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]

Id hate to get on your bad side Ooberman, from what I have read I tend to agree with you but I think we already established that.

[micatala]

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.

You have tried to characterize others arguments as imposing a "fictional or imaginary debate standard." If that is true, you are doing the same thing here.

One does not have to prove the harms don't exist to show there is unfairness. Ample evidence has been provided through court decisions, citations of the constitution, and other arguments to show there is unfairness. I see you disagree, and that is fine, but it is silly to pretend there is no case to be made for unfairness.

Now, as I have said before, we can weigh the potential harms against the unfairness. When I say "the harms are irrelevant" I am not saying they do not exist, that is your spin. What I have said is:

- the types of harms you point to have been found in the past to be of little consequence compared to allowing people to pursue happiness. This has been repeatedly affirmed through decisions specific to marriage. You have not even addressed this point. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the freedom to marry is an essential component of pursuing happiness.

- there seems to be no precedent for using the types of harms you point to in developing laws governing marriage in particular, and even if developing law in general. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide examples, and you have not even attempted to do so. It is absolutely fair to ask you to establish that the harms you point to are sufficient to justify banning gay marriage. One way to do this would be to point to precedents in the form of other laws or court decisions where such factors have been weighed. If you can't do that it means you are the one wanting to change the status quo, at least in this respect, and it indicates you have very little grounds for your argument.

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.

Again, misrepresenting the argument. The harms have been shown to be irrelevant to the question under consideration. They weren't ignored. You have not refuted this.

... claiming irrelevance and proving irrelevance are two separate things.

True. I have provided robust arguments on the irrelevance issue.

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?

Again, even accepting your argument, you still need to argue why the increased drug use is a large enough problem to justify banning gay marriage. You have not done this, and also have not done this for the promiscuity or the depopulation arguments. I repeatedly asked you for even rough quantifications on all of these and you just laughed. Sorry, if you want to weigh the harms caused against other considerations you have to do the weighing. You haven not even attempted this.

I, on the other hand, have pointed to precedents where courts have weighed against the type of argument you are making.

Of course not. But calling it irrelevant is easier than addressing it substantially.

True, but again, it has been dealt with substantially and you dismiss this.

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?

Good question. Probably because we ended up addressing your argument from the beginning. I would say we learned a few things in the process and the result was.

1) There is some small possibility allowing gay marriage would increase drug use, but we have no reason to believe the increase would be anything more than miniscule in the larger scheme of things.
2) Whether promiscuity would increase is completely unclear. There are arguments on both sides.
3) The notion that allowing gay marriage would lead to depopulation has no merit. Euphrates has provided no numbers to back this up, not even any hypothetical calculations. I believe others have provided calculations to show that such a possibility is ridiculous. You might as well worry about depopulation as a result of most of the population becoming spontaneously sterile. I have a response to winepusher on this that you can look up.

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

winepusher made the suggestion that this was a legitimate possibility. I think he understands that the only way you could get depopulation is if gay marriage would somehow become, if not the norm, at least hugely popular.

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?

You repeatedly ignore court cases, including supreme court cases, as well as arguments based on other situations where the fairness issue has been weighed against the harms you point to and fairness has been deemed more important.

We pointed out that fairness won:

1) With respect to allowing interracial marriage versus drug abuse.
2) With respect to allowing felons to marry
3) With respect to allowing dead beat dads to marry
4) With respect to allowing single parenting and unwed procreation
5) With respect to other groups with higher drug use or promiscuity rates being allowed to marry.
6) There is no promiscuity test for getting married, nor drug tests, nor requirements to procreate.

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?

Euphrates continues to think that gays should consider the possibility of marrying someone of the opposite sex fair. Again, we'll just have to disagree on this, but I am most happy to point out that most people would find this completely ridiculous.

Would Euphrates consider it fair if the law said he could only marry a person of the same sex?

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.

Baloney. The fact that you don't want to address a relevant argument does not make it "an imaginary debate standard."

As far as trying to parse the previous statement, I will just say that legal arguments typically do consider harms and other factors as they apply in similar cases. I think if you look at SCOTUS rulings you will see this. Your "no one knows" is ironic in that we do know because we can see this standard (if I am following you) applied in court cases. You know, the ones you haven't addressed.

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.

Do court cases have dissents? Sure. Still, if we are looking at forming law, the dissent does not get counted as a precedent for future cases, the decision does.

As for as "quoting a decision isn't evidence" who is really making up imaginary debate standards? I have not only quoted these, but summarized main points and argued why they are relevant.

You continue to gyrate wildly in your attempt to dodge arguments and evidence which show your argument to be without any substantial weight as far as the creation of public policy.

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?

If you had read my statement you would already understand that you are offering a false dichotomy, although I have said A applies but with some caveats.

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.

Well, I certainly have not seen where you addressed the question, and I have seen no indication anyone else has any inkling of where you addressed it either. Perhaps we are all quite non-observant. If the answer is somewhere in the thread, please be so kind as to point it out. I certainly allow it is possible I missed it somewhere along the way.

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?

I love progress. That is why I am a propenent of gay marriage.

However, you were the one who professed to be attached to the status quo, but is seems this attachment is quite whimsical. You claimed the "tie should go to the status quo" in any given situation, but now when it does not serve your argument you change to a new debate standard.

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?

An empty response. There is no "imaginary debate standard" here, there is simply evidence of what the status quo is regarding decisions about marriage and related issues that you refuse to address.

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.

Again, there is no "fictional debate standard." You your self have said we should weigh the potential harms caused by the possibility of gay marriage against other considerations.

I have proviced evidence that the harms you point to have not been considered relevant in the past to deciding such questions. You continue to try and dismiss this evidence by making up debate rules on the fly.

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"?

I have already done this. See the SCOTUS rulings.

In addition, since you have made the claim that the harms you point to are sufficient to justify banning gay marriage, the burden is on YOU to show they are relevant which you haven't done.

You have not gotten anywhere close to showing that these harms would have any measurable effect on the strength or weakness of the nation.

You have not provided any precedent that people in the past have considered such harms to be so important as to be the basis for enacting law in general, or a law that effects people's freedom and a basic right like marriage in particular.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between harms being outweighed by the greater good and harms being "found to be irrelevant".

Well, when I have said "found to be irrelevant" above it is based upon courts having weighed the harms you point to against the greater good as represented by personal freedom and the courts deciding the harms are outweighed. THis seems to be nothing more than a semantic argument on your part.

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.

My point is that if restricting access to gays is not an infringement on their right to pursue happiness, which is at any rate at odds with court precedents as applied to other restrictions, then following your logic restricting access to heterosexuals would not be an infringement on their rights either. Following your argument, we might as well abolish the institution of marriage. There is no need for it. Heterosexuals can do everything outside of marriage that they currently do within marriage.

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."

Addressed above. Dissents don't have any relevance as precedence.

And court decisions most certainly are evidence when the issue is the constitutionality of the law or potential laws. How ridiculous can you be.

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.

I have acknowledged gays do not have the right to marry in most locations as reflected in the law.

The question is do they have a claim to such a right based on other more general rights.

Again, I can see why you want to avoid answering the question. Your continued gyrations only serve to suggest you know that this point is a huge problem for your argument.

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.

Well, the Iowa supreme court IS a court so constitutionality is clearly in their purview, especially the constitution of Iowa which is what was in question in that case.

I agree it is only one decision. There is also no denying most states have banned gay marriage, albeit with some providing civil unions as an option. As I recall, you are amenable to having civil unions with at least some if not all of the rights granted under marriage.

I agree, in the larger society the debate goes on.

However, look at what the evidence you cite above shows.

All these 30 states I believe have acted as they did after the first court decisions which suggested gay marriage might become legal in some locations, and that those marriages might have to be recognized elsewhere.

Thus, they are clearly intended to prevent gay marriage. They are directed at gays. I contend this indicates clear intent to discriminate. This is even more evident when you look at the debate that occurs in states that have these ballot measures or legislative actions.


Secondly, consider that, as in the case of interracial marriage and civil rights for blacks, the courts led the way, serving as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Certainly in the south, segregation laws were widely popular.

That did not make them right.

That did not mean that blacks were not having their rights trampled on. Having democratically passed laws that said they did not have the right to vote, or eat at whites only lunch counters, etc, did not negate that in the larger context their rights were being violated.

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.

This was addressed previously, and is born out by the SCOTUS cases I cited above.

AND

Proof that homosexuals are denied the right to marry.

Again, if you consider it fair to tell a gay person they can marry someone they have no interest in marrying and that they should consider that fair, there isn't much more to say.

I'll ask again if you would consider it fair to be told you could only marry a person of the same sex. This would be just as fair as what you are proposing for gays.

AND

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

I wonder where the word "severe" came in, but be that as it may, this has been done in the form of court opinions. The courts have repeatedly held that denying a person the freedom to marry restricts their freedom to pursue happiness.

Being a felon, a dead beat dad, or of another race have all been found to be insufficient justifications for denying a person the freedom to marry. You have given us no reason to believe that higher rates of promiscuity or drug use among the group of gays is sufficient justification for denying the freedom of all gays to marry another person of the same sex.

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.

Well then you should not object to people ignoring your whole argument, especially as we have provided reasons why most of your argument is without merit and you have simply dismissed an argument that has been shown to be relevant with six words.




The longer you refuse to engage the question by making flip remarks, the weaker your argument appears.

[Ooberman]

A nation with more people is stronger than a nation with fewer people, in general.
A nation that fails to reproduce (people) at a sustainable rate will gradually suffer from depopulation.
With less people, the nation becomes weaker.
Sexuality exists on a spectrum with 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual being opposite ends of the spectrum.
Many people are not in extreme parts of the spectrum. (See Kinsey's research)
People near the middle of the spectrum are not likely to self-identify as the "deviant" extreme (homosexual) as long as it is socially unaccepted.
As homosexuality becomes more accepted, more people near the middle of the spectrum will feel free/welcome to self-identify as homosexual.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would further legitimize homosexuality.
Such legitimacy would make it more widely socially accepted.
That acceptance would make the people near the middle of the spectrum more likely to self-identify as homosexual (because the previous obstacle is now removed).
More homosexuals makes more same-sex relationships.
Same-sex relationships are inherently sterile.
An increase in sterility leads to a loss of people contributing to the nation's procreation.
Less people procreating leads to a lower birth rate, making our nation weaker.

Here is Euphrates argument, for those who missed it some 20 or more pages ago.

Micatala addressed these points in post #242. I will reiterate my objections here (again).

A nation with more people is stronger than a nation with fewer people, in general.

While this is true to a small degree, it's hardly the whole story and we must start with some skepticism, and as we see at the ends, his conclusion is the same as his first premise - Logic 101 no-no.

Micatala addressed this, with data, and we also know that it is proven wrong with notable exceptions (US won the Cold War, US is considered more powerful than Russia, China and India, the US is considered more powerful than the EU - despite the US having a smaller population)

So, to start with this premise is highly questionable because everything that follows to support this premise, supports a premise that has significant problems, and one has to wonder the importance of proving such a weak point?

A nation that fails to reproduce (people) at a sustainable rate will gradually suffer from depopulation.

Well, this too is flawed. A nation can grow due to the immigration. In fact, it is how America grew in the first place.

Plus, while we know his point later, we can at least say that this COMPLETELY disregards the reaction of breeders to a declining population. That is, in light of a declining population, people may decide to compensate for the decline and have more children. Euphrates acts as if the numbers are static and wouldn't change. A silly position.

After looking at the statistics of countries that have legalized gay marriage, we see data that simply contradicts euphrates claim. For example, Canada had a regularly declining population growth until right about the time gay marriage was legalized and now it has leveled.

South Africa legalized gay marriage in Nov. 2006. Their growth rate was -0.4% for that year, it dropped to -0.46% in 2007 and then in 2008 it jumped - despite Euphrates' claim to +0.828%'

As I was looking, we realize that gay marriage probably had such a minor role in all of this, it is quite amazing that Euphrates focuses on this meaningless metric.

With less people, the nation becomes weaker.

Restating the Premise.

Sexuality exists on a spectrum with 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual being opposite ends of the spectrum.

Yes, people are born with whatever sexual preference they have and they are allowed to express it legally.

Many people are not in extreme parts of the spectrum. (See Kinsey's research)

Agreed.

People near the middle of the spectrum are not likely to self-identify as the "deviant" extreme (homosexual) as long as it is socially unaccepted.

Perhaps, but this is conjecture. It might be just as likely that many who fall on the hetero side find the lure of the deviant irresistible and move over for the excitement of rebellion - especially with such strong opposition from authority figures.

As homosexuality becomes more accepted, more people near the middle of the spectrum will feel free/welcome to self-identify as homosexual.

Or, maybe people decide it is not as alluring and it is a normal sexual preference and they decide to do what they want.

The flaw here is where he is going with this: just because more people may have more homosexual encounters it doesn't mean more people will marry.

Marriage and sex are two different things.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would further legitimize homosexuality.
Such legitimacy would make it more widely socially accepted.

That's the idea. It's a good thing. Even Euphrates admits it is more fair. He just claims that the fairness is overridden by the "great" evils that would result - which as we see, are false.

That acceptance would make the people near the middle of the spectrum more likely to self-identify as homosexual (because the previous obstacle is now removed).

Again, a restatement.

And, I might add that Euphrates keeps making the error that gay marriage is directly related to gay behavior. Let me clarify: the homosexual lifestyle is already legitimized. It is legal and you can be gay and work, even in the military now. You can adopt children, get a drivers license, etc. In fact, you can be straight and decide to sleep with someone of the same sex, and then go back to being straight without any ramifications.

Homosexuality is legitimized. It doesn't get MORE legitimized just because people would be able to marry.

In fact, this exposes Euphrates bigotry. His premise is based on a presumption that Marriage legitimizes people and that gay people aren't fully legitimized. And, he wants to restrict a legal behavior to keep certain citizens from being legitimized. He is using marriage to de-legitimize a segment of the population - for what?

More homosexuals makes more same-sex relationships.

This is true, but you haven't established that there will be more homosexuals.

Same-sex relationships are inherently sterile.

Ah! Here we see, again, bad logic. Same-sex relationships aren't inherently sterile. Both partners are still fertile. Both partners can still have children.

This is like Euphrates saying "What!? Gay people are allowed to marry!" (Just not to another person of the same sex)

So, gay relationships inherently sterile? No, both partners are still fertile and can decide to bear or make children. Marriage may even encourage them to do so - or adopt from a foreign country - therefore strengthening this country and weakening another!

An increase in sterility leads to a loss of people contributing to the nation's procreation.

But they aren't sterile.

Less people procreating leads to a lower birth rate, making our nation weaker.

Wow... way to end with your premise....

It's bad logic through and through.

He has not established anything here as a fact other than the general spectrum of sexuality, and in the very extreme that a decline in population - a massive decline that can't be attributed to gay marriage - would weaken a nation.


The fairness of gay marriage overrides this non-issue of gay marriage somehow affecting the strength of a nation. If it were true, perhaps he'd have a point - but we can see that few of his premises are true, and many of them are just re-asserting another premise.

It's non-sequitur after non-sequitur.



BTW, I know many lesbians who decide to have children - both of them. And, many gay guys who decide to adopt children (usually from other countries).

Legitimizing gays (it still smacks of bigotry to claim that he would deny legimitizing a segment of the population!) may encourage this behavior and INCREASE the strength of our country, and if they adopt russian, chinese or indian babies, weaken those countries.

All in all, very poor argument with few facts, but lots of flights of fancy and sprinkled with bigotry.

[Kuan]

Well I just want to point out while you guys are talking about population that the earth is over populated and will soon hit 8 billion (its predicted carrying capacity.) So wouldnt it be good if more marriages are sterile?

[Ooberman]

Well I just want to point out while you guys are talking about population that the earth is over populated and will soon hit 8 billion (its predicted carrying capacity.) So wouldnt it be good if more marriages are sterile?

It's a good point, but it would be lost on Euphrates because his argument hinges on the population of his country, the rest of the world be damned, so to speak.

That is, I'm sure Euphrates would, if he had to adhere to his argument, promote gay marriage in every other country, especially countries that are traditionally our enemies, in order to weaken them from the Pink Plague.

It's absurd, but his argument would ignore the danger of overpopulation, since he bases his premise that more people = better for national security strength. Forget that an overpopulated country is just as weak as an underpopulated one...

Good point, MB51.

[Crazy Ivan]

Well I just want to point out while you guys are talking about population that the earth is over populated and will soon hit 8 billion (its predicted carrying capacity.) So wouldnt it be good if more marriages are sterile?

Rather than focusing on the way people bind each other contractually, we should focus on how they approach the behavior that actually brings about more people. Meaning I'd much rather the religious representatives of billions of people stopped fussing about contraception.

[Ooberman]

Population growth of Countries with Gay Marriagehttp://tinyurl.com/25e2x2p (all are positive growth)

So, lets take a look at the countries that have legalized gay marriage. All of them saw an INCREASE in population growth after gay marriage was legalized - CONTRARY TO EUPHRATES' CLAIM.

Likewise, for example, when the UAE formed in 1971 and created their Constitution, which includes the provision that homosexuality is illegal - including a death penalty, their rate of population growth went from almost +18% to +2.74% today.

So, according to Euphrates, this is the opposite of what should happen.
Countries with Death Penalty for Homosexuality http://tinyurl.com/277vc4j (all have positive growth, but less each year, despite the contrary expectation from Euphrates hypothesis)

In fact, all of these countries that have a death penalty for homosexuality, their population growth has virtually dropped to about 2% after years of larger growth - again opposite of what you would expect if Euphrates' claims meant anything.

Let me go on record that the population of gays is so small that there would be no recognizable change due to the change in status of gays. There are other forces that are much more important and relevant and if Euphrates is really concerned about population growth, he should focus on those things that actually make a difference.

For example, illegal immigration will continue to be a larger number than what gay marriage could ever affect.

[micatala]

Well I just want to point out while you guys are talking about population that the earth is over populated and will soon hit 8 billion (its predicted carrying capacity.) So wouldnt it be good if more marriages are sterile?

It's a good point, but it would be lost on Euphrates because his argument hinges on the population of his country, the rest of the world be damned, so to speak.

That is, I'm sure Euphrates would, if he had to adhere to his argument, promote gay marriage in every other country, especially countries that are traditionally our enemies, in order to weaken them from the Pink Plague.

It's absurd, but his argument would ignore the danger of overpopulation, since he bases his premise that more people = better for national security strength. Forget that an overpopulated country is just as weak as an underpopulated one...

Good point, MB51.

Good points.


Just to fairly characterize Euphrates' argument, though, there is one point you gloss over.

The depopulation would come from some of those who are in the middle of the Kinseyan spectrum and now identify as heterosexual or at least are procreating heterosexually changing their behavior on the basis of the legalization of gay marriage. E's argument is that at least some of these people will now identify as gay and end up in gay marriages and as a result not procreate.


You have addressed that they may procreate in other ways anyway, but Euphrates would probably say not at the same rate on average.


Still, it is not a good argument especially as Euphrates has made no attempt to even estimate how many of these "people in the middle" would end up not procreating when they were before, and so he really has no clue as to how much lower the birth rate would be, even if one assumes everything else stays the same, which as you have pointed out, may not be true.


So, the upshot is we have a hypothetical lowering of the birth rate which we have no reason to believe would be anything but miniscule, given our best estimates of how many people are gay and how many might be "close enough" to gay that they would change their behavior just because gay marriage is legalized.

We also have only a hypothetical weakenings, since as you say, Euphrates has given no argument concerning how much lower the birth rate has to be to measurably affect national strength, never mind not showing there would be depopulation, and never mind that even if there is some depopulation, that might have no affect on national strength as well.


Finally, it is worth pointing out again that we already allow all kinds of behaviors that cause the harms Euphrates claims justify banning gay marriage. These include allowing:

1) sterile or infertile people to marry
2) people to be as promiscuous as they want, as long as they are not deliberately spreading HIV.
3) drug users to marry
4) felons, including felonious drug users, to marry
5) people to practice contraception including self-sterilization
6) people to look for sex and mating opportunities in bars. I believe there is data showing people who have been drinking are more likely to have sex and less likely to use contraception when they do.

and for a round 7) (although we could go on and on with this) we allow blacks and other groups to marry, and allow interracial marriage, even those these groups and relationships are associated with higher rates of drug use.




Still, we should give Euphrates credit for at least one thing, and that is not using religiously based arguments. I view this as progress, as it is at least an implicit acknowledgement that religiously based objections to gay marriage are likely to result in constitutional challenges on the basis of the First Amendment's establishment clause.





PS. As a small request, can Ooberman edit his URL's so they don't create overly wide pages.

Write [url=www.whatever.com] Substitute shorter text [ . . then close the ULR tag.

[micatala]

I wanted to get back to addressing Euphrates' comments in response to the issue of poll taxes and literacy tests that I raised earlier.

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.

An accurate summation. I agree the taxes and tests did not apply solely to blacks but were intended as a means to lower black voting rates. They also likely had the effect of lowering voting rates among other poor populations. I note that there are claims of instances where poor white people had their poll tax paid for them and literacy tests were sometimes "skipped" for white people, which does not speak to the law itself but to the enforcement or administration of the law.

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.

Again, I have never disputed that gay people can marry a person of the opposite gender.

However, you ignore the point of the example.

The example illustrates that just because a law does not specifically mention a particular group does not mean that it is not discriminatory. You acknowledge that poll taxes and literacy tests had a discriminatory effect.

I claim that not allowing gay people to marry someone of the same gender has a discriminatory effect on them and have stated why previously. If necessary I will reiterate what SCOTUS has had to say on the issue.

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.

An interesting point, but there are some differences.

The most important difference between poll taxes and fees for marriage licenses is the intent. The former were specifically intended to reduce black voting rates. The latter are merely intended to cover the cost of the administration of marriage licenses.



The second has to do with the amount of the tax. For example, in the 1930's in Texas, the tax was apparently $1.50. In today's dollars that would be $24 . Alabama had a cumulative $1.50 tax that you had to pay every year to be able to vote. If you skipped paying one year, you paid $3 the next year. (See http://newdeal.feri.org/survey/40a01.htm).

"Lord, that's jus' like me," his wife spoke up. "They drug me out and hauled me down when Bryan was arunnin' in '24. I hadn't voted since. Wonder what they'd charge me now?" We figured it out. It came to $22.50. "That's as much as I give fer that cook-stove yonder," she answered, "and hit'll last me a heap longer!"

....

"Look, judge," I said, "you ask this same man who must support his entire family on $100 a year, to give up 2 percent of it for the right to cast a ballot, a privilege which he has a hard time connecting with any direct benefits? If this man's wife wants to vote, that means $2 more—4 percent of the family income. Statistics show that the average Mississippi farm family has a third adult member. If grandfather or an older son wants to vote, that means 6 percent of the family income. Would you say, judge, that interest in the state's government can be fairly measured by such sacrifice? How many families in your economic group would be willing to give up 6 percent of their income for the franchise?

The Per Capita income in 1935 was $474. Today it seems to be over $45,000.


The 1.50 poll tax in 1935 represents .3% of the PC income, but keep in mind, as the quotes above indicate, a lot of blacks (and Mexican Americans) would have made much, much less than this average, some being nearly cashless subsistence farmers.

In addition, the local political machines always bought extra poll tax receipts to give out to "their voters."





Marriage license fees vary from state to state. In CA, they are $56 or $60 depending on if you want a "confidential" license or not.
This would represent .1% of the PC incomes or about a third of the figure for the poll tax. In other states:

Fees for marriage licenses range from a low of $10 (Colorado) to as much as $100 (Minnesota). The cost varies based on county, city or municipality, residential status, and in some cases, completion of a pre-marital counseling or education course. A few states, such as Hawaii ($60), have standard, statewide fees.

I did a little checking, hitting states I thought would be expensive. NY is $25 to $30. Massachusetts is $30 to $80, I am guessing due to municipal diffences.

Kansas has evidently provided a waiver for those too poor to pay their $69 fee.


Mississippi's poll tax was $2 and lasted until 1966.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax


THus, the poll taxes clearly had a greater impact and imposed a larger burden on the poor than do marriage license fees.

So, your argument does not really work.

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...

Euphrates continues to raise red herrings.

I have stated numerous times that it is OK to have appropriate restrictions as long as they have compelling justifications. I and others have already addressed "child marriage". Why do you bring this up yet again?

Minors are not allowed to engage in most kinds of contracts. They are not allowed to vote or drink. The reason is that they are deemed not to be mature enough to make these kinds of decisions, and with marriage, you have a life-altering decision that is typically going to have long term affects on your life, even if the marriage does not last.


What is your compelling justification for restricting marriage to people of the opposite sex? Well, you don't really have one as has been shown above. If your justifications were compelling we would be applying them to other groups where the harms you point to are also present and the laws and court decisions of the land would likely be able to provide us with examples using these justification.


Perhaps you should try to actually provide some evidence that your position has merit. You might start by looking for statements by courts and legislatures concerning the justifications for current restrictions. Perhaps you can even find some related to the gay marriage bans you alluded to in your recent post.

So, to answer your question: Yes, literacy tests and poll taxes were discriminatory.

I agree and accept your acknowledgement and appreciate you have answered the question.

They didn't directly discriminate based on race, but they discriminated based on other factors (wealth and literacy) that translated to a racial discrimination.

Agreed.

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

Interesting point. Glad to see you alluding to evidence from our system of jurisprudence.


However, my point still stands. A law does not have to specifically mention a group for the the law to be considered discriminatory. Both the intent and effect of the law are relevant in judging if the law is discriminatory.


With respect to bans on gay marriage, the record pretty clearly shows these are discriminatory taking both the intent and effect into account.







Tomorrow, I hope to have time to provide the example I alluded to earlier in posing this question to 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. 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.

I also pose again the following question, from the same Post #390.

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?

[micatala]

PS.

http://newdeal.feri.org/survey/40a01.htm

The site linked to in the last post on poll taxes included this.

A powerful argument against the claim that the poll tax acts as a qualitative guarantee for electors is the open admission in every state that a large number, in some cases a majority, of the poll tax receipts are paid for by politicians who hold them and vote them wholesale.

So, it does seem that poll taxes were often paid for by political machines.


Thus, poll taxes are different than marriage license fees not only in their intent, their effect, and the relative burden they placed on people, but also in the corruption of their administration.


See also http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=875 for more discussion of poll taxes.