Homosexual Marriage

[Rationalskeptic]

This topic is devoted to the question: Should we legally recognize gay marriage?

Some people think that gays are bad. Others think that they are not necessarily bad. Some people think that gay marriage is "morally wrong," others think that it is not wrong. Some think that giving gays equal rights will incourage an inferior institution. Others disagree. Some people think that the law should discourage that which they think is morally wrong, even when it does not involve agressing against the rights of others. Others disagree. Some think that there should be no gay marriage because gays are "disgusting." Others find that this does not matter. Some think that making laws protecting gays will add budgetary problems to our state and federal governments, and will hurt the rights of non-gay individuals. Others either disagree that gay marriage does, or that this is important. Some think that gay marriage should not be a legal status because it hurts "marriage." Others think that this is silly.

So what do you think on this controvercy. I have shown you most of what this issue covers. Have a fun debate.

[McCulloch]

What, then, are the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage? Well, one argument is that the status quo is unfair because same-sex marriage is illegal. When asked to point out what is unfair, sometimes someone will point to a "right" that doesn't exist, and sometimes someone will point to a "right" this is applied equally to all people. Is there evidence of this supposed unfairness? No.

You may not see it, but our courts did. It was argued that to deny a same-sex couple the recognition of their marriage merely because they were same-sex was to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. Such discrimination is not justified.

[Ooberman]

If you truly believe that in a public policy debate some evidence and some arguments should be ignored, I wish you the best of luck. In reality, policy decisions are based on harms and advantages with all things considered, not some things ignored. Once passed, policies can be challenged based on their legality. That's how the system works.

It's disingenuous to say that people have said that things should be ignored in a public policy debate, considering there are 35 pages of the topic being discussed - and that no one suggested things should be ignored. However, there are times when people (you) bring up irrelevant issues. While it should be evidence those issues are irrelevant to the issue to most people, if they are not discussed some people may feel they are being ignored. In your case, you brought up issues that with a minor amount of reflection are obviously not issues that impact the gay marriage issue - such as population decrease due to some imagined assumption that gay marriage might become the norm.

micatala (?) spent more time on that claim than it deserved, but still did it and showed how it is a baseless argument. Therefore, it should have been stricken from your argument - but you didn't take it out. In fact, every claim you made that was shown to be false, you kept in as if they were still valid arguments.

It is your problem, not ours, that you can't revise your argument to align with the facts.

In this thread we've heard many arguments, some evidence, and a lot of posturing. I want to take a moment to note that no one has been able to show that legalizing same-sex marriage would be good for our society.

We've shown why it would be good for society. You have chosen to falsely claim we didn't.

What, then, are the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage? Well, one argument is that the status quo is unfair because same-sex marriage is illegal. When asked to point out what is unfair, sometimes someone will point to a "right" that doesn't exist, and sometimes someone will point to a "right" this is applied equally to all people. Is there evidence of this supposed unfairness? No.

First, here is an example of how you both ignore the evidence, disregard good argument, and contradict yourself.

1. First, in the previous paragraph you claim "no one has been able to show that legalizing same-sex marriage would be good for our society."

Fairness is good for society. and you admit that the arguments for fairness exist. Do we really need to show why fairness is good for society?

2. Gay marriage is unfair. Court rulings have determined it, it is obvious that when one group of people are allowed benefits but another group is not, based on nothing more than their sexual preference, it is unfair.

3. Is there example of the unfairness? You must be joking. How can you be some utterly ignorant to the issue when you claim to have studied it?

The other, fairly new, argument is that the proposed harms of same-sex marriage shouldn't count. Why, you ask? Because similar harms when used in similar ways haven't been used in similar cases in the past. Why is this necessary to consider the harms?... no one knows. Is there evidence that this standard exists in the government or in public policy argumentation rules? No. Has anyone ever heard of this standard before? Probably not.

I don't think you know what you are trying to say here. Please rephrase.

To distract the debate from this obvious short-coming, information about court cases and judicial decisions have been presented as if they matter to the For/Against debate. It is unclear how they matter. For every majority opinion there is a dissent. Quoting a decision isn't evidence. The debate over a policy's legality is for the courts.

No, the court cases are not to distract, They are relevant and instructive. They distract YOU because you don't like the conclusions they come to.

I'll let my arguments against same-sex marriage speak for themselves. And I'll let the shifts and changing arguments of my opponents speak for themselves as well.

you may want to consider changing your argument because it is horribly flawed and has been shown to be a horrible argument. i appreciate your confidence in thinking you can declare a baseless assertion and think all you have to do is claim no one has rebutted it, but that is how the Bible works, not public policy.

[micatala]

The argument for same-sex marriage (in this thread) has boiled down to: the arguments against it are irrelevant and such a policy would violate the constitution by largely taking away some people's pursuit of happiness.

