Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:26 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Because it's not a right to have your special relationship respected. By anybody.

Actually, it is. And the "fight" is ensuring that everybody respects that relationship. Even people who don't want to :)

That may be your personal belief, but it is not a right granted by any US institution, a fact confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I furthermore see no reason to force people to recognize other people's special relationships without due cause. While I personally believe that due cause may exist for homosexual life partners to have special rights, I DO also see why many people do not. Forcing your views on other people is not only wrong, but it isn't a solution. All it does is alienate, divide, and polarize our communities and identities, which is why tyranny does not work.

It's pretty clear that rights granted to that particular special relationship will come in time. The best way to not only speed it up, but guarantee wider and better supported adoption is to act in good faith until the public decides that it must act upon it.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:50 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:That may be your personal belief, but it is not a right granted by any US institution, a fact confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

US Constitution wrote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

second most useless amendment, right behind the 10th
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:36 pm

Kindi wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:That may be your personal belief, but it is not a right granted by any US institution, a fact confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

US Constitution wrote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

second most useless amendment, right behind the 10th

Rights are based upon the individual, not their special self-selected, self-initiated relationships.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:21 pm

Rights are based upon the individual, not their special self-selected, self-initiated relationships.

Actually, no. Here's my citation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I don't see anything in there about rights being based on the individual. I do see "pursuit of happiness" though, and I think you'll have a hard time arguing that granting a homosexual the right to a heterosexual marriage is protecting the pursuit of his happiness.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:39 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Rights are based upon the individual, not their special self-selected, self-initiated relationships.

Actually, no. Here's my citation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I don't see anything in there about rights being based on the individual. I do see "pursuit of happiness" though, and I think you'll have a hard time arguing that granting a homosexual the right to a heterosexual marriage is protecting the pursuit of his happiness.


You meant denying, right?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:42 pm

I realized it's an awkwardly-worded sentence, but I meant granting.

Giving gays the right to marry people of the opposite gender isn't helping them be happy.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:48 pm

Ah, my bad... I misread "heterosexual" as "homosexual." Bleh.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:08 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Rights are based upon the individual, not their special self-selected, self-initiated relationships.

Actually, no. Here's my citation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I don't see anything in there about rights being based on the individual. I do see "pursuit of happiness" though, and I think you'll have a hard time arguing that granting a homosexual the right to a heterosexual marriage is protecting the pursuit of his happiness.

You did read the part about "all men are created equal?" Seems pretty specific to me.

Your other comment on pursuit of happiness is neither an argument nor substantial as not every single law is constructed purely to defend a single right.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:55 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:Your other comment on pursuit of happiness is neither an argument nor substantial as not every single law is constructed purely to defend a single right.

True! And we have a word for the ones that aren't:

"Unconstitutional."
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:37 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:Your other comment on pursuit of happiness is neither an argument nor substantial as not every single law is constructed purely to defend a single right.

True! And we have a word for the ones that aren't:

"Unconstitutional."

There's a law that says "beef taco filling" must be 40% beef. It isn't constructed purely to defend a single right and it's not unconstitutional.

This isn't really worth further discussion, SCOTUS has already opined on the basis of rights and the law when it comes to this and did not find unconstitutionality. Self-selected relationships can only be accorded rights by the law. They aren't born, people enter into them by choice and of their own free will. The relationships simply do not have rights other than those specifically accorded to them by law or constitutional amendment. You can be happy without forcing other people to accept your special relationship as being equal to theirs. You can also live and have liberty, while other people have theirs.

There is no rights discussion. Any special rights for gay marriages must be legislated. Start doing what you need to do for that law to become a reality instead of pursuing a bankrupt argument.
Last edited by Teflor Lyorian on Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kwirl » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:50 pm

well, now that this thread has moved on to comparing homosexual equality rights with the constitutional definition of what a taco contains, I think we have all reached a peaceful and meaningful understanding and can take our lives forward.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:52 pm

kwirl wrote:well, now that this thread has moved on to comparing homosexual equality rights with the constitutional definition of what a taco contains, I think we have all reached a peaceful and meaningful understanding and can take our lives forward.

