Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
  1. #51  
    noonwitch
    Guest
    June 17 would be my parents' anniversary, had they chosen to stick it out and not resort to a divorce after the kids moved out and they no longer had anything to talk about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Not necessarily... I'm open to listen to real arguments against it.. I just haven't seen any.
    Here's a real argument that you haven't addressed.

    In California there has been a historic definition that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Even without the 2000 initiative, no gay marriages had been granted legal status in California. The 2000 initiative to clarify this distinction in statute was struck down by the California Supreme Court.

    Please provide a reason why you feel that the Court has the power to initiate gay marriages in California or any other state over the demands of the legislature and the people.

    The California Supreme Court overstepped its limits, and the voters of California in November will pass the state gay marriage amendment in full force.

    Even (and especially) gay marriage supporters should oppose the California Supreme Court's decision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,443
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Please provide a reason why you feel that the Court has the power to initiate gay marriages in California or any other state over the demands of the legislature and the people.
    Um, for the same reason the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws in Loving vs. Virginia? The people and legislature of Virginia "demanded" that interracial marriage shouldn't be legal, and the Court said "too bad".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    Um, for the same reason the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws in Loving vs. Virginia? The people and legislature of Virginia "demanded" that interracial marriage shouldn't be legal, and the Court said "too bad".
    The Court said that the definition of marriage so as to prohibit interracial marriage stepped on the guarantees of the 13th amendment by preserving the incidents of slavery. Further, because race is a protected class, legislation distinguishing between choices based solely on racial means are unable to meet the appropriate standard under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    In the realm of homosexual behavior, first homosexuals are not considered a protected class. Second, even if they are a quasi-protected class, there is an important government interest in protecting and preserving the integrity of the family unit. Because there is sufficient evidence for legislatures to rely on that homosexual couples do not advance society's interest, such laws should be allowed.

    The bottom line is that heterosexual couples provide a benefit to societies that homosexual couples do not. Race based distinctions on marriage tend to further separation of the races, removing such a ban has elimited that barrier. The ban on homosexual marriages does not further separation of homosexuals from heterosexuals.

    A proper analogy would be a law that prohibited blacks from marrying eachother. Such a law would be struck down under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, because it would be a race-based distinction in marriage rights.

    If you want to get more into the philosophy of Constitutional interpretation, I am unaware of any collective rights which have been recognized under the Constitution. No group is protected, only individuals are protected under our Constitution. While marriage law may discriminate against homosexuals as a group, they would not have legal grounds to challenge such laws because marriage is an individual right, not collective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    The Court said that the definition of marriage so as to prohibit interracial marriage stepped on the guarantees of the 13th amendment by preserving the incidents of slavery. Further, because race is a protected class, legislation distinguishing between choices based solely on racial means are unable to meet the appropriate standard under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    In the realm of homosexual behavior, first homosexuals are not considered a protected class. Second, even if they are a quasi-protected class, there is an important government interest in protecting and preserving the integrity of the family unit. Because there is sufficient evidence for legislatures to rely on that homosexual couples do not advance society's interest, such laws should be allowed.
    Actually as I have mentioned before, there is a wee bit of casual evidence that shows in societies that adopted gay marriage, in wedlock child births rose, and heterosexual marriage rates took a slight upswing. The assertion that everyone seems to take for fact around here without question, that gay marriage 'hurts the family unit', is completely baseless. If you want to look at it the other way, it appears to actually benefit heterosexual marriages for whatever reason. Thats evidence that says it is in the interest of society, if you think heterosexual marriage is good for society.

    The bottom line is that heterosexual couples provide a benefit to societies that homosexual couples do not. Race based distinctions on marriage tend to further separation of the races, removing such a ban has elimited that barrier. The ban on homosexual marriages does not further separation of homosexuals from heterosexuals.
    You make marriage sound like a leftist PC integration scheme, like school bussing. Gay marriage may not provide much of a benefit to the state or collective so... individual rights be damned! How about the idea that laws against interracial marriage violated the rights of the two individuals who wanted to marry?

    Just what is this benefit provided by heterosexual marriage that isn't possible for homosexual couples? Having children? I guarantee you there are more heterosexual couples who can't or don't have children because of sterility, personal choice (contraception, vasectomy etc) than there ever will be homosexual married couples. Why arent we denying marriage licenses to these people since they are only taking advantage of the benefits we provide to married couples, expressly to encourage the raising of children?

    I would think, stable household's with two people able to look after each other throughout their lives, with all the reliefs and benefits provided to married couples help make for stable neighborhoods and contributes to the overall well being of society, gay or straight. Sorry, I think the onus is on the anti-gay marriage side to demonstrate why it would harm or put strain on society. I think I have shown pretty well most of those demonstrations to be misrepresentations.
    Last edited by wilbur; 06-03-2008 at 01:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,443
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Just what is this benefit provided by heterosexual marriage that isn't possible for homosexual couples? Having children? I guarantee you there are more heterosexual couples who can't or don't have children because of sterility, personal choice (contraception, vasectomy etc) than there ever will be homosexual married couples. Why arent we denying marriage licenses to these people since they are only taking advantage of the benefits we provide to married couples, expressly to encourage the raising of children?
    That's an argument that's always puzzled me - that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage is for the purpose of having children. My husband and I married without intending to have children, and we never did. That's worked just fine for us, and no one seems to mind except John C. Calhoun (who, blessedly, hasn't rejoined us since the site came back up).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Actually as I have mentioned before, there is a wee bit of casual evidence that shows in societies that adopted gay marriage, in wedlock child births rose, and heterosexual marriage rates took a slight upswing. The assertion that everyone seems to take for fact around here without question, that gay marriage 'hurts the family unit', is completely baseless. If you want to look at it the other way, it appears to actually benefit heterosexual marriages for whatever reason. Thats evidence that says it is in the interest of society, if you think heterosexual marriage is good for society.
    Actually you keep repeating this, but still have yet to provide any evidence. I already showed evidence that gay marriages have extremely high divorce rates (even compared to straights), so lets see yours.

    Also, there's evidence that gay marriages are more likely to be promiscuous, violent, and detrimental to child development. Lets include that in the mix as well, shall we?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    You make marriage sound like a leftist PC integration scheme, like school bussing. Gay marriage may not provide much of a benefit to the state or collective so... individual rights be damned! How about the idea that laws against interracial marriage violated the rights of the two individuals who wanted to marry?
    That's the purpose of state involvement in marriage, to provide a benefit to society. All marital benefits are intended to increase the number of marriages. If marriages didn't benefit society, then it would be a purely religious agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Just what is this benefit provided by heterosexual marriage that isn't possible for homosexual couples? Having children? I guarantee you there are more heterosexual couples who can't or don't have children because of sterility, personal choice (contraception, vasectomy etc) than there ever will be homosexual married couples. Why arent we denying marriage licenses to these people since they are only taking advantage of the benefits we provide to married couples, expressly to encourage the raising of children?
    First, heterosexuals raise children and provide a stable family. A number of married couples having families provide a community.

    Sterile couples might choose to adopt, couples might choose to have families later in life, but the overwhelming element of married heterosexual couples is the potential to have a family which provides a stable environment for a child and contribute to the community and the furtherance of the community ideals. Homosexual couples never have such a potential. They can not breed, they can not provide a stable environment for children, and they will not increase the size of the community nor ensure its survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I would think, stable household's with two people able to look after each other throughout their lives, with all the reliefs and benefits provided to married couples help make for stable neighborhoods and contributes to the overall well being of society, gay or straight. Sorry, I think the onus is on the anti-gay marriage side to demonstrate why it would harm or put strain on society. I think I have shown pretty well most of those demonstrations to be misrepresentations.
    Nope, you haven't. You are just making assertions that gay marriage is good and everyone else is wrong.

    I have enumerated several points where gay marriage should not be encouraged by the government. Feel free to contradict them if you think it will help your case.

    Finally, I have yet to hear a valid argument for allowing a few politically immune individuals to determine what is best for society in this area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •