Your stance on gay marriage

[Christian Democrats]

Yeah, the SAME argument against interracial marriage. It was "new" and went against "tradition" and "god's will." Same nonsense from a different source does not more intelligent nonsense make.

I already have stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that moral disapproval of a group cannot be used as the basis of a law. There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

[Wikkiwallana]

Loving vs. Virginia, a SCOTUS ruling, ruled that marriage was a basic fundamental human right between two people.

To quote the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006):

[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm

New doesn't mean bad. Get over it already.

[Franco-Philia]

Yeah, the SAME argument against interracial marriage. It was "new" and went against "tradition" and "god's will." Same nonsense from a different source does not more intelligent nonsense make.

I already have stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that moral disapproval of a group cannot be used as the basis of a law. There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

We do not use procreation as part of our ideas on marriage in this nation. If that were so, birth control would be illegal, abortion would be illegal and sterile people would be forbidden marriage.

If you make an exception for sterile people then not make an exception for same-sex partners then it is just your own homophobia and not your "logic."

[Lord Tothe]

I purposely included "stereotypical" in there to remark on how it's a stereotype; I understand not all gay people act flamboyantly feminine, but there's a large stereotype behind it.

My point wasn't that at all. My point was that I think it's pretty shitty to equate effeminacy with "bad."

My point still stands, here, another example:

"Stereotypical gay guys with their effeminate ways bother me!!"
"Stereotypical blacks with their jive talkin' and white-women-chasin' bother me!!"

You're basically declaring that not being a masculine man is somehow ineherently bad.

It is somewhat disconcerting to see a set of pink pumps poking under the stall partition in the mens' room, tho.

[Xsyne]

And same-sex marriages were performed in fucking medieval Catholic Europe, so calling it new is kind of a stretch.

[Christian Democrats]

How? (I hate unsupported arguments.)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

+

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

=

Marriage is a right, therefore all citizens get it.

Do you support the legalization of polygamy?

(The Equal Protection Clause merely dictates that similar persons in similar situations should be treated equally. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are dissimilar.)

[New Lyrane]

Marriage is a worthy institution. And everyone who wants to live in an institution, should be allowed to.

[Samuraikoku]

Marriage is a worthy institution. And everyone who wants to live in an institution, should be allowed to.

^

[Ifreann]

Yeah, the SAME argument against interracial marriage. It was "new" and went against "tradition" and "god's will." Same nonsense from a different source does not more intelligent nonsense make.

I already have stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that moral disapproval of a group cannot be used as the basis of a law. There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

Gays are perfectly capable of procreating, though, so that doesn't really follow..

[Ceannairceach]

Yeah, the SAME argument against interracial marriage. It was "new" and went against "tradition" and "god's will." Same nonsense from a different source does not more intelligent nonsense make.

I already have stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that moral disapproval of a group cannot be used as the basis of a law. There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

So we now remove marriage licenses from those who do not produce in x amount of time, then? Or forbid sterile couples from marrying? Quite new, as I have not heard of this. Do we also ban adoption?

Considering we are in an age when we are trying to stem the tide of the growing population, "promoting procreation" is just as much a moral justification as any for barring homosexual marriage when, oh shit, homosexuals can reproduce.

[Soheran]

What do you think about gay marriage?

I think same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere, and I hope to enter into one eventually.

Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me,

Personally, people who demean other people based on their appearance, mannerisms, or sexual orientation "annoy the living crap" out of me.

but I also think that it's plain wrong For the government to decide who you can and cannot marry.

Appropriately circumscribed, I think this is a good principle.

[Christian Democrats]

I already have stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that moral disapproval of a group cannot be used as the basis of a law. There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

Gays are perfectly capable of procreating, though, so that doesn't really follow..

A gay couple cannot have a child together.

(Many of you are blurring the line between legal interpretation and politics. Right now, I'm arguing that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is constitutional; this is also what most courts have hinted or indicated.)

[Wikkiwallana]

Yeah, the SAME argument against interracial marriage. It was "new" and went against "tradition" and "god's will." Same nonsense from a different source does not more intelligent nonsense make.

I already have stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that moral disapproval of a group cannot be used as the basis of a law. There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

Marriage is not, and has not ever been solely about procreation, and in the modern first world, it is not about it at all.

[Wikkiwallana]

+


=

Marriage is a right, therefore all citizens get it.

Do you support the legalization of polygamy?

(The Equal Protection Clause merely dictates that similar persons in similar situations should be treated equally. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are dissimilar.)

While I may morally oppose it, if the massive legal tangle could be worked out, I don't see why it shouldn't be legal.

[Ceannairceach]

Gays are perfectly capable of procreating, though, so that doesn't really follow..

A gay couple cannot have a child together.

(Many of you are blurring the line between legal interpretation and politics. Right now, I'm arguing that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is constitutional; this is also what most courts have hinted or indicated.)

Point? They can use a surrogate or use IVF, both of which are valid forms of procreation. They can also adopt, lessening the burden of children in the adoption services.

[Franco-Philia]

Gays are perfectly capable of procreating, though, so that doesn't really follow..

A gay couple cannot have a child together.

(Many of you are blurring the line between legal interpretation and politics. Right now, I'm arguing that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is constitutional; this is also what most courts have hinted or indicated.)

No, you argued that marriage should focus towards procreation. Nonsense. Gay people getting married has NO EFFECT on procreation rates. They wouldn't procreate through their sex acts to begin with. So giving them marriage has a zero change rate on procreation.

And many gay people procreate through sperm donors and other such means, so again, nonsense.

And we are saying that the current situation is unconstitutional and wrong. Yeah, it's politics. Fighting for equality gets pretty damn political, don't it?

[Ifreann]

Gays are perfectly capable of procreating, though, so that doesn't really follow..

A gay couple cannot have a child together.

Have you never heard of adoption?

[Wikkiwallana]

Gays are perfectly capable of procreating, though, so that doesn't really follow..

A gay couple cannot have a child together.

(Many of you are blurring the line between legal interpretation and politics. Right now, I'm arguing that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is constitutional; this is also what most courts have hinted or indicated.)

A pair of lesbians can have a child together. Take the nucleus from one from the egg of one and use it to fertilize an egg of the other, and you have a baby from two women. Once we build an artificial womb, the a similar thing can be done with two men.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am in favour of legalising same sex marriages.

[Soheran]

I already have stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that moral disapproval of a group cannot be used as the basis of a law.

Unfortunately, this is by no means as clear as liberals like me would like. Lawrence doesn't actually say this; it just says that moral disapproval isn't sufficient to justify a criminal prohibition on sexual intimacy. On the other hand, other, older but not that old, Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Barnes v. Glen Theatre) indicates pretty clearly that moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest.

Part of the problem is that it's not clear how to distinguish "moral disapproval" in a general way (which has always been within the legitimate authority of states) from "moral disapproval of a group", which seems at least on its face to be more problematic in an equal protection context. (This was easier in Lawrence, in O'Connor's concurrence, because there was a double standard: two men were forbidden to have anal or oral sex, but a man and a woman weren't. Same-sex marriage is different, insofar as, on a natural-law view of sexual morality, a same-sex couple can only engage in "unnatural" sexual activity, while a different-sex couple is biologically capable of engaging in the one approved form of sex.)

There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

This argument doesn't work for a host of reasons. Here's one: marriage restrictions are not very aptly tailored to that end. If we wanted to encourage procreation, we could directly subsidize procreation or child-rearing. Then we wouldn't have "false positives" like childless opposite-sex couples, and "false negatives" like same-sex couples who adopt children.

[Dusk_Kittens]

DOMA is unconstitutional.

How? (I hate unsupported arguments.)

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=113703&p=5709587#p5709587

[Franco-Philia]

Part of the problem is that it's not clear how to distinguish "moral disapproval" in a general way (which has always been within the legitimate authority of states) from "moral disapproval of a group", which seems at least on its face to be more problematic in an equal protection context. (This was easier in Lawrence, in O'Connor's concurrence, because there was a double standard: two men were forbidden to have anal or oral sex, but a man and a woman weren't. Same-sex marriage is different, insofar as, on a natural-law view of sexual morality, a same-sex couple can only engage in "unnatural" sexual activity, while a different-sex couple is biologically capable of engaging in the one approved form of sex.

But we don't always turn to Natural Law theory for our legislation. Legalized abortion shows this, doesn't it? And Euthanasia in Oregon and Washington.

[Christian Democrats]

There are reasons beyond moral disapproval why people support restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, namely the promotion of procreation.

This argument doesn't work for a host of reasons. Here's one: marriage restrictions are not very aptly tailored to that end. If we wanted to encourage procreation, we could directly subsidize procreation or child-rearing. Then we wouldn't have "false positives" like childless opposite-sex couples, and "false negatives" like same-sex couples who adopt children.

Politically, I do not believe there is a reason to provide tax breaks et cetera to heterosexual married couples who do not have children.

[Franco-Philia]

This argument doesn't work for a host of reasons. Here's one: marriage restrictions are not very aptly tailored to that end. If we wanted to encourage procreation, we could directly subsidize procreation or child-rearing. Then we wouldn't have "false positives" like childless opposite-sex couples, and "false negatives" like same-sex couples who adopt children.

Politically, I do not believe there is a reason to provide tax breaks et cetera to heterosexual married couples who do not have children.

What all are you including in that "et cetera" there?

[Soheran]

(Many of you are blurring the line between legal interpretation and politics. Right now, I'm arguing that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is constitutional; this is also what most courts have hinted or indicated.)

Their reasoning in those cases, however, is generally terrible. Find a court case which manages to explain, in a clear and convincing way, why (a) the constitutional right to marry doesn't extend to same-sex couples (even though it extends to interracial couples, who also were traditionally banned from marriage), and (b) sexual orientation doesn't deserve heightened scrutiny (even though it extends to women, who, at the time the Supreme Court extended it, made up a majority of the population and had already gotten the ERA through Congress with large majorities.) You will look in vain.

Every court that has rejected one or another of those arguments--every court that has concluded that same-sex marriage bans are subject to heightened scrutiny--has struck them down.