I create a new thread here because the other one is getting close to the archival limit.

If you are referencing something from the previous thread, please quote what you are referencing.

[Edited by GM Katisara]

Heath said the following:


The precise findings in the two cases diagree with your points. In the first case Amendment 2 was not regarding criminal activity it was about "preventing homosexuals from claiming special protected status" and the supreme court found that the amendment "created" a class of people in order to revoke from them the privilages available to other members of society. I believe they will find Proposition 8 does the same. Secondly the question in lawrence V. texas was not whether the act itself could be criminalized but whethe rit could be applied differently to homosexuals than heterosexuals (in Texas heterosexual sodomy was legal and homosexual sodomy illegal). In that case they overturned their previous ruling that homosexual activity could be outlawed on the basis of the first amendment, since it had been sufficiently demonstrated to teh court that the anti-homosexual bigotry on which the law was based was derived from a historically narrow set of religious perspectives. Since those *are* the issues in those cases, not criminality of behavior, and they also apply to Proposition 8 they are stare decisis.

Secondly I have a great many homosexual friends who are in monogamous relationships, wheras I also know a great many people who are heterosexual and non-monogamous, including myself. From those I know it would seem that it is heterosexuals more than homosexuals who tend to not be monogamous.

The problem Heath is not taht we don't understand your arguments, the problem is that the facts lie in contradiction to your arguents.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:01, Tue 17 Aug 2010.

PM

Excuse me if I seem vehemant, but I was in Colorado when Focus on the Familly snuck through Amendment 2 with language which the supreme court described as 'impossible to reconcile with the actual document', I have friends whose businesses have been picketed by Phelp's clan. And Heath sounds exactly like these people who have presented very real threats to the health and welfare of myself and my friends. If someone was in here proposing taht Nazi's had the right idea would you fault a Jew for becoming passionate? While people are being beaten up, tied to fences and threatened in their homes for their sexuality, percieved sexuality or willingness to stick up for those who are different I find the language he has employed, complete with patronizing tone while his arguments are based in ignorance and intollerance to be intollerable.

There are three branches in the government, and neither one of them is any more powerful than the other. It might be very bothersome to some that the people don't have the ability to vote away the constitution, or the rights of others, but that is the result of our checks and balances.

Nor is the Constitution changed really, since you don't get to start from the beginning and make up your own interpretation; current interpretation is not only based on the intentions made publicly and privately by the authors, but also on previous court decisions.




Precedence has been set by previous Supreme Court trials; The Right to Marry is a Fundamental Right of American Citizens.  As a Fundamental Right, depriving one part of the populace who are otherwise considered similarly situated by law violates the State Due Process Clause, as that depriving that right is depriving a person of their Liberty.



The executive branch is not obligated to follow the will of the people who elect them, or else they wouldn't have the option to veto a bill.



I don't know about Arnold, but given that Brown is part of the Judicial branch, he actually does have the authority to interpret the law.
--------



Really, he disagreed with it?  He vetoed a bill legalizing Homosexual Marriage five years ago.

There's plenty of other reasons not to want to defend it; the most prominent one I can think of is because it's so indefensible. No politician wants to have that on their record.  Much like how many of the key witnesses to Kitzmiller vs. Dover withdrew at the last minute; they were smart enough to know they couldn't win, even with a Bush-appointed Christian Conservative judge.

But does the Governor have a legal obligation to personally defend Prop 8? I don't know, I don't know much about that particular aspect of the law, although it seems initially as if he doesn't, since he didn't.

Yes, that can be frustrating, can't it?


