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.

[Euphrates]

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.


Can Euphrates find ANY evidence that the status quo with respect to legislation or court rulings includes his notion that a basic right like marriage should be denied for the harms he points to??

All it takes is some marginally good critical thinking and the ability to read what's already been written in this thread. Your position against my arguments is: "That's irrelevant!"

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

Regarding the denial of a basic right... how many times can you repeat this without ever offering evidence? Ad nauseum, apparently. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. You won't even try to prove that this is incorrect. You'll just say the same old "But they can't marry someone they are sexually attracted to". But you're just making up that right. Find the right to "marry someone you are sexually attracted to" in some law, or STOP REPEATING THIS NONSENSE.

For the rest of it, some things just aren't worth a response. You might be fooling people who aren't interested in the truth, but I'm counting on reasonable people to actually read what has been written in this thread and see right through your inaccuracies.

[Ooberman]

micatala, were we expecting a different response?

All it takes is some marginally good critical thinking and the ability to read what's already been written in this thread. Your position against my arguments is: "That's irrelevant!"

Yes, that is right, the conclusion of the thorough exploration of your position is that your premises (and your crazy scenarios) are, in fact, irrelevant.

We have clearly shown you WHY your position is irrelevant.

Perhaps micatala will give you that it is remotely, unconvincingly and improbably relevant as a Slippery Slop fallacy. I won't even give you that because you propose that gay marriage may somehow become the norm, i.e., majority. That's so patently absurd I have trouble understanding how you can even type that without stopping yourself.


Also, everyone notices that you didn't engage micatala's questions. I hope he ignores your latest Red Herring (political rhetoric) until you address his points.

After all, you brought them up, now man up and engage the debate.





edit: BTW, you say that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is obviously a different definition than some other countries and they are recognized as legal even in countries where gay marriage is not allowed.

But what I'm wondering is how do hermaphrodites fall into your category system? Do they have to marry another hermaphrodite that is equal but opposite in gender differentiation? Can they marry anyone? No one?

Please let us know.

[micatala]

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.


Can Euphrates find ANY evidence that the status quo with respect to legislation or court rulings includes his notion that a basic right like marriage should be denied for the harms he points to??

All it takes is some marginally good critical thinking and the ability to read what's already been written in this thread. Your position against my arguments is: "That's irrelevant!"

Well, you have not offered any substantive response to the arguments and evidence I've presented showing your argument on drug abuse is irrelevant, and you have refused to answer the questions posed.

If you have provided an answer to this question previously in the thread, please point it out. I've been through the whole thread several times and I didn't see anything even approaching an answer to this question.

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.

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.

Regarding the denial of a basic right... how many times can you repeat this without ever offering evidence? Ad nauseum, apparently. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. You won't even try to prove that this is incorrect. You'll just say the same old "But they can't marry someone they are sexually attracted to". But you're just making up that right. Find the right to "marry someone you are sexually attracted to" in some law, or STOP REPEATING THIS NONSENSE.

Alright, let's clarify. I think part of the problem concerns the use of the term "right."

Yes, in most locales, the local or state government has not recognized the right of gays to marry.

However, rulings on marriage, although they have obviously in most places not been applied to gays as yet, recognize marriage as a basic right. It cannot be denied to felons, dead beat dads, etc. AND previous restrictions like those banning interracial marriage have been found to be infringements on the right to choose one's spouse as part of pursuing happiness. My position is that banning gay marriage is analogous to other arbitrary restrictions like restrictions based on race.

If you want to use the word "restriction" instead of "right" we can do that for the sake of the discussion, but I have a few further comments below on the issue of rights.



When we have overturned unjust restrictions in the past, it has been by addressing the lack of compelling rationale for the restriction, by illustrating the prejudice that is the root of many of these restrictions (e.g. women not being able to vote, interracial marriage, gay sex being illegal, etc.), by alluding to the tradition regarding that right and the rationale for it being a right in the first place, and by pointing to other rights which the status quo was perceived as violating.


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.

Not recognizing gay marriage as a right means violating other already well-established rights.

As a further point, keep in mind that "pursuit of happiness" is considered an 'inalienable right.' What do you think it means to be 'inalienable?' To me, it infers that the right exists on a higher plane, regardless of what the current law states. In the sense that not allowing gays to marry infringes on their broader rights, yes, we do have an infringement of rights here. It is not necessary to find a specifically enumerated right to gay marriage in the constitution. It is sufficient to show that not allowing gay marriage violates some of these broader rights, and I have argued why this is the case based on existing precedents and the language of the constitution and the declaration of independence.





You seem to think not allowing gay marriage is not discriminatory. You seem to think that "since the rules are the same for everyone" and sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned in marriage law, that this is OK.

Well, let me make two additional comments on these regards.


Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting that used to exist in many locations in the south did not specifically mention race. However, their intent was clearly to reduce black voting and they were eventually ruled discriminatory in their effect.



Would Euphrates say poll taxes and literacy tests were not discriminatrory?

As fas as I can see from your argument to date, you would have to conclude they are not, since everyone had to live under these same rules and they do not mention race.

What do you say?



Also, I am not "making up a right", I am taking a well-recognized right that has to date, in most locations, only been interpreted to apply to heterosexual marriages, and arguing that that right should be recognized more widely to apply to gay marriage. My argument is based on the effect of the status quo as interpreted being discriminatory. It is also based on the application of fundamental rights as outlined in the constitution being fairly applied in this case. My view is bans on gay marriage violate the 14th amendment and our inalienable right to "pursue happiness" and I have stated this in the past. I did not "make up" the 14th amenmdnent or the constitutional provisions or the court cases I am alluding to to make my case.


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?

If these past situations were a violation of rights, what rights were being violated? After all, prior to enactment of the 19th (if I have the number right) amendment, women did not have the right, as recognized in law to vote.

For the rest of it, some things just aren't worth a response. You might be fooling people who aren't interested in the truth, but I'm counting on reasonable people to actually read what has been written in this thread and see right through your inaccuracies.

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.




As far as your nonresponse, that is your choice, but it won't keep me from repeatedly putting these issues in front of you in order to let readers draw their own conclusions about which argument has more merit.

So far you have not addressed the court cases including those from Iowa and on DOMA, nor the military strength and economic arguments, nor Theodore Olson's points, nor a number of questions I have posed except by hand-waving them away.




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?


As a follow up, since you feel that some restrictions are appropriate on marriage and we actually agree on some of these restrictions, are any of the current restrictions on marriage based on arguments like yours, which point out higher rates of promiscuity, drug use, lower birth rates, or some other average characteristic of a particular group?


Again, if you cannot point to any examples of your kind of argument that have been used to create these types of laws, then your argument is shown to be irrelevant, at least in the context of the status quo of legal tradition.

[otseng]

Good luck salvaging your credibility.

Moderator comment:

This would be considered an indirect personal attack. Please avoid making any types of comments about another person.

[micatala]

As I may be referring to these in subsequent posts, here are
the full decision in the Iowa case ruling gay marriage is legal there under the Iowa constitution.

A shorter six page summary.

The latter includes the following:

Similarly Situated People. Prior to proceeding to an application of the equal
protection analysis, the court addressed the County’s request that it apply a
threshold test. Under this threshold test, if the plaintiffs cannot show as a
preliminary matter that they are similarly situated, courts do not further consider
whether their different treatment under a statute is permitted under the equal
protection clause. The County asserts that plaintiffs are not similarly situated to
civilly married heterosexuals because they cannot procreate naturally.

The court rejected the County’s analysis, finding the threshold analysis
advocated by the County results in the avoidance of a full equal protection
analysis. Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are
“similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.� “ ‘[S]imilarly
situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect, and consequently,
any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.� Likewise,
“similarly situated� cannot be interpreted to require plaintiffs be identical in every
way to people treated more favorably by the law. “No two people or groups of
people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could
be run aground [under] a threshold analysis� that requires the two groups “be a
mirror image of one another.� Rather, equal protection demands that the law
itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated
with respect to the purposes of the law alike. Thus, the purposes of the law must
be referenced for a meaningful evaluation.

The purpose of Iowa’s marriage law is to provide an institutional basis for
defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in
committed relationships. It also serves to recognize the status of the parties’
committed relationship. In this case, the court concluded, plaintiffs are similarly
situated compared to heterosexual persons; they are in committed relationships
and official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining
their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities.

Now, one caveat up front is that the Iowa Constitution is not the U.S. constitution. However, I think if we investigate, we will find there are substantial similarities, as there are in most state constitutions.

Note that, at least in Iowa, the purpose of marriage is much more in line with what I have been arguing and at odds with Euphrates' opinion. Marriage law does not exist primarily to encourage particular behaviors or strengthen the state. Rather, it exists for the benefit of the individuals as they form committed relationships.

Note that the decision specifically debunks the notion that procreative ability should be a factor in deciding the issue. THis again speaks to the marginal nature of Euphrates' argument. Whether gays can or cannot procreate or will or will not be artifical means is irrelevant.


The decision also speaks to Euphrates notion that marriage cases that are not specifically about gay marriage are irrelevant to deciding whether gay marriage should be legal.



The decision goes onto to further debunk many of the contentions Euphrates has made regarding the importance of governmental objectives in not legalizing gay marriage.

Intermediate Scrutiny Standard: Governmental Objectives. Based upon the
above analysis, the court proceeded to examine Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban
under an intermediate scrutiny standard. “To withstand intermediate scrutiny, a
statutory classification must be substantially related to an important
governmental objective.� In determining whether exclusion of gay and lesbian
people from civil marriage is substantially related to any important governmental
objective, the court considered each of the County’s proffered objectives in
support of the marriage statute. The objectives asserted by the County were (1)
tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting
procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5)
preservation of state resources. In considering these objectives, the court
examined whether the objective purportedly advanced by the classification is
important and, if so, whether the governmental objective can fairly be said to be
advanced by the legislative classification.

None of these 5 items, the first 4 of which appear in some form in Euphrates' arguments, were found sufficient individually or in aggregate to uphold the same-sex marriage ban implicit in Iowa's law.



Edited to add:

Here is the law that that the ruling addresses.

595.2 Gender--age.
1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

2. Additionally, a marriage between a male and a female is valid only if each is eighteen years of age or older. However, if either or both of the parties have not attained that age, the marriage may be valid under the circumstances prescribed in this section.

3. If either party to a marriage falsely represents the party's self to be eighteen years of age or older at or before the time the marriage is solemnized, the marriage is valid unless the person who falsely represented their age chooses to void the marriage by making their true age known and verified by a birth certificate or other legal evidence of age in an annulment proceeding initiated at any time before the person reaches their eighteenth birthday. A child born of a marriage voided under this subsection is legitimate.

4. A marriage license may be issued to a male and a female either or both of whom are sixteen or seventeen years of age if:

a. The parents of the underaged party or parties certify in writing that they consent to the marriage. If one of the parents of any underaged party to a proposed marriage is dead or incompetent the certificate may be executed by the other parent, if both parents are dead or incompetent the guardian of the underaged party may execute the certificate, and if the parents are divorced the parent having legal custody may execute the certificate and

b. The certificate of consent of the parents, parent, or guardian is approved by a judge of the district court or, if both parents of any underaged party to a proposed marriage are dead, incompetent, or cannot be located and the party has no guardian, the proposed marriage is approved by a judge of the district court. A judge shall grant approval under this subsection only if the judge finds the underaged party or parties capable of assuming the responsibilities of marriage and that the marriage will serve the best interest of the underaged party or parties. Pregnancy alone does not establish that the proposed marriage is in the best interest of the underaged party or parties, however, if pregnancy is involved the court records which pertain to the fact that the female is pregnant shall be sealed and available only to the parties to the marriage or proposed marriage or to any interested party securing an order of the court.

c. If a parent or guardian withholds consent, the judge upon application of a party to a proposed marriage shall determine if the consent has been unreasonably withheld. If the judge so finds, the judge shall proceed to review the application under paragraph "b".

The previous section of the code includes:

595.1A CONTRACT.
Marriage is a civil contract, requiring the consent of the parties
capable of entering into other contracts, except as herein otherwise
declared.

and the Iowa version of the equal protecion clause is:

Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

The Iowa Supreme court found that 595.2 section 1 violated this equal protection clause.




More to come.

[SailingCyclops]

In my opinion the opposition to gay marriage is based solely on homophobia. No rational argument has been posited in this thread to come to any other conclusion.

Homophobia is rampant in our society as is racism and sexism. It rears it's ugly head in every corner.

A recent example of pure homophobia in action:

School District Agrees to Pay Lesbian Teen $35,000

ABERDEEN, MS – Itawamba County School District officials agreed to have a judgment entered against them in the case of a recent high school graduate who sued her school for canceling the prom rather than let her attend with her girlfriend. The agreement ends a precedent-setting lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 18-year-old Constance McMillen, who suffered humiliation and harassment after parents, students and school officials executed a cruel plan to put on a “decoy� prom for her while the rest of her classmates were at a private prom 30 miles away.
[...]

Equality for everyone is a civil rights issue, a human rights issue, not a moral or religious one.

Bob

[micatala]

In my opinion the opposition to gay marriage is based solely on homophobia. No rational argument has been posited in this thread to come to any other conclusion.

Homophobia is rampant in our society as is racism and sexism. It rears it's ugly head in every corner.

A recent example of pure homophobia in action:

School District Agrees to Pay Lesbian Teen $35,000

ABERDEEN, MS – Itawamba County School District officials agreed to have a judgment entered against them in the case of a recent high school graduate who sued her school for canceling the prom rather than let her attend with her girlfriend. The agreement ends a precedent-setting lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 18-year-old Constance McMillen, who suffered humiliation and harassment after parents, students and school officials executed a cruel plan to put on a “decoy� prom for her while the rest of her classmates were at a private prom 30 miles away.
[...]

Equality for everyone is a civil rights issue, a human rights issue, not a moral or religious one.

Bob

I certainly agree gay marriage is a civil rights issue and that we should have equality for everyone. I do think one relate these issues to both morality and religion, although it is not necessary to do so.

I am not sure about the assertions regarding homophobia. I think a good portion of opposistion to gay rights and gay marriage in particular is not due to fear of homosexuality, but a fear or concern about changes in the fabric of society. It is, I think, legitimate to have concerns about changes in characteristics of families, the family's role in society, etc. etc.

The problem to me is that the link many people make between these concerns and homosexuality IS irrational, or to put it another way, not based on sound reason. It is more of a subjective association created by a web of thinking within a worldview. Since the traditional family picture is seen to be good, other notions of family are bad, even if there is no logical link, or at best an extremely tenuous one, between allowing these other family structures and any 'deterioration' of the traditional family.





Back to this comment by Euphrates . . .

Regarding the denial of a basic right... how many times can you repeat this without ever offering evidence? Ad nauseum, apparently. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. You won't even try to prove that this is incorrect. You'll just say the same old "But they can't marry someone they are sexually attracted to". But you're just making up that right. Find the right to "marry someone you are sexually attracted to" in some law, or STOP REPEATING THIS NONSENSE.

It is worth pointing out that the same applies to heterosexaul marriage, at least with respect to the constitution.


Where in the constitution does it guarantee a person the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?



If there is no such enumerated right, what constitutional basis do any of our marriage laws have?

[Euphrates]

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?

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

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

Regarding the denial of a basic right... how many times can you repeat this without ever offering evidence? Ad nauseum, apparently. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. You won't even try to prove that this is incorrect. You'll just say the same old "But they can't marry someone they are sexually attracted to". But you're just making up that right. Find the right to "marry someone you are sexually attracted to" in some law, or STOP REPEATING THIS NONSENSE.

Alright, let's clarify. I think part of the problem concerns the use of the term "right."

LOL, let the semantic games begin.

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?!?!?!

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

You seem to think not allowing gay marriage is not discriminatory. You seem to think that "since the rules are the same for everyone" and sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned in marriage law, that this is OK.

Well, let me make two additional comments on these regards.


Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting that used to exist in many locations in the south did not specifically mention race. However, their intent was clearly to reduce black voting and they were eventually ruled discriminatory in their effect.



Would Euphrates say poll taxes and literacy tests were not discriminatrory?

Poll taxes and literacy tests excluded blacks from an opportunity that was available to other groups. The literacy tests, for example, made it so that you could only vote IF you were able to read. While the law was designed to prevent blacks from voting, only illiterate people were prevented from voting. If you wanted to vote, but you couldn't read, you couldn't vote. Being literate and paying the poll tax were pre-conditions before being allowed to vote.

That's nothing like what's going on with same-sex marriage. If you want to get married, you can. You can't always marry the person you desire, but you can CERTAINLY marry someone. There's no test to take. The only pre-condition is adulthood. There are no qualifications to meet. Male or female, gay or straight, tall or short, 18 or 90, fat or skinny... no adult is prevented from getting married.

And, interestingly, there is a fee associated with getting married. So if you want to be consistent, you'll follow up with an argument that the current marriage system is discriminating against the poor people who can't afford to get married... just like poll taxes. Your silence on the subject is evidence that the current marriage system is certainly not analogous to the archaic voting system of the segregated south.

And if you really care about consistency (which you claim to, but the evidence is lacking), you'll argue that the pre-condition of adulthood is discriminatory to teenagers who want to get married. But you won't do that... that's crazy talk...

So, to answer your question: Yes, literacy tests and poll taxes were discriminatory. They didn't directly discriminate based on race, but they discriminated based on other factors (wealth and literacy) that translated to a racial discrimination. In fact, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (for example) the Supreme Court didn't find that there was racial discrimination directly, but ruled against poll taxes because "Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._ ... _Elections

Also, I am not "making up a right", I am taking a well-recognized right that has to date, in most locations, only been interpreted to apply to heterosexual marriages, and arguing that that right should be recognized more widely to apply to gay marriage. My argument is based on the effect of the status quo as interpreted being discriminatory. It is also based on the application of fundamental rights as outlined in the constitution being fairly applied in this case. My view is bans on gay marriage violate the 14th amendment and our inalienable right to "pursue happiness" and I have stated this in the past. I did not "make up" the 14th amenmdnent or the constitutional provisions or the court cases I am alluding to to make my case.

So... in other words... you can't prove that homosexuals are denied the right to marry. Ok, I understand. When you CAN prove it, let me know. Until then.

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'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. 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.

And to keep your non-evidence company, you've offered up the hilarious "irrelevant" argument. If nothing like this has happened before it can't happen now either. lol There's no legal reason to believe this. Do you have evidence that this standard is used to evaluate public policy? Of course not.

[Kuan]

Im not taking a stance on this but I just want to say that it should be a state issue and not a central power.

[Euphrates]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.