• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
First off, why do you keep mentioning bestiality? That would be a legal contract between a human and an animal, and that is not allowed for any contract.
As is demonstrated above their is clearly much more correlation between incest marriage and same-sex marriage. In fact it is word for word identical.

To clear things up for you, the following are types of marriage that you've mentioned and the basis they are discriminated on:
1) SSM: Gender
2) Incest: Familial Relation
3) Polygamy: Marital Status
4) Bestiality: Species

Only one of those things has ever been brought up in civil rights legislation: gender. It is not illegal to discriminate based on any of the others. That is why the situations are not comparable.
So you could discriminate based on gender except for special laws passed preventing it. Sounds like that is an argument in favor of being able to legislate that marriage is between opposite gendered people.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Oh conflation. How sad.


Also, I'd be pleased if the bigots do not get to dictate language, so I'd like to see no abandonment of the word marriage; ceding it would only reward the intolerant.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Oh conflation. How sad.


Also, I'd be pleased if the bigots do not get to dictate language, so I'd like to see no abandonment of the word marriage; ceding it would only reward the intolerant.
I approve of your honesty.

At least you admit you do not believe in marriage.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
So you could discriminate based on gender except for special laws passed preventing it. Sounds like that is an argument in favor of being able to legislate that marriage is between opposite gendered people.
Not exactly. From what I understand from the Equal Protection Clause the interpretation is that discrimination based on sex must pass Intermediate Scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.[22]
So still, the default position is not to discriminate based on sex unless you have a good reason. This type of scrutiny does not apply to any of your strawmen, which makes it a completely different issue.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Marriage is not a matter of personal freedom. Marriage is about giving up personal freedom for the good of society by creating a new stable family to raise children. In return for giving up this freedom you receive certain benefits.
False. There is no requirement for procreation once married.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
False. There is no requirement for procreation once married.
I was explaining why it exists.

EDIT: Contrary to what liberals believe it was not created to give people tax breaks. Although if they played that up a little more maybe they could get Republican support?
 
Last edited:
Nov 29, 2006
14,500
2,210
126
I was explaining why it exists.

EDIT: Contrary to what liberals believe it was not created to give people tax breaks. Although if they played that up a little more maybe they could get Republican support?
Sometimes its a marriage penalty tax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

"In 1996, 42% of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single according to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis.[3] The average penalty among these couples was $1,380. Conversely, the same CBO analysis concluded that 51% of married couples paid less tax jointly than they would have collectively paid if they were not been married, with average savings of $1,300. The reason that one couple would receive a benefit while another would receive a penalty sits in whether the couple's individual incomes were disparate (resulting in a benefit) or roughly equal (resulting in a penalty).[4]"
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
I was explaining why it exists.

EDIT: Contrary to what liberals believe it was not created to give people tax breaks. Although if they played that up a little more maybe they could get Republican support?
But that's not why it exists. If one is married and has children then one could pass on property and wealth to those children if one chose to do so. One can specify in one's will exactly how their wealth is distributed and it's not always to one's children.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
The marriage restrictions were not ubiquitous. Jane could marry Steve even while John could not. Billy Bob, Steve's brother, could never marry Steve because of his unique relationship to Steve. Continuing to disallow Billy Bob to marry Steve is not a violation of Billy Bob's right to equal protection, because nobody gets to marry their own brother.
While I agree with you on SSM, I don't think this is a logical response to the analogies raised by Nehalem, and it misses the real crux of the issue.

Indeed, Billy Bob is not entitled to marry Steve, because no one is entitled to marry a sibling. Similarly, John is not entitled to marry Steve, because no one is entitled to marry someone of the same sex. In both cases, there are other people who are entitled to marry Steve, so both are being discriminated against, right?

The real difference between the two, and the reason incest is a poor analogy, is that the crux of not allowing SSM is discrimination against people with an identifiable status, whether it comes from biology, learning, or some combination of the two. We think it's unfair that Steve can't marry John because Steve is a member of an identifiable group with a preference which they cannot change.

By contrast, there is no status of being pre-disposed toward incest. There are just individuals who are attracted to specific family members. Disallowing a particular behavior is one thing if it is just a behavior of an individual because we think the person does not have to engage in that behavior. When you disallow the behavior which stems from an immutable status, that is another thing entirely. You can disallow the behavior, but then you are dooming that person to a life of not being able to act according to who they essentially are. Disallowing SSM is status based discrimination which stigmatizes all members of a certain class. Disallowing incest is just prohibiting a behavior.

