Trolling Ben

[FrostyBoy]

Marriage supports society, so it is definitely something that the government is in place to encourage.

Members who are married statistically live longer, happier, healthier, and more productive lives. They raise children which are more likely to succeed (for various reasons), which provide for the future success of the nation. And they are more stable, which also a good thing as far as the nation is concerned. The argument for homosexual marriage is that the losses caused by people engaging in homosexual marriage who would otherwise engage in heterosexual marriage (Which is probably just a small loss in children production, obviously I think homosexuals should be able to adopt as well) will be offset by the people who won't engage in any hetero marriage, but would engage in a homosexual one.

I don't give a **** about sticking only to the constitution. I was just saying that 'equal' rights isn't a relevant reason to argue that homosexuality should be legal. Don't say that the constitution gives the right, it doesn't.

My understanding is that Loving Vs Whoever was still a man and a woman? If so, it has nothing to do male/male marriage or female/female marriage/etc. We are expanding the definition here... Which is OK. But be honest. We are only interested in expanding the definition so long as it serves the state interest. Expanding the definition (as some have argued, here as well) to be basically some contract is stupid and not in the states interest (And so the state shouldn't provide benefits to polygamous/etc marriages).

JM

You officially suck!

FB

[KrazyHorse]

Marriage supports society

???

so it is definitely something that the government is in place to encourage

Ergo we need more people to marry, so we should let gays marry?

Members who are married statistically live longer, happier, healthier, and more productive lives. They raise children which are more likely to succeed (for various reasons), which provide for the future success of the nation. And they are more stable, which also a good thing as far as the nation is concerned.

Way to list a bunch of selection effects, Jon.

I'm not saying that none of these are valid reasons for legislatures to pass laws; what I'm saying is that:

1) These reasons are not enumerated in most states which haven't passed anti-gay marriage amendments or laws (i.e. gay marriage not allowed is simply presumed)

2) The right of gays to enjoy equal protection under the law may trump these reasons (especially when it's pointed out that allowing gay marriage doesn't mean disallowing regular marriage)

The argument for homosexual marriage is that the losses caused by people engaging in homosexual marriage who would otherwise engage in heterosexual marriage

It's a ridiculous assumption that this is a real concern.

I don't give a **** about sticking only to the constitution. I was just saying that 'equal' rights isn't a relevant reason to argue that homosexuality should be legal.

Why not? If it worked for miscegenation then it seems to apply to gay marriage. Let's say, in 1950, I do a study which shows that mixed race children tend to do badly later in life, that inter-racial marriage leads to divorce and poverty yada yada yada. Is it reasonable for the State to prohibit interracial marriage based on this? Should the courts have struck down these laws or waited for the legislatures to change things?

Don't say that the constitution gives the right, it doesn't.

That's a hell of an argument, Jon.



Constitutions say whatever judges interpret them to say. There is a very large minority of judges who think it says that it does give the right. I'm pretty much agnostic on the issue of whether this is a constitutionally guaranteed right or not.

My understanding is that Loving Vs Whoever was still a man and a woman?

And? They were black/Indian and white trying to marry. And under Virginia law there was no such thing as a valid marriage between them. And the courts found that the law was unconstitutional.

If so, it has nothing to do male/male marriage or female/female marriage/etc.

It has everything to do with the legal issue. To quote the court (from Wikipedia)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

We are expanding the definition here...

As did Loving v. Virginia

Which is OK. But be honest. We are only interested in expanding the definition so long as it serves the state interest. Expanding the definition (as some have argued, here as well) to be basically some contract is stupid and not in the states interest (And so the state shouldn't provide benefits to polygamous/etc marriages).

The constitutional issue is not simply what is in the State's interest. It is whether the State has an OVERRIDING interest in preventing people from marrying, which is "one of the basic civil rights of man'"

[Kuciwalker]

I support gay marriage because I think it is best to have it. Not because it should be legal because of the constitution/etc.

Eh. There's a large body of judges who think that the state/federal constitutions do support marriage as a right. My guess is that they feel that the gov't is not allowed to deny benefits to a certain class of people (as disallowing gay marriage does) without some compelling reason, and that in this case the compelling reason does not exist (or is not explicitly stated in the law).

If the gov't was free to disallow anybody from getting married that it pleased then there would be no problems with disallowing interracial marriage (the prohibitions against which I believe were removed in several cases through court rulings).

Race is an explicitly protected class in the Constitution, sexual orientation is not.

[Kuciwalker]

Not that this applies to state constitutions.

[Asher]

Um... those are your reasons? You're making it sound as if it was a choice to be gay.


1) Women have tits

So do you

2) Women look pretty

They look pretty useless.

3) Women will cook for you

There's a reason the best chefs in the world are male.

4) Women will care about you, even when you don't care about them

Nothing to do with gender.

5) Women will iron your clothes

Men will too.

6) Women will entertain your guests while you play games

Men will play games with you.

7) Women have tits

So do you.

[DaShi]

When can we start working on Mormon rights and legalizing "Big Love"?

Why don't you just tell us your opinion on this?

[Nugog]

Serious question:

Does the US Constitution actually define marriage as an act/agrrement/whatever between a man and a woman?

[DaShi]

Marriage is a stupid idea. It's a conformist idea, a religious idea, a women's idea. Therefore, stupid.

My uncle has never been married, he has a long-term girlfriend (something like 20+ years I think), they have 3 children, (all are theirs).

I vow never to get married.

You conform nicely with nearly everyone I've met that is against marriage on principle.

[Asher]

Why don't you just tell us your opinion on this?

If he watched "Big Love" he'd see why polygamy is a bad idea.

But I don't think DinoDoc gets cable.

[Jon Miller]

People can marry whoever they like. Their brother/sister, their 20 wives, their dog.

What we are discussing is the state benefits and recognition. Basically, the marriages that the state want to occur.

My statement was that married people provide more for society than single people. There have been studies that show this. Besides that most people, not all, think it should (and generally, the state should do what most people think it should). So it is in the states interest to promot the sort of marriages (through benefits and recognition) which provide. Polygamous marriage is a bad idea because it almost always takes place where it is used for males dominating females (a few places, the other way around). It also facilitates greater frustration in the populace. Finally, multiparty relationships don't last as long as two party relationships.

Marriage isn't just some contract between people, or between two people. It has been between a man and a woman. There isn't a discrimination based on sex, or oreintation, or anything of the sort there. Even now we aren't expanding the definition (I hope) of marriage to be a contract between two people. We are just expanding it to include two men or two women. And hopefully we are doing that by vote, because we want to, not out of misinterpretation of our constitution.

Saying that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, but in certain cases (one person is indian, the other is white) it can't exist, is discrimination on race. Saying that it is between a man and a woman isn't discriminating at all, as as both sexes can enter into it evenly, all orientations/etc can enter into it evenly, etc.

JM

[Nugog]

People can marry whoever they like.
JM

No they can't.

[Jon Miller]

Serious question:

Does the US Constitution actually define marriage as an act/agrrement/whatever between a man and a woman?

Nope, if it did we would need a constitution change.

It is something that is for the law of the land to decide.

The law of the land decided in the past that it was a man and a woman.

I am in favor of them changing this. It shouldn't be decided by courts based on faulty reasoning.

JM

[Jon Miller]

No they can't.

Not legally. And you can't have sex with whoever you want.

You can say you married to a tree, nonlegally it doesn't matter.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Race is an explicitly protected class in the Constitution, sexual orientation is not.

Race is only explicitly protected once, in the 15th amendment as being an improper basis of determining qualification to vote.

Loving v Virginia was decided based on the 14th Amendment, which never mentions race once. Judges are given the power to decide what constitutes unequal protection under the law by the text and the precedents of the 14th amendment. Equal protection is not limited solely to cases involving discrimination against sex, age, and race because those are protected classes when it comes to the right to vote.

[Jon Miller]

By the way, one place I said homosexuality legality when I meant homosexual marriages.

JM