Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay marriage and the law
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 151 of 206 (449987)
01-20-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by molbiogirl
01-20-2008 2:46 AM


Re: The law
molbiogirl responds to me:
quote:
Signing DOMA was political CYA.
And when will it not be? Do you seriously think a super-majority of Senators are going to vote to repeal it? And make no mistake: It will require a super-majority as the obstructionist Republicans will ensure that any such bill will not get to the floor.
quote:
the dems are going to pick up more seats.
Unless they can get 60 votes...er...make that 66 in order to ensure that the likes of Lieberman are countered, then it won't really matter. The Republicans have the game plan down: Block everything thus requiring 60 votes in order for a bill to get to the floor. They know the Democrats will not attempt to invoke the nuclear option, they know the Democrats will never require an actual filibuster on their part (and make no mistake...that little stunt of bringing in cots was not an actual filibuster), so they can carry out exactly what they said they were going to do: Make sure nothing gets done in the Senate.
quote:
There have been plenty of times in the past year and a half when all the dems voted the party line.
And you seriously think DOMA will be one of them? Two-thirds of the Democratic Senators voted for it. Most of them are still there. Why on earth would they change their mind now?
quote:
And DOMA challenges have continued unabated since 1996.
A dozen years and no progress. In fact, the situation has become much worse.
quote:
After the next election, the Republicans will be unable to block access to the federal courts.
They don't have that ability now. One does not need Congressional approval in order to sue. One needs court approval. That's why Newdow's case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance was dismissed: He was declared not to have standing. The only way any case is going to get before the court is to have somebody sue. That's why there is a case winding its way up the California courts. But until somebody files a joint Federal tax return, nothing is going to happen.
There's already a case regarding an out-of-state divorce for a couple married in Massachusetts. The couple moved to Rhode Island and filed for divorce there, but the court ruled that they have no ability to handle a same-sex marriage. The couple claims it would be prohibitive for them to move back to Massachusetts in order to establish the residency requirement for them to avail themselves of the divorce statutes there.
There's another one regarding a couple who had a civil union in Vermont where they had a child. The biological mother moved to Virginia and renounced being gay. The Vermont courts upheld custody rights while the Virginia court denied them.
Since Congress and the President will never overturn DOMA, the only hope is the Supreme Court and with its current make up, it will never happen there, either.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 2:46 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 3:56 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 152 of 206 (449988)
01-20-2008 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 3:14 AM


Re: The law
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why homosexual marriage is a right?
Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why heterosexual marriage is a right?
Therefore, until you do, mixed-sex marriage is equivalent to same-sex marriage.
quote:
Why not then just extrapolate it even further to mean that we all can marry oranges?
Why is it that thinking of having sex with someone of the same sex makes you want to have sex with an orange? Are you trying to tell us something, NJ?
Unless and until you can explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to you raping your infant son, then mixed-sex marriage remains equivalent to same-sex marriage.
quote:
Everyone has the right to marry within the confines of what defines a marriage.
So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, yes? After all, the definition of marriage was between people of the same race. The prohibition against marrying outside of one's race applied to all races equally. And then the definition of marriage got redefined.
So by your logic, the Supreme Court erred in Loving v. Virginia and we should go back to the laws that prohibited miscegenation, right?
quote:
The context of marriage, by all definitional rights, is a union between an adult male, and an adult female.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? In the context of marriage, by all definitional rights, it is a union of an adult male with as many females of any age he cares to take on.
Why should we accept your definition over the historical definition?
quote:
If we were to go by your loose definition, we could marry cars, and boats, and kids, and cats.
Why does having sex with someone of your own sex make you think of raping your infant son while blowing the cat and then scooping out the leavings and pouring them into the intake manifold? Are you trying to tell us something, NJ?
Until you can explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to this, we are left to conclude that mixed-sex marriage and same-sex marriage are equivalent.
quote:
Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution.
Then why is there a law about it? The law involves questions of inheritance, medical decisions, custody, immigration, property rights, all of which are subsumed under the contract of marriage. The idea that marriage is only a religious institution is disingenuous in the extreme.
If you want to make your religious ceremony special, then find another word for it. You can call it "sanctification." Leave the term "marriage" for the law if your objection is based upon semantics.
Note, we all know it isn't...after all, you keep on telling us about your fantasies of raping your infant son every time the question comes up. That has nothing to do with the word used, so clearly your problem is not the word "marriage."
So out with it, NJ: What is the legal justification for heterosexual marriage? It exists right here, right now. Why should it? Unless and until you can justify it, then we are left concluding that mixed-sex marriage is equivalent to same-sex marriage.
quote:
Nobody seems to be outraged over that little incursion which is unconstitutional.
Why? Why is marriage unconstitutional? Do you deny that there are questions the law must answer with regard to things like inheritance, property rights, immigration, medical decisions, custody, etc.? Since those questions are answered legally by the contract of marriage, which defines a person as next-of-kin, why do you think that it is unconstitutional for the government to be involved in those things?
Or are you saying that the government is prohibited from being involved in those things? Where do you find that in the Constitution?
Are you about to treat the Constitution as a laundry list? That if we don't find the word "marriage" in it, that necessarily means that the government has no business involving itself in it? If so, then explain to me why it is illegal for you to have a nuclear weapon for the phrase "nuclear weapon" makes no appearance in the Constitution and yet everyone seems to think the government has the ability to regulate the possession of nukes.
Or do you think the government doesn't have that ability? You should be able to have a nuke if you wish? Wasn't that the supposed reason we invaded Iraq? To stop them from getting nukes? Why should we stop a foreign country from having the same things we allow our common citizens?
quote:
Doesn't mean God will honor it
Except god already does. Gay people have religious marriage rites in church with the blessings of god all the time.
Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "not."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 3:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 12:29 PM Rrhain has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 153 of 206 (449992)
01-20-2008 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 3:14 AM