What you do with your taco behind closed doors is your business. Just don't expect me to find that relationship to be equal and deserving as other special relationships.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:56 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:There is no rights discussion. Any special rights for gay marriages must be legislated. Start doing what you need to do for that law to become a reality instead of pursuing a bankrupt argument.

I agree. There is no discussion... under the Constitution of the United States, homosexual marriage is a guaranteed right. Sometimes, it takes a couple decades (or centuries) for popular opinion to catch up with the ideas of the forefathers (see also: Civil Rights).

In 30 years, after the conservative boomers have mostly died off and been replaced by another progressive generation of voters, this won't be an issue. Your grandchildren will grow up incredulous that people of our generation threw the word "faggot" around as freely as our grandparents used "nigger."
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:01 pm

Ragorn wrote:I agree. There is no discussion... under the Constitution of the United States, homosexual marriage is a guaranteed right. Sometimes, it takes a couple decades (or centuries) for popular opinion to catch up with the ideas of the forefathers (see also: Civil Rights).

That's certainly an interesting point of view, but you should remember that the court sided with civil rights over and over again over the decades (before you run around collecting links, I'm taking about the higher court's final decisions). The current "fight" for the equal recognition of gay marriage to traditional marriage has been met by defeat after defeat in the courts.

It's a very different fight compared to civil rights - because the fight is for the rights of special relationships, not for rights of individual people. History will remember the difference anywhere nuance and intellectual honesty are desirable.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:13 am

Actually, I'm with Tef on this one. The Constitution doesn't, at this time, apply to non-traditional marriages; it only guarantees the rights of all to be equal within the boundaries of the other laws set forth by government entities. The pursuit of happiness doesn't guarantee happiness. Once our government entities recognize same-sex marriage as a right, it will then be a right. Until then, it is an ideal that must be pursued by those who support it.

With Civil Rights, blacks were considered to be a sub-species to many US citizens. It was a popular opinion (among the losing side) that awarding blacks the same rights as white men would be similar to awarding monkeys the right to vote. Those who supported the Civil Rights movement had to fight those kinds of opinions to convince our society as a whole to view non-caucasoids as equal human beings. It wasn't just a question of seeing them as equal men; it was a question of seeing them as MEN to begin with.

Same-sex marriage isn't quite on that same level, but many of the mindsets that oppose it are similar. It's not right on the money, but take the arguments made for same-sex marriage and replace the word "individual" with the word "aberrance" and you might see what they're seeing.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:20 pm

the constitution, and the laws of the US, do NOT grant rights, they protect rights we already have, inherent in being human
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:19 pm

I wouldn't necessarily make such a broad statement. There is recognition of a class of 'inalienable human rights'. But then there are other more run-of-the-mill rights. Like the right to collect social security if you meet certain requirements.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:27 pm

If there was any question, you shouldn't take the arguments I've presented or the discussion that is taking place to indicate that I am somehow actively against the equal recognition of gay marriage. I frankly don't care how it goes either way. It doesn't strictly affect how I vote, I donate no money to either cause, and I don't even try to convince anyone of the validity of either course.

The purpose for my participation in such discussions is to get at the invalid arguments, the incorrect assertions (of which, there are plenty on both sides). I believe that this is a topic worth debating in our society and I believe the debate should be both clean and intellectually honest. Our society needs morals and reason that we can take to the bank - not the bankrupt ideas of the rabid advocate that possibly does more harm than good to their own causes and others.

Finally, even though there may be no inalienable constitutional or human right to the equal recognition of any special relationship, it doesn't mean that there MAY not necessarily be a moral or social one - not necessarily one that can be recognized by our culture or our current logic, but perhaps in a different culture of the future that places equal importance on relationships as it does on people. The trouble is, no one is making those arguments in this thread and I'm unsure of how to construct these arguments for a culture that I have not yet seen to exist.

There is a very, very hurtful spirit that haunts the gay community. This ghost is the fact that the vast majority of mothers, whether they accept their gay children or not, do not ever hope to have a gay child. Society should be more conscious of how this ghost can haunt the gay community when it rejects their hospital visits and compels them to testify against their loved ones. As a people, we should definitely make more accommodations for our loved and trusted neighbors.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:06 pm

plz list all the inalienable human rights
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:55 pm

Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:28 pm

that's way more than the US constitution. you agree with the provisions of that document? you're more socialist than i thought
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:28 pm

Kindi wrote:that's way more than the US constitution. you agree with the provisions of that document? you're more socialist than i thought

Umm... it doesn't necessarily provide more rights just because it has more words.

