Logic behind gay marriage

[PJC]

The logic behind allowing gay marriage:

1.The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, (paraphrased for brevity): no state shall make a law that will abridge the rights of citizens nor deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor deny them equal protection.

2.Marriage has been deemed by SCOTUS as a fundamental right.

3.Limiting any fundamental right (be it the right to bear arms, worship as one chooses, speech, privacy, marriage, etc) is an abridgment of that right by definition. For example using a limited definition of speech to encompass only oral speech, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to free speech; using the limited definition of “arms” to encompass only handguns, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to bear arms; using a limited definition of marriage to encompass only between one man and one woman, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to marriage.

4.In order to justifiably limit any of those fundamental rights using due process, the State must show a compelling state interest for said limitation. For example, the State may be able to show an obvious compelling state interest for limiting certain religious practices if the said religious practice violates the rights of other citizens (such as human sacrifice).

5.No compelling state interest has been produced to limit marriage to only one man and one woman. However, the State may be able to show an obvious compelling state interest for limiting marriage to adults only as a child cannot give informed, legal consent.

6.Thus abridging the right to marriage of the consenting non-familial adult of one’s choice is unconstitutional.

And from my experience of debating with conservatives, liberals, and those in-between; I have most often found conservatives utilizing emotion and fallacy; conversely, liberals, in my experience, have more often employed logic, law, and critical reasoning skills than conservatives. When conservatives’ arguments have been shown to be fallacious and completely illogical, they quite often resort to distinctly emotional outbursts, anger and resentment, as clearly evidenced by their over-reliance on ad hominem attacks, exclamation marks, and all caps “shouting”.

 

[TNHarley]

No, I personally do not care. I wouldn't go to a rally or anything..
You just have to ask the right questions to get answers around here

 

[midcan5]

Every citizen of the United States of America deserves the same rights, there are not two Constitutions - there is only one. http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-on-gay-marriage-religious-2.html#post5734846

"Why are civil unions not enough for gay rights activists? The federal government accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status, not on civil union status. A few of those benefits are unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse, social security survivor benefits and spousal benefits, and the right not to testify against one’s spouse, among others." 11 Facts About Gay Rights | Do Something

"Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera... Then you get to gay marriage.

And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold.

About half of people in the U.S. support gay marriage, far less than those who are otherwise supportive of legally enforced gay rights (about 75%). This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue.

Why all the passion?

It's because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what homosexuality really is, as well as the erroneous assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil rights protections as everyone else. There are also a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships, and even a great deal of misunderstanding of what marriage itself is all about.

The purpose of this essay is to clear up a few of these misunderstandings and discuss some of facts surrounding gay relationships and marriage, gay and straight." Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives


Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynne Lavner

 

[Gadawg73]

2 committed folks that happen to love each other want to get married.
No one should give a shit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As far as tax purposes goes it would be to benefit the family in case of adoption. And that's good for everyone because there are far more children in need of families than there are families to adopt them all. But you can get that with a civil union. I don't think the state she declare a "marriage" in the case of anyone. That is the role of churches. If a gay couple can find a church to declare their union a marriage then that's great for them. Same for a straight couple.

So them having equal tax purposes is enough?
What about the statistics that a kid being raised good equals a parent of both genders?
You know, equal opportunities and what not

Why do you assume marriage has to include children?

Many married couples don't have kids.

 

[Gadawg73]

Friend of mine, her and her partner have 3 kids.
Saw them in church yesterday.
She is an attorney and her partner is the stay at home parent.
Nothing wrong with those kids they adopted out of the foster care system.
And we have morons here that would rather those poor kids stay in the foster care system.
The sick fools they are.

 

[editec]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

Equal justice under the law?

Oh yeah, right, I forget..equal justice under the law merely an emotional cliché of liberalism.

 

[BillyV]

The logic behind allowing gay marriage:

1.The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, (paraphrased for brevity): no state shall make a law that will abridge the rights of citizens nor deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor deny them equal protection.

2.Marriage has been deemed by SCOTUS as a fundamental right.

3.Limiting any fundamental right (be it the right to bear arms, worship as one chooses, speech, privacy, marriage, etc) is an abridgment of that right by definition. For example using a limited definition of speech to encompass only oral speech, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to free speech; using the limited definition of “arms” to encompass only handguns, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to bear arms; using a limited definition of marriage to encompass only between one man and one woman, limits/abridges the citizens’ rights to marriage.

4.In order to justifiably limit any of those fundamental rights using due process, the State must show a compelling state interest for said limitation. For example, the State may be able to show an obvious compelling state interest for limiting certain religious practices if the said religious practice violates the rights of other citizens (such as human sacrifice).

5.No compelling state interest has been produced to limit marriage to only one man and one woman. However, the State may be able to show an obvious compelling state interest for limiting marriage to adults only as a child cannot give informed, legal consent.

6.Thus abridging the right to marriage of the consenting non-familial adult of one’s choice is unconstitutional.

And from my experience of debating with conservatives, liberals, and those in-between; I have most often found conservatives utilizing emotion and fallacy; conversely, liberals, in my experience, have more often employed logic, law, and critical reasoning skills than conservatives. When conservatives’ arguments have been shown to be fallacious and completely illogical, they quite often resort to distinctly emotional outbursts, anger and resentment, as clearly evidenced by their over-reliance on ad hominem attacks, exclamation marks, and all caps “shouting”.

It seems these exact same justifications could be used to remove the limits on the number of participants in a marriage as well, as long as they were all adults. What "compelling state interest" could there be in preventing a man from having several wives (or vice versa), or a group of men in multiple partner marriage? And why consenting "non-familial" adults? Don't relatives have rights?

 

[Rocko]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

Actually the burden of proof lies with the state, in its desire to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

You should be seeking ‘logical’ reasons as to why the state should not obey the 14th Amendment.

Stop it with this nonsense already. Marriage was never created with the thought of being inclusive to gays. It us an institution bonded by a man and woman to be the backbone of a family. Gay activists, such as yourself are in fact trying to change the original concept of marrige to be more inclusive.

 

[auditor0007]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

Because there is no logical reason not to allow it.

My point exactly
There is not any "logical" reasoning for it to happen..
It is an emotional plea
Which is most of the lefts arguments

So I take it that you believe all marriages should be banned then? Based on your thinking, there is not logical reason for marriage period, it's just all emotional. So why not ban all marriage?

 

[auditor0007]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

Actually the burden of proof lies with the state, in its desire to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

You should be seeking ‘logical’ reasons as to why the state should not obey the 14th Amendment.

Stop it with this nonsense already. Marriage was never created with the thought of being inclusive to gays. It us an institution bonded by a man and woman to be the backbone of a family. Gay activists, such as yourself are in fact trying to change the original concept of marrige to be more inclusive.

Gays have always been a part of society. Gays have always been hated and discriminated against. It's just time to right that wrong. As far as families go, gays can have wonderful families also.

[ame=http://youtu.be/j4On-2Pn2fU]Phoenix gay dads adopt, raise 12 happy kids - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jwoodie]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

The "logic" (i.e., legitimate government interest) behind marriage is the promotion and preservation of stable nuclear family units for CHILDREN. The principle benefits granted towards these objectives are joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits, both of which encourage/allow one parent to devote more time to child rearing.

The civil rights/equality argument for gay marriage is largely an invented excuse for individuals to access these monetary benefits without the bother of having to raise children.

 

[Yurt]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

a 'marriage' is a contract. hence, why you have to sign papers to get a license to marry. the courts have jurisdiction over marriage because it is a contract.

since our laws view marriage as a contract, denying a legal class of citizens the right to "contract" violates the 14th amendment.

 

[Yurt]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

The "logic" (i.e., legitimate government interest) behind marriage is the promotion and preservation of stable nuclear family units for CHILDREN. The principle benefits granted towards these objectives are joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits, both of which encourage/allow one parent to devote more time to child rearing.

The civil rights/equality argument for gay marriage is largely an invented excuse for individuals to access these monetary benefits without the bother of having to raise children.

i'm not sure if this is your logic or you're just opining.

the logic you present is actually quite illogical. couples can have children without marriage and in fact, this happens frequently. further, there are couples who cannot have children. they have access to tax benefits, yet, they produce no children.

get it?

 

[jwoodie]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

The "logic" (i.e., legitimate government interest) behind marriage is the promotion and preservation of stable nuclear family units for CHILDREN. The principle benefits granted towards these objectives are joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits, both of which encourage/allow one parent to devote more time to child rearing.

The civil rights/equality argument for gay marriage is largely an invented excuse for individuals to access these monetary benefits without the bother of having to raise children.

i'm not sure if this is your logic or you're just opining.

the logic you present is actually quite illogical. couples can have children without marriage and in fact, this happens frequently. further, there are couples who cannot have children. they have access to tax benefits, yet, they produce no children.

get it?

Apparently more than you do. Married couples are more likely to provide "stable nuclear family units for children" than unmarried couples. Historically, it was a valid presumption that most married couples would have children. Since this is no longer the case, these tax benefits should be limited to married couples with minor children.

 

[PaulS1950]

We have the right to love.
We have a right to experess that love through civil (legal) marriage
It is discriminatory to withhold marriage based on gender.
It is a civil rights violation to withhold civil marriage to gays.
Churches do not have to bestow their sacrements on individuals that do not follow their faith but the civil authorities have no choice and no excuse but to allow same gender marriages.

 

[Gadawg73]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

The "logic" (i.e., legitimate government interest) behind marriage is the promotion and preservation of stable nuclear family units for CHILDREN. The principle benefits granted towards these objectives are joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits, both of which encourage/allow one parent to devote more time to child rearing.

The civil rights/equality argument for gay marriage is largely an invented excuse for individuals to access these monetary benefits without the bother of having to raise children.

Where is love in your analysis?

 

[Gadawg73]

The "logic" (i.e., legitimate government interest) behind marriage is the promotion and preservation of stable nuclear family units for CHILDREN. The principle benefits granted towards these objectives are joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits, both of which encourage/allow one parent to devote more time to child rearing.

The civil rights/equality argument for gay marriage is largely an invented excuse for individuals to access these monetary benefits without the bother of having to raise children.

i'm not sure if this is your logic or you're just opining.

the logic you present is actually quite illogical. couples can have children without marriage and in fact, this happens frequently. further, there are couples who cannot have children. they have access to tax benefits, yet, they produce no children.

get it?

Apparently more than you do. Married couples are more likely to provide "stable nuclear family units for children" than unmarried couples. Historically, it was a valid presumption that most married couples would have children. Since this is no longer the case, these tax benefits should be limited to married couples with minor children.

No offense man but you are not even close.
Marriage was founded on forcing women to marry a member of a monarchy to gain alliances and make peace.
Most of the monarchies of England were from German descent.
Marriage had absolutely nothing to do with any stability of the family argument.
That is all right wing BS from the I Hate Queers ministry of The Westboro Baptist Church.
Most all marriages from the beginning of that era until recently, the history of marriage, have resulted in dysfunctional families. Take a look at all of the monarchy families.
Gay folks want to marry because they love each other.
Nothing ever to do with children. That is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, nothing to do with married or not.

 

[jwoodie]

i'm not sure if this is your logic or you're just opining.

the logic you present is actually quite illogical. couples can have children without marriage and in fact, this happens frequently. further, there are couples who cannot have children. they have access to tax benefits, yet, they produce no children.

get it?

Apparently more than you do. Married couples are more likely to provide "stable nuclear family units for children" than unmarried couples. Historically, it was a valid presumption that most married couples would have children. Since this is no longer the case, these tax benefits should be limited to married couples with minor children.

No offense man but you are not even close.
Marriage was founded on forcing women to marry a member of a monarchy to gain alliances and make peace.
Most of the monarchies of England were from German descent.
Marriage had absolutely nothing to do with any stability of the family argument.
That is all right wing BS from the I Hate Queers ministry of The Westboro Baptist Church.
Most all marriages from the beginning of that era until recently, the history of marriage, have resulted in dysfunctional families. Take a look at all of the monarchy families.
Gay folks want to marry because they love each other.
Nothing ever to do with children. That is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, nothing to do with married or not.

You confuse civil marriage with religion and politics. Historically, civil marriage was used to legally establish paternity. It had nothing to do with "love."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would like to hear some logical reasons for gay marriage.
I personally don't care, I just want to hear the logic for it
I don't care cliché emotional reasons
LOGICAL reasons

Actually the burden of proof lies with the state, in its desire to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

You should be seeking ‘logical’ reasons as to why the state should not obey the 14th Amendment.

Stop it with this nonsense already. Marriage was never created with the thought of being inclusive to gays. It us an institution bonded by a man and woman to be the backbone of a family. Gay activists, such as yourself are in fact trying to change the original concept of marrige to be more inclusive.

That’s clearly not ‘proof,’ and it’s far from logical.