Oranges are not the only fruit
Aside from saying "consent" in gigantic letters, you haven't explained it. Nor have you given a reason why consent is the be-all, end-all qualifier. I'm waiting for the punchline
It's called contract law. In contract law there is an offer, and an acceptance. It should be clear that an animal or plant has a potentially insurmountable barrier in that it is not able to make an offer, or give indication of its acceptance of the offer.
Now, this isn't complete - there are various complications that vary around the world as to when a person can be said to have entered into a contract. For example, the person may not have the capacity to form a contract (too young, drunk, poor, insane) or perhaps they were forced into the contract under duress. Also, certain relationships may be said to result in undue influence which can affect a contract: especially where there is an inbalance of power (adult/child for example).
If you can't define what a right is or how it becomes a right, how is any of that supposed to make sense? Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why homosexual marriage is a right
Denying a benefit to the people must be done for some reason, surely? If the state offers protection to some types of families (such as the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated loved one), but not to others - that seems to be somewhat unequal ot me. From what I can tell there is an obligation for their protection to be equal.
Why not then just extrapolate it even further to mean that we all can marry oranges?
Seriously, if you can get an orange to agree to marry you, sign a piece of paper in front of witnesses along with a verbal acceptance of the contract...then I have no problems with you marrying an orange. Hopefully the orange won't clean your bank account out, and you can live happily together for a few weeks until such time as the orange rots away.
. The context of marriage, by all definitional rights, is a union between an adult male, and an adult female.
What the hell is a definitional right? Marriage is what we make it; it is a human invention. The state gets involved because marriage is recognized as a way to conjoin families and families have certain rights recognized by the state (and there is a certain priority of rights for varying members of a familial hierarchy).
Women's tennis will never be men's tennis for the sole fact that a woman is not a man, and man is not a woman.
And gay marriage will never be straight marriage for the sole fact that gay is not straight. Like women's and men's tennis are both still tennis...
You are asking the world to change its definition in order to suit an agenda. Why not have civil unions that offer the same protections and benefits of marriage?
Nobody is asking anybody to change definitions to suit an agenda. You can call whatever you like whatever you like. You can steadfastly refuse to acknowledge a gay union as a marriage and nobody will stop you. The most important thing is getting the same protections and benefits. Since the contracts are the same, they should have the same name - the government shouldn't go around having one word for a contract made by black parties and one for white parties.
Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution.
There are religious ceremonies and rites that are associated with marriage, but there are also political and social ties to the event as well as legal ones. Marriage is more than just a religious ceremony, to deny that would be to undermine your argument against redefining words to suit an agenda.
Doesn't mean God will honor it
You are perfectly entitled to choose not to recognize any marriage by anyone to anyone else. Your church likewise. God is likewise entitled to honour whatever he chooses, be it a secular marriage, a pagan marriage, an arranged marriage, a politial marriage, a christian marriage or a gay marriage.
I have no reliable information on what God will decide (or has decided) to honour, but I think it is important that we get our own affairs in order and decide what we will honour and what we will not and why.
So far, I can see no reason to deny protections to families of a structure that a religious group finds distasteful or harmful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 3:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 1:17 PM Modulous has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 154 of 206 (449996)
01-20-2008 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 12:39 AM


Re: The law
quote:
The beauty of this country is that if you don't like what is going on in Connecticut, you can move to Colorado. If you don't like what is going on in Kansas, you can move to Iowa, and so on. That is pretty unique.
And if you don't like what's going on in any state in the country, or are too poor to move, you are SOL?
Yeah, pretty beautiful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 12:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 206 (450040)
01-20-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 4:10 AM


Re: The law
Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why heterosexual marriage is a right?
The sole existence of all people is attendant upon the notion of procreation, which is the very basis for the institution of marriage itself. The very core of its existence in human civilization is to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. Playing a game of semantics assumes that the institution of marriage has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim. -Alan Keyes
Why is it that thinking of having sex with someone of the same sex makes you want to have sex with an orange?
I'm simply telling you that if we are going to introduce arbitrary whims, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
quote:
:Everyone has the right to marry within the confines of what defines a marriage.
So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, yes?
Absolutely not since race has never been a qualifier of a marriage, but gender is. You are adding a superfluous element to it that does not (dis)qualify a marriage.
"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."
quote:
In the context of marriage, by all definitional rights, it is a union of an adult male with as many females of any age he cares to take on.
Why should we accept your definition over the historical definition?
Because its an historical fact.
Why does having sex with someone of your own sex make you think of raping your infant son while blowing the cat and then scooping out the leavings and pouring them into the intake manifold?
Where is the line in the sand? Until you define marriage within specified parameters, its loose meanings will trek on with the wild vagaries of man's mind.
quote:
:Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution.
Then why is there a law about it? The law involves questions of inheritance, medical decisions, custody, immigration, property rights, all of which are subsumed under the contract of marriage. The idea that marriage is only a religious institution is disingenuous in the extreme.
Then you should have no problem with a civil union, if the symbolism is completely irrelevant in your mind. If simply about legal questions concerning things like inheritance, medical decisions, custody, immigration, or property rights, then a civil union will provide that without butchering the institution of marriage. Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
If you want to make your religious ceremony special, then find another word for it. You can call it "sanctification." Leave the term "marriage" for the law if your objection is based upon semantics.
Why should I, since its been hijacked?!?!? Get your own definition for you and your boyfriend, Rrhain. Sanctification and marriage already have their definitions, and have for millennia.
you keep on telling us about your fantasies of raping your infant son every time the question comes up. That has nothing to do with the word used, so clearly your problem is not the word "marriage."
Not a single one of you can explain to me why homosexual marriage is a right in the first place. Consequently, by your rationale you can't give me a legitimate reason not extrapolate marriage to mean a union between _________ (fill in the blank). In fact, barring anyone from redefining marriage to suit any particular hankering could be construed as unconstitutional. How progressive of you!
Why is marriage unconstitutional?
I never said, nor did I imply that marriage is unconstitutional.
Or are you saying that the government is prohibited from being involved in those things? Where do you find that in the Constitution?
The Establishment Clause.
Are you about to treat the Constitution as a laundry list? That if we don't find the word "marriage" in it, that necessarily means that the government has no business involving itself in it? If so, then explain to me why it is illegal for you to have a nuclear weapon for the phrase "nuclear weapon" makes no appearance in the Constitution and yet everyone seems to think the government has the ability to regulate the possession of nukes.
I just want someone to tell me why homosexual marriage is a basic right, per the Constitution. Is an incredibly simple question, but no one has touched it with a ten foot pole. Indeed they can't without injecting some moral basis to it.
quote:
oesn't mean God will honor it
Except god already does. Gay people have religious marriage rites in church with the blessings of god all the time.
That doesn't mean that God Himself approves. That means liberal pulpits have butchered the very parameters their religion has set forth.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 4:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 167 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 9:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 168 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 206 (450046)
01-20-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-16-2008 5:59 PM


it's family, not sex
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legal issues around gay marriage, not moral or religious, except as those things impact the legal questions. I don't mind if some discussion of the stance of various current candidates creeps in, but let's not make that the focus, okay kiddies?
Don't we have a federal law that prevents discrimination based on sex, race, age and infirmity? Not just for work, or finding lodgings?
It seems to me the issue is fairly straightforward.
There are laws that provide benefits for members of families, whether they are members by birth or by marriage.
Thus legally two brothers living together constitute a family that qualifies for those benefits.
Likewise employment health coverage can be extended to members of your family, like an elderly parent, even if the children are elderly as well.
The unit of concern to the government is the family, not what the family does.
Two males living together are no different -- for government purposes -- than the two brothers cited above.
Three elderly people living together are no different -- for government purposes -- than the elderly parent family cited above.
If there is no government purpose served by discriminating between the examples above, and the law clearly states that families are defined by birth or by marriage, and marriage is allowed to some but not to others, then it is not in accordance with the laws on equality.
Sex has nothing to do with it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subt

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-16-2008 5:59 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:00 PM RAZD has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 206 (450052)
01-20-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Modulous
01-20-2008 4:57 AM