If you think that effects on drug use and promiscuity should be ignored when making public policy decisions, please never run for office.

You are twisting the wording of the questions as posed.

LOL, am I? So you believe that when making a public policy decision we should consider the effects the new policy will have on drug use?

Or is it P and ~P?

Euphrates' is still misrepresenting my position, which is hard to understand, given I explicitly corrected him on this point in a previous post.

You are twisting the wording of the questions as posed.

Let me clarify. Perhaps I didn't word it carefully enough the first time.

Can you find any law or court ruling which uses the drug abuse rate of a particular group or set of individuals, or if you wish, some other average characteristic of a group (higher rates of promiscuity, lower rates of procreation, higher/lower crime rates, whatever) as a basis for or justification for the law. I actually think this is possible, but as yet, no examples have been provided. Without these examples, there is no reason to think your case is even relevant. You would be violating the status quo by bringing in new justifications for enacting law.

Then, once we have some actual evidence that your case might be relevant, we can debate the merits of the particular examples vis-a-vis marriage in general and gay marriage in particular.


Now, one can address drug use or promiscuity, etc., without basing the policy on differences between groups on these items. Stricter drug laws, treatment activities, etc. can be and have been enacted which apply uniformly and are not based on singling the rates among particular groups. We have policies and laws related to drug abuse. The question is are any of these being applied to particular groups or justified primarily by the statistics of particular groups and not drug abuse or use overall.

Since you either missed this or misunderstood, I'll explain again.



First, I never said it was inappropriate to consider drug use in developing public policy. Your attribution of such a statement to me is incorrect.

The issue is whether a policy, especially a policy related to a basic right like marriage, should be based on the differences in drug abuse rates between groups.


So, for example, if the government wants to provide education in schools or to the public in an effort to reduce drug use or abuse rates, great. If the government wants to tax certain drugs in an effort to reduce rates or raise money for eduction, great. If the government wants to create drug prevention and education centers, great. In fact, with respect to the latter, it would be OK to target these to areas or groups that have higher rates of abuse in order to reduce the rates in those groups, and thus overall rates. As long as the activities are not discriminatory or assume individuals are using drugs based on group rates, this should not be a problem.


Note that the effect of the types of policies described above is on the individual and only based on that individual's activities. We do not make all blacks go through treatment simply because blacks have higher rates of abuse. We only treat those individually identified as having a drug problem.


A policy which affects a whole group based on an average characteristic of that group, can be problematical, especially if the affect relates to basic freedoms.

Now, since you again dodge perfectly legitimate and relevant questions, I'll ask again.


Find ANY law or court ruling, from say within the last 100 years, which uses as one of its rationales some average characteristic of a group that is deemed harmful to the larger society. I will tell you in advance that I do have such an example in mind and will offer it after you have a chance to find your own.


Since you think considering drug abuse, promiscuity, and low birth rates are harms that can justify not allowing gay marriage, see if you can find some examples of the government acting on the basis of rates regarding these variables among particular groups.


Again, if you can't find any examples of these in the past, why on earth should we consider your argument on the possible future of gay marriage to have any merit whatsoever?

Can you find any law or court ruling which uses the drug abuse rate of a particular group or set of individuals, or if you wish, some other average characteristic of a group (higher rates of promiscuity, lower rates of procreation, higher/lower crime rates, whatever) as a basis for or justification for the law. I actually think this is possible, but as yet, no examples have been provided. Without these examples, there is no reason to think your case is even relevant. You would be violating the status quo by bringing in new justifications for enacting law.

Let's start by admitting that you're not a legal scholar.

Euphrates begins by making an ad hominem argument.

Now let's admit that there's no need to find laws or court rulings that mirror or are analogous to proposed new policies.

No, let's not. Since future rulings on gay marriage are very likely to use existing laws and past rulings on marriage, these are absolutely relevant. Your attempt to pre-emptively dismiss them, yet again, seems to be nothing more than an attempt to avoid evidence that serves to refute your argument without engaging the actual evidence.

Everything gets evaluated based on constitutionality, harms, and advantages. If your position was tenable, you wouldn't have to make up legal requirements before you're willing to engage the information.

I have been evaluating your position and my position on constitutionality and have taken into account harms. Again, you misrepresent my position.

The issue is how the harms you point to weigh in comparison to other considerations, including constitutional considerations. I have shown that the weight given to the harms you point to with respect to a basic right like marriage by courts in the past is so low compared to the weight given to other considerations that it is essentially zero. I have not ignored the harms, I have shown through evidence that they are irrelevant to the type of issue we are here debating.

Oh, and do you really think that new justifications violate the status quo? And since when are *harms* a new justification?

See above. If the harm is found to be irrelevant in the past with respect to larger considerations, it should be in the future. That's the status quo.

