Political Crossfire Forums

[SCC]

It escapes me, how anyone who calls himself/herself a humane being can openly oppress gays and deny them their minuscule request of being granted a legal marriage certificate.

Let us not consider the complex and unfathomable realm of religion in this thread. Let us instead contrast the moral vs immoral and rational vs immoral facets of legalizing gay marriages.

moral vs immoral: would it be immoral or moral to grant a small minority of the population a legal marriage certificate? moral.

is it immoral or moral to oppress a minority of this nation's population just because they have a different sexual preference than the rest of us? immoral.

is it immoral or moral to repudiate a minority of this nation's population's request for a legal marriage certificate because of religious protests and instead grant them government organized civil unions? Perhaps this one renders a small explanation. Civil unions are not satisfactory, because it is a separate domain and thus it is still unequal. Even if it did provide gay couples with similar rights as a marriage certificate(which it doesn't fully); the notion of separation is still respectively inequality in a sense, thus immoral.

now... rational vs irrational: irrational are some of the rebuttals I've heard against legalizing gay marriages. For some reason beyond my comprehension, gays have been categorized with incestuous individuals, bestiality, and polygamy. What patent nonsense. I can only shake my head and think: what bigoted stupidity.

rational vs irrational: what threat does legalizing gay marriages pose to humanity? none whatsoever. On the contrary, considering how our earth is so polluted in the lithosphere; how global warming is spreading so rapidly in the hydrosphere; how the ozone layer is slowly depleting somewhere in our atmosphere, maybe a little population depletion will aid mother nature.(offhanded comment and a pathetic attempt at light humor. Please don't deride this last comment)

I've written enough, not that I don't have more to say, but it's rather late and I can't think any more. Anyhow, I beseech you: religious zealots(sp), bigoted conservatives(not the moderate ones) and any left wingers who have taken or began to take an adamant stance against the legalization of gay marriages, contemplate the morality and rational of your very significant decision. This is NOT a matter beyond the realms of the ordinary individual's horizon of perception. I am a fully heterosexual female who dates males and was once repulsed by the idea of gays and lesbians, so I'm not biased here. Trust me, allowing gays to wed is not going to have an ounce of impediment in your own love life or any aspect of your life for that matter.

[Geneviève]

Quote: It escapes me, how anyone who calls himself/herself a humane being can openly oppress gays and deny them their minuscule request of being granted a legal marriage certificate.



Well, actually, it's not just the "certificate" they want, it's the civil rights that marriage bestows.
That's what they're after, not just some token piece of paper.
And it's not "miniscule" to them... for same-sex couples to have the same civil rights as male/female couples is an enormously big deal.

But I agree. To deny them their civil rights on the basis of their sexual orientation is inhumane, and inhuman.


:-|

[SCC]

Geneviève wrote: Quote: It escapes me, how anyone who calls himself/herself a humane being can openly oppress gays and deny them their minuscule request of being granted a legal marriage certificate.



Well, actually, it's not just the "certificate" they want, it's the civil rights that marriage bestows.
That's what they're after, not just some token piece of paper.
And it's not "miniscule" to them... for same-sex couples to have the same civil rights as male/female couples is an enormously big deal.

But I agree. To deny them their civil rights on the basis of their sexual orientation is inhumane, and inhuman.



:-|

It's a miniscule request in terms of resolve and the problems of humanity in its entirety. I was emphasizing the stupidity of perpetuating a form of oppression that can be eradicated with extremely simplistic measures. To gays and all, a marriage certificate is not insignificant, but granting them that legalized certificate should be insignificant to the rest of us.

[John Galt]

I don't know what definitions you areusing for "immoral" and "moral" ...

However I will say that there are rational reasons for denying homosexuals a marriage certificate which centers around the reasons thatthestate grants marriage certificates inthefirst place, namely, the state wants new taxpayers. Now yes there are heterosexualcouples who chose not to have children and homosexual couples that do adopt but singling them out would be denying equal protection.As it stands everyone does have equal protection. A law banning all forms of sodomy, while asinine, does not violate equal protection.Neither does a law stating that matrimony is betwen a man and a woman, no matter how asinine the law is. IMO the state should be out of marriage all together but I recognize its right to legislate here (even though it shouldn't -- its a political not a constituional question).

Instead of demanding thatthe Courts do this and that I hope you advocate the legislature, the voice of thepeople, remove themselves from marriage/allow gays to marry. Instead of calling people bigoted outright perhaps youcould try to changetheir opinions. I find the idea ofhomosexuality repulsive, but I do not find homosexuals repulsive. I'd wager most people are the same. However there are some who believe it is somehow sinful and acrime against nature for homosexuality to occur. They can think that allthey want, it isn't true, but what you mustteach them is well, people will have sex out of wedlock, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, and it's kinda silly to ban gay marriage. However, there is one final thing -- the idea of matrimony. Marriage, by definition, is only made in a hetoersexual union. For homosexuals to demand that the other 95% of the population change the defieniton is, to me, a bit extreme and they should not askfor that. This is why the state needs toget out of marriage. If they stillwant to dole out benifits, then fine --create civil unions for all, and marriage will be a religious insitituion. I just really think it is asking alot to have people change the very defieniton of the bedrock of society for 5% of the population...

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Marriage, by definition, is only made in a hetoersexual union.
Only if one postis the premise that having opposite genders is essential to everything else that marriage encompasses. I reject this premise as false. The gender of the parties involved in no way prevents them from from declaring their mutual consent to form a family unit and live together for their mutual care & support. It does not prevent them from raising children (though they can't produce them together biologically - something which is also true of many heterosexual couples).

What demonstrable element of marriage requires the parties to be of opposite genders? I can find none that holds true.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Marriage, by definition, is only made in a hetoersexual union.
Only if one postis the premise that having opposite genders is essential to everything else that marriage encompasses. I reject this premise as false. The gender of the parties involved in no way prevents them from from declaring their mutual consent to form a family unit and live together for their mutual care & support. It does not prevent them from raising children (though they can't produce them together biologically - something which is also true of many heterosexual couples).

What demonstrable element of marriage requires the parties to be of opposite genders? I can find none that holds true.

Basically because only heterosexuals can have children.And like I've said before singling out people who can't have children or won't is violation of theequal protection of the laws, whereas this is not. Furthermore, marriage has been this way for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

[Jehan]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Marriage, by definition, is only made in a hetoersexual union.
Only if one postis the premise that having opposite genders is essential to everything else that marriage encompasses. I reject this premise as false. The gender of the parties involved in no way prevents them from from declaring their mutual consent to form a family unit and live together for their mutual care & support. It does not prevent them from raising children (though they can't produce them together biologically - something which is also true of many heterosexual couples).

What demonstrable element of marriage requires the parties to be of opposite genders? I can find none that holds true.

Basically because only heterosexuals can have children.And like I've said before singling out people who can't have children or won't is violation of theequal protection of the laws, whereas this is not. Furthermore, marriage has been this way for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

We've had slavery for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

We've had autocratic rulers for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

We've done without computers for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

Have you gotten my drift yet, Galt?

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Basically because only heterosexuals can have children.
Marriage isn't a requirement for procreation and procreation isn't a requirement of marriage. As procreation is not essential for a marriage to be recognized as such, it is not a valid argument for demanding the exclusion of couples who can't or won't produce children, regardless of their gender.

Homosexuals can and do raise children, either those they've adopted or the biological children of one of the partners. Many heterosexual couples do the same. What is the justification for using gender to treat these couples differently from each other?

We should either recognize all marriages between competent consenting adults or only those of couples raising children. A system that only recognizes the marriages of some people based on the mechanics of heterosexual reproduction creates special privileges for one group of people without there being a justifiable government interest in doing so.

Quote: And like I've said before singling out people who can't have children or won't is violation of theequal protection of the laws, whereas this is not.
Singling out people who can't or won't reproduce is indeed a violation of that clause - you can't use it as an impediment to exclude their marriages from recognition. But that by itself wasn't enough to exclude gay couples. So now the government as erected an additional barrier, requiring the couple to be of opposite genders and then using that very roadblock as the justification for claiming there is no equal protection violation. How can you call the one situation 'unequal protection' but not the other? The restriction itself is the violation - marriages between same-gendered couples aren't being given the protection provided to other married couples under the marriage laws.

What is the government's interest in denying a license to recognize the marriage of a gay couple? How does blocking them provide equal protection?

Quote: Furthermore, marriage has been this way for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?
Who are you to demand otherwise? Marriage has evolved and changed throughout the history of humankind. It is not even the same from culture to culture in the present day. What you're giving us amounts to an unreasonable appeal to authority - in this case, that of tradition. Tradition is not a valid argument for determining the actions of government.

[patrickt]

The state is not involved in marriage because they want more taxpayers. I have the feeling that not a single person in the last twenty years when embarking on the activity that creates a new taxpayer said, "Well, I'm going to make a taxpayer." More than a few were hoping they wouldn't and there is no positive corellation between marriage and birthrate.

Marriage allows the state to exercise control or oversight in a variety of ways. When I married, a blood test was required to insure that neither party had an STD. We had to fill out a form swearing we were not any of the relations that were prohibited marriage in my state and that neither of us were currently married to someone else. Marriage establishes a legal requirement for the man to support children that issue from the marriage, whether they're his or not. In some states, that act of marriage transfers half of one party's assets to the other.

In my opinion, it is wrong, and unconstitutional, to deny gay couples the benefits and obligations of a heterosexual couple. In my opinion, it's a denial of equal protection. On the other hand, gays that reject these benefits and obligations being assured through a civil process and insist it be called a marriage are being ridiculous.

On the other issue. When I was working as a police officer some of the people working for me were racist. I don't mean they weren't politically correct but they were simply bigoted racists. I tried hard to change their minds and a notable lack of success. So, I issued an edict that certain behavior would no longer be tolerated. After a couple of people decided to see if I was serious and learned I was the behavior changed. Then I noticed an interesting thing. After the behavior changed, by force, attitudes changed. I'm not sure changing attitudes first is possible.

[John Galt]

Jehan wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Marriage, by definition, is only made in a hetoersexual union.
Only if one postis the premise that having opposite genders is essential to everything else that marriage encompasses. I reject this premise as false. The gender of the parties involved in no way prevents them from from declaring their mutual consent to form a family unit and live together for their mutual care & support. It does not prevent them from raising children (though they can't produce them together biologically - something which is also true of many heterosexual couples).

What demonstrable element of marriage requires the parties to be of opposite genders? I can find none that holds true.

Basically because only heterosexuals can have children.And like I've said before singling out people who can't have children or won't is violation of theequal protection of the laws, whereas this is not. Furthermore, marriage has been this way for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

We've had slavery for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

We've had autocratic rulers for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

We've done without computers for thousands of years - who are you to demand it be changed?

Have you gotten my drift yet, Galt?

No, Slavery today means the same thing as it always did. I'mtalking about changing the meaning of something. As for the computer comment, now that's just stupid. Not only am I not demanding other people use computers, it is the product of the thing that seperates man from the animals and we should not get rid of that.

Marriage is a private act that alot of people hold sacred. How is it that 5% of the population can force the other95% to accept a new definition of the pivate act throughgovernmental intervention? If government shouldn't be involved in the private actions of people why are mant of the same people who argue this willing to allow it to force new definitions of what that private action means upon us?

As for Skepticals comment that somehow NOW the government is placing additional barriers up around marriage, I can't believe an educated person would say something like that as if homosexual marriage has existed. It hasn't. Again, this is about changing the meaning of the word. It's been the same thing for thousands of years and furthermore, the people that currently use it overwhelmingly want to keep it that way. As I've said before its not government's buisness to be in marriage but I can find no constitutional reason why they can't. And no, it isn't a violation of equal protection. Homosexuals can marry anyone of the oppisite gender. Whether or not they perfer it does not matter. Heterosexuals are unable to marry people of thesame sex as well. No equal protection violation. Lawyers know this that is why they are using the Full Faith and Credit clause to try to force the issue, NOT equal protection.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: No, Slavery today means the same thing as it always did. I'mtalking about changing the meaning of something.
And the other poster was clearly pointing out the folly of using tradition as the basis for governing, as our understanding of the human condition continually evolves. He wasn't talking about definitions at all. Instead of addressing his argument we've been handed an attempt at distraction.

Quote: Marriage is a private act
One that is made a matter of public record if you want the benefits & protections associated with the government's recognition. Your point?

Quote: that alot of people hold sacred.
Including a lot of gay people who are married.

Quote: How is it that 5% of the population can force the other 95% to accept a new definition of the pivate act through governmental intervention?
This is a mischaracterization. No one is forcing them to redefine their own marriages. Since the government's recognition is not a private matter but one of public record, and the benefits and protections afforded marriage are matters of public policy, your privacy argument falls flat. For that matter, since you don't believe in substantive due process, that '95%' has no right to privacy, and even if they did, it wouldn't extend to the government's public recognition of other people's marriages.

Quote: If government shouldn't be involved in the private actions of people why are mant of the same people who argue this willing to allow it to force new definitions of what that private action means upon us?
The obvious answer is because the government's recognition of marriage isn't a private matter. Should it have been made a public matter? Probably not. Just because we don't like the fact that they got involved in it to begin with, that in no way precludes us from demanding that their continuing interference in the matter must be handled with equality & fairness.

If it's such a private matter, why should that '5%' be forced to accept your definition as it applies to their lives and their marriages?

Quote: As for Skepticals comment that somehow NOW the government is placing additional barriers up around marriage, I can't believe an educated person would say something like that as if homosexual marriage has existed.
What I have said is true - the government has erected a new barrier to gay marriages at the federal level - the Defence of Marriage Act. And now some people want to insert those rules into the Constitution by way of an amendment. The marriages of gay couples do exist - it is only the government's recognition of them that has been withheld.

Quote: It hasn't.
False statement

Quote: Again, this is about changing the meaning of the word.
Another false statement

Quote: It's been the same thing for thousands of years
And a third false statement.

Quote: the people that currently use it overwhelmingly want to keep it that way.
An appeal to emotion.

Quote: As I've said before its not government's buisness to be in marriage but I can find no constitutional reason why they can't. And no, it isn't a violation of equal protection. Homosexuals can marry anyone of the oppisite gender.
It is a violation. Homosexuals can and do marry each other. The government's recognition doesn't create the marriage - it is only an acknowledgment of that marriage's existance. Recognizing the marriages of one group while denying it to another is not equal protection.

Quote: Whether or not they perfer it does not matter. Heterosexuals are unable to marry people of thesame sex as well.
I'm perfectly willing to let them.

Quote: No equal protection violation. Lawyers know this that is why they are using the Full Faith and Credit clause to try to force the issue, NOT equal protection.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

With the passage of DOMA they've apparently decided that extends to declaring the effect of such acts null & void - the polar opposite of giving them full faith and credit. It makes a mockery of the clause.

[Winchester]

The government should stay out of peoples lives as much as possible. That being said it should not discriminate against people because of their sexual preferences. If the state grants legal rights to heterosexual couples because they obtain a "marriage certificate" it should not be able to tell same-sex couples you can not have these rights.

People should also stay out of others lives and worry about their own.

To those who think hetrosexual marriage granted by the government is the foundation of our society, please spare me. People stay together in relations for many reasons including love, financial, having and raising children etc., this isn't going to go away because the government grants us legal benefits or not.

To the homosexuals who think they can force people who think homosexuality is immoral to recognize your marriage, let me tell you, you got a long hard uphill battle that you will probably never win. I hope you can get civil unions and legal rights comparable to what the government grants heterosexuals, then find a church that will bless your "marriage" and you go on to lead happy lives.

My personal view is that government get out of the marriage defining business and leave that to the religions.