Re: Oranges are not the only fruit
In contract law there is an offer, and an acceptance. It should be clear that an animal or plant has a potentially insurmountable barrier in that it is not able to make an offer, or give indication of its acceptance of the offer.
Then it also hasn't the ability to object to its own torture. By this slippery slope argument, we should be allowed to electrocute and drown dogs to our hearts delight. We should also be allowed to legally marry our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, so long as we give the consent.
And for the sake of the argument, suppose my wife and I desire to marry other people while in this marriage. She decides she wants to marry another man, and I another woman. I protest that I don't want her to marry another man, but the decision is between her and him. She isn't my property, is she? And she doesn't want me to marry the other woman, but the decision is between the other woman and myself. I'm not her property, am I?
Therefore while consent is certainly a grand thing, it is not the sole qualifier to what is moral, just, and good.
Denying a benefit to the people must be done for some reason, surely? If the state offers protection to some types of families (such as the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated loved one), but not to others - that seems to be somewhat unequal ot me. From what I can tell there is an obligation for their protection to be equal.
Then a civil union will alleviate that without having to redefine what a marriage is in the process. Some say that is a revisiting of Separate but equal, but I submit that it is no more than the difference between women's basketball and men's basketball.
quote:
Why not then just extrapolate it even further to mean that we all can marry oranges?
Seriously, if you can get an orange to agree to marry you, sign a piece of paper in front of witnesses along with a verbal acceptance of the contract...then I have no problems with you marrying an orange.
But who cares? If we are going to redefine meaning, then I can just redefine it to mean whatever the hell I want. I now wed my computer by the power vested in me.
Obviously it is all very silly, and I intended for it to be sarcastic. The greater point I am illustrating is where will conceivably end so that no one can say their rights have been abrogated?
What the hell is a definitional right?
A right defined before-the-fact, not after. In society we use words that have been pre-defined in order to communicate.
Some people upon being asked if words have any meaning, or do we assign meaning to words as we go along, answer: No, we assign meaning to it as we go along. Obviously that is not the case because how have you even understood what I asked you if that is so?
Marriage is what we make it; it is a human invention.
I submit that it is a God-invention. I obviously cannot prove that, so for the time being it is useless to go in to discourse about it. Supposing that marriage is a human invention, it was invented for men and women to be between men and women. History speaks for itself.
The state gets involved because marriage is recognized as a way to conjoin families and families have certain rights recognized by the state (and there is a certain priority of rights for varying members of a familial hierarchy).
It may have very practical purposes to it, none of which I would deny. But if we are currently discussing Constitutional rights, this is a clear intrusion of the State against religion.
gay marriage will never be straight marriage for the sole fact that gay is not straight. Like women's and men's tennis are both still tennis.
Yes, its still tennis. So what in the world is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? One involves opposite sex couples and the other involves same-sex couples. Surely this is a fair compromise.
Nobody is asking anybody to change definitions to suit an agenda. You can call whatever you like whatever you like. You can steadfastly refuse to acknowledge a gay union as a marriage and nobody will stop you. The most important thing is getting the same protections and benefits. Since the contracts are the same, they should have the same name - the government shouldn't go around having one word for a contract made by black parties and one for white parties.
Why the same name if they are not the same thing? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period. I have no desire to outlaw homosexual practices. I have no desire to stop them from devoting themselves to one another. Go, do it... I won't stop you. But please do not infringe upon the institution of marriage and expect us to eradicate time-honored traditions that have stood since the dawn of man.
There are religious ceremonies and rites that are associated with marriage, but there are also political and social ties to the event as well as legal ones. Marriage is more than just a religious ceremony, to deny that would be to undermine your argument against redefining words to suit an agenda.
When the Constitution was written, the State had no interference in marriage. And why is that? Because people in those days had a little something we in our society has lost -- honor. The belief was that God honored the marriage, and that's all that really mattered. Now, of course I understand what you mean by legal recognition. But we seemed to operate just fine under that oath of honor.
So far, I can see no reason to deny protections to families of a structure that a religious group finds distasteful or harmful.
Then you also should have no reason to deny those very protections to families that choose to engage in incest and pedophilia.
Where is the line in the sand?
This will be my last post on this thread. I think this is the third consecutive thread concerning homosexuality in some capacity, and I've grown disinterested in repeating myself. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Thanks to all who participated. I know we've had heated moments, but I think it is important for people in a free society to share their concerns so we get all sides of the story. There is beauty in that.
So for what its worth, I wish all my opponents all the best in their crusade for homosexual marriage.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 01-20-2008 4:57 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 01-20-2008 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 159 by faust, posted 01-20-2008 2:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 162 by Modulous, posted 01-20-2008 3:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 158 of 206 (450055)
01-20-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 1:17 PM