If someone argues that interracial marriage isn't based on race, but whether we should encourage sex between people of different races, you have the same argument.  The bottom line, which you're making clearer with each statement, is that you just think it's okay to discriminate against gay people.  You think homosexuality is immoral, and you think it's okay to enforce your morals on them.  But you don't think interracial sex is immoral, and you (correctly in this case) feel that people who do should have no right enforce those morals.  You still haven't given a reason why one is okay and the other not, you've just said over and over that they're different.  They're not.  Both can be expressed to be about actions ("gay sex" or "interracial sex"), both involve traits which one can not help (race or sexuality), both are discrimination, and both are cases where a large fraction of the population (a majority in some states) think or thought that the type of marriage in question was immoral.  You want to assert that they're different so that you can support one and not the other, but you can't logically do so.


Is it bothersome that a few liberal judges decided to overrule the majority of people in the south who thought that interracial marriage was immoral?


Yes, and the judge has ruled, correctly, that there isn't a rational basis for the discrimination.


Yes, because once gay marriage is legalized, everyone has to get one.  Please don't play the victim game.  Your rights are not being change at all.  Your marriage isn't being changed at all.  If you feel you're being imposed upon by someone in CA getting married to someone you don't approve of, you've lived a far too comfortable life and can probably do with some imposition. ;)


[emphasis added by Tycho]
Seems a bit strange to portray it as underhanded in that case then, no?


Yes, I'm happy to say that I think a law that requires government officials to defend laws they think are unconstitutional is ridiculous.  Why should want, let alone require, the government to defend laws that even it doesn't think are constitutional?  Whether 9/10th of the states require that, or even all of them, that's an absurd situation.  If that makes me "biased" fair enough, though I don't see why that would be the case.  And, ya know, if we're going to start accusing each other of bias, I might have to bring up that you're a member of a church that's actively encouraged its members to campaign for prop. 8.  If that "bias" doesn't disqualify your view, hopefully thinking that governors shouldn't have to defend laws they think are unconstitutional won't disqualify mine either.


If you say so, but again, if gay couples can raise successful, well-adjusted kids (which studies have shown they can), then the stuff you're pointing to isn't critical.  If, as you say, the primary reason for society to recognize marriage is to get good kids, then all we should be looking at is how the kids turn out, not your pre-conceived notion of the best way to get good kids.  If gay marriages can produce successful kids (and they can), then pointing out what you considered to be flaws of gay marriage is pointless.



No, you haven't.  At least not in the years that I've been here.  You've claimed, over, and over that you have, but never actually done so.  All that's been shown are studies that compare single straight parents to married straight parents (ie, single parenting vs. couples).  Over and over you've said that this proves gay couples can't raise kids, but it doesn't show that all.  In fact, we have had people post links to studies that show that gay couples can and do raise kids just as well (statistically) as straight couples.  If you think you've shown a study that compares the kids of gay couples to those of straight couples, I'm happy for you to find it and show me, but just saying you've done so doesn't cut it.


Change "homosexual" to "interracial" and "heterosexual" to "same-raced" in this, and see if you believe it.  If not, you'll hopefully understand why I think "BS!" when I read it.  Any couple who decides not to get married because someone they don't like is allowed to get married probably isn't ready for marriage anyway.  Anyone who thinks "well, who else is allowed to marry in this country?" before deciding to get married probably isn't getting married for the right reasons.  If you're going to tell that a significant number of heterosexual couples are going to decide to not get married just because gay couples are allowed to do so, first I'm going to think "I doubt that", and second I'm going to think "if so, they probably shouldn't be getting married then anyway."

Or, if you want a more snarky answer, "I'm only supporting gay marriage in the hopes that it ruins your marriage, Heath." ;)


It was based on sex between people of different races, which is something large portions of society considered immoral.  You're pretending that interracial marriage has nothing to do with interracial sex, and that gay marriage has nothing to do with sexuality.  You continue to call them different so that you can support one and not the other, but to do so you keep having to describe them in completely different terms.  You say one is about race, but the other isn't about sexuality.  One is about sexual acts, but the other isn't.  Interracial marriage was about interracial sex the same way gay marriage is about gay sex, and gay marriage is about sexuality the same way interracial marriage was about race.  You can't have it both ways.  Pick which one you want to talk about if you like, but don't ignore the sex in one, and focuses on it to the exclusion of all else in the other.


Many people did (and some still do) consider interracial sex a perversion.  Why does their opinion not matter, but your opinion that gay sex is a perversion matter?  (this is a real question)


Do we have to do those just because we legalize gay marriage?  No.


Oh!  Gotcha.  And since no one was forcing interracial couples to get married, there was no negative discrimination when there were laws against interracial marriage.  And thus, it was entirely constitutional to ban interracial marriage.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Yep, just like interracial couples wanted to change the definition so that they could participate in marriage in a new way that was contrary to the traditions and morality of the time.


Yes, that was my point.


Yes, "let us get married" is really pushing something down your throat.  See the snarky comment above if you're going to try to claim victim status here.


I am glossing over that point?!  That's the point that I'm arguing for, and that the judge in the case ruled on.


Well, I (and the judge) disagree with you that there are rational reasons.  The defense in the case provided no evidence that homosexual couples can't raise successful children.  They provided no evidence that allowing gay couples to marry would ruin marriage for straight couples.  In fact, beyond "it's always been this way!" they didn't provide much evidence for anything at all.


Cool.  Talk to you in a few years then. ;)

Once again we find that silveroak is reduced to namecalling instead of presenting valid arguments.  No one can take your arguments seriously when you reduce yourself to belittling anyone who has a different view, and I will not lower myself to your level be responding in kind.

In fact, his post should be deleted, but I will leave that up to the other moderators since they are not the ones who were unjustly insulted.

---

Tycho, I still disagree with comparing this to racial discrimination.  And with that point, I am in strong company, including most black people.  Many take offense that gay marriage is being equated to the racial discrimination they faced, when this is based on moral choices, not race.

Marriage is a special institution because it is a license to do something the state encourages for certain reasons.  It is not like criminal laws, nor is this case like racial discrimination.

To some extent, it is like a license to practice law.  The ideal is that everyone practicing law will be qualified and ethical to do so; the licensing laws helps preserve this ideal.  Now, we could do away with the requirement to have a license to practice law; some non-lawyers might even do better than some existing lawyers; some non-lawyers may win cases over lawyers.  But the licensing law is there to protect the ideal that society is trying to preserve the integrity of its legal system by requiring licensing.

Marriage is similar to this.  It is to promote certain ideals based on the foundation of our society:  the family.  Some homosexuals may make better parents; some may have longer marriages.  But the integrity of the system and its ideals is preserved by keeping traditional marriage intact.  I discussed at length the basis and foundation of those principles.

If we let people practice law without a license, we enter uncharted territory, one fraught with the perils of malpractice and lack of proper legal protection.  If we redefine marriage, we enter similar unchartered territory, but the victim will not be the legal system; it will be the intact family, the basis of our society--this is not only through the homosexual inability to reproduce or engage in normal biological sexuality with each other, but also through the dilution of the meaning of marriage on the up and coming generation.  This is what has been found out in Scandinavia and which Californians voted against.

Actually, Tycho, it does affect everyone.  Hawaii is an example of the increased costs and taxes, on one side of things.  But it also affects the dilution of morality in our society, which affects my children and grandchildren.  I think it is to wear blinders to say such a sweeping law will not affect heterosexuals.  It absolutely will.  (One example brought up previously, for instance, is that after winning gay marriage rights, the gay movement next seeks equality in the classroom as far as teaching children about gay sex and gay marriage, and taking these rights away from parents with children in public schools.  This leads to confusion to children, particularly those brought up by their parents with a sense of traditional morality.  There is a snowball effect.)

I could go on, but we've had this discussion ad nauseum.

What we have in this discussion is:
1) Those who believe in objective morality and the importance of the effect of morality in our society (such as me); and

2) Those who believe there is no objective morality and everyone else should accept whatever morality is espoused by others, even to the extent of changing the definition of marriage or other laws to accommodate amoral viewpoints.

Our society was not built on amorality, but on a moral majority.  That is certainly being eroded, I will concede.

I tend generally to agree with this article, entitled Same Sex Couples and The Law, published in New Zealand:  http://www.fathersforlife.org/...ouples_sub_NZEDF.pdf

Rather than go on and repeat myself, I refer you to that article.  Here is its Executive Summary:



I doubt those stuck in their ways about trying to argue with me will actually read the article, but those of you who want to look at further detail in a researched manner, please read this article.

Silveroak's post is being addressed.

The right to marry in the United States of America is a Fundamental Right, as made precedent by several past Supreme Court decisions.

New Zealand Law does not set precedence in U.S. Law.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:54, Tue 17 Aug 2010.

most black people object to the comparison on the basis of extent.
You can hide being homosexual more easilly than you can hide being black.
Homosexuals were never enslaved as a people in this country.
There have never been any 'Jim Crow' laws enforced to make homosexuals second class citizens.
There has never been a 'seperate but equal' ruling for homosexuals.

None of this changes teh fact that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. *both* espoused gay rights as being of great signifigance and as a parallell struggle with equal rights based on race.

Tycho, I still disagree with comparing this to racial discrimination.  And with that point, I am in strong company, including most black people.  Many take offense that gay marriage is being equated to the racial discrimination they faced, when this is based on moral choices, not race.

But it's perfectly all right for you to compare homosexuality to the rape of children.

he gay movement next seeks equality in the classroom as far as teaching children about gay sex and gay marriage, and taking these rights away from parents with children in public schools.

You object to the truth being taught in school?

This leads to confusion to children, particularly those brought up by their parents with a sense of traditional morality. 

And how is this even remotely constitutional? How does outlawing stuff to match your CHRISTIAN belief even remotely qualify as being constitutional in the United States?

1) Those who believe in objective morality and the importance of the effect of morality in our society (such as me); and

I do believe you mean Christian morality, not objective morality.

Our society was not built on amorality, but on a moral majority.

Your society was built on the idea that religion has no place in government. The Founding Fathers of your country made that explicitly clear.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:45, Tue 17 Aug 2010.

Yes, I know you disagree with it, because you think one is okay, and the other isn't.  Just like many black people do.  Having suffered discrimination doesn't, unfortunately, make one immune to being discriminatory oneself.  I think we really need to spell this out, because you keep seeming to miss it:

Whether or not you can make different claims about anti-gay marriage beliefs and anti-interracial marriage beliefs isn't the question.  The logic or your argument is.  If the argument "It's okay to ban marriage between X because it involves Y-type sex, and Y-type sex is considered immoral by society" is valid, then it's valid for all cases.  If it's not valid for all cases, then it's not a valid argument.  If the argument "banning interracial marriage is acceptable because it involves interracial sex, which society has deemed immoral," isn't sufficient to justify banning interracial marriage (and we both agree that it's not), then the same argument made against gay sex also isn't sufficient.  It doesn't matter what the differences between interracial sex and gay sex are, your argument is flawed if doesn't work for either of them.  Pointing out differences between the two doesn't change the fact that you're using a flawed argument.

Put another way, the reasoning of your argument has been demonstrated to be false by your own acceptance that it cannot be used to justify banning interracial marriage.  By agreeing that society considering interracial sex immoral is not sufficient grounds for banning interracial marriage, you are agreeing that that argument is flawed.  This isn't a question of values, or laws, or anything like that, but one of simple logic.


Okay, then laws banning interracial marriage aren't like racial discrimination either, for the exact same reason.  You can't make it not like racial discrimination just by saying it's not.  The above statement doesn't mention gay marriage or interracial marriage, just "marriage" in general.  You could say it about either of them.  You can't just tack "so its not like racial discrimination" on the end and make it so, any more than you can tack "but I'm not being insulting" on the end of "you're a poo poo head" and make it so.


Again, the exact same thing could be said about interracial couples by someone who opposed interracial marriage.  If it doesn't work for them, then it doesn't work for you.  Basically, it might help if any time you wrote down an argument against gay marriage, you put in "interracial marriage" instead, and ask yourself if you'd accept the argument in that case.  Only if your argument points out something that applies to one but not the other (and here you have to insert "interracial sex" of "gay sex") can you come up with an argument that applies to one but not the other.  You're not doing that here.


As I've told you every time you bring up scandanavia, you have not shown that.  The changes in marriage rates there:
1) started occurring before gay marriage/civil partnerships were legalized, so thus can't be said to be caused by them.
2) are observed in other countries (like the US) where gay marriage hasn't been legalized (in some ways, the changes in the US have been larger over the same time period, than they have in scandanavia)
3) are somewhat besides the point, because by most measures, children in scandanavia grow up in a better environment than those in the US.

The facts simply don't back up your claim, Heath, no matter how many times you repeat them.


I think you draw the lines slightly off, but the basic idea is correct.  You think you have access to objective morality, and that thus everyone should have to listen to what you say about it and obey.  Others don't think you, or anyone else, has sole claim to objective morality, and that the laws should be able to tolerate different opinions on the matter to the degree that is possible.

A more sharply worded way to put it is: "No, we don't accept that your morality is objectively true and that you have all the answers, nor that everyone must accept what you say as god-given truth."

Or, perhaps better yet, "You telling me that gay-sex is immoral is no more convincing to me than someone saying that interracial sex is immoral.  You saying it doesn't make it so, anymore than them saying it makes it so.  You believing it very strongly doesn't make it so anymore than them believing it makes it so.  Your preacher/pastor/prophet telling you its true doesn't make me think it's true anymore then their preacher/pastor/prophet telling them that it's true.  You get to believe whatwhatever you like about morality, but you don't get to expect everyone to agree with you."


Like when we amoral liberals legalized interracial marriage?


Lots of problems here, lots of internal inconsitencies, etc.  But I'll point out one rather important line, since you've brought it up:

[emphasis added by Tycho]
In other words, the social science literature is overwhelmingly on the side of successful gay parenting.  The article tries to explain this away with claims of bias, but then suffers from all the same flaws in its retort (strong bias, a preferred outcome, relying on antectdotes, etc.).  It does, however, draw attention to the fact that the science is on the side of those who say gay parents can and do do a fine job of raising kids.  The question of whether gay couples can raise kids successfully has been answered.  The anti-gay marriage crowd is just trying to tell us the answer is wrong at this point.

What gets me honestly is teh whole 'defense of marriage' argument. Marriage has been arround for either 8,000 years based on direct archeology or over 240,000 years basd on uncovered Sumerian records of ancestry. In Either case marriage is older than creationists credit the universe with being. It has survived teh rise and fall of multiple civilizations, Roman bisexual orgies of epic scale, the directives of multiple religious fads towards total celibacy, billion, probably trillions of unfaithfull spouses, including the murders of spouses, blatant use as a political tool for forging alliance, French Romanticism (which held that true love was only possible outside of marriage), genocides, mass disasters and no fault divorce.
Gay marriage isn't going to bring an end to it either.

Saw this short article today about the rise in support for gay marriage across the country:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...w/0822-marriage.html

This is all based on national polls, and extrapolated for the individual states, so I wouldn't put a ton of faith on the exact numbers, but the trend is pretty telling.

Also, for the first time, a CNN poll found that a majority of people in the US support gay marriage (other polls put it at about 45% so we may not actually be at the tipping point quite yet).  But public opinion is shifting, and shifting fairly rapidly.  The argument that gay marriage is being pushed "against the will of the people" will soon no longer be available to anti-gay marriage side.  It will be interesting to see how they adapt to that situation.