminated at will by the parties, but only by a court, as by a divorce . It is thus often said that the state is a third party to any marriage.

With few exceptions, a marriage validly contracted in one place is recognized in others. Thus a common-law marriage—a marriage solely by the consent and behavior of the parties, without ceremony or registration—entered into in a state where such unions are valid will be deemed binding in states where a license to marry and a civil or religious solemnization are required. At an early period, common-law marriages were frequent in Europe; the difficulties arising from them—e.g., the doubtful legitimacy of children—led to their complete prohibition in Roman Catholic countries by the Council of Trent . Although common-law marriage was abolished in England in 1753, it remained lawful in Scotland and in the American colonies. Today, only 11 U.S. states permit the creation of common-law marriages within their borders. A few states have enacted laws permitting covenant marriages, in which premarital counseling is required and extra restrictions make divorce more difficult, but while such marriages are recognized by other states, the limits they place on divorce may not be, because the U.S. Supreme Court has established that the rules governing divorce are determined by the laws of the state of residence at the time of divorce and not of marriage.

Same-sex marriages, with all but a few of the legal aspects of traditional marriages, have recently been recognized in a few European nations. In the United States, local officials have from time to time registered same-sex couples or solemnized their marriages. At present, however, Vermont is the only state that grants any official recognition to a homosexual union. In some places local authorities have established “domestic partner” laws, granted “certificates of cohabitation,” or undertaken similar steps in order to afford homosexual (and some other) couples various rights society reserves for marital partners.


This looks like a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo to me, while love is an impotant part of marriage, the long and the short is that it is typically defined as a contract entered into by a man and a woman. I don't see the word love anywhere.

Again, no offense.



Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you think of it?


They can do whatever they want. It doesn't affect me in any way...in fact, since it became legal in Manitoba, the closest it has come to me has been a lesbian minister my friend knows.

Is it a right?


Yes. They want to pursue happiness, let them. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Why do you see it that way?


Cause I don't think it is my business or the governments business, or anyone's business. I don't care who's f*cking who, and I don't wee why social conservatives should either. All hell hasn't broke loose in Manitoba yet, and it doesn't look like it's going to.

What evidence do you have that supports your view, all of that.


most constitutional experts say that the Charter (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) allows it, and that it can not be denied without invoking the notwithstanding clause (my least favorite clause), and I agree with them.

Is homosexuality itself genetic or a choice


I don't know and I don't care. Religion and political beliefs aren't genetic, but they are protected.

should the religious beliefs of the people who make the desicion get in the way of whether or not homosexual marriage should be legalized?


The thing here is, why do the most conservative groups have a monopoly on marriage? My friend goes to a church that supports same-sex marriage. Plus, no matter what Stephen Harper and Vic Toews says, under the proposed legislation no church would be forced to perform the ceremony against their wishes.

If we legalize gay marriage should we also legalize bestiality, incest, etc?


If you are going to use the slippery slop argument, start at the top. You don't see anyone saying interracial marriage should be banned because if we legalize it, we have to legalize bestiality and incest.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If you are going to use the slippery slop argument, start at the top. You don't see anyone saying interracial marriage should be banned because if we legalize it, we have to legalize bestiality and incest."


No, but we selectively added 'race' to the list of things that one cannot be descriminated against. Homosexuality has not been decided as such.

The argument here, to me, seems to be that the right to decide isn't in the hands of the government at all. I think that it can be easily established that it IS in the government's power.

So, sure, if the people of the United States decide that homosexuality is something that should be added to race, religion, etc., then by all means make an amendment to the Constitution protecting homosexuals. Don't, though, pretend that it is out of our hands, and insist that we, through the government we elect, should have no right to decide at all who is and isn't allowed to get married.

It is when you make it an issue of 'self-apparence', and remove it from the venue of Democracy, that it becomes legislation by Constitutional interpretation.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Homosexuality has not been decided as such.


Ah. That's a difference. A Supreme Court Case a while back stated that sexual orientation should be read in to the Charter next to race, gender, religion, etc., and I've always thought that it goes along with the spirit of the Charter.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Then you would say that laws forbidding polygamy are also unconstitutional? What about laws preventing the marriage of first cousins? They don't have to have kids any more than gay people do, do they? Or are you saying that SOME descrimination is a good thing, as long as you agree? Isn't that what those that oppose homosexual marriage are saying?


I never said that. stop putting words in my mouth. I, in fact, support polygamy if the women are able to know all the other women the man is married too. If the first cousins are consenting adults they sure should be able to wed. No descrimination is a good thing and i never said it was. I dont differ on these laws but i didnt mention them because neither polygamy nor marrying my first cousin concern me yet.
From a legal standpoint, which is what is being discussed here, marriage is not about love, it is about a legal status established by the government. It is well within the government's domain to define what that legal staus consists of

i felt i had already covered the legality of my arguement so i chose to move on to another side in a whole other post.

This looks like a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo to me, while love is an impotant part of marriage, the long and the short is that it is typically defined as a contract entered into by a man and a woman. I don't see the word love anywhere.


That exerpt adressed same sex marriage and, while it defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, it also sad some gays have been married. that is clearly contradictory. And love is the reason most Americans get married. Just because Encyclopedia.com doesnt say so, doesnt make it not a factor.

From a legal standpoint, which is what is being discussed here, marriage is not about love, it is about a legal status established by the government. It is well within the government's domain to define what that legal staus consists of


Until the denial of such becomes unconstitutional.

then by all means make an amendment to the Constitution protecting homosexuals.


The 14th already protects all citizens.

that it becomes legislation by Constitutional interpretation.


A good deal of legislation already is set forth by constitutional interpretation. Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, even seperation of church and state, an interpretation of the first amendment by thomas jefferson, has been used in several legal cases.

Ah. That's a difference. A Supreme Court Case a while back stated that sexual orientation should be read in to the Charter next to race, gender, religion, etc., and I've always thought that it goes along with the spirit of the Charter.


Here in the states many states have laws protecting gays from descrimination when buying a home, in the workplace, etc. (a step in the right direction!)
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
sorry about this - i almost double posted and so i had to fix it and i cant submit it blank. disregard this post - my bad
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rather than repeat what is already written, I will completely, without a doubt, no hesitation, agree with Latour. He said it all. One thing that I've pointed out on another thread is that one difference between pro-gay and anti-gay is that those who support equal rights for gays are merely acknowledging gay peoples' inalienable rights to pursue life and liberty. No skin off anyone's back, whatsoever. None. Zilch, Zoink. Zero.

Those who are anti-gay are going out of their way to squelch the rights of people with whom they don't agree. Think about that. Why do you care? What skin off your back? Why diminish the lives and happiness of millions of people based solely on your opinions? Yes, folks. OPINIONS.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why are your opinions more valid than the majority of American's in a Democracy, zink? Didn't the majority (all?) states that had a referendum on the subject vote against gay marriage?

Lefties are just wild about Democracy until it differs with them, and then suddenly everything becomes 'civil rights' and rule by Judicial mandate.

A damn marraige license isn't a right any more than a driver's license or a gum wrapper. No one is stopping homosexuals from being married in church and living together forever. Life and liberty isn't issued by a courthouse on a piece of paper...