Re: Oranges are not the only fruit
So you are a Bigot.
That much is settled.
But so far you have presented nothing except your bigotry.
The topic is about same-sex marriages. Any other subject should be dealt with in the same manner, through discourse and decision based on the merits of the particular issue, but they are irrelevant to this issue.
Marriage is a legal contract. It has nothing to do with morality.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

faust 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 01-16-2008


Message 159 of 206 (450068)
01-20-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 1:17 PM


Re: Oranges are not the only fruit
quote:
suppose my wife and I desire to marry other people while in this marriage. She decides she wants to marry another man, and I another woman. I protest that I don't want her to marry another man, but the decision is between her and him. She isn't my property, is she? And she doesn't want me to marry the other woman, but the decision is between the other woman and myself. I'm not her property, am I?
quote:
Then you also should have no reason to deny those very protections to families that choose to engage in incest and pedophilia.
quote:
This will be my last post on this thread.
Many thanks for ceasing your posting here. As a newbie to the site I find your constant need to go off topic distracting. This thread is about legal issues of homosexuality in the U.S. not having sex with oranges. You are free to do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom but I would prefer not having your citrus laden fantasies throwing off conversation here and confusing we newbies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 160 of 206 (450083)
01-20-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 12:29 PM


Re: The law
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes is not in a position to dictate the law in the United States. Try again.
By the way, the argument he put forward is based upon procreation. If that were true, then there would necessarily be a fertility test for people to get married and lack of issue would be grounds for annulment. Neither is the case, therefore it necessarily is true that procreation is not the basis for marriage.
Too, this assumes gay people don't have children. They clearly do by simple inspection. If marriage is about the children, why do you wish to punish the children simply because their parents are gay?
Why is heterosexual marriage a fundamental right?
quote:
I'm simply telling you that if we are going to introduce arbitrary whims, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
But you haven't explained why heterosexual marriage of two, non-related adult humans is nothing more than an arbitrary whim. After all, the traditional definition of marriage was of a male to as many females of any age as he cared to take on. What was the justification for the introduction of the arbitrary whim that it was only two and that they had to be adults?
quote:
Absolutely not since race has never been a qualifier of a marriage, but gender is.
Huh? The law directly stated that you couldn't marry people of a different race. Therefore, race was a qualifier of marriage by simple inspection.
If it wasn't a qualifier, why on earth were the Lovings arrested for marrying each other? Why did they have to go to court to overturn a law that criminalized their marriage?
quote:
You are adding a superfluous element to it that does not (dis)qualify a marriage.
And how is the sex of the participants something other than a superfluous element? You have yet to explain why.
quote:
Because its an historical fact.
Except it isn't. Marriage has quite commonly been polygamous. And yet, somewhere along the line it was arbitrarily decided on a whim that it should only be couples. Marriage has quite commonly been between a male adult and female children. And yet, somewhere along the line it was arbitrarily decided on a whim that it should only be between adults.
Well, scratch that last. It is still legal for an adult to marry a child in this country if the parents approve.
And since we have evidence of same-sex marriage going all the way back to Ancient Egypt, it seems clear that same-sex marriage is just as historical as your arbirtrary, whimsical definition.
So why do you want special rights?
quote:
Where is the line in the sand?
At the same place it always has been. What is it about sex with someone of the opposite sex that doesn't send you skittering off into thoughts of raping your infant daughter? That's the line you claim isn't there.
quote:
Until you define marriage within specified parameters, its loose meanings will trek on with the wild vagaries of man's mind.
But you haven't justified the parameters that exist. They are nothing more than arbitrary whim. So why are your whims the ones that are chosen? If you can't explain why you deserve special rights, then we are left concluding that mixed-sex marriage is the same as same-sex marriage.
quote:
Then you should have no problem with a civil union, if the symbolism is completely irrelevant in your mind.
No, you have it backwards. The law will keep the term "marriage" because it has been using the term "marriage" for quite some time. If you want to make your religious ceremony distinct from the legal contract of marriage, then you can call it something else. Call it "sanctification." If your problem truly is merely semantic, then choose another word for your relationship.
quote:
Why should I, since its been hijacked?!?!?
Because you're the one with the problem. And you still haven't justified why your arbitrary, whimsical idea of what marriage is should be the standard. In reality, you're the one who hijacked it. Why do you think your peculiar brand of intimacy is deserving of special rights?
quote:
Not a single one of you can explain to me why homosexual marriage is a right in the first place.
That's because it isn't our burden of proof. It's your burden to explain to us why heterosexual marriage is a right. There are laws concerning it on the books. By default, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically and directly states that all US citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Therefore, if there is going to be marriage in the first place, then it necessarily applies to both gay people and straight people.
But, that assumes that there is going to be marriage in the first place. It is your burden to show why you are deserving of the special right of marriage. Since you have never been able to do so, we are left concluding that mixed-sex marriage is the same as same-sex marriage.
quote:
Consequently, by your rationale you can't give me a legitimate reason not extrapolate marriage to mean a union between _________ (fill in the blank).
That's because it is not our burden to do so. The "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. You are also guilty of the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. It is not for us to explain why straight people aren't entitled to special rights. It is your burden of proof to show why they are.
Why does sex with someone of the opposite sex not send your mind skittering off into thoughts of raping your infant daughter? If you can answer that, then you have discovered what you sought.
quote:
quote:
Why is marriage unconstitutional?
I never said, nor did I imply that marriage is unconstitutional.
Yes, you did:
Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution. I'm all for that. Nobody seems to be outraged over that little incursion which is unconstitutional.
You were clearly claiming that the government regulation of marriage is a First Amendment violation. In fact, you go right on to state it directly, though you get the clause wrong:
quote:
quote:
Or are you saying that the government is prohibited from being involved in those things? Where do you find that in the Constitution?
The Establishment Clause.
Er, you meant the Free Exercise clause. Establishment is religion invading government. When government invades religion, it's the Free Exercise clause.
But that simply isn't true. Again, there are legal questions of things like inheritance, property rights, immigration, medical decisions, custody, etc. All of these are handled (in part) by the contract of marriage which designates somebody as next-of-kin.
Are you saying that the government has no interest in regulating those things?
But if it does, why do straights get the special rights? You need to justify why you are demanding special rights for straights. Why is your arbitrary whim deserving?
quote:
I just want someone to tell me why homosexual marriage is a basic right, per the Constitution.
For the same reason that heterosexual marriage is a basic right, per the Constitution. If you can explain why straights deserve special rights, you'll find what you seek. Burden of proof is on you, NJ. You're the one seeking special rights for straights. It is up to you to justify it.
You can't do it. You have to provide a single piece of evidence to explain why you deserve special rights.
quote:
That doesn't mean that God Himself approves.
Yes, it does. They wouldn't be in church being blessed by god if god didn't approve.
Oh! You didn't think that the god that truly exists was your little fantasy, did you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 12:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 161 of 206 (450085)
01-20-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
01-20-2008 12:53 PM


