Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Ser Clegane]

I can't believe that you are de-legitimizing it

I think it has been asked before - but since I have not seen an actual answer yet, I'll just ask again:

How exactly does legalizing gay marriage de-legitimize heterosexual marriage?
What difference would it make for a heterosexual married couple if a homosexual couple can refer to itself as married as well?
Judging by the first couple of responses I received from the married people here, it seems that they do not feel that their special relationship would be de-legitimized (and to no surprise I share that view).

I anyone of those here who so vehemently insist that gay marriage undermines marriage as an institution actually married?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think it has been asked before - but since I have not seen an actual answer yet, I'll just ask again:

How exactly does legalizing gay marriage de-legitimize heterosexual marriage?
What difference would it make for a heterosexual married couple if a homosexual couple can refer to itself as married as well?
Judging by the first couple of responses I received from the married people here, it seems that they do not feel that their special relationship would be de-legitimized (and to no surprise I share that view).

I anyone of those here who so vehemently insist that gay marriage undermines marriage as an institution actually married?

How would making the purple heart available to anyone who sacrificed time or energy to war de-legitimize the sacrifice of those who were critically wounded or killed in war? Is your argument that it wouldn't?

One is clearly special and worthy of social note, unless the society decides it does not.

[Ser Clegane]

How would making the purple heart available to anyone who sacrificed time or energy to war de-legitimize the sacrifice of those who were critically wounded or killed in war? Is your argument that it wouldn't?

One is clearly special and worthy of social note, unless the society decides it does not.

I think it would be helpful for the discussion at hands if you answered the question directly instead of referring to an entirely unrelated example.

[Ser Clegane]

To expend a little bit on Marriage being "special".

What makes marriage "special" to me, is when my wife and I decided to marry it was a clear statement to each other and to the "public" that we believe that our love is strong and special enough to carry us through the rest of our lives.
It is a vow that we intend to support each other during the hard times of life and that we think that the happy parts of life will be even better when enjoyed together.

If a homosexual couple feels the same deep love and is willing to fight for the recognition that they have the same special relationship, I think that this yearning rather emphasizes the special character of marriage, but by no means de-legitimizes it.

De-legitimizing happens by treating your own marriage as nothing special - and this can be true for heterosexual and homosexual couples.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think it would be helpful for the discussion at hands if you answered the question directly instead of referring to an entirely unrelated example.

I've written 4 pages on distinctions between the two types of relationships. I'm asking if you can see a distinction between two types of sacrifice. The mindsets might be the same irrespective of outcome, but the outcome is so clearly different in both cases.

I believe that marriage is a social recognition that, while symbolic, exists for the purpose of supporting procreation and family cohesiveness. Although this is the exception, I can extend this in my mind to male/female couples that are unable to procreate because they are disabled.

If you maintain that procreation is not the concern of society and government, you may have a point, but that would open marriage up to everyone, not just homosexual couples (which I would be adamantly against anyway). The idea that marriage would be open to any two people irrespective of the nature of their relationship would clearly demolish the institution of marriage.

If you don't see this as demolishing marriage, why do you require the State's acknowledgment of your relationship? Why not just the civil and legal agreements?

Nobody is keeping people apart, particularly not the people of CT, who have given homosexual couples the legal protections of married couples, but not the title.

[Strike For The South]

nvm.

[yesdachi]

To expend a little bit on Marriage being "special".

What makes marriage "special" to me, is when my wife and I decided to marry it was a clear statement to each other and to the "public" that we believe that our love is strong and special enough to carry us through the rest of our lives.
It is a vow that we intend to support each other during the hard times of life and that we think that the happy parts of life will be even better when enjoyed together.

You should show that post to your wife, it might get you some legitimizing later.

[Koga No Goshi]

So is us not having sharia

It's not a society evolving, it's overstretching the goodwill there is.