Another way to put it is this. If John cannot marry his sister Jane, it is no different than not being able to marry Suzy because Suzy isn't interested. He might really want to marry his sister Jane, but he can find another woman to marry. If John can't marry Steve or any other man, then he has no options because he isn't interested in women.

Bestiality is theoretically a closer example because it is a sexual preference and therefore may be a status of some kind, like homo and hetero-sexuality. The problem there was identified by Actuarial: marriage is a contract, and contracts under the law are only recognized where both participants are mentally competent enough to understand its terms. There are extremely good reasons for this. A "marriage" between a man and an animal is a unilateral arrangement. Contracts are bilateral and require mutual consent.

Polygamy is the best case for arguing hypocrisy since it may be status based, i.e. the preference for polygamy could in theory be biological, but is certainly based on culture and/or religion. However, the world is not ready for it yet. The 1960's would not have been a time to argue for SSM, because most gays were still in the closet then. They first had to come out and be accepted as people. This happened gradually over time. Note that the 1970's were not a time of arguing for SSM. They were still arguing that gays shouldn't be booted from the teaching profession, for example. Acceptance is a process and there is a time to embark on each step.

The trouble with polygamists is that, TBH, they are widely perceived as child molesters. This isn't fair to the ones who are not, but we aren't going to get recognition of polygamist marriage unless or until that perception changes. If the molesters are in reality a tiny percentage, then the non-molesters need to make that case in order to clean up their public image. If the molesters are the majority or a large minority, then it will not change until the molesting stops or is greatly diminished. This is a material reality that will have to change before there is even any point in arguing the case for polygamist marriage. I may agree in principle that non-molesting polygamists should be entitled to legally recognized marriage but there is no point in even discussing it yet; it has no chance of happening until the perception of polygamists changes, just as the perception of homosexuals has.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
While I agree with you on SSM, I don't think this is a logical response to the analogies raised by Nehalem, and it misses the real crux of the issue.

Indeed, Billy Bob is not entitled to marry Steve, because no one is entitled to marry a sibling. Similarly, John is not entitled to marry Steve, because no one is entitled to marry someone of the same sex. In both cases, there are other people who are entitled to marry Steve, so both are being discriminated against, right?

The real difference between the two, and the reason incest is a poor analogy, is that the crux of not allowing SSM is discrimination against people with an identifiable status, whether it comes from biology, learning, or some combination of the two. We think it's unfair that Steve can't marry John because Steve is a member of an identifiable group with a preference which they cannot change.
He can get married(to a person of the opposite sex). He simply does not want to. Which is no different than an asexual person.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
If ickyness is the only underlying reason for opposition to gay marriage, then what rational basis exists for denying it to polygamous or group marriages? Or to family members?
For both groups, the possibility exists of insular cult-type situations where young girls are married off the family members or in harem situations without ever really being free of the group's domination. That is not to my knowledge a statistically significant risk with gay marriage. With polygynous (though not with polyandrous, which limits birth rates) marriage, the possibility increases that a man can sire children the state (meaning us taxpayers) will have to support - although given that some men now sire children numbering in the twenties and even in the thirties, I think that ship has sailed and is currently running on hydrofoils. Child custody also becomes a much thornier question in polygamous marriages - is a child better off with its birth mother than with its three other parents? I don't agree that the need for a new body of law is sufficient reason to deny providing equal protection, but it is an additional complicating factor. With incestuous marriage, there is an increased possibility of serious birth defects, again leading to a societal burden.

I don't agree that either of these is necessarily sufficiently risky to ban. Given the widespread irresponsibility of out-of-wedlock births the parents can't support now, I don't know that polygamists could do much worse, and with modern society's mobility and gene mixing I seriously doubt one generation's incestuous coupling would be statistically a higher risk. Therefore I don't necessarily oppose polygamy or consanguineous marriages. I wouldn't even argue that allowing polygynous or consanguineous marriages is a greater change to our traditional definition of marriage than is gay marriage.

But I would argue three things. First, that gay marriage offers somewhat less risk to a modern (in this case, meaning welfare) state than do polygynous or consanguineous marriages. Second, that adopting gay marriage is closer to equal protection and equal rights under the law (selecting ONE spouse, without government interference) than adopting polygamous or consanguineous marriages - although that point is admittedly fine enough to cut he who grasps it too tightly. That's especially true for consanguinity. And third, that the general public is much closer to accepting gay marriage than to accepting polygamous or consanguineous marriages. Personally I'm fine with gay marriage, polygamous marriage, and consanguineous marriage as long as no one is coerced and I don't have to directly financially subsidize it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I agree 100% with this post. Well put. As for the bolded part, well, we are just people but we do have special decoder rings. :D j/k
Dang it, now I feel deprived!

Not exactly. From what I understand from the Equal Protection Clause the interpretation is that discrimination based on sex must pass Intermediate Scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

So still, the default position is not to discriminate based on sex unless you have a good reason. This type of scrutiny does not apply to any of your strawmen, which makes it a completely different issue.
That should apply to any freedoms which government wishes to constrain.

I can certainly see the similarities between gay marriage and consanguineous and polygamous marriages. However, the very lowest estimate of homosexuality is about 2%, which gives us roughly six million Americans denied one of our most basic rights. By the highest estimates, we would have roughly thirty million Americans denied one of our most basic rights. It should be obvious that removing discrimination from this number of Americans is a rather pressing issue compared to whether or not government has the moral authority to continue blocking consanguineous and polygamous marriages, and in any case, as a conservative I'm more comfortable making small changes in our society and seeing how that goes. Plenty of time to decide later whether or not there are legitimate reasons to continue banning consanguineous and polygamous marriages, but whatever we as a society decide on those issues, continual discrimination against a very small minority is no justification to continue discrimination against a much larger minority. Under this "logic" we'd still be banning miscegenation.

Which gives me another thought: Up until the sixties, it was pretty well accepted that we could no longer control whether someone had interracial sex, but we could still ban interracial marriage. We're now at that point with gay marriage; gay sex and cohabitation are widely accepted and even legally protected behaviors. From a purely practical standpoint, allowing the things that are detrimental to society while banning the things that strengthen a society is some pretty fucked up behavior. Granted, gay sex and cohabitation are not very detrimental to society (as far as I know, no gay couples have accidentally produced children they don't want and/or can't support) so the metaphor breaks down fairly quickly, but certainly extending the stabilizing influence of the institution of marriage to gay couples can only strengthen our society.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
So if nobody gets to marry their own brother, and that is not discrimination.

then clear

if nobody gets to marry someone of their own gender, that is also not discrimination.
Wrong still, because Jane can still marry Steve while John cannot. John's rights are not equal to Jane's, then. Eliminating a certain class of people (family) for everyone preserves the equal protection of everyone's rights. Eliminating one class of people for one group (males for males) and another class of people for another group (females for females) specifically violates equal protection.

Seriously. Learn to think. This isn't very hard.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
He can get married(to a person of the opposite sex). He simply does not want to. Which is no different than an asexual person.
Yes, but him "not wanting to" is not his choice. He has a preference which he cannot change. The person who wants to marry his sister can still marry another woman. He's prevented only from marrying his first choice of woman, not from marrying some other woman who he may find attractive. The homosexual is prevented from marrying anyone he may find attractive.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Wrong still, because Jane can still marry Steve while John cannot. John's rights are not equal to Jane's, then. Eliminating a certain class of people (family) for everyone preserves the equal protection of everyone's rights. Eliminating one class of people for one group (males for males) and another class of people for another group (females for females) specifically violates equal protection.

Seriously. Learn to think. This isn't very hard.
There is no difference. Just define the "class" as people of the opposite gender.



Yes, but him "not wanting to" is not his choice. He has a preference which he cannot change. The person who wants to marry his sister can still marry another woman. He's prevented only from marrying his first choice of woman, not from marrying some other woman who he may find attractive. The homosexual is prevented from marrying anyone he may find attractive.
And an asexual is prevented from marrying anyone because of a preference they cannot change.

And when is it ever your "Choice" to not want to do things.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Yes, but him "not wanting to" is not his choice. He has a preference which he cannot change. The person who wants to marry his sister can still marry another woman. He's prevented only from marrying his first choice of woman, not from marrying some other woman who he may find attractive. The homosexual is prevented from marrying anyone he may find attractive.
I was all set to disagree until that last sentence. Still, I think it's a side issue. Whether or not someone primarily attracted to the same sex can choose to marry (or to find attractive) someone of the opposite sex should be immaterial to whether or not government should have the power to deny her choice. Government should have to show a compelling societal interest to constrain individual liberty or to discriminate, not attempt to determine whether or not you have other options.

If a lady dates and beds both men and women, but decides to marry another woman, how is that my business? And if it's not my business, why then should government act in my name to prevent her from doing so?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Granted, gay sex and cohabitation are not very detrimental to society (as far as I know, no gay couples have accidentally produced children they don't want and/or can't support) so the metaphor breaks down fairly quickly, but certainly extending the stabilizing influence of the institution of marriage to gay couples can only strengthen our society.
1/5 gay men has HIV.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I was all set to disagree until that last sentence. Still, I think it's a side issue. Whether or not someone primarily attracted to the same sex can choose to marry (or to find attractive) someone of the opposite sex should be immaterial to whether or not government should have the power to deny her choice. Government should have to show a compelling societal interest to constrain individual liberty or to discriminate, not attempt to determine whether or not you have other options.

If a lady dates and beds both men and women, but decides to marry another woman, how is that my business? And if it's not my business, why then should government act in my name to prevent her from doing so?
If someone does not want the government involved in their business then they should not get married. Marriage is by definition requesting that society (government) get involved in your business.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You rail against people who don't want all the benefits of marriage simply because it's called a 'civil union' but you are guilty of the exact same focus on the word used rather than the function.
The religious institution existed first. It has a meaning. If you want to randomly change what words when why not start calling oak trees pine trees...they are both trees, after all.

Here is an example I think everyone can understand, and it uses trees:

Hetero union = oak tree
Homo union = pine tree

A oak and a pine are both trees, but they are not the same thing so they have different names.

Hetero and homo unions are both unions, but they are not the same thing so they have different names.

Hetero union is called marriage. But since that word is already taken, we cannot use it for something different, even if similiar. A new name is needed OR we remove the naming altogether and simply just have unions.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So as long as everyone is allowed to marry someone of the same race it's not racial discrimination?

Here's an easy test to see if you are discriminating based on gender (or anything else). Can you answer the question of 'Can Jamie marry Peyton?' without asking a question about their gender?
Are Jamie or Peyton already married, are they siblings or first cousins, are they of legal age?

You forgot all the other items which you say are not discriminatory so you can latch onto one and say only that one item is discriminatory.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
1/5 gay men has HIV.
Personally I doubt that, but assuming it's true, that's a pretty strong reason for a hetero male like myself to support gay marriage. How many men marry women, but secretly have gay sex with anonymous men? Of those, how many would actually prefer to be married to a man were it legal and free of stigma?

Assuming the answer to both questions is a non-negative integer, which certainly seems likely, both my and a gay man's chances of contracting this incurable disease would undeniably be lessened were gay marriage legal and accepted. Mine because there would be fewer closeted men infecting women I might one day screw, his because he would not have to leave his home to get the sex he craves.

Meets my definition of a win-win.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
False.

There is no "creation" of any rights. People are already guaranteed equal rights under the Constitution, and a prohibition of same-sex marriage is in fact the denial of that guaranteed right.

If Jane has the right to marry Steven, but John does not have the right to marry Steven, then Jane and John do not have equal rights. Ceasing to prohibit John from marrying Steve is not creating a new right. It is extending a right that already exists to a class of people who have been guaranteed equal protection yet denied it.

Neither Jane, nor John, nor Steven have the right to be polygamists, incestuous, or copulate with animals, and everyone is denied that right equally.

You are at war with the facts, and quite frankly it is as amusing as it is pathetic.
So you say male and female bathrooms are unconstitutional...as well as Curves (woman only fitness club), right? Right?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Same-sex marriage prohibition is discrimination again people who are entitled to a right that other people already enjoy. Nobody has the right to be a polygamist, incestuous, or copulate with animals.

This is why people hold you in such low regard around here.
Using your own logic, we should also say that nobody has the right to be a same sex unionist. Other people do not already enjoy that.

This is why people hold you in such low regard around here...that and the magic man who makes words disappear in the posts you read.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY