Debunking same-sex marriage

[AVG-JOE]

This is a foolish statement. If you didn't have precedent, the legal system would be chaos. Further, precedent is used by both liberals and conservatives to advance a legal position.

The wisdom lies in knowing when to adhere to precedent and when to alter it.

Obviously, I disagree. Also obviously, there are some old laws that are still relevant, in example: thou shall not kill.

Legal precedent, on the other hand gives the judicial branch the power to make laws, which in my opinion is stupid. If a lawyer is able to successfully argue that some bozo broke a non specific law by doing or not doing something specific, that specific act becomes 'illegal' in the eyes of the courts because of the legal precedent of the awarded judgement. A system that history proves worked o.k. while technology and the lifestyle of the masses was changing little generation to generation.

With the industrial revolution and the technological revolution that followed closely, 'legal precedent' managed to ham-string the system, giving us the current bloated bureaucracy of stupid rules that make no common sense, have mountains of paperwork (another British legacy) required for compliance and are not understood by the bureaucrats who administer them.

Why can't we get rid of laws that make no sense for today's world? Precedent.

-In Alabama it is an offense to open an umbrella on the street for fear of spooking horses.

-In Alaska it is considered an offense to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.

-In Arizona you may not have more than two dildos in a house.

Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!

Shall I continue alphabetically?

Why must our courts and political system use antiquated procedures that cost many times more than communication via the internet? Precedent and tradition.

Until we shed the shackles of tradition for the sake of tradition we will be burdened with stupidity.

Does anyone actually know the entire tax code for their filing status? There's a crap-load of precedent we could do with out...

-Joe

 

[Father Time]

I'm going to take more time into debating his post but let me just point out one thing.

Prop 8 did lie. It did say churches will be sued for disapproving same sex marriage. And who cares what MA law says. If it's not the law on the books here in CA then it won't happen here. You're pretty much using the slippery slope fallacy and being irrelevant (they may propose other stupid laws so we should stop this particular unrelated law from passing, instead of going after the stupid laws if they show up).

Some said people would get convicted on hew hate crimes and claimed prop 8 supported freedom of speech which is moronic because prop 8 had absolutely no effect on what constituted a hate crime.

But hell let's look at logic for a second. What logical reason is there to give marraige to straight couples and not gay ones? I honestly can't think of anything logical that isn't extremely weak. First you got the appeal to tradition 'it's been that way for ever so long' fallacy then you got the procreation thing which is dumb because hey we got sperm banks and surragate mothers and of course adoption. So what's left? I can't think of anything else? Can you help me out?

 

[Father Time]

I read the whole thing and you weren't really convincing

1. Gay marriage is about equal rights. Marriage is a basic civil right and that should extend to same-sex couples, too.

This is the primary claim of gay marriage supporters, and while it has a nice ring to it, it's not entirely true. In the eyes of the law, we all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. To put it a different way, I as a straight man couldn't legally marry another man any more than a gay man could. This sounds like a simplistic argument, but it should serve as a reminder to those who would frame the lack of legal gay marriage as discriminatory towards the LGBT community.

So many people hype up marriage to be about love but if you're hetero you can marry someone you love but if you're homosexual you can't? That's where it comes in.

Oh and why shouldn't people have the right to marry whoever they want? Yes it's not in the constitution but heck you can argue it should be a right.

2. The lack of legal gay marriage is just like interracial marriage being not legal at one point.

I'm sorry, but this is dead wrong. This shows not only a lack of understanding in the situation surrounding interracial marriage, but also, it shows that a lot of people don't understand gay marriage legalization, either. Gay marriage is simply not acknowledged in most states. This doesn't preclude them from having a wedding ceremony (getting married in the religious, spiritual sense), living together, owning a home, having a will, etc.

Oh I'm glad you mentioned a will because (according to my sources) the family of the deceased can challenge a will if they decide to leave stuff to someone other than them. And if it's to a partner they aren't married to it makes it a lot easier for the family to win than if they left it to a spouse.

For the paragraph I deleted when we say they're similar we mean that the arguments for and against were very similar.

Even beyond the legal context of the two types of marriage, we can point to different examples in history of interracial marriage. We can't do the same for same-sex marriage, even in civilizations that seemed to hold a fair amount of respect for homosexual coupling.

And that bears any relevance ... how? Are you saying that because we didn't have homosexual marraige before it somehow makes it bad? I fail to see the logic.

3. The gay rights movement in general is just like the civil rights movement because they both wanted equal rights.

It's not a perfect analogy, but hell homosexuality used to be considered a mental disease ... ok fine that's not a good enough comparison but they're saying that they are similar not exact.

Even sodomy laws were, for the most part, mutually discriminatory. The LGBT community had more invested in their being overturned through Lawrence v. Texas than the "heterosexual" community did, because gay men tend to engage in the kind of sex prohibited by those laws in larger number than straight people, most likely.

Oh come on we both know those laws were directed against gays and they were discriminatory, under those laws people could refuse all kinds of stuff to gays because they were unconvicted felons.

4. Gay couples should be treated just like straight couples.

This is a paraphrased contention, but the gist of it is, there is this fairly inaccurate belief that "couples" have rights in the eyes of the law. I...wouldn't agree with that contention. Individuals have rights. Individuals who are married, individuals who aren't, individuals who have children, individuals who don't are treated differently. A "couple" is just an abstract pairing.

How about hospital visitation rights? How about the fact that married couples can't always be compelled to testify against each other in court?

This is why it's a little ridiculous to call this one of equal rights. This is why some people who disagree with gay marriage mention the existence of polygamists. They're a couple. Incestuous relationships, pedophilic relationships, zoophilic relationships...all couples.

The last two are a complete lie. To be a couple you need consent, animals and children clearly can't give consent to those things (I'm talking legally). So to compare the two is wrong and insulting.

Couples' rights aren't protected, because they kind of don't exist.

Like I said hospital visitation. You can't visit any old schmuck in a hospital that's not your family, but if you two are a married couple then you get to. All because you're a couple.

5. There are 1,138 federal rights we don't get because we're a same-sex couple.

I've never actually heard that argument but ok all 1,138 aren't really rights details, details. They're options and benefits though. But if you really want to split hairs then fine. The main argument is that that number should not be greater than 0.

6. Gay marriage isn't about the traditional definition of marriage. It's about legal rights and benefits.

OK, fine. That's a noble fight, I'll agree, but first, learn why it is traditional marriages (man/woman) started receiving secular benefits from the government, despite separation of church and state, in the first place. It wasn't to expend tax money just to make people feel normal. I'm sure that has become something of a secondary characteristic of it, but it wasn't the main reason. The main reason was basically because of the state interest in making sure women and children had some recourse should the husband, who traditionally was the one who worked and biologically, didn't have to birth children.

Incomplete sentence, rather incomplete thought. I don't mean to sound like a grammar perfectionist but you didn't really say what the main reason was. It was for recourse should the husband ... do what exactly?

They were never meant as door prizes for everyone who showed a marriage certificate. Of course marriage has changed and evolved, and yes there are some people who think the state should just stop recognizing "marriage" and just let everyone get civil unions. To that I say, one, that wont compel the state to recognize same-sex civil unions based on its lack of fecundity (two men and two women don't reproduce),

Ah the they can't produce children argument. My uncle and his wife have adopted two kids and never had any of their own. Assuming they were both fertile (I never asked), would that mean they're somehow spitting on the purpose of marriage? But let's take gays, you can have a surrogate mother and a sperm bank bring you children and in straight terms that would make one the real parent and the other step parent. Something perfectly acceptable in other marraiges.

and two, that would undermine all of the activism by gay marriage supporters so far that marriage is a right. Not to mention the legal overhaul that would have to take place to accommodate change like that.

Both irrelevant really.

7. Gay marriage is more about what marriage means, and it's about celebrating love.

This is the opposite argument, and really, it's even worse. The law doesn't care about your love. You can love one another and be with one another with a marriage certificate. People who are going to be together will be together regardless if they are recognized through the government or not.

Then let's give them the same benefits we give everyone else. Why fight it when it doesn't harm those not involved in it?

8. The various arguments against Prop 8 in California

Proposition 8 did nothing but reset the same parameters marriage has always had. Though the Attorney General Jerry Brown re-named the measure "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Marriage" (which was the most egregious moral baiting I've seen in a while) when those in favor of the measure wanted "Limits on Marriage", Prop 8 doesn't literally say "gay people can't marry". If it did, I could somewhat understand the claims that it's a vote for bigotry and intolerance, and it's really Prop H8 and all that. It doesn't speak to either sexual orientation or active restriction.

It doesn't speak to active restriction? Sigh once you had a right and now you don't there's active restriction for you. Yeah it doesn't literally say gay people can't marry but now it means gay people can't marry someone unless it's someone they don't love (discarding bisexuals for a minute). Just to add to this what do you think degrades marriage more: a gay couple that love each other or a gay person who can only marry someone they don't love (and does).

Some people think it's wrong because they took away a right, but they didn't. The courts can't grant rights,

Yeah they can conclude that we've had that right all along, that a law is unconstituional because it violates rights we were given. Again details details.

and gay marriage supporters need to understand if they're going to keep trying to go the court route in getting it legalized, they have to be ready for the possibility that checks and balances might not tilt in their favor the way activist judges will.

Ah the activist judge smear, remember kids if you don't like what the court says you can dismiss their reasoning by calling them activists. Anway if you want to talk checks and balances we were given rights the majority could not take away no matter how much they wanted to. If 80% of the population wanted to ban flag burning it'd still be around because of freedom of speech (not that I'm comparing the two issues).

This also refers to the claim that because the LDS church donated so much money to the Yes on 8 campaign, that this was some weird, convoluted infringement of separation between church and state.

I've never heard anyone use that argument but I think it's stupid. My belief though is that churches that get really involved in politics should be taxed. As George Carlin said if they want to get involved in politics they should have to pay like everyone else. That's just me though.

The whole idea that the church had just an impacting effect on the voters in the largest, most diverse, and most liberal state in the union is kind of funny, actually.

You really think they had no impact? With all the campaign dollars and scare tactics? Sucker.

At any rate, the LGBT community is really one to talk about what the Constitution implores us to separate, since there's another separation it talks about, one that's actually in the Constitution, one that was actually mentioned in Dissent to the court case that overturned Prop 22: separation of powers. Extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples is a legislative issue, not judicial.

Declaring a law unconstitutional is judicial They said it was unconstitutional to deny same sex couples the right to marry. The law's unconstitutional and the only logical outcome (same sex marriage) follows.

10. So what if gay couples can't have their own kids. Eighty year olds can marry and they can't have their own kids, either.

This argument is bad because it falls into the same hole it's supposed to be patching up. Nobody argues the point of children as an absolute premise. The point is simply that, while some straight couples will never have children, no same-sex couple will produce children. You can't compare the exception in one scenario to the standard in another and call it the same thing. A lot of people, myself included, aren't interested in taking the time and wasting political energy making it's 100% for everyone, because I know that's never going to happen.

A. Surrogate mothers, sperm banks and adoptions.
And more importantly
B. You've yet to establish why it's so important that couples must be able to have kids before marrying.

12. If you don't support gay marriage, you're a bigoted homophobe.

Ok that's an ad hominem fallacy, and a bad argument. I'll give you that.

One last thing: I don't know if I've driven this point home yet, but the idea that "benefits" are non-negotiable "rights" isn't quite right. We're not all entitled to benefits based on some general standard of existence and acceptance by the government. If that weren't the case, we'd all be entitled to veteran's benefits (even if we never served in the military), disability benefits (even if we're perfectly healthy), and senior citizen's benefits (even if we're 26). Of course we're not, but it illustrates that all state benefits come with some strings attached. Regarding marriage policy, picking the one string that pertains to sex and making an issue out of it misses the point.

That's a dumb comparison in my opinion. Benefits designed specifically to veterans should go to veterans so veteran is a requirement. The status of marraige doesn't have any requirements other than age, not marrying family, and gender. The last one is abitrary and clearly not needed.

 

[Amanda]

There should be no reason for the government to acknowledge marriage, whether gay or straight, at all. They should simply have civil unions and leave marriage to the church, a private institution.

I agree with this. I don't want to deny anyone any rights but to me a marriage is between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage makes as much sense to me as atheist baptism.

 

[Amanda]

Why can't we get rid of laws that make no sense for today's world? Precedent.

-In Alabama it is an offense to open an umbrella on the street for fear of spooking horses.

-In Alaska it is considered an offense to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.

-In Arizona you may not have more than two dildos in a house.

Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!

Shall I continue alphabetically?

I think even in todays world we could agree that spooked horses aren't something we want to encourage. And I can't think of any good reason to push a moose out of an airplane, especially a moving one. And... strictly speaking why would anyone need more than 2 dildos...

I'm glad I'm not Catholic I would hate to have to confess the unclean thoughts I just had.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think even in todays world we could agree that spooked horses aren't something we want to encourage. And I can't think of any good reason to push a moose out of an airplane, especially a moving one. And... strictly speaking why would anyone need more than 2 dildos...

I'm glad I'm not Catholic I would hate to have to confess the unclean thoughts I just had.

I'm with you about dildos. Vibrators are the only way to go.

Seriously, though, I don't know what archaic, forgotten, unused laws have to do with the topic, although I won't say it wouldn't be a good idea for our various legislatures to spend a little time cleaning up the books a little.

 

[Amanda]

I'm with you about dildos. Vibrators are the only way to go.

Oh no, that's not what I meant! I don't have anything like that, I would be too embarrassed to even think of using something like that. I would probably die from embarrassment if I actually tried to buy one.

 

[Shogun]

Oh no, that's not what I meant! I don't have anything like that, I would be too embarrassed to even think of using something like that. I would probably die from embarrassment if I actually tried to buy one.

Glockmail could probably help you get over that phobia. I hear he is a veteran at dildo shopping.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh no, that's not what I meant! I don't have anything like that, I would be too embarrassed to even think of using something like that. I would probably die from embarrassment if I actually tried to buy one.

I'm just teasing. Living, breathing men are the ONLY way to go.

 

[Anguille]

I'm with you about dildos. Vibrators are the only way to go.

Seriously, though, I don't know what archaic, forgotten, unused laws have to do with the topic, although I won't say it wouldn't be a good idea for our various legislatures to spend a little time cleaning up the books a little.

LOL! Is there not anyone you don't have a directive for? I'm sure the state legislators will hop to it first thing tomorrow morning.

 

[Anguille]

Glockmail could probably help you get over that phobia. I hear he is a veteran at dildo shopping.

hahaha!

 

[Anguille]

I'm just teasing. Living, breathing men are the ONLY way to go.

pearls of wisdom pour from your lips.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm with you about dildos. Vibrators are the only way to go.

Seriously, though, I don't know what archaic, forgotten, unused laws have to do with the topic, although I won't say it wouldn't be a good idea for our various legislatures to spend a little time cleaning up the books a little.

My point in bringing up archaic laws is to point out that we don't exercise our Founder given right to write relevant rules to live by because of legal precedent and tradition.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Oh no, that's not what I meant! I don't have anything like that, I would be too embarrassed to even think of using something like that. I would probably die from embarrassment if I actually tried to buy one.

Fortunately, most of us come equipped with at least one hand and an imagination...

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm just teasing. Living, breathing men are the ONLY way to go.

pearls of wisdom pour from your lips.

Not if you swallow...

-Joe

 

[Anguille]

hahahaha!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point in bringing up archaic laws is to point out that we don't exercise our Founder given right to write relevant rules to live by because of legal precedent and tradition.

-Joe

Untrue. We exercise that right all the time, as evidenced by the many new laws written all the time. We just don't exercise the right to clean house and repeal laws after they become irrelevant.

 

[52ndStreet]

We got to Burn and incinerate all those dame Homos and lesbians,thats the only solution to this entire Gay marriage debate thing.! Like they use to do in Salem Massechusettes
The fire is the only cure for them darn people,I tell ya!

 

[jla1178]

We got to Burn and incinerate all those dame Homos and lesbians,thats the only solution to this entire Gay marriage debate thing.! Like they use to do in Salem Massechusettes
The fire is the only cure for them darn people,I tell ya!

Those were witches and, contrary to popular belief, most were hanged.

 

[sky dancer]

We got to Burn and incinerate all those dame Homos and lesbians,thats the only solution to this entire Gay marriage debate thing.! Like they use to do in Salem Massechusettes
The fire is the only cure for them darn people,I tell ya!

What is your stance on abortion? If you knew your child was going to be born lesbian or gay, would that change your view on abortion?