Frankly you do not seem to have goodwill towards very much, Fragony. Especially when it comes to actually making due on the values that you otherwise defend about Western cultures in any other topic. If you believe in equal rights, and equality of all people, show your commitment. Otherwise it's an empty conceit when you go around in other threads knocking Sharia or multiculturalism and touting the virtues of western societies' values.

You nor anyone else has provided a legal argument that works within the U.S. Constitution as to why rights should be qualified in this case only for an arbitrary grouping of people. The only thing being offered is a general feeling that being gay is bad, should be discouraged, or doesn't deserve recognition or "celebration" the way heterosexual couples do via marriage.

That's not acceptable in a secular democracy premised upon equal rights. It's more acceptable in theocratic societies which in any other thread you would probably be attacking.

Homosexuality is a condition, a defect. Same rights yes, same status no. Why do they want that in the first place how egocentric can you be to claim what is important to many.

You know, the definition of human used to be reserved for whites, and not for blacks, in the U.S. And not in ancient history, either, but much more recently. So was it "wrong" for some radical white people and a lot of black people to "force" everyone else to change their definition of what constituted another full human being entitled to full rights under the law?

According to you, that would be wrong, and egocentric, and an unreasonable demand upon something that belongs to other people. Frankly, I am shocked you grew up in a democratic nation. You don't sound like you either understand OR embrace democratic values one bit from what I can tell.

And gay people do NOT have the same rights. Not having the same status leads to not having the same rights. Kukri already gave a specific, real -life example of that, and that situation is far from unique. Many times with gay couples, one side of the family or the other is less accepting of the situation and eager to cause trouble as soon as the relationship is ended, or one of the partners dies. Hell, it is not unusual when ANYONE dies for the kids or siblings or spouse(s) to begin arguing over who should get what. The difference is, there are laws governing people's rights to what. These laws frequently fail to reflect the taken for granted rights that married individuals would have over their joint property, when it comes to a gay couple. And not just property either, but other rights, such as medical decisions.

Imagine if because someone decided that because of a gene you had somewhere in your genetic code, Fragony, that you were defected and entitled to equal rights, but not equal status. So your future wife... whoever she may be, gets ill with cancer. And the doctor refuses to even talk to you about your wife's condition, because you are not legally recognized as having any sort of say whatsoever. So the doctor instead gets all his directives for medical treatment from your wife's sister, who always hated you, or even hated her sister! Would you say this is a good thing? If you can't, then you can't defend standing U.S. laws.

[Fragony]

You nor anyone else has provided a legal argument that works within the U.S. Constitution as to why rights should be qualified in this case only for an arbitrary grouping of people.

Neither could the ones opposing it because the law got passed. Doesn't mean the law is good just meabs it was passed.

[Koga No Goshi]

Neither could the ones opposing it because the law got passed. Doesn't mean the law is good just meabs it was passed.

Okay so in other words, there is no formal, Constitutional legal argument on the anti- gay marriage rights side.

Just "I don't like it."

Was 10+ pages necessary for that?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Point of fact, the constitution would require an amendment to ban gay marriage. There is no reason in the constitution why they could not. If a state passes a law, and so far 3 of them have, that allows gay marriage, the constitution upholds it.

Now, why do you guys want to alter the constitution in a way that discriminates against gay people? Why do you want to overturn the laws for people in other states who find that gay marriage is acceptable?

If the question is votes, I'd be happy with votes. But the courts, rightfully, strike down laws banning gay marriage because they are unconstitutional.

[Fragony]

Okay so in other words, there is no formal, Constitutional legal argument on the anti- gay marriage rights side.

Just "I don't like it."

Was 10+ pages necessary for that?

No it seems that the constitution can't prevent the government from kicking in the doors of private space, I don't think there is a country with a constitution that says one should like something. Ok maybe england.

[Koga No Goshi]

No it seems that the constitution can't prevent the government from kicking in the doors of private space, I don't think there is a country with a constitution that says one should like something. Ok maybe england.