Furthermore, the US signed/voted(whatever) it. Whether Corth agrees with it or not is immaterial, it's a part of our government.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:25 am

I disagree with parts of it but overall it's a good start if you want to have a conversation about 'inalienable human rights'. I agree with the basic idea of the document - there are some rights which we are entitled to simply by virtue of being alive. Something a little bit stronger than say the right to buy beer at the age of 21.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:51 am

i'm especially surprised you guys are ok with article 22 thru 26
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:07 am

Did I miss someone going throug the document line by line explaining which parts he/she agrees with and which he/she doesn't?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:10 am

shrug i asked for a list of inalienable human rights and you provided that link. if you don't agree with it then it's not what i asked for

i think it's unfair you guys keep claiming "that's not a right" and then withhold a list of what rights you do think exist
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:00 am

Whoa.. back the train up.

Kindi wrote:the constitution, and the laws of the US, do NOT grant rights, they protect rights we already have, inherent in being human


That's you making a silly kind of statement that is factually untrue. I respond:

Corth wrote:I wouldn't necessarily make such a broad statement. There is recognition of a class of 'inalienable human rights'. But then there are other more run-of-the-mill rights.


Then you ask me for a list of inalienable human rights:

Kindi wrote:plz list all the inalienable human rights


Presumably, given the position you espoused that all rights are inherent and inalienable, a list of inalienable rights would be infinite. Like.. "#15,331,942: it's you inalienable human right to bathe in Lake George from sunrise to sunset so long as a lifeguard is present".

To prove that 'reasoning' wrong, I linked, for your reference, to a famous document that attempts to codify those rights which rise to level of inherent and inalienable:

Corth wrote:Kindi,

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights


So I present you with a list of inalienable rights. Big things like the right to express yourself, practice religion, marry, etc. Nothing about the right to park on the south side of Main Street between 11am and 3pm....

And SOMEHOW, bringing this list to your attention to refute your dumb statement that all rights are inalienable is supposed to mean that I agree with said list 100% without criticism.

So basically, what is happening here is that either a) you are too stupid to have a conversation with; or b) you are Sarvis'ing me.

I choose B.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:09 am

Damn Corth, flippin' out Teflor style there. I feel like there's not enough room in the forum for two of us.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kindi » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:08 pm

so it's back to direct, personal insults?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:57 pm

You can have the last word on that. I think what I wrote speaks for itself.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kifle » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:48 pm

Forum history is being made here.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:07 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey- ... 23480.html

This is a good article and goes to the point some were trying to make here. Denying gays the right to marry is not necessarily unconstitutional or an issue of rights. IT MAY BE, but you can't just say its a constitutionally protected right... because it may not be.

"..the Supreme Court has held that most laws that treat some people differently from others are constitutional if the difference in treatment rationally furthers a legitimate government interest. "

'To effectuate that purpose, the Supreme Court has held that laws that discriminate against African Americans violate the Equal Protection Clause unless they pass "heightened scrutiny" -- that is, unless the discrimination is necessary to further an important government interest."

"Finally, the Court considers whether the group's status is immutable. That is, African Americans cannot change their race."

--Article then goes on to show how homos qualify under at least 3 of the recognized tenets of the equal protection clause (which does not guarantee equal rights, rather requires heightened scrutiny of laws that affect disadvantaged classes).

"The only criteria on which there is any question is the fourth, but there is a general consensus today that one's sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. "

--note, that's their position that the only question remaining is the 4th. I'm just simply trying to say that its not a simple matter of equal rights as Kwirl went off the deep end swearing up and down it was an incontrivertible right to marry.

Teflor is exactly right in this sense, its not necessarily discrimination if homos can't marry because they can exercise the "right" to marry (which is not a right at all but a legally recognized relationship serving a specific governmental purpose as I put it)... just not in the manner they wish to exercise it in (with a same sex partner).
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:52 pm

The crux of the constitutional argument right now is "are we permitted to discriminate against gay people?" Does the constitution allow us to create laws which treat people differently on the basis of sexual orientation? Precedent says that we probably can't. It'll get ruled on, and probably appealed, but it's likely that the end result will be protected status for homosexuals.

The other question is "should we?"
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Kifle » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:56 pm

I agree, Kiryan, to an extent. I'm sure I could easily find an argument against your post, but I would just be being redundant at this point.

For your current post, assuming that there would be no argument against what you posted, we need to further the discussion by asking: If the constitution does not grant homosexuals equal opportunity insofar as taxes and relationship acceptance (if the government denies the relationship, it will take society longer to), why do we not change this inequality? Why do we now, seeing that we agree for the sake of argument that gay marriage is not constitutionally protected, not just simply add it to the constitution? I can find no argument as to why this shouldn't change.

The argument becomes: If straight marriage is recognized by the government, marriage has become a secular institution (at least in part), and that secularization has caused an inequality. Since the government has caused this inequality, through offering benefits to married couples, the government must fix the inequality it has inadvertently created. All that some of us are proposing is that the government keep the religious institution in tact by denying "marriage" while fixing the inequality be creating an equally recognized relationship status "civil union" which is only the same insofar as government recognition is concerned.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:09 pm

We would need to define what the role of marriage is in society to determine whether it should apply to homosexuals. I tend to agree that homosexuals should get many of the benefits of marriage... particularly in terms of who gets to visit whom in the hospital, taxes and the automatic inheritance of property... However marriage is an institution that has far reaching impact in society and not all of those may be appropriately granted to homosexuals.

Just because we started with somethign broken doesn't mean we have to extend the broken thing in the sense of equality... I mention the "family" visiting rights in a hospital. I support civil unions for this reason. I would further support removing "benefits" from marraige and tarnsferring them to different legally recognizable relationships/instutitons.

Finally... If we are going to have the debate about opening marriage to homosexuals solely in the name of equality, I refuse to allow it to be considered without looking at the equality for polygamists and incestual relationships. After all, these are also examples of people just wanting the right to marry the people they love which is the whole basis for the equality of gay marriage right? Lets not repeat the mistake made when slaves were freeded and equal protection amendment was added that left out women for another 60 years?

If gays have the right to marry without respect to the merits of the institution and rather to a right, then let at a minimum afford that same right to polygamists and incestual relationships. If you're not ready to accept that as a universal right applicable to all humans, then we must spend more time in debating and defining the role of marriage in society, the basis for the rights and the proper parties they should be extended too... which absolutely some of those should be granted to gay couples.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:20 am

Some new news on the matter: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... riage_act/

It appears that the Obama administration is no longer willing to defend against challenges to the Defense of Marriage act. This will leave it up to Congress to appoint special counsul should it wish to defend constitutionality challenges to the law (which, it most likely will). The administration will still enforce the law, however.

For those of you interested, Obama campaigned on a platform in which he opposed gay marriages. Congress also recently turned Republican.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:34 pm

In the cases of both incest and polygamy we can describe the negative effects upon society of allowing it.

You can't do the same for gay marriage.

I suppose you still can't see the difference, though.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:01 pm

ok whats the negative effect of incest that can't be resolved with birth control..

now explain why parents are allowed to get married (or stay married) who together have a 100% chance of having a child with certain genetic diseases because they both carry dominant genes for it?

what are the negative effects of polygamy?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:33 pm

kiryan wrote:ok whats the negative effect of incest that can't be resolved with birth control..


OK, fine... you can marry your sister if the state can sterilize you both.

now explain why parents are allowed to get married (or stay married) who together have a 100% chance of having a child with certain genetic diseases because they both carry dominant genes for it?


Because we don't test for that stuff. (Theoretically, we could do the testing up front even for cases of incest and medically determine if it should be allowable. Thus the law could really be stated: No offspring-producing-marriages when the chances of birth defect are above X%.)

But I'm betting that kind of requirement would be too invasive for conservatives to swallow.


what are the negative effects of polygamy?


A lot of single men with no sexual outlet. - http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/57942
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:29 pm

I think Sarvis might have a point, but who's to say the 'negative effects' aren't just perception based because we're discriminating against their love?