Re: it's family, not sex
RAZD writes:
quote:
Don't we have a federal law that prevents discrimination based on sex, race, age and infirmity?
No, we don't.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2008 12:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2008 3:48 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 165 by molbiogirl, posted 01-20-2008 4:05 PM Rrhain has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 162 of 206 (450101)
01-20-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 1:17 PM


Re: Oranges are not the only fruit
Then it also hasn't the ability to object to its own torture. By this slippery slope argument, we should be allowed to electrocute and drown dogs to our hearts delight.
This makes no sense. Torturing an animal is nothing to do with contract law. If we required a contract exist between parties to opt out of implied permission to torture, you'd have a point. But we don't, so that goes nowhere.
And for the sake of the argument, suppose my wife and I desire to marry other people while in this marriage. She decides she wants to marry another man, and I another woman. I protest that I don't want her to marry another man, but the decision is between her and him. She isn't my property, is she? And she doesn't want me to marry the other woman, but the decision is between the other woman and myself. I'm not her property, am I?
If she is your wife then she has made a contract to you, and that contract prevents her from marrying someone else. If the marital contract allows for multiple marriages, then you would have entered into it knowing this to be the case and would have no recourse to complain. However, if your wife met another man - and wanted to marry him it would be terrible of you to prevent her doing that out of a sense of ownership to her. She is free to marry who she wishes, the only avenue of complaint is if her actions have significant financial impacts on you. Hopefully there would be a amicable splitting of assets and the parting of ways.
Therefore while consent is certainly a grand thing, it is not the sole qualifier to what is moral, just, and good.
No - it is not the sole qualifier, but that is not relevant to the issue at hand; it is a factor in contract law (more specifically the capacity to accept a contractual offer which is what I actually said) which is germane to the topic at hand. That there be both an offer and an acceptance where both parties are legally able.
Then a civil union will alleviate that without having to redefine what a marriage is in the process. Some say that is a revisiting of Separate but equal, but I submit that it is no more than the difference between women's basketball and men's basketball.
A civil union where the parties legally conjoin two families is going to be called a marriage, you can choose not to call it that if you want. What it ends up being called will be a function of general usage, not by some conscious effort. Civil Union is just too much of a mouthful and everybody will know that civil union means marriage, so they'll just end up using the latter. Maybe they won't, I might be wrong. What does it matter what we call such unions? It is just a word, the only issue is when people describe one group's union in a different manner as another's (a wetback legal union versus a proper marriage). That can be a discriminatory act, and it doesn't generally lead to good things.
Claiming a word is all well and good, but it is not going to be easy. They have a habit of slipping away from you and evolving every which way
But who cares? If we are going to redefine meaning, then I can just redefine it to mean whatever the hell I want. I now wed my computer by the power vested in me.
Sure, if you want to redefine a word so that it has no correlation to usage you're free to do so. However, I wasn't talking about redefining a word. I was talking about entering into a legal contract with a citrus fruit. If you can pull it off, I have no objection.
You ask who cares? I care. And if you want to give a fruit the power to make medical decisions on your behalf, I'm happy for you to do so (insert joke referencing the topic title here).
The greater point I am illustrating is where will conceivably end so that no one can say their rights have been abrogated?
If there is no good reason to prevent a proposed marriage, then we shouldn't prevent it. It seems like a perfectly reasonable start to me.
A right defined before-the-fact, not after. In society we use words that have been pre-defined in order to communicate.
You can't define rights via the meanings of words as understood by person or group or persons X. Rights are rights. All that matters is if someone has the right or not. You think that the right is (basically) 'to marry someone of the opposite gender who love', whereas I think the right is actually (basically) 'to marry the person you love,' with the intention of the right differing. You think that at least an element of a marriage is a holy matrimony of some kind. I think that it doesn't need to include the holy part, but importantly it should be there to help families function with maximum happiness and security.
Some people upon being asked if words have any meaning, or do we assign meaning to words as we go along, answer: No, we assign meaning to it as we go along. Obviously that is not the case because how have you even understood what I asked you if that is so?
More accurately, words change through time as people come to use them differently. See: factoid for example.
Either way, this isn't about the meanings of words but of rights, and more in line with the topic - what the law actually says about them.
