Best commentry on gay marriage I've seen yet

[Subby]

Cam is just getting pummeled in this thread.

[pjstp20]

Sorry I'm a noob to this argument but I just want to know: what is the oppostions argument to gay marriage? Is it the slippery slope thing, same sex marriage will lead to pedophiles and those into beastiality the right to marriage? Or is it religion? What is it? I dont see the big deal live and let live. There not trying to hurt anyone, I dont know why some people what to impose their beliefs and their morality on everyone else.

[SFL Cat]

Actually, I think some pro-life mayor in California should follow San Fran's lead and declare Abortion illegal in his city -- screw the law, it's the right thing to do!!!

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Mass. also hadn't passed DoMa, which California had. US Gov't has also passed DoMA. Methinks the argument about DoMa will be more related to whether or not states have the right to not recognize other marriages, rather than "equal protection" clause arguments.

If public opinion matters to both, then what is the magic number? 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage. 98% of Americans oppose marriage to children (and I'd say after covering the court system for 18 months as a reporter... that number's actually high. There are a lot of sickos out there). At what point do we start paying attention to public opinion? And if public opinion does matter... why are you so opposed to the legislative, rather than the judicial branch handling this?

Sorry, I've got to get some sleep. I'll check back in after 9 a.m. CST tomorrow (don't want to be accused of dodging any arguments like last time).

You want my opinion? 60% to me is not a compelling number. It's certainly not enough of a majority to warrant setting something in the concrete that a constitutional ban would represent. As for your comment on the other half, I'd be very surprised if it were less than 99%. Remember that one percent of a nation of 270 million is 2.7 million. That leaves room for an awful lot of creeps.

I'm going to turn this one on its ear. What is the magic number? You tell me. You're the one who continues to link polygamy and child molesting with homosexuality.

As for your last comment, if I'm the one who suggested you'd dodge arguments (can't remember whether I did or didn't at this point, and frankly don't care), I regret the comment. I will say this much for you. We both share the quality of never backing down from a fight.

That being said, however, I doubt I can add much more to this argument than just repeating myself.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by wig

So get married. Just don't ram it down my throat.

I think that's after the wedding....




On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

As far as the statement that was quoted saying that marriage is a right. That can't be farther from the truth. Having a relationship with someone is a right and that is not being taken away from anyone.



The arguement given in the original post about allowing the country to decide if you can get married is nothing more than hiding your head in the sand. By that same definition why not carry it out to the next level... Someone can't marry your sister because it has been decided by others that is wrong, or marry your dog, why let others say you can't do that?


What's wrong are a$$holes like that mayor of San Francisco deciding to start making his own laws and allowing the 'marriages'. If a change goes through that allows it, so be it, but for one person to think that they can just change the law on their own, that is wrong and should be grounds for removal from office.

[stevew]

Gay=Lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=Lifestyle choice

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

How do you rationalize the government requiring you pay them a fee and meet their varying registration requirements then? Do they require fees and licenses to engage in ANY OTHER religious acts? In the State of Georgia they require blood be taken and tested, and may refuse to grant the license based on how the testing goes. Frankly, I am a little surprised that something so religious, and granted by God alone, is interfered with by so many human bureaucrats and there is no outrage.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by stevew

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

I bet somebody has already wanted to do that. With the number of human beings that have come and gone during the time the "german shepherd" breed of dog has been around, it is unlikely that someone has not thought of that already. What relevance does that question have to the issue being discussed in this thread? Are you saying that because some sexual deviant (which homosexuality is not considered to be, by psychology standards) may want to marry an animal, same gender marriages cannot be allowed? What data do you have that explains your theory that the desire for humans to wed with animals will greatly increase once same-gender marriage is legal? I'm sure it would be an interesting study.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

You're the one who continues to link polygamy and child molesting with homosexuality.

If you want to make the case that genetics determines homosexuality, then you have to make the case that it determines ALL forms of human sexuality. You can't say its wrong to condemn homosexuality as immoral and unnatural, but then turn around and condemn such sexual deviancies as pedophilia. If gay folks were born the way they are, so were pedophiles.

First and foremost, marriage has traditionally been a sacred covenant, a "religious" ceremony performed by a "church" to join a man and woman in a relationship designed to serve as the basis for creating and raising a family.

This was a fact long before any government, let alone the U.S. government, decided to pass laws recognizing this union as one of the foundational relationships in human society.

Gay union can never be equivalent to the covenant of marriage because a gay union will NEVER produce children.

Since most corporations already provide benefits to significant others of employees (regardless of gender or marital status), I'm not sure why gays are pushing so hard to make society "recognize" their unions as equivalent to traditional marriage other than it being just another political tool of the gay agenda to "legitimize" their lifestyle.

[Tekneek]

Here's my challenge to anyone who wants to deny same-gender marriages: Put a law on the books that makes adultery a criminal act, too. After all, adultery is actually addressed in the Ten Commandments while gay marriage is not. It seems like that should come a little higher on the list of priorities for those who really want to maintain the sanctity of 'marriage' and keep us on that Christian code.

[SFL Cat]

Actually adultery is still a misdemeanor crime on most state books. It is definitely a grounds for divorce.

And while gay sex isn't specifically mentioned in the 10 Commandments, it was a capital offense under the Law of Moses.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Actually adultery is still a misdemeanor crime on most state books. It is definitely a grounds for divorce.

When do you think was the last time somebody was charged with that? I don't know, but I certainly have never read, heard, or seen it happen. Any law banning same-gender marriage should reaffirm the bans against adultery, IMHO. I can't see how you are "maintaining the sanctity of marriage" with one while leaving out the other. Adultery is a much larger problem in this society.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I think that's after the wedding....




On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. A marriage is a religious union and a civil union. One can get married without setting foot in a church, synagogue or mosque, via civil ceremony. The rest of your flawed logic is therefore invalid.

As far as the statement that was quoted saying that marriage is
a right. That can't be farther from the truth. Having a relationship with someone is a right and that is not being taken away from anyone.

The arguement given in the original post about allowing the country to decide if you can get married is nothing more than hiding your head in the sand. By that same definition why not carry it out to the next level... Someone can't marry your sister because it has been decided by others that is wrong, or marry your dog, why let others say you can't do that?

Hmm. One would hope, when posting in a thread that has 58 something posts, that you MIGHT ACTUALLY READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS. Many arguments have been made that dispute your self-righteous position on this matter. Feel free to disagree, but to dismiss opposing views without addressing these concerns again weakens your arguments.

What's wrong are a$$holes like that mayor of San Francisco deciding to start making his own laws and allowing the 'marriages'. If a change goes through that allows it, so be it, but for one person to think that they can just change the law on their own, that is wrong and should be grounds for removal from office.

Or perhaps it is an act of personal and political courage that might ultimately sway some people into rethinking their positions on the issue. Naw, we should all just bow our heads and hope that the majority might free us from slavery, or give us the right to vote, or give us equal access under the law.

[SFL Cat]

Sodomy is still against the law in most states too. When was the last time someone was arrested for that?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Sodomy is still against the law in most states too. When was the last time someone was arrested for that?

This isn't directly related to the issue of the "sanctity of marriage." The only reason the laws against adultery and sodomy are still on the books are because they are not being enforced.

[SFL Cat]

Then why did you bring up adultery?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Bzzt. Wrong answer. A marriage is a religious union and a civil union. One can get married without setting foot in a church, synagogue or mosque, via civil ceremony. The rest of your flawed logic is therefore invalid.



Hmm. One would hope, when posting in a thread that has 58 something posts, that you MIGHT ACTUALLY READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS. Many arguments have been made that dispute your self-righteous position on this matter. Feel free to disagree, but to dismiss opposing views without addressing these concerns again weakens your arguments.



Or perhaps it is an act of personal and political courage that might ultimately sway some people into rethinking their positions on the issue. Naw, we should all just bow our heads and hope that the majority might free us from slavery, or give us the right to vote, or give us equal access under the law.

Flawed logic? My statement was about the origins of marriage. McFly?....

Self righteous position? I was merely stating the hypocrasy of the article quoted in the original post. The logic in that article was why let the majority tell you what you can and can't do. Please tell me where you set the boundaries and just why you set them where you do. That sounds to me like another decision that must be made, perhaps by a majority again (what a tangled web of logic this leads to).

Personal and political courage? BZZZT!!!! Wrong Answer!!!!!! It's a perfect reason to be removed from office. See, that's why we have a politcal process and laws, to keep one person frmo making their own laws. US History 101 kind of stuff here (branches of government ring a bell?).

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If you want to make the case that genetics determines homosexuality, then you have to make the case that it determines ALL forms of human sexuality. You can't say its wrong to condemn homosexuality as immoral and unnatural, but then turn around and condemn such sexual deviancies as pedophilia. If gay folks were born the way they are, so were pedophiles.

The research I've seen does not confirm this conclusion. Pedophilia and child molestation (which btw, is much more common than pedophilia, and they aren't the same thing) are more learned behaviors than genetic, which is why victimized children of pedophiles/child molestors are far more likely to become predators themselves.

First and foremost, marriage has traditionally been a sacred covenant, a "religious" ceremony performed by a "church" to join a man and woman in a relationship designed to serve as the basis for creating and raising a family.

So were witch burnings, the Inquisition, and if you want to go back further, crucifixions, stonings, and throwing members of other religions to the lions. Somehow, these traditions have fallen by the wayside.

Nonetheless, to take the argument into more reasonable territory, no reasonable person denies the right of a church to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple, heterosexual or same-sex (both are done routinely). In fact, I can't imagine it being constitutional to do so in light of Bill of Rights protections for religion. OTOH, one can get married in every legal sense of the word without being "church" sanctioned.

This was a fact long before any government, let alone the U.S. government, decided to pass laws recognizing this union as one of the foundational relationships in human society.

Yet civil marriages are (and will remain) a fact of life. This you are unable to deny.

Gay union can never be equivalent to the covenant of marriage because a gay union will NEVER produce children.

You would be surprised at the number of heterosexual marriages that will never produce children, particularly since an ever increasing number of married couples are consciously making the choice *not* to have children. So are you saying that a married heterosexual couple that has no children (whether through choice or the vagaries of biology) are less married than a heterosexual couple with children? And I won't even bring up the number of gay couples who bring children with them from former marriages or gain custody through adoption.

Since most corporations already provide benefits to significant others of employees (regardless of gender or marital status), I'm not sure why gays are pushing so hard to make society "recognize" their unions as equivalent to traditional marriage other than it being just another political tool of the gay agenda to "legitimize" their lifestyle.

Some, not most corporations provide benefits. A large number don't. And Health insurance is only one of a myriad of concerns that such couples face.

And who says that the Religious Right's lifestyle is any more "legitimized" than a loving, nurturing relationship between two people of the same sex.

I'm not so sure why people who claim to be adherents of a religion built around the teachings of the loving, forgiving, caring Son of God are so hell bent on enforcing a narrow form of prejudice against some of God's children.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Flawed logic? My statement was about the origins of marriage. McFly?....

Self righteous position? I was merely stating the hypocrasy of the article quoted in the original post. The logic in that article was why let the majority tell you what you can and can't do. Please tell me where you set the boundaries and just why you set them where you do. That sounds to me like another decision that must be made, perhaps by a majority again (what a tangled web of logic this leads to).

Personal and political courage? BZZZT!!!! Wrong Answer!!!!!! It's a perfect reason to be removed from office. See, that's why we have a politcal process and laws, to keep one person frmo making their own laws. US History 101 kind of stuff here (branches of government ring a bell?).

Sure it's a reason to remove him from office. I never denied this.

Thanks for the civics lesson. Apparently you missed the chapter on civil disobedience though.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Then why did you bring up adultery?

Because it is directly related to the sanctity of marriage. Without marriage you don't have adultery. Kind of hard to explain how someone would say they are maintaining the sanctity of marriage while they do nothing to stop blatant violations of the Ten Commandments that are already destroying these religious unions everyday in this country. Adultery is already a large threat to marriages. I fail to see how allowing same-gender marriages could do anywhere near as much damage.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

I'm not so sure why people who claim to be adherents of a religion built around the teachings of the loving, forgiving, caring Son of God are so hell bent on enforcing a narrow form of prejudice against some of God's children.

If I had to guess, it would be because there are lots of other people who will stand alongside them. Somebody who wants life to be led strictly by the Bible would find far fewer people willing to share that life with them.

[ISiddiqui]

You know, I always wondered about this majority rules crap. The majority has never trumphed over the Constitution. Why should it now? "Equal Protection under the Law" is pretty clear.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You know, I always wondered about this majority rules crap. The majority has never trumphed over the Constitution. Why should it now? "Equal Protection under the Law" is pretty clear.

The 'loophole' for the majority is to have such an overwhelming majority that it makes it into the Constitution itself.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

The research I've seen does not confirm this conclusion. Pedophilia and child molestation (which btw, is much more common than pedophilia, and they aren't the same thing) are more learned behaviors than genetic, which is why victimized children of pedophiles/child molestors are far more likely to become predators themselves.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are both LEARNED behaviors. Even the gung-ho "gay gene" crowd is now grudgingly admitting that there is a "learned behavior" component to homosexuality.

So were witch burnings, the Inquisition, and if you want to go back further, crucifixions, stonings, and throwing members of other religions to the lions. Somehow, these traditions have fallen by the wayside.

Actually, depending on where you go, a lot of this stuff still goes on. I know a lot of secular humanists who would love to see throwing Christians to the lions come back in vogue.

Nonetheless, to take the argument into more reasonable territory, no reasonable person denies the right of a church to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple, heterosexual or same-sex

Actually, gays pitched quite a bitch about this as well, especially during the early to mid 80s. "How dare you not marry us," they screeched indignantly. In most cases, they found rogue clergy sympathetic to their cause (sometimes even closet gays themselves) who defied Church laws to perform ceremony (San Fran all over again). Once again, they got their way by circumventing the rules. While some clergy were given the boot for doing this, many denominations were more concerned about being P.C., and backed down to avoid being labeled "intolerant."

Yet civil marriages are (and will remain) a fact of life. This you are unable to deny.

Have no problem with civil unions. I guess gays need legal protections when they split up just like heteros do. But no way a gay civil union is equal to marriage.

You would be surprised at the number of heterosexual marriages that will never produce children, particularly since an ever increasing number of married couples are consciously making the choice *not* to have children. So are you saying that a married heterosexual couple that has no children (whether through choice or the vagaries of biology) are less married than a heterosexual couple with children?

The potential to create children is there, whether they have children or not. That potential doesn't exist for a same sex couple.

And I won't even bring up the number of gay couples who bring children with them from former marriages or gain custody through adoption.

In my book, a person who tosses aside his/her family to "discover" his/her gayness is no better than a straight person who leaves his/her family to have a fling with someone else. You make a family and kids, you live up to your responsibility, even if it means denying yourself.

I'm sure most gays will vehemently dispute this, but most legitimate studies show that a traditional home with a male-female couple is the best possible environment for children.

Other than children produced from previous marriages, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. Get dogs or cats instead.

Some, not most corporations provide benefits. A large number don't. And Health insurance is only one of a myriad of concerns that such couples face.

In these cases, they probably don't provide great coverage for straights either. If your current company does not provide the benefits you want, you have the freedom to find a company that does, just like any straight person.

And who says that the Religious Right's lifestyle is any more "legitimized" than a loving, nurturing relationship between two people of the same sex.

In the case of the Religious Right, the Bible does.

I'm not so sure why people who claim to be adherents of a religion built around the teachings of the loving, forgiving, caring Son of God are so hell bent on enforcing a narrow form of prejudice against some of God's children.

Because in addition to all the "LOVE" stuff that the Religious Left likes to throw around, Christianity also teaches such foreign concepts (at least to the Religious Left) as obedience and right and wrong living. Christ himself said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Man's original sin was disobedience. "Look God, I know you said don't eat this thing, but look at it!!! Obviously you don't know what you're talking about, because boy this thing is mmmm mmmmm good!!! And after eating it, I'm so much smarter now!!!!"

It's still the same today, "Okay, look I know you said a guy should leave his mom and dad and become one flesh with a woman, but I just don't feel that way. So obviously, you screwed up somewhere. So I'm just gonna ignore what your Word teaches and do "what feels right for me."

[Tekneek]

By "civil union", I don't think they were even talking about homosexuals. Every marriage in the US is a civil union. Whether it is also a religious union is up to those involved and is unimportant legally.

For instance, if a couple has not been 'licensed' by the government, and appropriate paperwork is not filed after the "ceremony", then a couple is not married no matter if the Pope himself conducted the ceremony here in the US.

I have been to two weddings, and in both cases they were legally married before the ceremony ever took place. The church officials themselves would admit as much, although they did have the option to do it afterwards. They seemed to think it was much more convenient, and better for show, to do that stuff beforehand so everyone can enjoy the ceremony fully. At mine (which I wasn't counting), we signed everything afterwards and only then did it become legal.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The potential to create children is there, whether they have children or not. That potential doesn't exist for a same sex couple.

Been over this before, but what about heterosexucal couples that DON'T have the potential to have children? Elderly couples, couples where either the male is sterile or the female is intfertile? What about them? They have just as much potential to have children as any gay couple.

[CamEdwards]

I was going to go ahead and post some more responses, but it really is like a beating your head against the wall. The issue of equal protection keeps coming up, and I've yet to see a good argument as to why all men and women don't have the same rights under the law right now. It seems like the larger argument here is to define a group as a minority based on their sexual preference, and if that's going to be the case, then I'd say that slippery slope argument becomes an awfully valid concern.

[pjstp20]

So I guess thats it then, according to you conservatives gay marriage will lead to chester the molester marrying some 14 year old or some zooaphile marring fido?????? Please, give me a break, why dont you just admit that you don't like homosexuals pure and simple. You don't agree with their lifestyle and you think you should impose your morals on everyone else.

Its quite simple really, gay marriage is hurting no one, where as pedophilia and beastiality is, one shoiuld be allowed one shouldnt. It doesnt get any simpler.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I fail to see love mentioned in either the 14th amendment or the DoMa. Could you point it out to me?

Cam, this is just a dumb argument. You can argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gays, but this is just dumb. Unless you believe Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) was a bad decision under the 14th Amendment, then you aren't making any sense. At least stick to coherent reasons why the 14th Amendment may not apply.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Wuss,

this is why I hate arguing with liberals. Must I quote you?

"However, on your specific point, this is a false slippery slope argument. To equate homosexuality with pedophilia is ludicrous. A large number of people are at least ambivalent toward the rights of gays and lesbians. I sincerely doubt you could find much of anybody whose going to say that pedophiles deserve anything less than jail terms."

This was yourargument, not mine. You're arguing a legitimacy for public opinion in one instance and against in another. My question is not to imply that one leads to another, or that one is equal to another. I'm simply asking: why does public opinion matter for one, and not for another?

As to your other argument, Rosie O'Donnell can get married to 14 different guys in California just like Elizabeth Taylor. And Elizabeth Taylor still can't marry a woman. That's equal protection under the law. You might not like it, but everyone has the same right.

Interracial marriage had the same equal protection argument you are making and it lost. You are making no sense and are going against clear and nearly universal constitutional understanding on this one.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I was going to go ahead and post some more responses, but it really is like a beating your head against the wall. The issue of equal protection keeps coming up, and I've yet to see a good argument as to why all men and women don't have the same rights under the law right now. It seems like the larger argument here is to define a group as a minority based on their sexual preference, and if that's going to be the case, then I'd say that slippery slope argument becomes an awfully valid concern.

double dola, if you don't want to read Loving v. Virginia, let me explain it this way. Arguing that you couldn't marry another race is EXACTLY the same in terms of the 14th Amendment as arguing that you can't marry the same gender. Everyone is not treated the same because the restriction is unequal in effect. Your only argument here is that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gays (and that race and sexual orientation are different) - stick with that argument instead of making nonsense points about it not applying to "love."

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by stevew

Gay=Lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=Lifestyle choice

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

Ok, now we're just being rediculous

Actually, if you're going to use a "slippery slope" like approach here I would think the next step would not be bestiality but polygamy. Society can't dictate who we should or should not love, how can it dictate how many people we love? Especially if not all of these loves (80 year olds have been used as an example) are sexual in nature? The opposition to gay marriage has been based on traditional societal and religious customs/beliefs - can't the same be said for polygamy? If all parties are willing and consentual, what would be the problem? It's another example of society's imposing of their beliefs on others.

[John Galt]

Ok, I'm done with this thread because you have SFL Cat making the same homophobic arguments that have been beaten over and over again in other threads. I'm not saying there aren't still points of controversy, but continuing to treat being gay as a choice as an agreed fact and arguing that a traditional family structure is always better is just crazy. The other threads have hashed this out to death. I just wanted to interject because Cam was making a ridiculous new argument.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by stevew

Gay=Lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=Lifestyle choice

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

Ok I lied - one more thing:

Being Christian=lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=liftestyle choice

How long until someone wants to fuck a Christian poodle?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by pjstp20

So I guess thats it then, according to you conservatives gay marriage will lead to chester the molester marrying some 14 year old or some zooaphile marring fido??????

I resent that last bit.

[pjstp20]

Lol all apologies

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Cam, this is just a dumb argument. You can argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gays, but this is just dumb. Unless you believe Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) was a bad decision under the 14th Amendment, then you aren't making any sense. At least stick to coherent reasons why the 14th Amendment may not apply.

John,

I wasn't the one who brought love into the argument. I was merely pointing out the lack of logic involved in invoking the "l" word.

Was the Loving v. Virginia decision a bad one under the 14th amendment? No. But read the decision.

"Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, [388 U.S. 1, 9] Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race."

In other words, Loving v. Virginia dealt with the 14th amendment as it applied to racial discrimination only. Futhering the point that it might not buttress the gay marriage argument,

"There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. (emphasis mine)".

Finally, what does Loving v. Virginia have to say about the institution of marriage?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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 discriminations. 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."

So I'd say Loving v. Virginia pretty clearly spells out that it's dealing with a 14th amendment aimed at ending racial discrimination. In fact, I think it would be an interesting argument to interpret the line ""Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" as it relates to gay marriage. I would think an argument could be made that gay marriage doesn't contribute one whit to our very existence or survival.

Hope that helps.

[pjstp20]

So, restating a previous comment, only those interested in the survival and continuation of the species should be allowed to marry?

[Cuckoo]

Subby is just getting pummeled in this thread.

Cam, your comment about beating you head against the wall is right on. I understand it's in your nature to debate, but I'm sorry man. You're just not going to get anywhere with some of these people.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Subby is just getting pummeled in this thread.

Cam, your comment about beating you head against the wall is right on. I understand it's in your nature to debate, but I'm sorry man. You're just not going to get anywhere with some of these people.

I know, but every now and then it's fun. It's like free show prep: argue with people here so you know what's coming when you argue the position on the air.

Although I have to admit that quoting court decisions typically doesn't make for compelling radio.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

John,

I would think an argument could be made that gay marriage doesn't contribute one whit to our very existence or survival.

I don't think that's true. Marriage that does not have the potential to result in children (gay marriage, marriage between a man or a woman where one (or both) is infertile) can still be very beneficial to society which, in some way, does contribute a whit or two to our existence.

Many studies that prove that married couples are happier, healthier, live longer, earn more, work more, and save more money. That sounds like it's a positive contribution to our society. People who make more are taxed more, giving more back to the public. People who are healthier will have less medical problems and will be less of a burden on our medical system, insurance, etc. Again, more contributions.

So, letting two consenting adults get married appears to have many benefits to society, other than simply producing kids.

Studies:

http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/university/publicbenefit/

http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/abenefitsofmar.html

and one for the kids:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0209-01.htm

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm sure better legalese could be used, but I'm just a simple caveman lawyer.

I'm not interested in getting involved, just wanted to note that I thought this sentence was awesome.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

Then neither women nor blacks would have been granted equal rights when they did.

[pjstp20]

Originally Posted by Delebar

Absent some religious conviction, how can someone feel so passionately about denying gays the right to marry? And if your opposition is based in religion, why should others' liberty be constrained by your religious beliefs?

In my opinion, gay marriage is as inevitable as history's view of those who presently oppose it.

And by the way, believing in freedom and the pursuit of happiness doesn't make someone a "liberal" any more than prejudice makes someone a "conservative."

I asked the same question earlier in this thread, and have yet to get a clear answer. Although you put it more eloquently so maybe you'll get a reply.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by stevew

Gays arent Black. Except for black gays.

Insight, thy name is stevew.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The whole religious argument just doesn't fly. I'm sorry. If you want to base who can and can't get married on the Bible you're in a world of trouble, because the Bible does not stop at saying two people of the same gender can't marry. Oh no. That's just the begining. There is entire laundry list of utterly ridiculous rules about who can, can't, and has to marry. There is a great list of these on whitehouse.org. I'd post a link to it or list some examples they show, but I can't access it from work. Too political.

[wig]

The problem with this "debate" is the pro-gay crowd hasn't listened to one thing the opposition has said.

You're only argument is "but we love eachother". I have yet to hear a real reason why it's ok for you to break the law and get married.

I doubt I will, either.

[wig]

See, the condescending tactic can work both ways.

[CamEdwards]

just to clear up a few things:

-Samdari: your argument has already been refuted. It took a constitutional amendment for slaves to be freed and for women to get the right to vote. It wasn't up to a few judges and politicians.

-Honolulu_Blue: I don't think this thread has focused on religion at all. Why bring it up?

-Delebar: my objection to gay marriage is not on religious grounds... at least not on any chapter in Leviticus. Yet I still feel passionately that a redefinition of the concept of marriage should not be decided by the courts, but rather by the people. Would you oppose a few judges and politicians deciding that they're going to redefine when life begins in order to provide equal rights to all people, born or unborn?

-