I'm sure you could point out negative effects of recognizing any kind of special relationship.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:37 pm

i'm not even going to bother to argue about the validity of the article you linked... and just accept that its true for the purposes of argument... that men having multiple wives leaves the remaining men to a "violent substratum" of society and that is bad.

Can we use the same justification to say lesbian marriage should be illegal but male homosexual marriage is ok? Since only unmarried men are an issue? Or is that an equality issue for a protected class (women)?

Can we restrict abortion based on preference of sex for the child?

Did you know that more boys are born than girls, but boys die at a faster rate. So somewhere in the 20s, there are equal populations of men and women, but women outnumber men the farther along you go. Some stats indicate that there are 75% of octegenerians are women... would you allow polygamy at that age? What about cities where women outnumber men (like NY whose population is roughly split 60% to 40% women to men and inspired an entire show about how rough dating and sex is for women in NY).

and ultimately, I still don't see how you can argue that its "love" and "rights" for homosexuals (can't even start on a discussion of the public benefit/harm), but we can outlaw incest and polygamy because of X Y and Z public harms. Its all about rights and people loving each other isn't it?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:44 pm

kiryan wrote:Can we use the same justification to say lesbian marriage should be illegal but male homosexual marriage is ok? Since only unmarried men are an issue? Or is that an equality issue for a protected class (women)?


So you think that if women can't marry each other they'll just decide to screw men?

Can we restrict abortion based on preference of sex for the child?

Did you know that more boys are born than girls, but boys die at a faster rate. So somewhere in the 20s, there are equal populations of men and women, but women outnumber men the farther along you go. Some stats indicate that there are 75% of octegenerians are women... would you allow polygamy at that age? What about cities where women outnumber men (like NY whose population is roughly split 60% to 40% women to men and inspired an entire show about how rough dating and sex is for women in NY).

and ultimately, I still don't see how you can argue that its "love" and "rights" for homosexuals (can't even start on a discussion of the public benefit/harm), but we can outlaw incest and polygamy because of X Y and Z public harms.


Of course you don't. You think it's ok to outlaw something because you think it's icky, but it's "legislating morality" to outlaw something that actually has a negative effect on society.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:47 pm

So
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Can we use the same justification to say lesbian marriage should be illegal but male homosexual marriage is ok? Since only unmarried men are an issue? Or is that an equality issue for a protected class (women)?


So you think that if women can't marry each other they'll just decide to screw men?


So you think that if women can't marry their brothers they'll just decide to screw another man?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:49 pm

kiryan wrote:So
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Can we use the same justification to say lesbian marriage should be illegal but male homosexual marriage is ok? Since only unmarried men are an issue? Or is that an equality issue for a protected class (women)?


So you think that if women can't marry each other they'll just decide to screw men?


So you think that if women can't marry their brothers they'll just decide to screw another man?


What does that have to do with anything? You're confusing the two arguments.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:11 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Can we restrict abortion based on preference of sex for the child?

Did you know that more boys are born than girls, but boys die at a faster rate. So somewhere in the 20s, there are equal populations of men and women, but women outnumber men the farther along you go. Some stats indicate that there are 75% of octegenerians are women... would you allow polygamy at that age? What about cities where women outnumber men (like NY whose population is roughly split 60% to 40% women to men and inspired an entire show about how rough dating and sex is for women in NY).

and ultimately, I still don't see how you can argue that its "love" and "rights" for homosexuals (can't even start on a discussion of the public benefit/harm), but we can outlaw incest and polygamy because of X Y and Z public harms.


Of course you don't. You think it's ok to outlaw something because you think it's icky, but it's "legislating morality" to outlaw something that actually has a negative effect on society.


No I'm using your argument here. polygamy can be illegal because it has a negative effect on society by having single men. You have a valid point that not letting lesbians marry does not mean they'll marry a man instead, but conversely, does not letting polygamist marry mean they'll marry into a traditional marriage as well?

Going further, if single men without wives is a bad thing and that is why we can outlaw polygamy, we should be able to legislate other things that result in disproportionate numbers of men and women, like gender selection via abortion. Abortion is already a choice... like the decision to get married is a choice.

If you can infringe upon one choice and deny rights others enjoy for the good of preventing too many unmarried males, then why can't you infringe upon the abortion choice (make it illegal to abort baby girls) for the exact same reason?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:17 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:So
Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Can we use the same justification to say lesbian marriage should be illegal but male homosexual marriage is ok? Since only unmarried men are an issue? Or is that an equality issue for a protected class (women)?


So you think that if women can't marry each other they'll just decide to screw men?


So you think that if women can't marry their brothers they'll just decide to screw another man?


What does that have to do with anything? You're confusing the two arguments.


I'm not confusing anything, you have a valid point. lesbians are not just going to marry men because its illegal to marry a woman. Using that logic, would you expect incestuous couples to stop screwing each other because its illegal to marry. So why not let them marry too?
and tonights winner in the Toril EQ lottery is demi belt and skull earring!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:20 pm

kiryan wrote:

No I'm using your argument here. polygamy can be illegal because it has a negative effect on society by having single men. You have a valid point that not letting lesbians marry does not mean they'll marry a man instead, but conversely, does not letting polygamist marry mean they'll marry into a traditional marriage as well?


Yes. The women will still want marriage, and they will still want to marry guys.

Going further, if single men without wives is a bad thing and that is why we can outlaw polygamy, we should be able to legislate other things that result in disproportionate numbers of men and women, like gender selection via abortion. Abortion is already a choice... like the decision to get married is a choice.


Abortion is a choice, yes. Mandating abortion for specific gendered children would make it not a choice. You're violating your own ideals on that one.

If you can infringe upon one choice and deny rights others enjoy for the good of preventing too many unmarried males, then why can't you infringe upon the abortion choice (make it illegal to abort baby girls) for the exact same reason?


Oh, you were going the other direction. Whatever, your argument is getting progressively more stupid and my brain is in Miami right now.

Point is: You can't come up with any negative effects on society to ban gay marriage, so you're instead arguing that it leads to other situations. Problem for you is that it's a slippery slope, legalizing polygamy doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage (unless you're talking about gay polygamy) and they have other reasons for not being legalized. The best you can do with your present argument direction is prove that all three should be legal. So go ahead.

Personally I'm glad polygamy is illegal, because I might see one of these girls on the beach tomorrow and they won't all be married to the same guy:
Image
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:01 pm

classic liberal close mindedness, you can't understand the arguments because you aren't reading them. you already know my position when in fact, I'm trying to explore your position.

I'm arguing that all 3 should be legal if any one is legal. I need to understand whether you believe its a RIGHT or whether its just simply a matter of whats in the public good.

If you believe its a right, then polygamists and incest should also be granted legal marriage under that same logic and it doesn't matter whether its good or bad for the public.

If you take the point of public good to justify outlawing polygamy and incest, then I can make arguments about how gay marriage should be outlawed for its harms to society.

--

yes women will still want to marry. wow, thats awful presumptous of you. You know there are black women who won't marry white guys? Republicans who won't marry democrats. Why do you declare with certainity that polygamists will just marry traditionally if denied the right to marry the people they love?

Using that same logic, we can deny marriage to gays because then they'll just marry traditionally. right?
--

my point about abortion is that if you can restrict the choice of polygamy marriage because it harms society by leaving too many men without wives... you can restrict the abortion choice to disallow at least the abortion of baby girls to prevent there from being too many men without wives.

--

Personally you are glad that polygamy is illegal. Great, personally, I'm glad that gay marriage is illegal. where does that leave us bigots?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:16 pm

Yes, Kiryan. I know your position.

We dispensed with the idea of it being a "RIGHT" a couple pages ago.

We've asked you to explain in terms of harm to society and thus far you have not come forth with these arguments. If you're waiting for that, you are behind... not I.

Some gays would marry traditionally, then have affairs outside of marriage which is another harm to society as families are torn apart and STDs are traded. You can't force people to be straight. Sorry. And most would still just remain single. They would never truly love anyone of the opposite sex. That's all their is to it.

I'm sure their's something wrong with your abortion argument, but again:

Image

I'm not a bigot because polygamy is a choice, homosexuality is not.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:28 pm

Show me your scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. If you can't then I'll have to assume you're basing your argument on your religious beliefs (liberal world view that is).

My evidence would be reformed homosexuals.

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest