Gay Marriage

quote:

---

This is one of the bigger issues for my hesitation to allow same sex marriages. Its not that I want to deny rights to gays, its the Chuck's and Larry's out there who could find the loop-holes in the laws and exploit them. Opening up marriage to same sexes provides more loop-holes and I hesitate to simply flip the lightswitch and give the go-ahead.

---

Ah, up pops ye old "slippery slope" argument. It is a logical fallacy by the way. Am I going to marry a dead woman because the law says I can marry a woman? Makes about as much sense as this question. We can and do "draw lines" when necessary. Also, fear of unintended consequences is not a valid reason for denying human rights. Just what is it that is soooo scary about same sex couples anyway? Afraid happily married heteros are going to ditch their spouses and marry someone of the same gender - just because they can? That's what some of the "marriage defenders" seem to imply. How exactly is same sex marriage a threat to traditional marriage? I would like someone to explain that to me. Gay and lesbian couples are going to be together. Doesn't society have an interest in them forming long term stable relationships? Isn't that better for society than short term relationships?

quote:

---

Ah...when was the last time the gays were put to slavery?

---

So....slavery is the only way people can suffer discrimination? What a silly question. I call red herring argument on you.

quote:

---

If Chuck and Larry get their stinkin' fingers into Social Security they will put an end to it sooner than its death sentence already prescribes.

---

Got news for you Hoot mon. Being gay doesn't disqualify you from Social Security. Chuck and Larry already have their "stinkin' fingers" into SS unless they are retired military or old federal system, etc. And if they have contributed to it according to their income, why shouldn't they? If you are talking about the spousal benefit - it's pretty much a non issue if both individuals have been working full time until they retire - which is the case I would guess for most gay couples. And even if it weren't so, what is the problem? Spousal benefits for gays is not going to make or break SS and if it is the right thing to do it is the right thing to do. I call red herring on you again.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

deerbreh, if it weren't for red herrings I'd had not argument at all. And smelliest of all red herrings is this silly, frilly notion of "gay marriage."

---

Well then you have no argument because a red herring is a logical fallacy - not a valid argument. Gay marriage may be silly to you, it is not silly to gays who want to get married. Why should marriage be any more silly or frilly for a gay person than a hetero person?

quote:

---

"marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

---

Of course it is. And in many Southern states up until the 1960s marriage was also defined as the union of one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE.You don't see even the teeniest bit of irony there? Are you sure it is a false analogy? Defining marriage as only heterosexual marriage is a religion based decision. Therefore it is unconstitutional. Full stop.

quote:

---

Prove it.

​

You are mistaken or ill-informed. The RIA prohibited the marriage of "non-whites" to whites. It is violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based on race.

---

Lighten up. It was rhetorical. Of course the anti-miscegenation laws weren't worded exactly that way but that was the effect until they were declared unconstitional in 1967.Of course the legislators that passed DOMA didn't admit it was for religious reasons, since they knew that would kill it Constitutionally. But pray tell, what was it based on then, if not religion? It is religious bias which makes folks want to ban same-sex marriage, is it not? If it isn't that, what is it? Or is it just a coincidence that the main proponents of DOMA are the Religious Right and their allies?

Aside from bigotry and political expediency (see below re Bill Clinton), no I cannot think of any other reason. The fact that the lawmakers cited "what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years" doesn't prove they were not acting mostly at the behest of religious interests - which in fact they were. It only proves they knew how to cloak their religious motivations in high sounding language. They are after all politicians and are familiar with such techniques. Are you saying religious bigots such as James Dobson were not the main force behind the DOMA?Bill Clinton signed it for political expediency. He wasn't one of the proponents of it. His WH did not push for the law. It would not have been proposed at all without the RR and their political lackeys in Congress.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But seriously, tradition and economics are factors. But I tend to be more conservative, in general. It seems all these things nudge our country more and more to the left, and I don't like it. It doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that they are homosexual.

---

Does the fact that "you don't like it" trump the basic civil rights of gays and lesbians? I don't think so and that is why we need the constitution to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" - taking away rights of minorities just because people "don't like" something. You are the poster child for why the DOMA is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

I wasn't even using that as an argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

---

How are we to know when it is part of your argument or just a side comment, then? Maybe you better label what is part of your argument and what is not. Better yet, why state it at all if it is not part of your argument?

quote:

---

Taking away? Nobody has taken anything away, what are you talking about? Gay people didn't have a right to marry to begin with.

---

In your opinion they don't have the right. I think you just made my point. Basic civil and human rights should not be at the whim of individual opinion, whether that opinion is in the majority or not. At one time blacks were enslaved and could not vote. That doesn't mean they didn't have the right to be free and to vote. It just meant they could not exercise those rights because yes, the majority had taken those rights away. Not allowing someone to exercise basic human rights, even if it has been going on for a very long time, is not a valid reason for continuing that practice. The rights still exist.

quote:

---

Not really that it leads to immorality, but that I have a general distrust of liberalizing our society and its laws. I prefer order.

---

Yes, the old "order" argument rears its ugly head. Same reason was used against granting blacks their civil rights. And I say it again, what you or the majority "prefers" is not the basis for deciding what rights should be allowed.

quote:

---

You're conflating natural rights and legal rights.

---

As well I should. Guilty. Natural rights SHOULD be legal rights. What moral reason is there for the law to deny natural rights?

quote:

---

Really? Then how do people get legal rights?

---

The "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable or natural right. It is clear to many people if not a majority that marriage falls within the scope of the "pursuit of happiness" so we need to be careful about arbitrarily denying its benefits to consenting adults. The Constitution guarentees natural rights so that they cannot be abridged by a tyrannical majority who might "prefer" not to grant some natural rights to a minority. We should tread very carefully when trying to deny rights which may be natural rights. It is better to err on the side of protecting or expanding rights when there is doubt and in this case there is substantial doubt.

Natural or inalienable rights were cited by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence but they go back a lot further than that. Yes it is off topic so I will give the Wiki link and you can read up on it or not.Natural rights and legal rights - WikipediaBut based on some of the tone of your remarks here - particulary your nasty crack about people in Mississippi - I don't think you are really taking this topic all that seriously so we are done. I won't engage with someone who treats what should be a serious subject like a locker room conversation among sophomoric frat boys - the coffee house venue notwithstanding. A biblical quote about pearls and swine comes to mind.