Who said you had to like it? I'm sure you can dig up some rednecks who don't like that black people can vote or Mexican people can buy homes in white neighborhoods. In fact, I have MET some such people. But those people should not be the ones consulted about what constitutes equal rights under our laws.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wouldn't even go so far to say that homosexuality is a defect, to me it still seems nothing more than a fetish, just shrouded in other gay stereotypes being forwarded by modern society and the extreme gay activists. Many people who engage in homosexual acts but nonetheless act like other men get just annoyed at these activists as anyone.

I've already given you the examples of ancient Rome and Greece. Unless all those Roman emperors happened to be bisexual, that shows that sodomy (in the broad meaning of the term) is nothing more than a fettish that can be encouraged/stigmatised by society, affecting how widespread it is.

Did Juluis Caesar feel the need to lisp and loosen his wrists - no! The way some who engage solely in homosexual activity noways act as they often do is simply because they are brainwashed into that by modern society.

Homosexual acts are performed out of fetishes, they do not allow to men to form a marriage, which has always been solely between men and women.

Got to go now...

[Koga No Goshi]

All of which is OT to the topic of legal rights.

So I guess we can count the legal portion of the discussion as a slam dunk.

[Fragony]

All of which is OT to the topic of legal rights.

So I guess we can count the legal portion of the discussion as a slam dunk.

Especially since we all seem to agree on the equal rights provided, yes. You seem to be particulary able to mentally block the actual point(s)

[Rhyfelwyr]

All of which is OT to the topic of legal rights.

So I guess we can count the legal portion of the discussion as a slam dunk.

Well the idea of marriage was created by humans, with the specific idea of it being between one man and one woman. Saying that any other combinatin of sexes/animals/objects should be allowed to marry is not done out of a requirement for equal rights (because a heterosexual man couldn't marry a man, say for tax purposes), but it is just a suggestion for practical reasons to help homosexual couples.

[Koga No Goshi]

Especially since we all seem to agree on the equal rights provided, yes. You seem to be particulary able to mentally block the actual point(s)

What points are you talking about? Bring them forth. I thought the topic was the legalization of gay marriage rights in another U.S. state. Not "the sociological history of why I think being gay is icky, and lesser."

Well the idea of marriage was created by humans, with the specific idea of it being between one man and one woman. Saying that any other combinatin of sexes/animals/objects should be allowed to marry is not done out of a requirement for equal rights (because a heterosexual man couldn't marry a man, say for tax purposes), but it is just a suggestion for practical reasons to help homosexual couples.

Basically, I think that in the very beginning, the government made a blunder (and probably didn't realize it at the time) getting into marriage. It should have strictly created a civil contract licence which married couples could apply for and be issued, just like marriage licenses. Because the word marriage is what is really causing the problem here. When people go on about marriage being sacred, holy, special because of procreation, they're not really talking about life partnership. They're talking about the sacrament of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Gay people are not petitioning the Catholic Church (or any other church) to add a gay union sacrament to doctrine. They're looking for the same legal rights which protect basic decency issues and property and well-being rights for couples.

[Fragony]

What points are you talking about? Bring them forth. I thought the topic was the legalization of gay marriage rights in another U.S. state. Not "the sociological history of why I think being gay is icky, and lesser."

Just about 12 pages of them, can't be bothered or just the ambition to become the world greatest serial-faillure?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gay people are not petitioning the Catholic Church (or any other church) to add a gay union sacrament to doctrine.

What? Of course they are, but they are using different methods at the moment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just about 12 pages of them, can't be bothered or just the ambition to become the world greatest serial-faillure?

I think that I've made a number of points. It is funny how people keep asking me to make the same points over again, but never acknowledge that I've made any. Those points may not be enough to sway Koga's opinion, but it doesn't mean that I haven't brought up any points at all.

In fact I've brought up the points that have swayed my opinion.

[Fragony]

I think that I've made a number of points.

Yes indeed, like water on a duck it just slides of. Another blind spot.

[Askthepizzaguy]

All of your points were unrelated to the legal question of gays being married, or they didn't explain why a constitutional amendment was necessary to prevent states from allowing gay marriage.

Or, refute me and post a link, or quote yourself.

[Koga No Goshi]

I think that I've made a number of points. It is funny how people keep asking me to make the same points over again, but never acknowledge that I've made any. Those points may not be enough to sway Koga's opinion, but it doesn't mean that I haven't brought up any points at all.

In fact I've brought up the points that have swayed my opinion.

Legal points, Tuff. You already conceded what 1 page back that you have no argument for someone who doesn't agree on the basic premise that heterosexual joinings are more desirable based on biology and evolution and tradition and the creation of children. I do not believe from a perspective of procreation, anyone ever argued that point. But from the perspective of legal rights under the law, one person having a same gender life partner and another person having a different gender life partner and giving them wildly separate rights in that relationship is not supportable under the Constitution.

What you've provided is an explanation of your personal opinion. Not a legally credible argument against extension of equal rights.

I'm sorry that you and Fragony are interpreting this as "my stubbornness", because it isn't. We're talking about laws, not opinion polls. I could care less if the reason you don't like gay people is because you think they raped and killed Santa Claus. That has nothing to do with qualification, restriction or condition upon equal rights in our society and courts have and will continue to recognize this when the issue comes before them. "I do not think homosexual relationships should have recognition like heterosexual ones do" is as irrelevant, legally speaking, as saying "I do not believe black people should have the rights that white people do."

We're talking opinion, vs. legal rationale. Two different things. And one cannot substitute for another in a society of laws.

[Fragony]

All of your points were unrelated to the legal question of gays being married, or they didn't explain why a constitutional amendment was necessary to prevent states from allowing gay marriage.

Or, refute me and post a link, or quote yourself.

All my mine points, well ours, is the discussion you guys seem to be elegantly, yet consistantly dodging. By doing so are doing this place a great disservice cheap personal shots are just that.

15 pages of link now, do that ready thingy so we can practys communicattsism

[Koga No Goshi]

All my mine points, well ours, is the discussion you guys seem to be elegantly, yet consistantly dodging. By doing so are doing this place a great disservice cheap personal shots are just that.

15 pages of link now, do that ready thingy so we can practys communicattsism

Fragony, I seriously don't mean this in an insulting way, but do you understand what I mean when I say there is a difference between an opinion argument and a legal argument?

I can say I don't like charging interest, for example. That it's immoral and leads to usury and exploiting the poor and debt and poverty and making people homeless/penniless. And that my religious text teaches that it is immoral and should be discouraged. None of those can stand in court as a legal reason for overturning a constitutional law allowing the extension of loans with interest.

[Fragony]

Fragony, I seriously don't mean this in an insulting way, but do you understand what I mean when I say there is a difference between an opinion argument and a legal argument?

Glad you don't, now could we please actually make that difference between an opinion argument and a legal one as we have have been pleading for forever since page 1?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Koga you are basically wanting to create a new institution, same-sex marriage. What exists is heterosexual marriages, these are defined by the fact there is one man and one woman. They are not discriminatory, a gay man could marry a woman if we wanted. But he won't want to. Just like some single straight guys won't want to. So should we let them 'marry' their best friend or whever since apparently everyone needs someone to make decisions for them in hospital and get tax cuts? That is all you see marriage as after all, you do not acknowledge it has always been solely for 1 man/1 woman.

[Askthepizzaguy]

same-sex marriage, different-religion marriage, different race marriage.

At one time, they were all illegal.

Now, two out of three are legal almost everywhere. The third is legal in 3 states.

Your argument, Rhyfelwyr, doesn't hold water, because you're basically arguing "something was illegal for a long time, therefore it should be."

[Ser Clegane]

apparently everyone needs someone to make decisions for them in hospital

Actually it is not about someone making decisions but about your beloved one making these decisions.
But I assume that the concept about actual love is alien to you in this context when you reduce the whole issue to "fetish" and "butt-sex".
Well - it seems we are living in somewhat different worlds...