On Gay Marriage

Any two sentient human beings should be allowed legally to be a union of one, comprised of both of them. I mean this legally, taxwise and healthcare-wise as well. I want people to be happy and if you're gay, you should be entitled to the same rights as non-gays.

 

So incest marriages are OK?

And why limit the union to just two?

 

As should be obvious (but apparently isn't), the law classifies people in such a way that some are eligible to benefit while others are not. The law discriminates. This is not a debatable point.

What is a debatable point, is whether a specific classification has a rational basis. What is a debatable is whether a classification was created to serve a legitimate purpose or one that is suspect.

So if we're going to debate incestuous marriage or marriages between more than two people, we need to look at whether those classifications have a rational basis or exist for a suspect purpose.

So I'm not going to address simplistic questions like "is incest marriage OK?" or "Why limit the union just to two?" Take a position on the legal basis for inclusion or exclusion, then provide the evidence to make your case. But don't waste our time with empty rhetorical interrogatives. I have better things to do with my time than play "gotcha!".

 

The OP said, "Any two sentient human beings should be allowed legally to be a union of one, comprised of both of them." So my questions were natural ones resulting from that statement. I'm trying to narrow down what, exactly are the parameters of that statement.

As for your contention that "the law classifies people in such a way that some are eligible to benefit while others are not. The law discriminates. This is not a debatable point." Why isn't that a debatable point? It sounds like you want to declare almost the entire subject as out of bounds to discuss before it even begins.

 

Yep.

You make a good point. Throughout history many cultures accepted polygamy and I don't think that it is the government's right to determine how many wives you can have.

 

You seem to be obeying my rule on gay marriage discussions.

 

I don't believe that you are. I believe you're playing a game of "gotcha", asking questions that aim to drive the discussion in a direction that favors your positions without actually having to state what they are.

If you believe that the OP statement is too broad, and you think incest marriage is an example of the negative consequences of such an overly broad position and that incest marriage is not OK, then make the case for that position. If you think that it is OK, then make the case for that position. Taking a non-position by simply posing the "gotcha" question is a lazy way of debating the issues.

This is not a case of trying to get the OP to narrow down the parameters of that statement. It's a transparent case of you attempting to do that yourself in a way that you think favors the positions you won't state outright because you know you'd be forced to defend them.

Is it your contention that the law does not classify people? Is it your contention that the law does not use such classification in order to establish eligibility and exclusion from eligibility? Is is your contention that the law does not discriminate?

In other words, if you think those points are indeed debatable, then debate them. Spare us the whining that I've declared the subject off-limits. I've done nothing of the sort. We most certainly can debate the OP's statement. All I've done is take a position on how the law works, in hopes of forestalling some of the crap that passes for debate on this forum.

So debate the OP's statement, but be forewarned that if you attempt to do so in a way that tries to ignore how the law actually functions, I will attempt to bring the conversation back to that reality.

If you're here to engage in an honest debate of the issues, then kindly get to it already. I've better things to do than swat flies who wish to nibble around the issues instead of meeting them head on.

 

Not so much logical conclusions, as absurd conclusions. Logic is not a panacea. It is a tool whose effectiveness depends greatly on how its wielded by the person employing it. To reach absurd conclusions requires ignoring context informative to the issues under examination, one of which is how the law actually works. To take extreme positions and declare them logical is really just avoidance of having to actually apply critical thinking and examine context.

 

The problem being, of course, that to presume to pass judgment on such arrangements, one must acknowledge the very objective morality that professing homosexuals necessarily reject.

Right neighborly of you to demonstrate so clearly that you are incapable of contributing intelligently.

 

Your argument here seems to be that it's not the OP's responsibility to clarify his statement, its the duty of any respondent to make assumptions to minimize the OP having to explain his own statement.

Absurd, yet an interesting take if you haven't thought through the ramifications of your own statement. I assume the OP had thought out his own remarks which is why I asked for clarification. You apparently want to stop any discussion of that.

Well the issue here is gay marriage. So how is a gay person "classified" by the state, by virtue of being gay, when filling out a marriage license? Do these documents ask for sexual orientation or ask the applicant to identify themselves as being gay or straight?

 

In a legal sense, maybe marriages between family members should be allowed. Since it's already been established that marriage isn't necessarily about procreation or sex or romance, I honestly can't think of a logical reason outside of my own squeamishness to disallow it.

And now that I think about it, I've known multiple elderly pairs of siblings who were, for all intents and purposes, married. They look after each other and take care of each other in more or less the same way that lifelong romantic couples do. Minus the sex. Presumably.

If marriage is a legal distinction, then I suppose it makes sense for a person to be able to say that they appoint that distinction to whomever they want, so long as it's a legal adult capable of binding themselves into that sort of agreement.

 

He asked the question "So Incest Marriages are ok?" and I answered. I believe anybody who loves another person and wants to express that love through marriage should do so, so long as they are legal adults.

 

who cares what lesbians do to boobies & dudes do to bum bums?! oy vey its private

 

You certainly did. Now, I suggest you do those of us who are not drooling morons a favor and get the Hell outa here...

...and take this with you.

 

The 9th amendment provides rights to we the people not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Consequently, I believe gay marriage, under the right to privacy, along with all other forms of marriage should not regulated by the state, especially considering the incorporation of the right to privacy to the states in Griswold v. Connecticut.

 

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But it doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with it or that society has to make it law.

 

And yet, over half of the US (by polling data) does agree. And it is law in some states, and not in others. I wonder how much longer until it is the law of the land. 10 years? 20? I say less then 20, but most likely more then 10.

