Marriage Laws

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

True enough, I forgot about that. Of course, I didn't bring up eugenics and how can you bring up eugenics without immediately pulling out the Hitler card?

Good point. But if we change the rules now, we just start down a slippery slope...

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RendeR

But doesn't this just relate to semantics? I suppose if the legal side of things were equal and fair to all people through this type of result then it could be acceptable, but I don't think thats what the people frantically trying to pass amendmants to their states constitutions are trying to do. You don't put a ban of something into your constitution to be fair and equal to those you are banning.

I think that this is a good point. Some of the comments that were coming out of the Georgia Senate are disturbing. It made me wonder just what religious dogma was going to make its way out the door next. It sounded like a religious crusade. Some were acting as if the future of the entire world was dependent on getting this ban into place. A lesson to any gay folks out there that vote for Democrats just because of the party name. Many of them voted for the ban here in Georgia, so clearly that party is not as accepting as they would lead you to believe when they are counting your votes in November. I remember when some Republicans here said that passing a law protecting a mother's right to breastfeed would result in mass exhibitionism. One particular fellow was quoted on the radio saying such, and when I called his office he could not come up with one verifiable news story of that happening. They make these "chicken little" arguments with no evidence to backup their doomsday predictions.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

John, if you really believe the slippery slope argument is fallacious, go back and read the Mass. Supreme Court decision. You'll find plenty that proves you wrong.

As to whether or not I would support a law that forbade Jews to marry... of course not. And I'd be protesting just as loudly as those in support of gay marriage. I've never said people shouldn't debate the issue. I've never said people shouldn't believe what they believe. I just believe I'm right, and a majority of Americans feel the same way. If I was in the minority, of course I'd be protesting. Dissent is patriotic, right?

I'm honestly not sure you are in the majority though. Throughout the MA debates they took votes on numerous amendmants and referendums, every one failed. they only needed a simple majority to pass them. granted not every state is the same as MA, I would expect the southern and bible belt states to vote banning, I would also expect the northern and most western states to vote against it. I wouldn't be so comfortable with your "majority" at this stage.

[wig]

ok, fat people can marry if they don't have kids

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by wig

Fat people shouldn't marry either.

Hahah. So what happens if you get fat AFTER you get married?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I based my belief on the fact that most states seem to be tripping all over themselves to pass "one man and one woman" amendments.

Whether the majority is against gay marriage or for gay marraige or does not care does not really change my arguement.

[Your catch brings to mind one of the cardinal rules of reading. Whenever someone starts a sentence with "It is clear that. . . ." you can be sure that what follows is 1.) not clear and 2.) not supported.

Thanks for keeping me honest.]

No problem

Just because a majority of lawmakers in certain states is for this doesn't even mean their constituents are even for it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

John, if you really believe the slippery slope argument is fallacious, go back and read the Mass. Supreme Court decision. You'll find plenty that proves you wrong.

As to whether or not I would support a law that forbade Jews to marry... of course not. And I'd be protesting just as loudly as those in support of gay marriage. I've never said people shouldn't debate the issue. I've never said people shouldn't believe what they believe. I just believe I'm right, and a majority of Americans feel the same way. If I was in the minority, of course I'd be protesting. Dissent is patriotic, right?

On the first point, I've read the opinion and I think you are confusing a "slippery slope" with a "precedent." A slippery slope is a fallacy because of the way the argument is set up. Usually it goes like this.

Allowing X (which is not that bad or even goo) leads to Y (which is probably bad) and Z (which is always horrible and unthinkable).

The fact that you use Z is because you want to shock and horrify the listener who wouldn't be horrified by X alone. However, the mere fact that you can differentiate X from Z is usually why you need not slip down the slope.

From a precedental standpoint, I think there are easy arguments to show why polygamy and incest aren't precedents from gay marriage. Opening up the definition of marriage does not lead to all the evil unspeakables just as it didn't will interracial marriage. Sure, some polygamist will argue otherwise, but a court can easily differentiate as has been done in this thread.


And to your last point, I'm all for dissent - it is my middle name. I just don't know how the religious feel empowered by arguing being gay is a choice when being religious is as well. And the arguments against opening up marriage to religions beyond your own are often more prone to slippery slope argument (ie Christians could easily be horrified by Muslim or Jewish ceremonies).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, I know in advance I'm going to regret even asking this, but I just gotta, 'cause I'm not following you. If you've already spelled this out elsewhere, just chalk it up to the speed of the thread being more than I've kept pace with.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

There is nothing fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing same sex marriage.

There is something fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing pologomy (i.e. the entire structure of "marriage" law). Therefore, the state has the right to prevent pologomous unions.

Where are you drawing the line of difference between the two examples?
At "2 people vs 2+ people"?

And if so, why did you place it at "2 people" vs "1 man + 1 woman"?

TIA,
Jon

[wig]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Hahah. So what happens if you get fat AFTER you get married?

hmm..... slippery slope with a strawman at the top.......

ok, if you get fat after marriage you have to move to France.

[Tekneek]

The news reports here made it sound as if the Senate was hoping it could be rushed through because they did not want it to go to a public vote/referendum on the general ballot. That, to me, sounds like they are afraid of what the majority of voters would decide if it were left up to them.

[albionmoonlight]

As much as this thread has sucked me in--I need to get some work done, so I must check out. Good points made by many.

And John--never again will I labor under the illusion that New York lawyers work long hours. You post as much as I do, and I am a government employee in New Orleans .

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The news reports here made it sound as if the Senate was hoping it could be rushed through because they did not want it to go to a public vote/referendum on the general ballot. That, to me, sounds like they are afraid of what the majority of voters would decide if it were left up to them.

Even I'm not willing to go that far. I think the big fear with the public vote is the delay. The result would be a window of time when gays could be married and have those marriages permanently honored in the state (since eliminating them retroactively invites more sticky legal problems).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As much as this thread has sucked me in--I need to get some work done, so I must check out. Good points made by many.

And John--never again will I labor under the illusion that New York lawyers work long hours. You post as much as I do, and I am a government employee in New Orleans .

Yeah, but when I'm still here at midnight, you'll remember the difference (especially after I worked yet another 3 day weekend).

[albionmoonlight]

I caught Jon's question before I left. Here is how I stated it earlier in the thread. Hope that you don't regret asking.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

To stretch the analogy, some people feel that there is something fundamental about marriage that necessitates it being between a man and a woman. To them, denying a marriage license to same sex couples is like denying a driver's license to someone who can't see. The state is allowed to place the restriction because the restriction gets to the core of the privilege being offered.

Others, however, feel that marriage is fundamentally about a binding legal commitment between two people in love who wish the state to recognize their union. They believe that the man/woman dichotomy is nothing more than superficial trappings. To them, the state has no more right to deny the privilege of marriage to someone based on their same sex status as it has the right to deny someone a driver's license because of their gender.

I fall into the second group. Others fall into the first group. It gets to the definition of marriage, and that may just be the point where people need to disagree. I can't really defend my defintion other than to say that "it just feels right to me."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Many of them voted for the ban here in Georgia,

Actually, "many" is also "nearly half" (10 of 24). And they're split neatly along geographic lines as I mentioned earlier.

And nobody on eitherside should believe for a minute that their votes were anything except politicians hoping to be re-elected, by voting the way they believe the majority of their constituents wanted them to.

Here's a potential kicker you might like though: I presume that the various Senators voted based upon their current district. I wonder how many may be bit in the butt by this same vote when the districts are re-mapped?

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Hahah. So what happens if you get fat AFTER you get married?

The slippery slope happens.

Edit: damn, wig beat me to it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Hope that you don't regret asking.

Nah, except that I wish I hadn't asked a question you'd already answered but I had missed in the posting flurry somewhere along the way.

Thanks for doubling up to cover my question, I appreciate it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Allowing X (which is not that bad or even goo) leads to Y (which is probably bad) and Z (which is always horrible and unthinkable).

The fact that you use Z is because you want to shock and horrify the listener who wouldn't be horrified by X alone. However, the mere fact that you can differentiate X from Z is usually why you need not slip down the slope.

Yes, but...

I was taught that slippery slopes aren't wrong by definition. They just usually don't stand up to scrutiny. Usually the fallacy falls apart because you can refute it with a perfectly good argument drawing on the differences between X and Z.

Example:
Slippery Slope: If you legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin will be next.
Rebuttal: But we know that cocaine and heroin are more dangerous drugs and more addictive. We have the evidence to back that up.

When you can draw a line on the slope, so to speak, it becomes a fallacy.

But sometimes (rarely), the slippery slope argument can work. This happens when there isn't a valid line to draw. And there's a danger of that happening here.

Slippery Slope: If you change the definition of marriage to allow for people of the same gender, you'll have to change it to allow for more than two people.
Rebuttal: I'm not sure what works here. You obviously can't use "because that's not the traditional intention", and you can't use "the majority don't want that", because both arguments apply to the gay marriage issue as well. So what's left?