I submit that it is a God-invention. I obviously cannot prove that, so for the time being it is useless to go in to discourse about it. Supposing that marriage is a human invention, it was invented for men and women to be between men and women. History speaks for itself.
Being a human invention then it is for human purposes. The origins are irrelevant to how we want to deal with it now, their current intent and purpose is the relevant issue.
If it is a God invented idea then we have no way of divining the purpose. It could be anything and any idea can be nothing more than imaginative guesswork. That being the case, the wise course would be to treat it as if it were a human invention, designed for what purposes we judge to be best. I consider it best to provide security for families, rather than to guess at what God might have in mind.
Yes, its still tennis. So what in the world is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?
The same difference there is between Hitball Over-Net Within Area and Tennis. None, and they can be used interchangeably. However, it would be silly if
One involves opposite sex couples and the other involves same-sex couples.
we said that if women play we'll call it Hitball Over-Net Within Area and when men play it's called Tennis. There is an implied discrimination, with a further insinuation that men play Real Tennis and women play but a facsimile. That's no "fair compromise.", but absurdity.
Why the same name if they are not the same thing? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.
It is, if that's how we use the words. It isn't if we don't. Period. You don't get veto powers on word usage.
But please do not infringe upon the institution of marriage and expect us to eradicate time-honored traditions that have stood since the dawn of man.
The ritual of men and women conjoining in the eyes of God will remain if a ritual of men and men conjoining in the eyes of the law (or some other God) exists. No eradication and no infringement into that ritual will take place.
When the Constitution was written, the State had no interference in marriage. And why is that? Because people in those days had a little something we in our society has lost -- honor. The belief was that God honored the marriage, and that's all that really mattered. Now, of course I understand what you mean by legal recognition. But we seemed to operate just fine under that oath of honor.
Actually now we have a much more complex society due to size and technology. This has brought us to a place where people can have sizeable inheritances which will be taxed by the state. Married couples need protection under law to ensure they will receive their rightful inheritance. Also, over time, complex law has evolved in dealing with the more common medical decisions (since more people live after bad accidents or severe illness), and who gets what rights needs to be explicitly set out. It is nothing to do with honour it is to do with experience. Certain injustices are brought to light and the law is changed or created to try and right that injustice (it doesn't always work, or work like this of course). Women don't have the vote? Is this because men have honour and will represent the interests of their women or is it because historically women haven't been given the vote because of an assumed inferiority?
A terrible way to think is 'but democracy was founded on the idea that the governed male citizens would be allowed to have a voice and to vote on law, let's not eradicate these time-honoured traditions!'
But we seemed to operate just fine under that oath of honor.
Yes, the world was much better when women were underprivileged, homosexuals were persecuted, slaves were traded in vast numbers, and massive international religious tension and the desire for more freedom was still gnawing at the heels of European monarchy.
But yes, it was a golden age of honour, so we can be sure that if a man said he was married to a dead woman with a large inheritance we could trust him, nobody would dream of abusing that honour and no injustices would result. There would certainly never be marriages under duress, 'shotgun weddings' since men always did the honourable thing
Then you also should have no reason to deny those very protections to families that choose to engage in incest and pedophilia.
Where is the line in the sand?
Paedophilia has been addressed. Children are not able to enter into a contract, so the line is obviously drawn somewhere before we get there. We must also consider another element of marriage, which is that of sex. Clearly it would be a mistake to legally sanction a sexual relationship which is illegal. Which then draws the line before incest which is also illegal.
This will be my last post on this thread. I think this is the third consecutive thread concerning homosexuality in some capacity, and I've grown disinterested in repeating myself. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Repetition wouldn't be necessary if you addressed the actual points raised. I appreciate that you may find that some responses you get don't really address your point, but this is not always the case - and when they do address your points you reply with a tangential issue rather than discussing them. I consider that the points I raised about contract law are vital to advancing the debate, you essentially ignored them when you talked about torturing dogs with the strange idea that I was talking about consent being the only issue to consider in morality and justice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 163 of 206 (450105)
01-20-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 3:00 PM