If the harms are not applied to other groups who pose similar harms, then to apply them to gays is discriminatory. I have shown this as well. We have no promiscuity tests for marriage. We have no drug tests for marriage. We have no requirment to procreate for marriage. To bring these up when the question is whether gays should be allowed to marry it to be inconsistent in the application of these harms.

As far as "not proving gays have the right to marry" well sure, they do not have the right as recognized in law to marry a person of the same sex now. That is not the point. The point is should we legalize gay marriage or not. I am saying not allowing them to marry another consenting adult under mutual choice simply because they are of the same sex has a discriminatory effect. It means relegating their marriage relationship to one where their pursuit of happines is very severely restricted.

You have never substantiated this point. Never. Is a same-sex couple in Texas currently restricted from pursuing happiness because the state of Texas does not grant them the legal ability to marry each other? They live together, go shopping together, sleep together, have joint ownership of their cars and their home, legally have the same last name, went through a lovely commitment ceremony with their friends and family, and have an adopted child. If interviewed would they say that Texas prevents them from pursuing happiness?... only because they do not have a marriage license?!?!?!

All of these apply to heterosexual committed unmarried couples as well. If you are consistent in your argument, this paragraph is an argument that marriage is also irrelevant for heterosexuals.

You also still ignore the actual history of how the "pursuit of happiness" clause is applied in marriage cases.

The futility of your position is proved when you can't provide evidence for your claim OR a reasonable argument in support of it.

This is ridiculous. I have presented evidence in terms of court decisions and you have ignored them without any justifiable reason.

I'll address the poll tax issue in a later post.

Please point out any of my statements or evidence that are "not true." Please verify that I am purposely trying to distort the truth, or withdraw the assertion.

You must be a glutton for punishment. Since I have already posted such evidence, I don't see the need to do so again.

I am willing to let this drop, but will not do so again if you continue to impugn my truthfulness.

I'll ask again, are there any examples you can find of a basic right like voting, marriage, freedom from slavery, free speech, freedom of association, etc. being denied, or if you wish to rephrase restricted, based on average rates or chacteristics of a group?

You can ask as many times as you want, but you still haven't answered my previous response: Homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry, and their right to marry is not being restricted ANY MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Prove it, or let it go.

What we have here is an abundance of non-evidence. Can you prove that current laws discriminate against homosexuals? No.

Yes, I have and the Iowa Supreme Court has agreed with my reasoning.

Can you prove that homosexuals are "severely restricted" from pursuing happiness in the status quo? No (but you can suuuuure claim it. Can you prove that the pursuit of happiness is more important than the security of this nation or the public good? No. Can you prove that homosexuals are denied the right to marry? No. Wow, that's a lot of non-evidence.

I have dealt with all of these previously, if necessary, I will go back in the thread and show you the arguments you seem to be completely ignoring.


For now, I will present you another question, previously posed, which you did not address.

Prior to the abolition of slavery or interracial marriage, would you have said that the rights of blacks were not being violated?? After all, according to the law, they had no right not to be slaves or to marry whites. Same for voting. Would you say women's rights were NOT being violated prior to the enactment of the constitutional amendment?

[Kuan]

I changed my mind im taking a position. Gay marriage shoud not be allowed. Just as polygamy is illegal too.

[TheLibertarian]

I changed my mind im taking a position. Gay marriage shoud not be allowed. Just as polygamy is illegal too.

Oh, the irony.

[Kuan]

I changed my mind im taking a position. Gay marriage shoud not be allowed. Just as polygamy is illegal too.

Oh, the irony.

Is that supposed to mean something?!

Just kidding, yeah I know, it is ironic.

[Goat]

I changed my mind im taking a position. Gay marriage shoud not be allowed. Just as polygamy is illegal too.

So, gay marriage should not be made legal, because it's illegal already. That does not seem like a logical reason.

[TheLibertarian]

I changed my mind im taking a position. Gay marriage shoud not be allowed. Just as polygamy is illegal too.

Oh, the irony.

Is that supposed to mean something?!

Just kidding, yeah I know, it is ironic.

And, frankly, I think the LDS ought to be allowed to practice whatever damn form of marriage, i.e. contract law, it sees fit.

[Crazy Ivan]

Gay marriage shoud not be allowed.

Why?

[Kuan]

I changed my mind im taking a position. Gay marriage shoud not be allowed. Just as polygamy is illegal too.

Oh, the irony.

Is that supposed to mean something?!

Just kidding, yeah I know, it is ironic.

And, frankly, I think the LDS ought to be allowed to practice whatever damn form of marriage, i.e. contract law, it sees fit.

If that was true then I wouldnt be able to argue against gay marriage then would I?

To Goat: Sorry, misphrase. It should not be legal because polygamy isnt legal.