Has Anyone Made a Convincing Argument against Gays getting married yet?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Stonewall

There would be no change in the mechanism, right?

The idea of monogamous heterosexual marriage is as old as human nature itself.

If so then homosexual marriage is as old as human nature too, because what you are talking about wasn't marriage, it was pair bonding ands exists in many animals. When humans created institutions they invented the concept of marriage and when we invented law and the notion of justice we arrived at a place where we needed to make our laws fair just and equitable which we are still doing today. Marriage is an invention overlain on human nature. Homosexuals are subject to that exact human nature only toward the same gender. Fairness and equity mean we have to become more inclusive than we have been, especially since the reasons not to do so are all irrational and based on homophobic fear. You are at the back end of the evolutionary donkey. Get used to it. You are talking bigotry.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Law is almost never based on a study, but based on a proven link between an activity and harm caused to society.

no it isn't. sit through a constitutional law class and you'll see that. most laws don't have to have any basis in reality, but only on some rationalizing that the thing sought to cure is actually being cured and needed curing to begin with. its called rational basis scrutiny.

Mmm, note to self, go to law school soon.

Can't come soon enough. Stupid undergrad.

... The Court concluded that the road and timbering were internal government affairs that only incidentally affected the free exercise of religion. Therefore, the Court applied the so-called rational basis test of judicial review. That is, it upheld the government's action as a rational means of accomplishing a legitimate end. If, however, the Court had deemed there was a threat to a fundamental right, it likely would have increased its scrutiny of the government's action, requiring that the means be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. In other words the Court in Lyng deferred to the government's use of National Forest property. It upheld the decision to build the road so long as it was a reasonable means to achieve a legitimate purpose. The road did not have to be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. See footnote 4 in then-Associate Justice Harlan F. Stone's opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

This 'out take' sorta suggests that there is always a rationalization or study to determine whether "Strict Scrutiny" or "Rational Basis" or as I would argue, 'Relevant Determination" should be applied in the deciding. In any event, between the two the gap narrows or expands, depending..

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To attempt to answer your question I have to understand what your question is:

"The issue with the pro-gay marriage crowd is that they came at this topic from an emotional point of view. Their first instance was to compare it to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Well, the civil rights movement was (mainly) a movement to enforce Federal legislation against bigotry. In fact, the civil rights movement came about as a result of the Civil War, which, again, was fought over states' rights versus federal rights. The federal rights that I'm talking about were written in the Constitution as a result of the internation declaration on the rights of man, one of which was that all men are created equal."

What is the description 'emotional' doing in here. It sounds like you are telling yourself a story by using that word and shaping and distorting the issue more to your liking. Also, there need be no reference to civil rights here. The rights of gays to marry is guaranteed by the Constitution. It's the realization and emotional fear of that that is motivating the other, bigoted, side with their interest in an amendment.

"Hence, the emotions that the pro-gay advocates are relying on are based on legal-enforcement precedents."

There is nothing emotional about an appeal to legal precedent. That is cold legal analysis.

"As for the anti-gay marriage crowd, though their definitions reeks of bias, they stand on firm legal and moral ground."

Your assertion of this does not make it so.

"First off, attraction to the same sex is not unnatural."

This is confusing because in the next sentence you contradict yourself.

"In fact, though it encompasses only 10%-15% of the natural world, it is very much natural.

See what I mean. It is either natural or it isn't.

I didn't contradict myself. In the first sentence, I was refuting those that alleged that homosexuality was "unnatural." In the second, I give a reason as to why it was indeed natural. You seemed to be confused.

"Hence, I would call same-sex attraction a natural aberration because of its minority status and its anti-pro-creationist way of life."

You can call it anything you like, but that doesn't make your words rational. It is either natural or it is not. We both seem to agree it is naturally 'natural' but not as common as heterosexual orientation. No need to say additionally anything else especially when it introduces your bigotry. There are people who are born infertile or become that way in life. Should we describe these as natural aberrations unworthy of married life? You are again confusing breeding with love. This happens to you because you are propelled to argue in a definable direction, by your bigotry. You need to find a way to introduce a negative value judgment on being gay. Natural aberration and anti-pro creationist is flowery and cute, but a value judgment full of bigotry. There is nothing wrong with people who can't or don't have children. They can and do still love.

"Furthermore, gay animals are accepted within their group. In fact, aside from our larger brains, it is our philosophical morals and dogmas that differentiates us other animals."

Some people like to point out that all of these vary by location and time and have no intrinsic validity or reality at all, merely the delusion of the day. Others would say that all of these things are designed to return us to some previous natural state, that these things aim for a natural law. In the former case homophobia would be subjective and unnatural in the case of the second. The fact that we have philosophy, morals, and law helps you not at all.

"It is our standings (laws, religion, etc...) that makes humans less inclined to accept what is wholly acceptable among other animals."

Really? I would think it was nurture and what you've been trained away from acceptance Far from thinking this is ennobling, many would call this the ultimate in being sick.

"What many fear is while homosexuals enjoy the same declaration on the rights of man, accepting this "natural aberration" would bring us closer to the animals, destroying our morals and dogmas."

Yes, bigotry always has fear at it's root. The fear of being an animal is the fear of being yourself. We were brutalized when we were real and we won't do that again, most of us.

"If gay marriages are allowed to pass as normalcy, what would stop inter-family marriages, pedophilic marriages, inter-species marriages, or even parent-child marriages, simply because of the stated love and affection between the two? Their argument is that this would cause the breakdown of (human) society and reduce us to nothing more than those that slither or walk on all fours."

Exactly, we would just be the disgusting animals we were told we were when we were small. God save us from that. Imagine if his only begotten Son was trying to bring us back to that. Oh, man, wow!

"Is the argument fair?"

Well here is where I'm not certain what you mean. Are you asking if you have described the debate in accurate and objective terms? If so, as I have expressed where I disagree. I would ask, "Is what argument fair?". Can you be more specific about your question?

"Well, the people will decide on the legality of gay marriages and whether or not it will open the doors to other things. Whether or not the Federal government or the states should"

It is the courts who should decide the issue and the people who will decide whether they want to institutionalize their bigotry. It will still be bigotry and unjust law even of it does become an amendment.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a man has the right to marry another man. Aside from that, you point to no legal reference in support of same-sex marriage.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Dari

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a man has the right to marry another man. Aside from that, you point to no legal reference in support of same-sex marriage.

So... you just answered the OP. If the Constitution does not explicitly allow or disallow it, then it's up to the states and California state law bans it which about sums up an argument against gays getting married. At least in California.

Wow, also in the eyes of the Federal Gov't and the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems (although the case cited is very old). Read the text of the DOMA. Looks like legalizing gay marriage is going to take a Constitutional Amendment or another Supreme Court case.

 

[YellowRose]

What can I say when this says it so well.

Subj: Marriage -- a legal right versus a sacred rite
Date: 12/4/2003 11:32:35 PM Central Standard Time
From: dainna@dainna.com

>Considering a legal right versus a sacred rite

>Scripps Howard News Service
>FAITH MATTERS
>By DAVID WATERS
>Scripps Howard News Service

> Just about anybody can get married in this country.

>Two atheists can rent a church and a preacher and get married with their >hands on a Bible, if they want to.

>Two strangers can get married in weddings arranged by their parents, their >attorneys, or the Unification Church.

>A convicted mass murderer on death row can get married. So can a convicted >serial rapist, child molester or spouse abuser.

>A man can go on a TV show and choose his bride from among 25 contestants, >just so a TV network can sell ads. A woman can choose her groom the same >way.

>A 90-year-old man can marry a 20-year-old woman, if she'd have him. A >90-year-old woman can marry a 20-year-old man, if she'd have him.
>An 18-year-old man and woman can meet tonight in a bar, drive to Las Vegas >tomorrow, rent Elvis and Priscilla costumes, and get married at the Viva Las >Vegas Wedding Chapel.

>Jerry Lee Lewis, who once married his 13-year-old cousin, has been married >six times. His sister, Linda Gail Lewis, has been married eight times.>In fact, people in this country can get married as many times as they want >to.

>As long as they don't marry someone of the same gender.

>That may be changing, and a lot of people aren't happy about it.

>Some people are pushing for laws that allow same-sex civil unions. Others >are pushing back, trying to get laws that define marriage as a union between >one man and one woman.

>"The legalization of homosexual marriage is for gay activists merely a
>stepping-stone on the road to eliminating all societal restrictions on
>marriage and sexuality," Dr. James Dobson wrote in a recent fund-raising >letter for Focus on the Family.

>What restrictions? The only marriage restrictions that seem to exist for
>heterosexuals over 18 is that they can't marry more than one person at a >time. Some still do.

>It's not homosexuals who are threatening the sacred institution of marriage. >It's heterosexuals who turned marriage into a reality TV show. >It's heterosexuals who pushed the divorce rate over 50 percent.
>It's heterosexuals who are co-habitating in record numbers.

>I've been married to the same (unbelievably patient) woman for nearly 25 >years. I believe marriage is a sacrament, a gift from God. But I won't
>pretend to know what God thinks of same-sex civil unions.

>Maybe we should figure out a way to distinguish marriage as a legal right >from marriage as a sacred rite.

>Quakers do that. They take care of all the government paperwork. After all, >every marriage is a legal contract. But a Quaker couple is married not by a >church or government official. >After a period of discernment among family and friends in their community, >the couple marry each other in the presence of God, and other witnesses.

>What man joins together is one thing. What God joins together is quite
>another.

> (Memphis columnist David Waters may be reached by e-mail at
>waters(at)gomemphis.com or by mail at The Commercial Appeal, P.O. Box 334, >Memphis, TN 38101.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Dari: "I didn't contradict myself. In the first sentence, I was refuting those that alleged that homosexuality was "unnatural." In the second, I give a reason as to why it was indeed natural. You seemed to be confused."

I am confused because of your use of language because you go on to say that it is a natural aberration, attempting to retain the pejorative implication in aberration by add the notion anti-pro-creation as if that were bad. By so doing you introduce a bigoted notion into your argument to give continued credence to a position for which none is due.