Equal Rights

[Mavdog]

It is interesting to read that George Bush has announced his intention to back the effort to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow discrimination and denial of equal rights to a group of US citizens. Yes, I am referring to the plans to have an Amendment placed in the Constitution, the very constitution that states that there will be equal rights to ALL citizens, denying the right of same sex couples to enjoy the same rights, the same priviledges, the same benefits, as different sex couples currently enjoy.

The basis for denying equal rights to many US citizens is rooted in verbage such as "sanctity of marriage". Of course, no one is addressing the fact that there is no "sanctity" to the roughly 50% of the same sex married couples who divorce each other, as if the easy termination of the marriage contract preserves such "sanctity". No, there exists already rights, benefits and priviledges enjoyed by these less that sanctimonious marriages...but they are not to be shared with same sex couples because....well, it's a wonder what the "because" is all about. Well, it's about discrimination.

There should NOT be a denial to same sex couples because doing so is counter to the very document that George Bush proposes to amend. Every citizen in our country is guaranteed equality under the law, except if you happen to have a homosexual orientation, in which case you will be denied such equality. This is discrimination that should not be tolerated. This is discrimination on the same order of when there was denial of equal rights for a black person to sit at the lunch counter, or to ride a bus, or even to drink from the same water fountains as white people; it is wrong, it is unamerican, and it should stop.

Nobody is seeking extra rights; nobody wants to be given more than what others are given, and can be given. The same sex couples merely seek to be given the same rights, the same opportunities, the same priviledges that different sex couples enjoy. America needs to either not provide such rights, benefits and priviledges to different sex couples or allow same sex couples the opportunity to enjoy those same rights, benefits and priviledges. Anything different than that is contrary to the laws of our great country.

[TheBaron]

I personally believe in civil unions, but more than that; why on Earth do we need to create an amendment to our constitution for such a thing? Do we really want another embarassing trend-amendement written into our constitution? I just keep thinking of the 18th and 21st Amendments- utterly embarassing.

[LRB]

The reason for the amendment would be to prevent the citizens of one or a handful of states to decicde to legalize sam sex marriage for all states. This would happen by citizens going to those states that allow same sex marriage, getting married there, and then returning to their home state which doesn't. The home state would be bound to recipically recognize the marriage. Alternatively they could refuse to recipically recognize the marriage, but this would likely lead to both states refusing to recipically recognize the marriage. This could lead to people needing to get married in every state that they wanted their marriage recognized in. Will these scenarios definitely play out unless an amendment is put in place? No one can be absolutely certain one way or another. IMO though it is a distinct possibility.

As far as discrimination, it really depends on you view as to whether it is treating some people differently or treating all people the same. IMO it isn't discrimination, because it treats all people the same. Any person, whether gay or straight or bi or any other sexual orientation, can get married now and would be able to under the new amendment. Every person would be limited in that they could only marry someone of the opposite sex. This is a consistent definition of marriage as a legal union between two people, one who must be male and one who must be female. Now I can understand why some people would disagree and say that it is discriminating against people who want to marry someone of the same sex as they are because most of these people are of a homosexual or at least bisexual orientation. This would place that group of people in the minority as most are heterosexual in their sexual orientation. However, I do not agree with this interpretation. I believe that we have the right to reserve marriage to retain it's current definition if that is what the legal majority wishes to happen. I do not see this as discrimination, since the same set of requirements apply to everyone equally, and each individual has the opportunity to meet them.

[TheBaron]

The reason for the amendment would be to prevent the citizens of one or a handful of states to decicde to legalize sam sex marriage for all states.

Why can't that be done with a federal law? Doesnt the constitution already say that a federal law trumps a state law? Why do we want a constitutional amendment to our sacred constitution when a federal law will do?

If we are going to associate the bible into our constitution then I have a few other Amendments that can be made

Amendment XXVIII No state shall sanction marriage between people of the same gender

Amendment XXIX No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32)

Amendment XXX No state shall sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law See Amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)

Amendment XXXI No state shall sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3, Numbers 25:6-8, 36: 3-9, 1 Kings 11:2, Ezra 9:2, Nehemiah 13:25-27)

Amendment XXXII No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

Amendment XXXIII No state shall sanction marriage between involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28)

Amendment XXXIV No state shall sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Amendment XXXV No state shall sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Ephesians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1)

Amendment XXXVII No state shall sanction marriage in which the marriage ceremony is to occur during the woman's mentrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period of uncleanliness has terminated (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6)

Amendment XXXVIII No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin (Leviticus 21:13-14)

Amendment XXXIX No state shall sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than the victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Amendment XXXX No state shall sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15)

[Mavdog]

The reason for the amendment would be to prevent the citizens of one or a handful of states to decicde to legalize sam sex marriage for all states. This would happen by citizens going to those states that allow same sex marriage, getting married there, and then returning to their home state which doesn't. The home state would be bound to recipically recognize the marriage. Alternatively they could refuse to recipically recognize the marriage, but this would likely lead to both states refusing to recipically recognize the marriage. This could lead to people needing to get married in every state that they wanted their marriage recognized in. Will these scenarios definitely play out unless an amendment is put in place? No one can be absolutely certain one way or another. IMO though it is a distinct possibility.

Similar situation existed under the label "Jim Crow Laws" where the states disenfranchised black voters, States cannot legislate laws which deny equal rights, just as the federal government is prohibited from doing such. This is NOT a State's rights issue, this is an INDIVIDUAL rights issue. The States DO NOT have the ability to pass discriminatory measures as such are prohibited under the US Constitution (and their State Constitution as well)

As far as discrimination, it really depends on you view as to whether it is treating some people differently or treating all people the same. IMO it isn't discrimination, because it treats all people the same.

No, it treats people AS IF they were all the same...which they are not. The citizens who do not have a hetero relationship cannot enjoy the same rights as those who are hetero. Seperate rights are not the answer, equal rights are. Those who do not desire to enter into a hetero relationship cannot enjoy the same rights as those who do enter into a hetero relationship, hence thay are being discriminated against if those in the hetero relationship are provided different rights (which they are). Every citizen should be given the same rights, benefits as are given to other citizens.

Any person, whether gay or straight or bi or any other sexual orientation, can get married now and would be able to under the new amendment.

Ridiculous. So a homosexual person CAN marry another of the opposite sex...but not a person of the same sex which they wish to establish a household with. To argue that they have the same right to marry is specious at best and dishonest at the worse.

Every person would be limited in that they could only marry someone of the opposite sex. This is a consistent definition of marriage as a legal union between two people, one who must be male and one who must be female.

No, that is a religious definition of marriage. The issue is the legal definition, and the access to the benefits bestowed on those married couples given by the government. If a church does not wish to marry same sex couples that is their right; the State however should not be allowed to provide the right to marriage (and ability to enjoy extra benefits/rights) to one group of its citizens while denying another group of its citizens the same right.

Now I can understand why some people would disagree and say that it is discriminating against people who want to marry someone of the same sex as they are because most of these people are of a homosexual or at least bisexual orientation.

NO, there are many (including myself) who are heterosexual but believe that we live in a country of equal rights for each and every citizen. If we give special rights/benefits/priviledges to one group, those same rights/benefits/priviledges should be available to every citizen. Right now they are not equally provided, and that is wrong IMHO. TO characterize the people who favor equal access as only self interested is flat out incorrect. One does not need to be a minority to understand how wrong discrimination by the majority against the minority is immoral.

This would place that group of people in the minority as most are heterosexual in their sexual orientation. However, I do not agree with this interpretation. I believe that we have the right to reserve marriage to retain it's current definition if that is what the legal majority wishes to happen. I do not see this as discrimination, since the same set of requirements apply to everyone equally, and each individual has the opportunity to meet them.

So according to your logic if the "legal majority" advocated that segregation and unequal treatment of blacks should continue, then it is OK and justifiable to accept such discrimination. After all, such inequality is acceptable "since the same set of requirements apply to everyone equally, and each individual has the opportunity to meet them".
Hogwash. We must treat everybody equally, not allowing one group more rights than another based on their personal desires of companionship. either we remove the extra rights and benefits enjoyed by hetero married couples or we extend such rights to homosexual couples.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: TheBaron



Why can't that be done with a federal law? Doesnt the constitution already say that a federal law trumps a state law? Why do we want a constitutional amendment to our sacred constitution when a federal law will do?

Baron, I honest can't answer this for sure. Maybe one of our legal scholars on the board can provide more information as to whether or not a federal law could accomplish this. From my understanding, the amendment is necessary because the Congress was not given authority to regulate this in the constitution. All rights not specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution belong to the states. So it would appear to me that the federal government doesn't have the authority to make laws to regulate marriage among the states without an amendment to the constitution.

As to your additional amendments based on the Bible, I would answer that the intent is not to enforce the Bible on everyone. The intent is to protect an institution, marriage, from change from moral reasons. Those moral reasons are supported by the Bible, and may very well generate there for many of the supporters. But the Bible is interpreted many ways by many people. A much larger consensus can be gathered to support a ban on same sex marriage than any of these other approvals. Mainly because the other passages you took out of the Bible are interpreted different ways and these "commandments" are not ingrained in the moral constitution of most individuals in the United States. I do not feel that this is a huge group of people following the Bible blindly, but rather following their conscience to do what they feel is right. There is a distinction, though it may be subtle to many.

[sike]

Originally posted by: LRB
The reason for the amendment would be to prevent the citizens of one or a handful of states to decicde to legalize sam sex marriages..

come on, let sam get married, hes a good guy....

[LRB]

Mavdog it is clear that you make an assumption that many do not. That is that people's sexuality is 100% beyond their control and is no way a choice. I do not agree with that and many others do not agree. I have no doubt that environmental and hereditary factor influence us to a degree and may even make someone more likely to choose a homosexual orientation. However, I do not believe that the person is totally without choice in the matter. At the very least there is not anywhere the amount of scientic evidence to indicate this as there is to indicate that a person has no choice in the color of skin that they are born with nor other racial features. Because of this reason I feel that it is inherently unfair to compare the plight of homosexuals with that of afro-americans.

Discrimination is justified by our society in many cases. Our whole set of criminal law discriminates against individuals who commit criminal offenses. Even civil law discriminates against individuals who make certain choices. So if you believe that an individual has some choice in their sexual orientation, then it only conforms with our existing system of laws that support discrimination against individuals who make certain choices.

What you also confuse the legal, religious, and common definitions of marriage. The legal definition has been throughout time exclusively a union between two sexes to the very best of my knowledge. If there were exceptions, they are few and far in between. Our system of laws are based on legal precedent. Ocassionally that precendent is overturned and rightfully so. But that is the very rare exception. And until it is overturned that is the accepted legal definition. If you look up marriage in most dicitionaries, you will get the definition of a legal union between a man and a woman as well. It just so happens that both are very close the the religious definition used by Christianity and Judism as well as some other religions. That is not surprising since our founding fathers brought much of our government from the Bible. Not everything in our government was brought from the Bible nor was everything in the Bible brought unto our government. Still there was a great deal of material brought from the Bible.

This issue is much more detailed and complex that you make it out to be. And I would say to totally trivalize the opposition's arguments and beliefs as you have is as you would say "specious at best and dishonest at the worse."

[sike]

the issue is surely complex LRB, I have two very different ideas about the subject: Relogious/Moral and Political. as a Pastor, I see the religious/moral issue as clear as day, but at the political level, I am much more foggy. The reason is this: how can a free society/government that permits/promotes freedom of sexual lifestyle turn around and deny a specific lifestyle the freedoms is grants other (supposedly equal) lifestyles....it would seem to be contradicting itself when it says it supports the equality of both hetro and homosexul life choices and then turns around and constricts the freedoms of one....
strange days.....

[LRB]

Sike I can see your conflict that you percieve politically. Our laws are enacted to protect the rights of individuals and society as a whole. There is always a trade off in granting indivuals rights, because someone else often loses some freedom. For example if a new law allowed everyone in town to play music as loud as they want to, you might have a difficult time sleeping if your neighbor liked to crank his stero up to max volume at 4 AM. I actually experience this situation in college.

So our laws try to balance the rights of the few against the rights of the many. Many times this is very easy. We deny the individual the right to kill or rob other with impunity. Other times it's much less clear. Such as limiting how close a bar or adult video store may operate in proximity to a elementary school. Or limiting an indiual the right to go totally nude in public. Both of these decision are based on morals. And under certain circumstances we allow business such as bars and adult video stores to operate and it's even legal to have nudist colonies on private land. But for moral implication we do limit these freedoms.

The issue of same sex marriage is probably one of the most complex in many ways. But essentially society wishes to limit the ability of changing the legal definition of marriage to include same sex unions for moral reasons. How this change could possibly harm other individuals is certainly much more complex to understand than most laws in the context of polictical views only. But many individuals do believe that damage would result if this change was made. The perceived conflict is between allowing freedom of lifestyle but not allowing changes to existing laws to allow marriage to be changed legally to incorporate some, but not all, additional lifestyles. Even if same sex marriage was allowed it still wouldn't allow marriage to meet the lifestyles of all individuals. For example those who believe in having multiple spouses would still be excluded.

I can see both sides arguments, but I happen to agree with the arguments not to allow same sex marriage. Not because I hate homosexuals or wish to harm them. Rather I believe that it will ensure the protection from damage of the greater part of society.

[sike]

LRB, so your argument is denial of homosexual marriage based upon what may be perceived as possible damage to society...lots of variables there....damage percieved by whom, damage to whom, etc...(indeed complex...and most likely fairly subjective)....

if the argument is, "if we allow this then we're gonna hafta allow that down the road", then welcome to a democratic republic....sometimes it rocks...sometimes it blows!

[Mavdog]

The question of what determines a person's sexual orientation is not answered completely, but it is clear however that the vast majority of homosexuals do not make a decision that they prefer members of their own sex. More and more data is uncovered, primarily by geneticist, that we are for the most part "programmed" as it relates to many of our individual traits. From ones ability with math, to one's reasoning abilities, to the failure of some to be able to logicaly think, all the way to perhaps our social inclinations, are given to us by the genes we were given. Those of us who have desires for the opposite sex didn't make the decision one day to be so, we just are attracted/stimulated in that way. It is fair to conclude that homosexuals have gone through the same process. Therefore it is (IMHO) an inate trait which the individual does not elect to have.

Discrimination is justified by our society in many cases. Our whole set of criminal law discriminates against individuals who commit criminal offenses. Even civil law discriminates against individuals who make certain choices. So if you believe that an individual has some choice in their sexual orientation, then it only conforms with our existing system of laws that support discrimination against individuals who make certain choices

The data does not support the premise that (for the majority of people) a person's sexual orientation is a choice, consequently the analogy of a homosexual to a criminal falls flat on its face. Criminals forfeit rights due to their actions, homosexuals should not forfeit any rights due to their sexual orientation.

What you also confuse the legal, religious, and common definitions of marriage

No, not in the least. Religious groups may continue to elect to not allow homosexuals, they can refuse to bestow their blessings of marriage and refuse to marry any same sex couples if they so wish. The State, however, cannot, as to deny the legal rights to same sex couples which different sex couples enjoy is true discrimination.
As far as the history of common law relative to homosexuals, well, we have progressed in numerous areas from the days of common law when common law was wrong; women's rights is one area, homosexual rights to equal treatment in our laws should be another.

This issue is much more detailed and complex that you make it out to be. And I would say to totally trivalize the opposition's arguments and beliefs as you have is as you would say "specious at best and dishonest at the worse."

Actually it's not so "detailed and complex". If a group of citizens are afforded special rights and benefits, all citizens should be entitled to those same rights and benefits. If we allow different sex couples to marry and get special tax consideration, same sex couples should have the right to those same special tax considerations. If we allow for special treatment on the heirs to one's estate due to a marriage, all citizens should be given that treatment regardless if they have a same sex partner or a different sex partner.

It is really simple- treat all family units the same regardless of their sexual orientation.

What was "specious and dishonest" was to state such as you did that today, homosexuals have the same opportunity to marry as heterosexuals do...just so long as those homosexuals act like they were heterosexuals and marry someone of the opposite sex. Ridiculous assertion IMHO.

[sike]

No, not in the least. Religious groups may continue to elect to not allow homosexuals, they can refuse to bestow their blessings of marriage and refuse to marry any same sex couples if they so wish.

true

The State, however, cannot, as to deny the legal rights to same sex couples which different sex couples enjoy is true discrimination

have we come to a point in our P.C. world where conclusions that offend are wrong? Mavdog why, is discrimination inherently wrong for the State? why is it wrong for the State to take a moral stance on the definition of Marriage? Explain your thougths. I am not being combative, simply interested...

[Mavdog]

No Sike, people should be less PC and more real. Many are to scared to openly discuss topics for fear of offending others.

Discrimination is wrong for society, and not discriminating is a legal obligation. Public policy is to not treat one group of citizens differently then another. The state has determined it should regulate marriage (a marriage license) and set the rules of marriage. Those rules should be evenly applied to all the citizens, so if there are any benefits or extraordinary rights associated with marriage all citizens should have equal access to those.
What public good is acheived by denying adults the right to pick their partner of choice? The answer is none.
Treat everyone equally. How can that not be best for all?

[dude1394]

As Scalia said when it stated that the state of texas could not legislate against this type of behaviour, when every action between people cannot be legislated by the state then this type of junk occurs. If the supreme court had upheld the rights of the state to legislate deviant behaviour, this wouldn't be an issue.

[steponhens]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It is really simple- treat all family units the same regardless of their sexual orientation.

Actually, the first definition of a family deals with more than two people, which cannot be the case with a same sex marriage.

IMO, marriage is used to keep the human race alive. The purpose of humans is to keep the human race going. In a same sex marriage there is absolutely no chance of them helping the human race continue, therefore they should not be allowed to get married to each other.

As LRB put it earlier, every man has the right to marry a woman.

[TheBaron]

Should the government be telling us what we can and cannot do in our bedrooms? What about yours, Dude?

[TheBaron]

Im just curious. Who here thinks of homosexual individuals as humans? If you believe that they are humans and you understand the science of sexual orientation as well as the wishes of our forefathers who originally wrote the constitution, then I can't see how you would support a constitutional amendment that would limit the freedom of Americans for the first time since prohibition.

If homosexuals are humans then they have inalienable rights such as Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Marriage is about equal civil rights and civil rights are given to all humans in the US
Marriage is about love and happiness so is a right given by our forefathers.
================================================== ====
Therefor a constitutional ban on gay marriage is inherently against the wishes of our forefathers and conflicts with the rest of the constitution.

Where does the "morality" of forcing one kind of marriage arise? Unless it comes from a secular place, then that further violates the wishes of our forefathers.

[Max Power]

Here was a great thread where most of the major issues were covered.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: steponhens
IMO, marriage is used to keep the human race alive. The purpose of humans is to keep the human race going. In a same sex marriage there is absolutely no chance of them helping the human race continue, therefore they should not be allowed to get married to each other.

This was discussed in the earlier thread but here it is again. Under that criteria, how do you allow the elderly to remarry? They can't have any more children. What about men or women who are sterile? Again, the couple can't have children. Heck, in France you can marry the dead. How is that allowing the human race to continue?

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: TheBaron
Should the government be telling us what we can and cannot do in our bedrooms? What about yours, Dude?

Well if society at large feel that what I'm doing in my bedroom is deviant and should not be tolerated, then yea? I personally do not know what that is. But if the government cannot do that then by definition there is NO deviancy. I don't see how you can create laws against any deviancy if you are saying that if you do it in your own home it's ok.

[TheBaron]

Heck, in France you can marry the dead. How is that allowing the human race to continue?

Im a progressive libertarian liberal and I think that is just bizarre.

That is a case where its only slightly about civil rights (only the right to inherit.)

[dude1394]

I think that homosexuals are human but that they are engaging in a practice which many in society feel is deviant. Nor do I feel that that marriage is a fundamental civil right like speech, movement, congregation, etc. All deviant behaviour is not a fundamental civil right either.

My take on this is that it's merely a political thrust attempting to continue moving homsexuality into the mainstream of our society and that this is just another political maneuver to promote this goal.

The crux of this is that the ability of "the people" to control deviant behaviour is weakened beyond recovery. For this reason I do not support it.

[dude1394]

It may be bizarre, but if marrying is a civil right, doesn't that person have a civil right to marry a "dog", "corpse", "child". ????

[twelli]

Originally posted by: steponhens

IMO, marriage is used to keep the human race alive.

To keep the human race alive there is no need for marriage, there is even no need for sex (it want take long before we will clone our babies...)

Marriage is for those people who are afraid of themselves or their partners being unfaithful and who hope that this kind of legal agreement gives them security. The funny (or sad) thing is that marriage is one big reason for being unfaithful since the feeling of being imprisoned makes you want to break free. The only good reason for marriage I can think of is the protection of children and their mother. If I were homosexual I wouldn't even waste a thought on the possibility of getting married. Enjoy your freedom! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Marriage is a committment between two people that they will live the rest of their lives together. Helping each other, supporting each other and putting the other before themselves. It's a sign of the depth of their committment.

Sure not everyone manages to make it work and I guess the same can happen between "friends". Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with/without being faithful.

[TheBaron]

Originally posted by: dude1394
It may be bizarre, but if marrying is a civil right, doesn't that person have a civil right to marry a "dog", "corpse", "child". ????

Ah! The slippery slope argument!

There is a fundamental difference between marrying someone you love, share feelings with and share a life with and a dog, child or corpse.

Do you see it?

The slippery slope argument goes both ways though. When we start placing restrictions on marriage based on traditional (religious) criteria, then we risk going too far. I've mentioned above other possible amendments that the Bible would demand.

[TheBaron]

I still don't understand how having loving, happy families in different forms is "deviant behavior"

[TheBaron]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Marriage is a committment between two people that they will live the rest of their lives together. Helping each other, supporting each other and putting the other before themselves. It's a sign of the depth of their committment.

Sure not everyone manages to make it work and I guess the same can happen between "friends". Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with/without being faithful.

agree totally. Marriage is love and commitment.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: TheBaron

Ah! The slippery slope argument!

There is a fundamental difference between marrying someone you love, share feelings with and share a life with and a dog, child or corpse.

Do you see it?

Of course there is a difference. However if we include same sex marriage solely on the basis of not desriminating against a group of people, then the same argument could be applied to those groups who wish to marry a dog or a child or a corpse. I would think that they would be a much smaller minority than homosexuals, but the question would be why would the argument for not discriminating stop with these groups?

[TheBaron]

LRB, where do you get your moral code from?

Why can we limit marriage based on sexual orientation?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sike
LRB, so your argument is denial of homosexual marriage based upon what may be perceived as possible damage to society...lots of variables there....damage percieved by whom, damage to whom, etc...(indeed complex...and most likely fairly subjective)....

if the argument is, "if we allow this then we're gonna hafta allow that down the road", then welcome to a democratic republic....sometimes it rocks...sometimes it blows!

Sike the argument of damage is very subjective as is the argument that no significant damage occurs as is the argument that not allowing homosexual marriages is discrimination. All the arguments depend on how you view them. There are many different ways to view them.

I contend that the family unit based upon a marriage of between a man and a woman is essential for our society to continue to thrive and grow. I believe that altering the legal definition of marriage would lead to serious repercussion in society in the years to come. The damage would be done to many individuals. While it is quite possible to raise a child outside of a traditional family and have that child be a well adjusted and contributing member of society, I do believe that it is much more likely for this to happen than not within a tradional family. There are exceptions on either side. Obviously there are also many factors at play here. But I do belive that any society should have the ability to enforce the moral values that it feels are essential for it's well being. That is why we all enjoy the freedoms that we do. To insure the freedoms for many, we may needs to accept some restrictions. Now as to whether this is a necessary and benefical restriction is subjective. Our society in this country, generally determines this with a majority opinion.

[madape]

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: madape

That was damn funny ape!

[LRB]

Originally posted by: TheBaron
LRB, where do you get your moral code from?

Why can we limit marriage based on sexual orientation?

Baron the basis for my moral code is founded upon my religious convictions. As to why we should not alter marriage to include homosexual unions, I feel that doing so would ultimately damage our society. I feel that as citizens of a self governing society that we have the right to limit the legal definition of marriage to what will best benefit society. We bear the responsibility of not unduely discriminating against a smaller group of our society, because that would ultimately damage our society as well. In the same manner, we bear the responsibility of not letting a small group of our society to impose it's will in a manner which will unduely damage other portions of our society. There is always a balance that needs to be maintained. On this issue, I feel that the best balance is not to allow same sex marriages.

[MavKikiNYC]

But I do belive that any society should have the ability to enforce the moral values that it feels are essential for it's well being. That is why we all enjoy the freedoms that we do. To insure the freedoms for many, we may needs to accept some restrictions. Now as to whether this is a necessary and benefical restriction is subjective. Our society in this country, generally determines this with a majority opinion.

This point of view is in stark contrast to the fairly widely held view that the U.S. Constitution and the Billl of Rights serve to protect the CIVIL rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, yadda, yadda, yadda) of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

In the same manner, we bear the responsibility of not letting a small group of our society to impose it's will in a manner which will unduely damage other portions of our society. There is always a balance that needs to be maintained. On this issue, I feel that the best balance is not to allow same sex marriages.

Civil rights are not negotiable.

I do appreciate the willingness shown to express a point of view here and in other posts. One thing, though, that has never been satisfactorily articulated (for me, at least) is how society will be damaged by allowing same-sex marriages. The argument was offered earlier that in one poster's opinion, children in a two-parent, different-sex household would be more likely to grow up well-adjusted. But what about same-sex partners (or different-sex partners for that matter) who don't want to have children? How is this applicable to their case? And this really doesn't address how families will be damaged. Furthermore, a growing body of studies (this is a relatively new phenomenon after all) show that children reared by same-sex partners are every bit as well-adjusted as children reared by different-sex partners/parents.

Beyond that, would this reasoning be used to deny single-parents the right to have children? Of course not. The reality is that the idealised concept of family (two parents, different-sex partenrs) has been less and less common in recent years, and the hypothetical well-adjusted child coming out of this ideal is often not borne out. Meanwhile, there are REAL (not hypothetical) children to be raised by one parent families, by adoptive families, and increasingly by same-sex partners. These children should not be denied any of the legal protections and economic benefits conferred upon the children of different-sex partners.

Similarly, there is real damage, real pain, real hurt, and a real sense of inferiority inflicted upon homosexuals who are told that they are immoral; that they are not worthy of the same rights, the same CIVIL rights, as heterosexuals; and that they cannot and should not ever aspire to share the same values and ideals of love, commitment and family as heterosexuals.

The opponents of equal rights for same-sex partners cleave to an ABSTRACTION of an ideal family, and to a sanctity of marriage for heterosexuals only, all the while denying or ignoring the all-too-REAL psychic pain they inflict on their REAL brothers and sisters, REAL sons and daughters, and REAL friends, neighbors-next-door and co-workers.

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you".

Matthew 5:10-12

[TheBaron]

As to why we should not alter marriage to include homosexual unions, I feel that doing so would ultimately damage our society. I feel that as citizens of a self governing society that we have the right to limit the legal definition of marriage to what will best benefit society.

How would homosexuality damage our society? Im still curious how two loving men getting married is bad for the society. Can you explain that?

Baron the basis for my moral code is founded upon my religious convictions

Our forefathers specifically warned against creating laws based on religious conviction. The seperation of church and state has never been preserved, but if we were to follow the same archaic laws that the Bible provided for us then we would have to pass the following amendments as well.

Amendment XXVIII No state shall sanction marriage between people of the same gender

Amendment XXIX No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32)

Amendment XXX No state shall sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law See Amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)

Amendment XXXI No state shall sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3, Numbers 25:6-8, 36: 3-9, 1 Kings 11:2, Ezra 9:2, Nehemiah 13:25-27)

Amendment XXXII No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

Amendment XXXIII No state shall sanction marriage between involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28)

Amendment XXXIV No state shall sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Amendment XXXV No state shall sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Ephesians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1)

Amendment XXXVII No state shall sanction marriage in which the marriage ceremony is to occur during the woman's mentrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period of uncleanliness has terminated (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6)

Amendment XXXVIII No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin (Leviticus 21:13-14)

Amendment XXXIX No state shall sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than the victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Amendment XXXX No state shall sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15)

What is the difference between disallowing interracial marriage (which was done in the US) and disallowing gay marriage? Why do we still believe in opposing homosexual marriage but we have made it legal for those of different races to marry?


We obviously have created laws based on some of the parts of the Bible- our incest laws are based on Leviticus 18:6-18, but what determines what proclamation becomes a law and what doesnt? What is the fundamental difference between sexual orientation and race?

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: TheBaron

How would homosexuality damage our society? Im still curious how two loving men getting married is bad for the society. Can you explain that?

Because it is a slippery slope. If you allow a variant union then it establishes precedent for ANOTHER variant union (variant is not meant as a slur - it is just a term to mean that something isn't the norm).

So then the courts would have to rule (eventually) whether a father could marry his daughter (or his son). And what about multiple partner marriages? Why shouldn't a man be allowed to marry 2 women? Or a woman marry two men? What about two men and two women?

All these points were well covered by kg in the thread that I linked earlier.

[steponhens]

This is not just about homosexuals getting married. If they are allowed to get married then there will be many other debates about marriage and how it is controlled. What happens to people who want to have more than one wife? If it doesn't hurt anybody else than shouldn't that be allowed? It is a bigger issue than just about homosexuals being able to marry.

[TheBaron]

I dont find variant to be a bad term. I see "deviant" as relating to natural sexual orientations offensive.

BUT, the "slippery slope" argument is a bad argument because we have laws based on some religious (moral) codes, but not on others.

During the civil rights movement people said that allowing black people to marry white people was the first step in allowing people to marry their dogs, etc. After all, marrying outside your race is against the same good book that says that you should not sleep with your sister. Nothing like that ever happened. Giving two loving people, whether white black, male or female the ability to marry does not mean that we will allow people to marry within their family or outside our species. That is just false.