 

As you say below, the issue (as designated by the thread's title) is "gay marriage". So if that's the context, why do your require clarification of the statement? While I'll agree his statement could have been clearer, it seems clear enough when you apply the context supplied by the title of the thread. It's obvious to me (and probably others) that your purpose here is to divert the thread into an off-topic discussion. There is nothing clever about what you're doing. It's standard operating procedure for opponents who can't discuss the issue of same-sex couples marrying on its own merits. It's transparent and tired. Find a new angle.

I want the discussion to stay on topic. You obviously don't. How about discussing the topic and not wasting our time on this contrived side debate?

A phrase I take issue with, acknowledging of course that the originator of the thread introduced it. There is no gay marriage, straight marriage, bisexual marriage, etc. They aren't separate things. They are all marriage, period.

The classification the law uses doesn't examine a person's identification as gay, so these questions are spurious.

While "sexual orientation" is often conventionally used in reference to attraction and identity (e.g., "gay"), the only orientation the law can detect in this matter is an orientation toward marrying a person of one's own sex. Plainly the law sought to classify this orientation for exclusion by limiting eligibility to opposite-sex couples. The parties to a marriage between persons of the same sex could be gay, bisexual, or straight in terms of attraction/identity - which is immaterial to what the law actually does.

Here's where I remind you that the problem is not that the law makes a classification, but whether it does so for a suspect purpose. When the courts examined the stated purpose of the law as claimed by its proponents in comparison to what the law actually does, they found that the law utterly fails to do anything that would forward those claimed purposes. The suspect purpose behind the law becomes obvious when one examines the campaign surrounding its adoption, and that purpose was to express disapproval of homosexuality. The expression of mere disapproval is not a legitimate purpose. There appears to be no rational basis for a law to exist which excludes same-sex couples from marriage.

Knowing that a law written to expressly target people who identify as 'gay' for exclusion from marriage would almost certainly fail any legal challenge brought against it, proponents framed the law in terms of the parties' sexes, while campaigning on the notion that without such a ban, children would be indoctrinated into homosexual identity & behavior. It was transparent fearmongering, and the courts have seen right through the thinly veiled and suspect purpose of the proposal's adoption.

You can say whatever you want in a campaign or debate forum, but the witness stand in a court of law is a lonely place to lie.

 

I think it was a country singer that said he had no problems with gays and lesbians marrying because they're already living together anyway.

Personally, I don't think that gays and lesbians by the historical definition are entering into a marriage. Marriage was a non-romantic union for the purpose of bearing offspring, sometimes aligning families through that offspring, and creating families with blood ties. The term has in the West an evolving definition that now includes romance, but this wasn't always so. What gays and lesbians have are lifelong, love-based relationships and yet clamor for a title that is so diametrically and historically opposed to what they are trying to do--for what purpose...? I sometimes think it is, ultimately, to prove acceptance and to receive societal blessings. If what they want is to feel loved by their community then my heart tells me that I should agree to this because loving people is what I am about.

Quite frankly, what you do with your body, be it a tattoo, body modification, sex with the wrong person, sex with the right person, plastic surgery, etc. is none of my business. I have my own path, my own struggles I cannot imagine why I should feel so strongly as to wish to put aside my own and adopt another person's struggles for self-exploration and validation. When I read posts by gays and lesbians what they say is that they want equality. Equality is not always about "same", though. Men and women are both in the military. Women and men don't have the same PT tests. Men and women both love children. One lactates, the other doesn't. Everyone is special, every relationship is special. Not every relationship is the same.

Is a gay relationship "marriage"? By the historical definition I do not think it is--however, does that mean they don't deserve that the same concept of exalting their loved one publicly to a position of exclusivity, the ability to care for them after death, to share finances with them...no, not at all. They absolutely deserve this. Right now, this comes only with marriage because of how our laws are defined, therefore I can only support gay marriage.

 

I think you are right about any two sentient human beings should be allowed legally to be a union of one, comprised of both of them. And when the two are a male and a female, you should call it 'marriage' (as we do). And when the two are of the same gender, you should call it a 'union'.

Same rights, different name. Just like a doctor and a nurse have the same rights, but the nurse cannot legally advertise himself as 'doctor' because he does not meet certain qualifications. (which some people might not agree with, true, but should be maintained for the health of society)

 

Saying that one group of people can have one thing and the other can have another is discriminatory on principle. You're denying a group (homosexuals) the right to do something another group (heterosexuals) can do. Why can't gay people get married? How does this ruin the 'sanctity of marriage?'

 

I'm for gay marriage, but I don't think this is discriminatory.

I can't do a layup, should I be allowed to play for the Knicks? Gay relationships are different than straight relationships. Straights participate in relationships in many parts of the world SOLELY for the purpose of bearing children. If a man wants another man to bear his child can that happen? No.

What is discriminatory is when we deny gay men and women the rights and abilities that straight couples have. The name "marriage", the act of getting married...meh, not so much. That's cultural and social, not fundamental or political.

 

Well, the Knicks metaphor falls through, I think, because your participation on an NBA team would be merit/skill based. And, I think I agree with what you're saying in that marriage is basically cultural and social. Consequently, marriage in the United States should not be only for heterosexuals. Heterosexual marriages do not always result in procreation, nor is the promise of procreation necessary for a straight marriage. Frankly, in my opinion, the procreation argument is irrelevant because even if every gay person got married, it wouldn't affect the number of babies being born.

 

The problem being...?

They can. They just don't want to. What they want is to be able to shack up with each other and legally intimidate everyone around them into pretending they're married.

 

Exactly. Heterosexual marriages are dissolved all over the world when women cannot bear children, IE she has no mad childbearing skillz.