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

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
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?
I'm not really sure if we disagree here. Remember, my entire post was drawing a distinction between disallowing SSM and disallowing incestuous marriage. I'm not sure how you can critique what I said without addressing the comparison/contrast I was discussing.

I'm not saying that whether the individual has a choice is relevant as a matter of Constitutional law. I'm saying there is a moral distinction between disallowing these 2 forms of marriage because the impact of one is much worse for the individual than the impact of the other. Nehalem is saying the two are analogous and I do not agree.

If you are actually disagreeing and arguing that the two ought to be treated the same under the law, then we've broached another subject. You're certainly wrong under Equal Protection. Equal Protection applies to classes of people, with a sliding scale depending on how much historical discrimination those classes have received. People who engage in incest are not a class. Incest is a behavior, not a status or preference. Saying that people who engage in incest are a class is similar to saying we can't criminalize thievery because thieves are a class that is being discriminated against.

With gays we don't criminalize their behavior (i.e. sodomy) anymore, because we recognize that the behavior is a function of a status of being homosexual, i.e. the preference for same sex, which used to not be recognized. Back in the day, a homosexual was called a sodomite because no one acknowledged that there were people who preferred the same sex. But now we know it is a preference and a status and hence we should have heightened scrutiny when it comes to issues affecting same sex behaviors, such as SSM.

BTW, I think the state should have at least a rational basis to disallow any sort of private and personal behavior like sex/marriage, etc., including incest. I just don't think that disallowing SSM raises the exact same moral and legal questions as disallowing incest.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
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.
True - but how is that justification for discrimination? I want government to provide roads; should I then accept that those of us with blue eyes cannot drive cars because I've invited government into my business?

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.
Certainly those things are discriminatory. No one is arguing that there should not be discrimination, only that there should not be discrimination without good and compelling reasons.

I'm an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. That doesn't mean I want to see Charles Manson with a flamethrower, it simply means that I don't want government deciding that, say, only people with skin tones within a nice median brown range can own guns, or that blue-eyed people can shoot guns but not own them, or that only 16 gauge shotguns with walnut stocks and chrome hardware are acceptable arms. Discrimination is not bad, only discrimination without just cause. Any constraint of individual liberty, and especially any difference in how the law treats individuals or groups, needs very convincing reasons behind it. "It's tradition" is not a very convincing reason, it's simply evidence of existence. It's tradition to eat black-eyed peas on New Year's Day; that's not a good and compelling reason for government to mandate eating black-eyed peas on New Year's Day.

The argument that allowing gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage is not compelling either. If I'm one of a hundred people in the USA allowed to own a gun, my right is pretty special; allowing ten million more people does diminish the value of my right to own a gun. (Not that this diminishing is in and of itself a valid reason not to expand gun ownership rights, it's not.) If I'm one of three hundred million people in the USA allowed to own a gun, allowing ten million more people to own guns does not diminish the value of my right to own a gun, or weaken the Second Amendment. Similarly, if I am one of three hundred million people in the USA allowed to marry the person of my choice (assuming she is competent, of age, and not my close blood relative, and neither of us are currently married to other people), allowing ten million more people this same right does not diminish the value of my right to marry. Rights can have value if they are exclusive, but institutions have strength based on participation, not exclusivity. That should be axiomatic; if no one was allowed to marry there would be no institution of marriage, and if only 1% were allowed to marry there would be a very weak institution of marriage in which hardly anyone participated. The danger to the institution of marriage comes in my mind principally from government making it disadvantageous (marriage tax penalties and welfare qualifications come to mind) and in removing factors that argue for formalized unions rather than from over-participation and expansion of rights.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Certainly those things are discriminatory. No one is arguing that there should not be discrimination, only that there should not be discrimination without good and compelling reasons.

The danger to the institution of marriage comes in my mind principally from government making it disadvantageous (marriage tax penalties and welfare qualifications come to mind) and in removing factors that argue for formalized unions rather than from over-participation and expansion of rights.
Agreed, there must be some discrimination, and the only ones I can see which should remain are that all parties involved must be human and must be of legal age (which varies slightly based on the state).

There is no compelling reason to deny polygamy if we setup a limited framework for it (to prevent it from getting unruley from a legal standpoint), I can expound on this further if anyone wants to hear, I have given much thought to it.

There is also no compelling reason to deny incestuous unions, provided both parties were sterilized (even via a reversable procedure) to prevent the massive increase in genetic defects which would otherwise result.


The easiest way to accomadate all the different types of unions is to remove the legal form of marriage and replace it with a civil union. Then, as needed, a new type of civil union can be quickly created when we find one is needed.

It really works for all. It stops the battle of government vs religion and it gives rights to new groups. It can be done quickly as well.

Non-extreimist religon followers will support it, non-extremist homosexuals will support it...what is there not to like?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Equal Protection applies to classes of people, with a sliding scale depending on how much historical discrimination those classes have received. People who engage in incest are not a class. Incest is a behavior, not a status or preference. Saying that people who engage in incest are a class is similar to saying we can't criminalize thievery because thieves are a class that is being discriminated against.

With gays we don't criminalize their behavior (i.e. sodomy) anymore, because we recognize that the behavior is a function of a status of being homosexual, i.e. the preference for same sex, which used to not be recognized. Back in the day, a homosexual was called a sodomite because no one acknowledged that there were people who preferred the same sex. But now we know it is a preference and a status and hence we should have heightened scrutiny when it comes to issues affecting same sex behaviors, such as SSM.

BTW, I think the state should have at least a rational basis to disallow any sort of private and personal behavior like sex/marriage, etc., including incest. I just don't think that disallowing SSM raises the exact same moral and legal questions as disallowing incest.
You do know incest lands you in jail, which is why you do not see people admitting to it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I'm not really sure if we disagree here. Remember, my entire post was drawing a distinction between disallowing SSM and disallowing incestuous marriage. I'm not sure how you can critique what I said without addressing the comparison/contrast I was discussing.

I'm not saying that whether the individual has a choice is relevant as a matter of Constitutional law. I'm saying there is a moral distinction between disallowing these 2 forms of marriage because the impact of one is much worse for the individual than the impact of the other. Nehalem is saying the two are analogous and I do not agree.

If you are actually disagreeing and arguing that the two ought to be treated the same under the law, then we've broached another subject. You're certainly wrong under Equal Protection. Equal Protection applies to classes of people, with a sliding scale depending on how much historical discrimination those classes have received. People who engage in incest are not a class. Incest is a behavior, not a status or preference. Saying that people who engage in incest are a class is similar to saying we can't criminalize thievery because thieves are a class that is being discriminated against.

With gays we don't criminalize their behavior (i.e. sodomy) anymore, because we recognize that the behavior is a function of a status of being homosexual, i.e. the preference for same sex, which used to not be recognized. Back in the day, a homosexual was called a sodomite because no one acknowledged that there were people who preferred the same sex. But now we know it is a preference and a status and hence we should have heightened scrutiny when it comes to issues affecting same sex behaviors, such as SSM.

BTW, I think the state should have at least a rational basis to disallow any sort of private and personal behavior like sex/marriage, etc., including incest. I just don't think that disallowing SSM raises the exact same moral and legal questions as disallowing incest.
I don't disagree with any of your rationale. I just disagree that government has any business considering why someone wants to marry a particular individual. Asking the question of whether someone is homosexual by choice or not implies that there are different correct actions depending on that answer; I am saying there are not different correct actions depending on that answer, so let's not ask it. For instance, I once knew a woman who was dated raped, cut up and left for dead. After that, she became a lesbian because she could not face the thought of sex with any man. Physical contact, yes; I've given her bare back massages, with which she had no problem. But sex, no. Homosexuality was for her a choice. Is she therefore less entitled to marry because she chose to be a lesbian? I know another woman who is quite bisexual. Should she not be allowed to marry a woman because she has the option of "normal" marriage?

You and I are in complete agreement on gay marriage, and I didn't mean to critique what you said. I'm just saying let's not use the issue of whether or not it's a choice as justification. If someone wants to marry another person of the same sex, and they are otherwise qualified to marry, that should be enough justification.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
So you say male and female bathrooms are unconstitutional...as well as Curves (woman only fitness club), right? Right?
In a strict sense, segregated public bathrooms are a violation of equal protection, but I don't think you'd gain much traction trying to take that one to the supreme court.

Curves is a private institution, not the government so go ahead and fuck right off with your stupid red herrings.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
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.
What the fuck are you talking about? Until it was expressly prohibited, it was a right that everyone enjoyed. The law doesn't grant the people rights, dumbfuck. The people's rights are inherent, and the law restricts them where necessary.

This is why people hold you in such low regard around here...
My arguments stand for themselves, and do not depend on the approval of others.

...that and the magic man who makes words disappear in the posts you read.
What?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
There is no difference. Just define the "class" as people of the opposite gender.
The difference is right there staring you in the face. You are simply gainsaying at this point because cannot mount an argument in rebuttal. "The opposite gender" is not a class of people. "Males" is a class of people. "Right-handed" is a class of people. Jesus Hume Christ, get an education, you lunkhead.


And an asexual is prevented from marrying anyone because of a preference they cannot change.
In what universe?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Agreed, there must be some discrimination, and the only ones I can see which should remain are that all parties involved must be human and must be of legal age (which varies slightly based on the state).

There is no compelling reason to deny polygamy if we setup a limited framework for it (to prevent it from getting unruley from a legal standpoint), I can expound on this further if anyone wants to hear, I have given much thought to it.

There is also no compelling reason to deny incestuous unions, provided both parties were sterilized (even via a reversable procedure) to prevent the massive increase in genetic defects which would otherwise result.


The easiest way to accomadate all the different types of unions is to remove the legal form of marriage and replace it with a civil union. Then, as needed, a new type of civil union can be quickly created when we find one is needed.

It really works for all. It stops the battle of government vs religion and it gives rights to new groups. It can be done quickly as well.

Non-extreimist religon followers will support it, non-extremist homosexuals will support it...what is there not to like?
I have no objections to government calling marriage a civil union for everyone, I just don't see any benefit. I have a huge objection to government setting up different types of civil unions. That's like the coach saying "to combat racial disharmony I consider all my players to be green, now let's have the light green guys shooting baskets and the dark green guys running laps." Separate but equal is never equal, else it wouldn't need to be separate. Thus eliminating government's role in 'marriage' and replacing it with the exact same role in "civil unions" just opens the door for the continuation of the same resource-wasting battle as proponents of "real marriage" try to get for themselves special privileges whilst their opponents try to keep up.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,491
136
After that, she became a lesbian because she could not face the thought of sex with any man. Physical contact, yes; I've given her bare back massages, with which she had no problem. But sex, no. Homosexuality was for her a choice. Is she therefore less entitled to marry because she chose to be a lesbian? I know another woman who is quite bisexual. Should she not be allowed to marry a woman because she has the option of "normal" marriage?
Your example merely illustrates that human sexuality is more complex than gay & straight. If women didn't turn her on, then she probably wouldn't engage in sex at all. She didn't make a choice as to what turns her on. She made a choice as to what kind of affection she will accept, and there is a difference.

The rest, I think, is realistically honest.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
What the fuck are you talking about? Until it was expressly prohibited, it was a right that everyone enjoyed. The law doesn't grant the people rights, dumbfuck. The people's rights are inherent, and the law restricts them where necessary.

SNIP
I don't know that I exactly agree here. Certainly the people's rights are inherent, and the law restricts them where necessary. However, gay people have the exact same inherent rights as they ever had before government; in fact, they have more, as government provides them with certain protections when openly cohabiting. The issue with gay marriage seems to me to be the privileges extended by government, not one's inherent, G_d-given rights, and whether the majority can use a democratic government to deny equal rights to a minority simply because they want to do so, or perhaps because they've always denied the minority those rights. Although since I too have just used "rights", maybe I do agree after all.

It's kind of a bizarre situation, really. One would expect religion to be almost carved in stone, whilst government would evolve as its people's needs and views evolve. On gay marriage it's just the opposite; gay couples in the USA can be married in many different Christian and Jewish sects, but in almost no states can they get government sanction. How weird is that?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Your example merely illustrates that human sexuality is more complex than gay & straight. If women didn't turn her on, then she probably wouldn't engage in sex at all. She didn't make a choice as to what turns her on. She made a choice as to what kind of affection she will accept, and there is a difference.

The rest, I think, is realistically honest.
From what I understand, she actually did make a conscious choice, a concerted and often difficult effort to find women sexually attractive where she had not considered women as even remotely sexually attractive before. But my only point was to illustrate that it's no one's business WHY one wishes to marry a particular person, and therefore not government's business.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
I don't know that I exactly agree here. Certainly the people's rights are inherent, and the law restricts them where necessary. However, gay people have the exact same inherent rights as they ever had before government; in fact, they have more, as government provides them with certain protections when openly cohabiting. The issue with gay marriage seems to me to be the privileges extended by government, not one's inherent, G_d-given rights, and whether the majority can use a democratic government to deny equal rights to a minority simply because they want to do so, or perhaps because they've always denied the minority those rights. Although since I too have just used "rights", maybe I do agree after all.
The government's endorsement of marriages in the tax code and such is a privilege, to be sure, but the right to be equal to other citizens in the eyes of the government is an inherent right. The latter is goal of homosexuals.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So you say male and female bathrooms are unconstitutional...as well as Curves (woman only fitness club), right? Right?
I was going to suggest that this was silly, but then I realized what would happen if a business had white and colored bathrooms...

I think it would depend on if the gender of a bathroom was actually enforceable or just a suggestion.

For curves. Private clubs are generally allowed to determine their own membership. Of course if you have a men's private club then that is not ok...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0406/Obama-Romney-agree-All-male-Augusta-golf-club-should-allow-women-video

In a strict sense, segregated public bathrooms are a violation of equal protection, but I don't think you'd gain much traction trying to take that one to the supreme court.
So you are saying that equal protection does not matter?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
The government's endorsement of marriages in the tax code and such is a privilege, to be sure, but the right to be equal to other citizens in the eyes of the government is an inherent right. The latter is goal of homosexuals.
With that I can agree wholeheartedly. The only justified exception to government treating everyone equally that spring to mind is affirmative action - these people have been screwed over, and to fix that we're going to have to screw you over a bit too because there's no other way to unscrew them.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I have no objections to government calling marriage a civil union for everyone, I just don't see any benefit. I have a huge objection to government setting up different types of civil unions. That's like the coach saying "to combat racial disharmony I consider all my players to be green, now let's have the light green guys shooting baskets and the dark green guys running laps." Separate but equal is never equal, else it wouldn't need to be separate. Thus eliminating government's role in 'marriage' and replacing it with the exact same role in "civil unions" just opens the door for the continuation of the same resource-wasting battle as proponents of "real marriage" try to get for themselves special privileges whilst their opponents try to keep up.
The difference is that black and whites are equal whereas not all relationships are equal.

And established legal precedence agrees with that view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

The Court was not persuaded that an equal-protection violation was present either. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's reliance on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (striking down an anti-miscegenation law) also failed: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
With that I can agree wholeheartedly. The only justified exception to government treating everyone equally that spring to mind is affirmative action - these people have been screwed over, and to fix that we're going to have to screw you over a bit too because there's no other way to unscrew them.
No. There ancestors were screwed over.... maybe.

Of course considering that the alternative is they would be in Africa dying of AIDS, pirates, starvation, genocide, etc... maybe not.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
It's kind of a bizarre situation, really. One would expect religion to be almost carved in stone, whilst government would evolve as its people's needs and views evolve. On gay marriage it's just the opposite; gay couples in the USA can be married in many different Christian and Jewish sects, but in almost no states can they get government sanction. How weird is that?
Not in the US. We tend have lots of little religious sects. Getting "50%" of a small generally like minded sect to support something is easier than getting "50%" of the entire country.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,486
13,491
136
No. There ancestors were screwed over.... maybe.

Of course considering that the alternative is they would be in Africa dying of AIDS, pirates, starvation, genocide, etc... maybe not.
Screwed over "Maybe"? Really? Is this some backhanded defense of slavery? Of people being kidnapped, beaten into submission, stacked like cordwood in the holds of slave ships, beaten some more, and sold as a commodity like farm animals?

At the time of passage of anti-discrimination laws, blacks were screwed over systemically, by *Conservatives*, and had been for hundreds of years. You act like Jim Crow wasn't real in your attempt at revisionist history.

A lot of American blacks' ancestors were white & native American, too- they're very far removed form being any sort of "pure" race, at all. Slave owners' taste for brown sugar is obvious & well documented, which is why "blackness" & slavery followed from matrilineal descent. And slave owners were free to use whatever coercion required to get what they wanted, too.

So get off it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I have no objections to government calling marriage a civil union for everyone, I just don't see any benefit. I have a huge objection to government setting up different types of civil unions. That's like the coach saying "to combat racial disharmony I consider all my players to be green, now let's have the light green guys shooting baskets and the dark green guys running laps." Separate but equal is never equal, else it wouldn't need to be separate. Thus eliminating government's role in 'marriage' and replacing it with the exact same role in "civil unions" just opens the door for the continuation of the same resource-wasting battle as proponents of "real marriage" try to get for themselves special privileges whilst their opponents try to keep up.
By seperate, I simply means including homosexual civil unions in the allowable civil unions category. Allowable and not allowable categories are needed so they can continue to discriminate against polygamists and incestrists.

Removing the religious component turns it into a civil only affair, which is far simpler to deal with.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Not in the US. We tend have lots of little religious sects. Getting "50%" of a small generally like minded sect to support something is easier than getting "50%" of the entire country.
The US Episcopalian Church (our Anglicans) are blessing gay marriages beginning in December; some gay marriages have already been officiated using the older form for years. The United Church of Christ has done gay marriages for almost a decade. And the Unitarians (arguably at least a Christian sect) have done the same for years. These three churches have in aggregate well over three million active members - they aren't "little religious sects". And the Evangelical Lutheran Church, our seventh largest denomination with about that many members, allows gay marriage if individual congregations desire.

I like to think that G-d rejoices in the honest union of any two loving Christians in Holy Matrimony in His name. He sent Jesus that his blood might redeem our sins - not "except for you faggots", but for all who accept His willing sacrifice. Your mileage may vary, but in any rate that's G-d's decision, not ours. If I'm wrong, I can at least be secure in knowing that I have much worse things against me than allowing other people to live their lives and seek happiness as they wish.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Instead of trying to push more government involvement in religion (in violation of the Constitution), we should instead remove the government involvement in religion.
That's a great idea....as long as you are willing to remove all religion from involvement politics as well. (because it is in violation of the Constitution...remember separation of church and state?)
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
What the fuck are you talking about? Until it was expressly prohibited, it was a right that everyone enjoyed. The law doesn't grant the people rights, dumbfuck. The people's rights are inherent, and the law restricts them where necessary.
Did the magic man you hang out with hit you with a stupid stick? I will spell it out for you:

YOU: Nobody has the right to be a polygamist, incestuous, or copulate with animals.

ME: Using that logic, Nobody has the right to be in a same sex marriage. Currently, it is NOT a right anyone enjoys.

YOU: What are you talking about?


My arguments stand for themselves, and do not depend on the approval of others.
They don't require being correct for you to keep them, either. That is just how you roll.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY