Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Autodidact]

And do you oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Yes or no.

I honestly do not know, primarily because my view of marrage and the legal view of marrage appear to be quite different. Until I am clear on what legal marrage actually is, I really can not say whether it should be applied to homosexual relationships or not.

Well I'm hoping you're not married then.

There are many people who have been married for a long time, who have seen the effects of the changes in the laws related to marrage since then and feel those changes have undermined their marrage contract. That may be why some oppose any further changes in the marrage laws. They believe doing so will further undermine their marrage contracts.

I would think if you're not clear what marriage is, you would want to hold off on entering into it until you figure that. As opposed to not permitting other people, who do understand it, to enter into it.

There is no way that allowing more people to marry can undermine someone else's marriage contract, any more than letting more people vote undermines your right to vote.

[Autodidact]

According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, that which is not deliniated in the Constitution to the fedreal governement is left to the people and the states respectively. If I am not mistaken, prior to our Constitution marrage was a religious matter and subject to the dictates of The Church. With The Church and State being united the dictates of the church were recognized as law. The first amendment changed that. Now, to avoid refighting the civil war, let's just acknowledge that this religious limitation has been applied to the states, in spite of the 10th amendment. Therefore, in order to regulate a religious matter, ie. marrage, the state must have a compelling state purpose that overrides the first amendment.

This is incorrect. First, in most places, at most times, marriage was primarily civil, not religious, including most of European history.

Second, marriage in the contemporary United States is not a religous matter, and no same-sex marriage law attempts to regulate anything religious.

Right now, churches can recognize same sex marriage, or not, as they prefer. All of those that do are having their religious rights violated by the law, which does not recognize them.

Now, all of this social engineering has left the definition of marrage in it's wake, changing it from a personal religious matter back into a matter subject to definition by the state. This has left some asking, what happened to what used to be a matter of religious freedom? Therefore, I asked the basic questions that would have meant something and could have been answered rather clearly at the time the constitution was ratified. What is the definition of marrage and what is the compelling state purpose in regulating it? Without clear answers to these questions, one can not rightly decide whether the state should recognize marrage at all, let alone recognize a particular kind of marrage.

No same sex marriage statute has any effect on religious freedom, other than extending it to those many churches and synagogues that recognize it.

The basic definition of marriage is a legal way to create a family relationship between consenting adults. The state does not need a compelling state purpose to extend it, exactly the opposite, as I explained to you. Because marriage is a fundamental right, the state would require a compelling state purpose to deny it to same-sex couples. Which raises the question, what is that compelling state purpose?

In other words, your analysis is exactly backward.

So I hope you're not married.

[bluethread]

There are many people who have been married for a long time, who have seen the effects of the changes in the laws related to marrage since then and feel those changes have undermined their marrage contract. That may be why some oppose any further changes in the marrage laws. They believe doing so will further undermine their marrage contracts.

I would think if you're not clear what marriage is, you would want to hold off on entering into it until you figure that. As opposed to not permitting other people, who do understand it, to enter into it.

That is not the case for those people. They either married before the changes or presumed that they knew. Which brings us back to the questions that i was asking you before regarding what marrage is legally.

There is no way that allowing more people to marry can undermine someone else's marriage contract, any more than letting more people vote undermines your right to vote.

It would if it changed how the government handles certain matters associated with marrage, as you appeared to point out with polygamy some time back. I know this thread is not about polygamy. However, it is easier to make the point that, once government gets in the business of regulating marrage, there are always complications, using that example.

[Autodidact]

I would think if you're not clear what marriage is, you would want to hold off on entering into it until you figure that. As opposed to not permitting other people, who do understand it, to enter into it.

That is not the case for those people. They either married before the changes or presumed that they knew. Which brings us back to the questions that i was asking you before regarding what marrage is legally.

Not those people, blue, you. If you don't understand what marriage is, then don't you agree that you should not enter into it? I, on the other hand, who do understand, am not allowed to.

There is no way that allowing more people to marry can undermine someone else's marriage contract, any more than letting more people vote undermines your right to vote.

It would if it changed how the government handles certain matters associated with marrage, as you appeared to point out with polygamy some time back. I know this thread is not about polygamy. However, it is easier to make the point that, once government gets in the business of regulating marrage, there are always complications, using that example.

We are only discussing how government handles marriage. That is the only aspect of marriage we are discussing. If you read any of the proposed or adopted same-sex marriage statutes, you will see that they change only one thing--they permit people of the same sex to enter into it. Nothing else. They change nothing else about marriage whatsoever.