Re: it's family, not sex
I know I said "Not just for work, or finding lodgings?"
As we do have labor laws
Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
quote:
I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
  • the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
  • the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
  • Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
  • Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
  • the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
    The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.
    Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants.
  • Doesn't say what those "other federal laws" are.
    And then there are housing laws
    Page not found | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
    quote:
    Fair Housing Act
    Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). More on the Fair Housing Act
    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
    Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
    Section 109 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or religion in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from HUD's Community Development and Block Grant Program.
    Age Discrimination Act of 1975
    The Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
    Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
    Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.
    So in the absence of any other laws, these - especially "familial status" in the Fair Housing Act - would seem to provide a precedent if nothing else.
    What about State laws?
    Thanks.
    Edited by RAZD, : clarified

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:00 PM Rrhain has not replied

    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 2641 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 164 of 206 (450107)
    01-20-2008 3:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 151 by Rrhain
    01-20-2008 3:48 AM


    Re: The law
    Do you seriously think a super-majority of Senators are going to vote to repeal it?
    I doubt Congress repeals DOMA. I think it will have to go to federal court.
    Unless they can get 60 votes...er...make that 66 in order to ensure that the likes of Lieberman are countered, then it won't really matter.
    Dems picked up 7 seats in 2006. Things are worse now (aka recession likely). You really think they won't pick up at least 9 more? There are 23 Republican heads on the chopping block in 2008.
    A dozen years and no progress. In fact, the situation has become much worse.
    Because the Republicans have blocked access to the federal courts.
    It doesn't matter how many states have DOMA like laws. Once DOMA is struck down by SCOTUS, bye bye state laws.
    They don't have that ability now.
    Yes. They do.
    wiki writes:
    Beginning in 2003, members of Congress have annually introduced a "court-stripping" provision that would prevent all federal courts from hearing claims challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. See, e.g., Marriage Protection Act of 2003, H.R. 3313 (108th Cong., 1st Sess.). This proposed court-stripping provision has itself been challenged as being of dubious constitutionality. See Jason J. Salvo, Comment, Naked Came I: Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Constitutionality of House Bill 3313, 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 963 (Summer 2006); Maxim O. Mayer-Cesiano, On Jurisdiction-Stripping: The Proper Scope of Inferior Federal Courts' Independence from Congress, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 559 (May 2006); J. Spencer Jenkins, Note, 'Til Congress Do Us Part: The Marriage Protection Act, Federal Court-Stripping, and Same-Sex Marriage, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 619 (Winter 2006); Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Note, The Marriage Protection Act: A Lesson in Congressional Over-Reaching, 50 N.Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 809 (2005-2006); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Court-Stripping, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 347 (Summer 2005); Theodore J. Weiman, Comment, Jurisdiction Stripping, Constitutional Supremacy, and the Implications of Ex Parte Young, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1677 (2005).
    Since Congress and the President will never overturn DOMA, the only hope is the Supreme Court and with its current make up, it will never happen there, either.
    I happen to disagree.
    Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for Lawrence v. Texas. He also wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:48 AM Rrhain has not replied

    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 2641 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 165 of 206 (450112)
    01-20-2008 4:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 161 by Rrhain
    01-20-2008 3:00 PM


    Re: it's family, not sex
    No, we don't.
    Discrimination based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity,national origin is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Discrimination based on age is prohibited by Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
    Discrimination based on disability is prohibited by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
    ABE: Aw, RAZD. You beat me to it.
    Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:00 PM Rrhain has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 166 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2008 4:13 PM molbiogirl has not replied
     Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 2:32 AM molbiogirl has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024