Of course, there's also the rebuttal of "so what, who does that hurt?" But in that case, the slippery slope argument has succeeded in at least forcing that acknowledgement.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Even I'm not willing to go that far. I think the big fear with the public vote is the delay. The result would be a window of time when gays could be married and have those marriages permanently honored in the state (since eliminating them retroactively invites more sticky legal problems).

I was not thinking about it that way, but I grant that much.

[Cuckoo]

Well said Maple Leafs.

This is really all I'm going to do now, just read and pat various people on the back. It allows me to stay somewhat out of it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The news reports here made it sound as if the Senate was hoping it could be rushed through because they did not want it to go to a public vote/referendum on the general ballot. That, to me, sounds like they are afraid of what the majority of voters would decide if it were left up to them.

Umm ... the legislation calls for a vote on a Constitutional (state) amendment.

Even with my often dim view of general public, I think there's a pretty good chance it can't exactly be slipped past them (since Constitutional amendments have to go before the voters).

In other words, I'm not sure what news reports you were following but they must have done a really bad job of explaining what was actually being voted on yesterday.

[wig]

The slippery slope argumet is perfetly valid.

20 years ago, gays getting legal marriage rights would have been considered a slippery slope argument.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Here's a potential kicker you might like though: I presume that the various Senators voted based upon their current district. I wonder how many may be bit in the butt by this same vote when the districts are re-mapped?

I would consider 10 out of 24 to be many, actually, in that it was a large number of them. Obviously it was not a majority, and at the time I thought it was half of them...but I was wrong.

As far as them voting the way their constituents would want them to, then that is fine with me. That's what they should be doing, IMHO. I certainly wouldn't have you representing me if you wanted to vote against my wishes all the time. If you want my vote, you better vote for what I want. As to who gets caught in it later, there may be some of that going both ways.

[Fritz]

did someone toss aside straw man for slippery slope?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... the legislation calls for a vote on a Constitutional (state) amendment.

Even with my often dim view of general public, I think there's a pretty good chance it can't exactly be slipped past them (since Constitutional amendments have to go before the voters).

In other words, I'm not sure what news reports you were following but they must have done a really bad job of explaining what was actually being voted on yesterday.

Yes, and it was WSB.

I actually knew this had to go to a vote, but was (unfortunately easily) confusing this with another debate. The deal in Georgia is that they are afraid they won't get done soon enough to get it on the ballot in November.

The sponsor of this bill is Sen. Mike Crotts, who is the guy I talked to on the phone a year or two ago about his claims that protecting the rights of breastfeeding moms would legalize exhibitionism. I called his office and then he called me back at work. In the ensuing conversation, he could not provide any verifiable evidence to back up his claims. I wonder if that's the way he does it all of the time. I wonder how he voted on the proposals to put a ban against adultery in the Constitution, which did not get all 30 Republican votes.

[wig]

The slippery slope is much better than the straw man.

Although, if it was a gay straw man that wanted to get married to another gay straw man........

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

... and then he called me back at work.

You're lucky, most people he doesn't call back (from what I know of him).
And that's about all I can say on that subject

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Yes, but...

I was taught that slippery slopes aren't wrong by definition. They just usually don't stand up to scrutiny. Usually the fallacy falls apart because you can refute it with a perfectly good argument drawing on the differences between X and Z.

Example:
Slippery Slope: If you legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin will be next.
Rebuttal: But we know that cocaine and heroin are more dangerous drugs and more addictive. We have the evidence to back that up.

When you can draw a line on the slope, so to speak, it becomes a fallacy.

But sometimes (rarely), the slippery slope argument can work. This happens when there isn't a valid line to draw. And there's a danger of that happening here.

Slippery Slope: If you change the definition of marriage to allow for people of the same gender, you'll have to change it to allow for more than two people.
Rebuttal: I'm not sure what works here. You obviously can't use "because that's not the traditional intention", and you can't use "the majority don't want that", because both arguments apply to the gay marriage issue as well. So what's left?

Of course, there's also the rebuttal of "so what, who does that hurt?" But in that case, the slippery slope argument has succeeded in at least forcing that acknowledgement.

You are right, except that I think the slippery slope is in itself a fallacy. I think it is the "slippery" part that is where it is inherently problematic. Otherwise, I think your summary is right and why I also try to draw lines.

As for this specific one, I'm still arguing that the slope isn't slippery as proven historically by interracial marriage. Opening up the definition of marriage doesn't give rise to every nonsense view of the institution. And either way, if you can't prove that gay marriage in itself is destructive then it can be differentiated from those things that are in themselves destructive.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by wig

The slippery slope argumet is perfetly valid.

20 years ago, gays getting legal marriage rights would have been considered a slippery slope argument.

So, we should have opposed interracial marriage on those grounds?

[wig]

There must be some confusion in this topic.

Gay is not the same as black.

There were never hundreds of years of gay slavery.

Just wanted to clear that up for some of you.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by wig

There must be some confusion in this topic.

Gay is not the same as black.

There were never hundreds of years of gay slavery.

Just wanted to clear that up for some of you.

I say - the same slippery slope arguments were used for interracial marriage.

You say - the slippery slope arguments were proven true because 20 years ago gay marriage was the slope

I say - so you would oppose interracial marriage because it started the slope to gay marriage

You say - race has nothing to do with this.


You are right - there IS confusion in this topic.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

[open can of worms]Well, if you're coming from a reformed theological perspective, then that argument falls apart completely. [/close can of worms]

I didn't want to let this little gem slide by without pointing out how ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT it was in context if you've studied any theological history. An obscure point, yes, but fabulously played. Give SD a cookie.

[Drake]

dola...

The only way that allowing gay marriage effects me is by subjecting gay couples to the marriage tax penalty, which means that there's more money in the till, which is ultimately good for me. Gay marriage makes good economic sense.

And lawyers should be all for this (well, divorce lawyers, anyway). You will increase your pool of clients. On top of that, I know a lot of gay lawyers, and I'd like to have all the legal guys I can get on my side in divorce proceedings--'cuz when I was younger and got divorced, I got screwed because of assumptions in my state that women should get everything in a divorce.

So, gay marriage is good for me, and what's good for me is good for the country.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Drake

dola...

The only way that allowing gay marriage effects me is by subjecting gay couples to the marriage tax penalty, which means that there's more money in the till, which is ultimately good for me. Gay marriage makes good economic sense.

And lawyers should be all for this (well, divorce lawyers, anyway). You will increase your pool of clients. On top of that, I know a lot of gay lawyers, and I'd like to have all the legal guys I can get on my side in divorce proceedings--'cuz when I was younger and got divorced, I got screwed because of assumptions in my state that women should get everything in a divorce.

So, gay marriage is good for me, and what's good for me is good for the country.

Just to address this very side issue - the marriage penalty is largely a fiction in terms of budget surplus/deficit. While there was a penalty for couples who filed jointly (they could have filed separately to avoid the penalty) because they combined in usual ways in the tax brackets (high income differentials with double incomes was usually more likely to trigger the "penalty"), there were an equal number who benefited with the marriage tax break. Ultimately, the penalty was deficit neutral. Eliminating the penalty, however, has led to less revenue. Either way, filing separately avoids the penalty.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're lucky, most people he doesn't call back (from what I know of him).
And that's about all I can say on that subject

I'd say they are lucky. He was the most unpleasant person I have ever spoken with in my entire life.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I've been involved in the abstinance day thread and wanted to get a discussion going on a related topic: Equal rights regarding marriage for same sex couples.

My state, MA, is currently in the hot seat, they spent two days debating it in the legislature and I must say I fear for our individual freedoms based on what some of these people said.

Here is the issue: Should Same Sex couples be allowed the same rights, protections, and benefits that male/female couples do when they get married?

I personally have to question why this is even a question? This nation's history is based on the freedoms and persuit of happiness that we all have enjoyed. Why are we now trying to remove that right from a group of people? The religious right will say that the sanctity of marriage cannot be enjoyed by same sex couples because the bible tells them so. Since when does the Bible dictate legal statutes in this country? It was never intended to.

Some say that same sex marriages are damaging the "traditional family values" and will hurt children. I'm sorry, but thats just ignorant. Same sex couples all across this nation have adopted otherwise parent-less children, and raised them to be wonderful and productive members of society. How is that hurtful? Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.

I cannot agree with any kind of legislation that discriminates. If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement.

No single person or group in this country has the right to limit someone elses liberty based on their personal beliefs.

OK, I've stuck my neck out, lets see what others have to say.

I think marriage should not be sanctioned by the state, that people should simply enter marriage "contracts" that are arbited like any other contract and let churches sanction whatever that want.

There is a libertarian author who talks about it. Dunno if anyone else on the thread has said it yet, 'cuz I wanted to get my .02 in on this...but yeah, I can understand the implications on both sides. I can see the arguments against decentralization, but hey...its the state of affairs we're in now.

[Drake]

Don't fuck up my point, Mr. John-Galt-is-not-my-real-name. People in this country will do anything if it benefits them economically.

[Drake]

And another dola...

Though I see them as separate issues, I support polygamy, too, if that's what people want to do. Seriously, if people can get along and get their kids raised and educated and prepared to lead a decent life, I don't care how we define marriage as long as it's broad enough to fit in a functioning family unit that works.

Oh my God, I'm showing my libertarianism in public again. Somebody call for an intervention!

[Drake]

And one more time, with feeling...

Of course, I really only like polygamy because I'm a guy. I mean, what guy doesn't like the idea of polygamy? I don't think I'd like the reality, mind you. One nagging love of my life is plenty, thank you very much.

There's a reason women outlive men on average, and it ain't stress and diet, let me tell you.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Drake

Don't fuck up my point, Mr. John-Galt-is-not-my-real-name. People in this country will do anything if it benefits them economically.

Sorry, Drake-is-not-my-real-name-either.

[wig]

--SkyPost buster--

[Drake]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Sorry, Drake-is-not-my-real-name-either.

Weird, Drake isn't my real name, too! It's odd that we have that in common. Well, maybe not statistically odd--there are plenty of people not named Drake--but who'd have thunk two of us would show up on the same message board?

By the way, my birthday is not May 19.

[wig]

wig is my name

[wig]

SAY MY NAME!

[Butter]

So, what is the argument against gay marriage? It could lead to polygamy? This is our problem with it? If not, what is it? That it will ruin the sanctity of marriage? As though "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire" hadn't already proven that marriage as an institution in this country is pretty much a joke as it is? Could I ask some more rhetorical questions?

This is all about denying gay people the right to equal footing with heterosexuals. Because many people think homosexuality is bad. They view homosexuals as potential sexual predators who must be contained and quarantined. Giving legitimacy to them would be the same as legitimizing their sexual activity of choice. Which is wrong why? Because the Bible "says so". Dress the argument up however you would like, this is still an act of the self-righteous in this country wanting to dictate their morality onto everyone else, whether they agree or not.

Those of you who agree that gays should have the right to a legally recognized "civil union" that is not really the same as a marriage, I suggest you re-read the 2nd post in this thread..."Separate But Equal is bad public policy".

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Drake

Weird, Drake isn't my real name, too! It's odd that we have that in common. Well, maybe not statistically odd--there are plenty of people not named Drake--but who'd have thunk two of us would show up on the same message board?

By the way, my birthday is not May 19.

Whoa. This is getting freaky. And Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz, Lucille LeSueur have never been in my kitchen.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

This is all about denying gay people the right to equal footing with heterosexuals. Because many people think homosexuality is bad. They view homosexuals as potential sexual predators who must be contained and quarantined. Giving legitimacy to them would be the same as legitimizing their sexual activity of choice. Which is wrong why? Because the Bible "says so". Dress the argument up however you would like, this is still an act of the self-righteous in this country wanting to dictate their morality onto everyone else, whether they agree or not.

I am so glad that Butter is here to tell me how I feel.

Thanks, man.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The state has chosen to recognize a certain legal relationship as a "marraige." It coorolates to, but is not hopelessly intertwined with the spiritual relationship known as marriage.

Some legal effects of marriage: disposition of property at death, tax concerns, right to make end of life decision, property rights in certain states, etc.

Maybe the answer that would make everyone the most happy would be to call all legal unions between two people "civil unions" and reserve the word Marriage for the spiritual side of things. That way, everyone is being treated equally from the state perspective, but the word and concept of "marriage" can maintain its power and dignity in everyone's eyes.

This represents my feelings 100%. Religious groups can feel free to recognize whatever they want, I just feel the government should recognize same sex unions. I don't care what term is used, as long as a gay couple can become legal equals of a hetero couple.


Aside:
I thought wig's "12 year old boy" comment was perhaps the most ridiculous and generally hateful commnets I've ever read on this board.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

He was the most unpleasant person I have ever spoken with in my entire life.

I really ought to introduce you to some of the politicians I covered over the years

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

This represents my feelings 100%. Religious groups can feel free to recognize whatever they want, I just feel the government should recognize same sex unions. I don't care what term is used, as long as a gay couple can become legal equals of a hetero couple.

I really do not understand why religious types cannot differentiate the difference between what marriage means in the law, and what it means in their religion. Get over it.