[Angel]

Like I said before, something being irrelevant (as you throught) doesn't suddenly inhibit your ability to give a straight answer. Saying that it does is an excuse, at best! Please refer to pg. 24, post #203 which is where I asked about your MORAL view on homosexual relationships/sex. I brought up religion because religion is among one of the strongest influences on people's moral beliefs. You could've offered your position by giving a straight answer and if anyone accused you of being a religious zealot then you could've just brought up that bias can be on both sides. You did that just fine after you finally gave a straight answer.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. :yapyap:

...but didn't.

To date, I didn't see anyone calling you a religious fanatic just because you had a religious position. I only ASKED you about your position and only suspected that you were hiding something AFTER you gave me NON-straight answers.

I see what appears to be someone who is ignoring the topic by rambling on about some imagined ulterior motive.

My point falls within the scope of the topic, i.e. reasons for why people see gay marriage as right or wrong. Apparently, you just don't like that I'm being hard on you for not giving a straight answer. If you want to keep responding about the matter with excuses, then I'm entitled to keep explaining or showing how what you're saying are excuses and I intend to keep doing just that.

So you believe that same-sex behavior is immoral not just for yourself but also when others engage in it. And it was this bit of info. that I could not even get out of you before for whatever reasons you chose to hide or disguise it.

Within my gates, yes. Sorry I did not disclose all of the factors of my belief system. However, when I offered to discuss this with you declined, twice. In the interests of full disclosure I am also circumcised. Is it necessary for me to show you so you will knw I am not lying about this?

If by within your gates you also mean within your beliefs that ALL (including those not of your belief-system) who engage in gay sex and marriage, then okay, I see your point.

And also, I wouldn't ask you if you were a Muslim but I'd ask if you're the son of a politican.

So, you don't mind if I should follow a belief system where some believe that homosexuals should be beheaded, but you do mind if I might be the son of a politican? Sorry, I did not disclose whether or not I am related to a lawyer. It sounds like being a lawyer's son is a serious threat.

I didn't offer an opinion as to whether or not I approved of your belief-system.

And do you oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Yes or no.

I honestly do not know, primarily because my view of marrage and the legal view of marrage appear to be quite different. Until I am clear on what legal marrage actually is, I really can not say whether it should be applied to homosexual relationships or not.

So by your statement you don't even know if you support legalized heterosexual marriage?

Legal marriage would be a state regulated marriage - just like heterosexual marriage if you or another family member have a marriage recognized by the state. Are you against government recognized same-sex marriage?

[Angel]

There are many people who have been married for a long time, who have seen the effects of the changes in the laws related to marrage since then and feel those changes have undermined their marrage contract. That may be why some oppose any further changes in the marrage laws. They believe doing so will further undermine their marrage contracts.

Marriage laws have change from time to time so it's not just a matter of gay marriage, eventhough it seems some only get their panties in a bunch when only the 'gay' marriage is offered as the change. Can you explain how did expanding marriage laws to allow interracial marriage 'undermine' people's marriage? I'd also like to know how allowing same-sex marriage would 'undermine' marriage. If this is also your view that gay marriage 'undermine's the institution of marriage, then spit it out and explain why.

Can I just say it undermines my marriage just because I dislike gays and use that as a valid point to ban gay marriage?

[bluethread]

That is not the case for those people. They either married before the changes or presumed that they knew. Which brings us back to the questions that i was asking you before regarding what marrage is legally.

Not those people, blue, you. If you don't understand what marriage is, then don't you agree that you should not enter into it? I, on the other hand, who do understand, am not allowed to.

I was pointing out why some oppose the expansion of the legal definition to include homosexual marrage. Just because I acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion regarding the legal definition of marrage soes not mean that i do not have a working definition that I use in my life. By the same token, your certainty regarding your working definition does not make it the established legal definition. That is one of the questions before the courts.

There is no way that allowing more people to marry can undermine someone else's marriage contract, any more than letting more people vote undermines your right to vote.

It would if it changed how the government handles certain matters associated with marrage, as you appeared to point out with polygamy some time back. I know this thread is not about polygamy. However, it is easier to make the point that, once government gets in the business of regulating marrage, there are always complications, using that example.

We are only discussing how government handles marriage. That is the only aspect of marriage we are discussing. If you read any of the proposed or adopted same-sex marriage statutes, you will see that they change only one thing--they permit people of the same sex to enter into it. Nothing else. They change nothing else about marriage whatsoever.

How government handles marrage is what I am talking about. There are many things that are involved in how government handles marrage. When one expands that definition all of those things are effected. Also, when one expamds a legal definition, it is important to note whether the defintion should not be expanded further. In Loving, it was noted that there was an inconsistancy regarding interracial marrage. Some interracial marrages were recognized and others were not. Therefore, the decision regarding the expansion of the legal definition of marrage to include race was not the crux of the matter. What was being addressed was the legal recognition of marrage between two particular races.

[bluethread]

So you believe that same-sex behavior is immoral not just for yourself but also when others engage in it. And it was this bit of info. that I could not even get out of you before for whatever reasons you chose to hide or disguise it.

Within my gates, yes. Sorry I did not disclose all of the factors of my belief system. However, when I offered to discuss this with you declined, twice. In the interests of full disclosure I am also circumcised. Is it necessary for me to show you so you will knw I am not lying about this?

If by within your gates you also mean within your beliefs that ALL (including those not of your belief-system) who engage in gay sex and marriage, then okay, I see your point.

No, by within my gates, I mean within my literal gates. That is on my property.

And do you oppose the legalization of gay marriage? Yes or no.

I honestly do not know, primarily because my view of marrage and the legal view of marrage appear to be quite different. Until I am clear on what legal marrage actually is, I really can not say whether it should be applied to homosexual relationships or not.

So by your statement you don't even know if you support legalized heterosexual marriage?

Legal marriage would be a state regulated marriage - just like heterosexual marriage if you or another family member have a marriage recognized by the state. Are you against government recognized same-sex marriage?

The laws associated with marrage and the application of those laws have created confusion with regard to what differentiates it from simple partnership. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if a simple partnership agreement, which can be applied to any two adults, is sufficient or if it is necessary to expand the definition of marrage. If it is not sufficient, one would need to know how the two are different and whether those differences are sufficient to expand the definition of marrage in the case of homosexual relationships.

[Autodidact]

That is not the case for those people. They either married before the changes or presumed that they knew. Which brings us back to the questions that i was asking you before regarding what marrage is legally.

Not those people, blue, you. If you don't understand what marriage is, then don't you agree that you should not enter into it? I, on the other hand, who do understand, am not allowed to.[/quote]

I was pointing out why some oppose the expansion of the legal definition to include homosexual marrage.

I think those people can speak for themselves.

Just because I acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion regarding the legal definition of marrage soes not mean that i do not have a working definition that I use in my life.

I see. You know enough about what marriage is to allow you to participate in it, but not enough to decide whether I can participate in it?

By the same token, your certainty regarding your working definition does not make it the established legal definition. That is one of the questions before the courts.

No, it's not. The only question before the courts and the legislature, and this thread, is whether to allow same-sex couples to participate in the institution as already defined. There is no question before the courts regarding what the definition should be.

There is no way that allowing more people to marry can undermine someone else's marriage contract, any more than letting more people vote undermines your right to vote.

It would if it changed how the government handles certain matters associated with marrage, as you appeared to point out with polygamy some time back. I know this thread is not about polygamy. However, it is easier to make the point that, once government gets in the business of regulating marrage, there are always complications, using that example.

We are only discussing how government handles marriage. That is the only aspect of marriage we are discussing. If you read any of the proposed or adopted same-sex marriage statutes, you will see that they change only one thing--they permit people of the same sex to enter into it. Nothing else. They change nothing else about marriage whatsoever.

How government handles marrage is what I am talking about. There are many things that are involved in how government handles marrage. When one expands that definition all of those things are effected.

We are not talking about expanding a definition, any more than the Loving case did. We are not talking about changing the definition, only the group of people who get to participate in it.

Also, when one expamds a legal definition, it is important to note whether the defintion should not be expanded further.

No, it's not.

In Loving, it was noted that there was an inconsistancy regarding interracial marrage. Some interracial marrages were recognized and others were not. Therefore, the decision regarding the expansion of the legal definition of marrage to include race was not the crux of the matter. What was being addressed was the legal recognition of marrage between two particular races.

Kind of like how some same-sex marriages are recognized, while others are not?

[Autodidact]

The laws associated with marrage and the application of those laws have created confusion with regard to what differentiates it from simple partnership.

No, they haven't. The law is quite clear about this distinction.

Therefore, it is difficult to determine if a simple partnership agreement, which can be applied to any two adults, is sufficient or if it is necessary to expand the definition of marrage.

No, it's easy to determine. It can't, because being married is a status recognized by the government.

If it is not sufficient, one would need to know how the two are different and whether those differences are sufficient to expand the definition of marrage in the case of homosexual relationships.

No one is trying to expand the definition of marriage.

Are you trying to ask whether purely private documents, such as powers of attorney, can create the legal equivalent of marriage? No, they cannot. Do you see why, or do you need me to explain it?