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.

[Kuan]

It should not be legal because polygamy isnt legal.

What does "polygamy" have to do with "homosexuality"?

They are both forms of marriage, if gay marriage is legal why cant polygamy be legal?

(Of course for both, they must be between consenting adults.)

They are different forms of marriage. One form is two people marrying, the other is more than 2 people.

Seriously, though, other than a religious reason, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

Let's do a thought experiment.

There is a planet in another galaxy and there are Beings that are very similar to humans, but they aren't human - somehow, doesn't matter in what way, but by all other accounts they act, think and seem just like human beings.

There are two sexes: male and female.

What is your reason they should not allow gay marriage?

They are not similar, but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

So the obvious answer is that both ought to be legal, and those who are "offended" by either need to grow a pair.

thats what I mean, but i doubt if the LDS church would even go back to practicing polygamy if it was legal, I could be wrong though.

Some would, some won't. Fundamentalists and Short Creekers and other loony sects would probably be more open to it, which is probably safer for the women -- where it's in the daylight, there are fewer shadows to hide abuse in.

Something like thirty Mormon-derived sects still practice polygamy anyway. Far better that it's in the open than done in secrecy.

Agreed

[Crazy Ivan]

They are not similar, but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

Obviously, because they are different matters. Why should the arguments of one automatically apply to the other, when they have nothing to do with each other? One is about numbers, the other about sexual orientation. As far as gay marriage is concerned, what some find "offensive", others don't and may consider it a constitutional right.

[Kuan]

They are not similar, but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

Obviously, because they are different matters. Why should the arguments of one automatically apply to the other, when they have nothing to do with each other? One is about numbers, the other about sexual orientation. As far as gay marriage is concerned, what some find "offensive", others don't and may consider it a constitutional right.

Same argument for polygamy.

[Crazy Ivan]

They are not similar, but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

Obviously, because they are different matters. Why should the arguments of one automatically apply to the other, when they have nothing to do with each other? One is about numbers, the other about sexual orientation. As far as gay marriage is concerned, what some find "offensive", others don't and may consider it a constitutional right.

Same argument for polygamy.

Which I have no problem with, among consensual adults. But you won't hear me arguing for gay marriage based on how I don't have a problem with polygamy. Since one being offensive doesn't make the other offensive, one being illegal isn't an argument to make the other illegal.

[Kuan]

They are not similar, but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

Obviously, because they are different matters. Why should the arguments of one automatically apply to the other, when they have nothing to do with each other? One is about numbers, the other about sexual orientation. As far as gay marriage is concerned, what some find "offensive", others don't and may consider it a constitutional right.

Same argument for polygamy.

Which I have no problem with, among consensual adults. But you won't hear me arguing for gay marriage based on how I don't have a problem with polygamy. Since one being offensive doesn't make the other offensive, one being illegal isn't an argument to make the other illegal.

Ok, agreed with, let me rephrase this.

As far as polygamy

is concerned, what some find "offensive", others don't and may consider it a constitutional right.

[Ooberman]

They are not similar,..

Similar to what? Us? They are male and female. What reason should they not be allowed to marry? Can you think of any?

If you can't, understand that people who do not believe God made humans feel that there is no reason - we are, after all, aliens to any other form of life in the Universe.

Plus, if you feel they are not the same as humans, then does this mean angels can marry each other, assuming we are talking about two angels of the same sex?

Why or why not?

but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

I think that is what we are trying to figure out. However, taking offense at something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I get offended at people's free speech sometimes, but it is allowed - except for some restrictions for the safety of society (yelling "fire!" in a theater, for example).

[Kuan]

They are not similar,..

Similar to what? Us? They are male and female. What reason should they not be allowed to marry? Can you think of any?

If you can't, understand that people who do not believe God made humans feel that there is no reason - we are, after all, aliens to any other form of life in the Universe.

Plus, if you feel they are not the same as humans, then does this mean angels can marry each other, assuming we are talking about two angels of the same sex?

Why or why not?

I was referring to practicing homosexuality and polygamy as not being similar.

but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

I think that is what we are trying to figure out. However, taking offense at something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I get offended at people's free speech sometimes, but it is allowed - except for some restrictions for the safety of society (yelling "fire!" in a theater, for example)

Precisley why homosexuality and polygamy marriage should be legal.

[Euphrates]

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.

Some courts have seen it like that, and others have seen it differently. A state court's opinion doesn't count more than another state court's opinion. Some states have been passing laws "protecting" marriage (explicitly defining it as being between a male and a female) and those laws have not been found unconstitutional. I am more than willing to grant that there are differences of opinion. If you want to make an argument that the unfairness of the status quo is unjustified, please do. You can start by addressing the argument I made that the "unfairness" argument only carries weight in this debate if the harms presented don't exist.

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.

Where do I begin?... First, claiming irrelevance and proving irrelevance are two separate things. You can say that drug use is irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate, but I have argued that they are causally related. Have you refuted that argument? Of course not. But calling it irrelevant is easier than addressing it substantially. Second, if all it took was a minor amount of reflection to see that my arguments are irrelevant, why did it take so long for someone to make a relevance argument? Third, where did I claim or argue that gay marriage would or could become the norm?

In fact, every claim you made that was shown to be false, you kept in as if they were still valid arguments.

Show me.

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?

Sure, fairness is good. But when you look at the bigger picture, sometimes doing what is "fair" causes more harm than good. Let's be fair whenever possible as long as we aren't sacrificing safety, security, or stability. You're analyzing the issue of fairness without considering the rest of the debate. If fairness by itself was reason enough to enact policies there wouldn't be laws outlawing incestuous relationships. Is this the part where I ignored evidence, disregarded a good argument, or contradicted myself?

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.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to get married!?!? When did that happen?

Can you prove it?

Is this the part where I ignored evidence, disregarded a good argument, or contradicted myself?

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?

Yeah, how ridiculous of me to expect more than posturing from you. As if "you must be joking" now counts as evidence.

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.

Sure, let me water it down for you. The basis for the relevance argument is an imaginary debate standard.

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.

Hey... nice claims. I notice you haven't actually addressed my argument. Go figure.

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.

When I was a teenager my little sister would throw tantrums and actually throw stuff, but she had the worst aim ever so when she got mad I knew that the safest place in the room was wherever she was aiming. I can't help but feel encouraged that you disapprove of my arguments.

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.

I certainly am not meaning to misrepresent your position. Help me out and tell me which of these options you agree with:

A: When making a public policy decision we should consider the effects the new policy will have on drug use?

OR

B: When making a public policy decision we should not consider the effects the new policy will have on drug use?

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.

We've seen this tactic from you before. Anyone with eyes and an ability to read can see that I addressed this "perfectly legitimate and relevant" request. Nothing about this debate changes if I find a law that meets your criteria. You are making up debate standards to try and procedurally silence arguments you can't refute.

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?

Why not? Are you opposed to progress?

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.

Someone needs to look up "ad hominum argument". Pointing out that you are not a legal scholar is not the same as arguing that you are wrong because you're not a legal scholar.

Sigh.

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.

LOL. Now your imaginary debate standard is "evidence" that "refutes" my argument?

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.

Your "evidence" that the harms are "irrelevant" is a fictional standard you have created so you don't have to admit that your arguments against the harms I have presented failed miserably.

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.

Oh, that's new. So are you willing to provide evidence for this claim that "the harm is found to be irrelevant in the past with respect to larger considerations"? Keep in mind that there is a difference between harms being outweighed by the greater good and harms being "found to be irrelevant".

So prove it or drop it.

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.

Huh? That wasn't an argument about irrelevance at all. It was an argument showing that restricting access to a marriage contract isn't severely restricting anyone's freedom to pursue happiness.

By the way, I notice that you still didn't substantiate your point.

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

Nope.

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.

Really? I call this a justifiable reason:
"For every majority opinion there is a dissent. Quoting a decision isn't evidence."

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

Yes, let's drag this out so you can take more time NOT presenting evidence.

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.

Maybe if you apologize when I show that you are wrong I won't have to bring it up 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.

Hmmm, you quoted my call for evidence without actually providing evidence.

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.

LOL. Well then I guess that settles it. The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled with an opinion that supports micatala's position. Game over.

Oh wait. I forgot.
"As of January 1, 2009, thirty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, defining civil marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. More than forty states explicitly restrict marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage", e.g., civil unions and domestic partnerships."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... #State_law
So I'll see your IOWA and raise you a CALIFORNIA.

Constitutionality is better left for the courts. Iowa's decision doesn't settle the debate.

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.

I'd love to see:

Proof that the pursuit of happiness is more important than the security of this nation or the public good.

AND

Proof that homosexuals are denied the right to marry.

AND

Proof that the status quo severely restricts homosexuals' freedom to pursue happiness.

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?

What is the relevance here?

Some things deserve to get ignored.

[Ooberman]

They are not similar,..

Similar to what? Us? They are male and female. What reason should they not be allowed to marry? Can you think of any?

If you can't, understand that people who do not believe God made humans feel that there is no reason - we are, after all, aliens to any other form of life in the Universe.

Plus, if you feel they are not the same as humans, then does this mean angels can marry each other, assuming we are talking about two angels of the same sex?

Why or why not?

I was referring to practicing homosexuality and polygamy as not being similar.

but what I mean is if one form of marriage that is offensive to some is illegal, then why should another form of marriage that is offensive to some be legal?

I think that is what we are trying to figure out. However, taking offense at something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I get offended at people's free speech sometimes, but it is allowed - except for some restrictions for the safety of society (yelling "fire!" in a theater, for example)

Precisley why homosexuality and polygamy marriage should be legal.

I tend to agree with you. However, as you pointed out, polygamy and homosexual are different issues and the arguments for them being legal are different.

[Ooberman]

Wow, you finally address my posts. I should have realized that you would respond to this stuff after the many posts I made with relevant data and argument...

Oh, well, the ship is sinking and all I get to dal with are rats. Lets begin with rat #1.

Where do I begin?... First, claiming irrelevance and proving irrelevance are two separate things.

I agree, that's why I showed the relevance in earlier posts - which you ignored. If you are suddenly reading my posts, please don't troll and start from the beginning.

You can say that drug use is irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate, but I have argued that they are causally related.

Yes, you claimed they were causally related. You didn't show they were related. It was a causal fallacy. You argued that since the gay population had a larger use of drugs, that if they married, more married people would be using drugs...

Wait, no you didn't even argue that - you claimed that somehow drug use would RISE!!!!! How? Why, if the gays are already doing drugs, then they marry, would MORE people be doing drugs?

It is so inane it boggles the mind. And you never addressed this.

Have you refuted that argument? Of course not.

I did, and again just now. I believe that makes this the third time. In fact, I added other counter arguments that you didn't address.

Keep claiming I didn't address it, though, because I can keep responding to your lies.

But calling it irrelevant is easier than addressing it substantially.

Well, I've addressed it 3 times, and added that hetero marriage does not have a drug use restriction, so it wouldn't make sense for gay marriage to have one.

Second, if all it took was a minor amount of reflection to see that my arguments are irrelevant, why did it take so long for someone to make a relevance argument?

Red herring and ridiculous. The amount of time it takes for there to be a reasonable response (according to you) is not an indication of the strength of the argument. This is known as a "WTF Fallacy".

Third, where did I claim or argue that gay marriage would or could become the norm?

I will look, if I am wrong, I will take this out. It is hardly important to the larger pwning you've been receiving.

Show me.

Please read my previous posts that you ignored so I don't have to report you for being a troll. If, after reading them, you can respond to each one, showing me where I didn't address a point you felt was important, please do, but making a blanket statement that I didn't reply is disingenuous and frowned upon.

I have to wonder why you claim that no one responds to your points, yet we have been responding for pages and pages. Whil you have been ignoring and/or simply re-iterating your initial assertion with no more evidence or argument.

Sure, fairness is good. But when you look at the bigger picture, sometimes doing what is "fair" causes more harm than good.

For example...

Let's be fair whenever possible as long as we aren't sacrificing safety, security, or stability.

Yes, and how does gay marriage threatedn - in realistic terms - those things?

You're analyzing the issue of fairness without considering the rest of the debate.

No I'm not.

If fairness by itself was reason enough to enact policies there wouldn't be laws outlawing incestuous relationships.

I agree, but what does incest have to do with gay marriage. We are talking about marriage - remember? Not Red Herrings.

Is this the part where I ignored evidence, disregarded a good argument, or contradicted myself?

All three. You ignored my previous posts. You disregarded my previous posts. You contradict yourself, because you are suggesting you didn't.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to get married!?!? When did that happen?

Can you prove it?

Is this the part where I ignored evidence, disregarded a good argument, or contradicted myself?

This is where you are being disingenuous. You should know that we are talking about gay people marrying each other.

What you are doing is smarmy and bad form.

However, I realize you have no other response.

Yeah, how ridiculous of me to expect more than posturing from you. As if "you must be joking" now counts as evidence.

And this response has what kind of substance???

Sure, let me water it down for you. The basis for the relevance argument is an imaginary debate standard.

Relevance in debate - any substantial debate - is crucial. Otherwise, what are we talking about if it isn't relevant,

But, again, I realize why you would diminish relevance when your position lacks so much of it.

Hey... nice claims. I notice you haven't actually addressed my argument. Go figure.

The court cases are relevant and you know it. Why wouldn't they be?

When I was a teenager my little sister would throw tantrums and actually throw stuff, but she had the worst aim ever so when she got mad I knew that the safest place in the room was wherever she was aiming. I can't help but feel encouraged that you disapprove of my arguments.

I wouldn't expect any different response from you. You have nothing else.




So, let's recap. The only real claim you have tried to bring back is that you feel that gay marriage would be detrimental to society in a way that incest is.

1. They are not related. For starters, incest does the one thing you blame homosexuality for not being able to do: create children.

In fact, I don't know the data on drug use for people who commit incest, but if you combine that with the other metrics you use, people who commit incest shouldn't get married... right? Meaning, there shouldn't be incestuous marriage.

However, see your error? Incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't illegal.

The HUGE flaw in your argument is that you make claims as if homosexuality itself is a danger and should somehow be illegal.

You then make an even more massive error in asserting - with no evidence - that gay marriage will open the floodgates to drug use, promiscuity and other social "ills" (again, I will point out that you have not made a case that promiscuity is a bad thing, or a decline in population, or, even, the actual use of drugs that homosexuals widely use when they are in a committed relationship).

Let's face it, E, you made your assertions and have spent the last 30 pages claiming your assertion haven't been responded to.