Homosexual Marriage

[Kilroy_x]

Please find a problem with it.

K

Everyone should agree that religion has no place in legal matters, meaning that any two adults should be allowed to be legally married. Gay marriage is therefore not an issue.

Why should government have any say in marriage at all? Any desire to give the government power to do something, in this case affirm marriages in the legal sense, requires an accompanying argument.

[devonin]

This effectively ends the argument.

Well...it ends the argument for people who agree that religion has no place in legal matters, which is not everyone. And it ends the argument for people who agree that the government has no place in religious matters which is also not everyone.

Further, people could still object on the grounds that legal marriage ought -also- to be between a man and a woman based on mistaken views of homosexuality and how it operates, and may be concluding that people are trying to cheat the system or at least, would be more encouraged to try and cheat the system.

For sufficient advantages and tax breaks and other benefits, I could absolutely see single people who have close friends of the same gender "Getting married" to share in all the benefits while having no actual intention or desire to be married to that person. I mean...such happens already, but you'd be making it dramatically easier.

Bear in mind, I utterly agree with you, but since the people objecting to this stance have been...less than effective in phrasing arguments in a compelling way, I figured I'd play a little Devil's Advocate for you.

Why should government have any say in marriage at all?

Because the government gives benefits to -legally- married couples, and thus ought to have a say in what does or does not count as married for the purposes of their benefits. Legal marriage is a government-created institution, so it has control over that institution.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Because the government gives benefits to -legally- married couples, and thus ought to have a say in what does or does not count as married for the purposes of their benefits. Legal marriage is a government-created institution, so it has control over that institution.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Government does give benefits to legally married couples, and legal marriage is a government created institution, but I'm not sure there are actually any justifications for these benefits or for this role of government to begin with.

Basically it seems to me like you're starting with the assumption that the place government has currently assigned itself in marriage is legitimate, something which I believe actually needs justification before you can make some of the arguments you have been making.

[devonin]

Well, you can advocate if you like that there should be absolutely no legal benefits to being legally married, and that marriage at -all- should only be religious, but i don't suspect you'd find very wide-spread support for it.

Or more to the point, it seems that you are saying "Prove marriage should exist at all outside a religious observance before you can talk about how it would work."

[Kilroy_x]

Not quite. I'm saying "prove marriage should be handled in any form by the government". I think that religious marriages are fine, as would be marriages certified by any other private party. I'm only wondering why government needs a place in it. I don't believe there should be any benefits for getting legally married. I also don't see the neccessity for legal marriage.

I really, really don't care whether or not my opinions are popular.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Not quite. I'm saying "prove marriage should be handled in any form by the government". I think that religious marriages are fine, as would be marriages certified by any other private party. I'm only wondering why government needs a place in it. I don't believe there should be any benefits for getting legally married. I also don't see the neccessity for legal marriage.

I really, really don't care whether or not my opinions are popular.

Well, all of the benefits detailed in http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...&postcount=289 are made as a consideration for the issues involved in marriage. Should no such distinctions ever be made, should nobody get those benefits, should you be able to share those benefits with any person you want?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Should no such distinctions ever be made, should nobody get those benefits, should you be able to share those benefits with any person you want?

Absolutely. Private agreements should mitigate all of those things, not government intervention.

[OuterSpace]

The thing is, whether it's "legal" or not isn't going to change the love between two men/women.

But yeah, I agree that there are different definitions of marriage, and it's definitely not just a religious ceremony anymore.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by devonin

Further, people could still object on the grounds that legal marriage ought -also- to be between a man and a woman based on mistaken views of homosexuality and how it operates, and may be concluding that people are trying to cheat the system or at least, would be more encouraged to try and cheat the system.

For sufficient advantages and tax breaks and other benefits, I could absolutely see single people who have close friends of the same gender "Getting married" to share in all the benefits while having no actual intention or desire to be married to that person. I mean...such happens already, but you'd be making it dramatically easier.

Didn't i say that like over 10 pages ago? Oh well, we all knew this was going in circles anyway.
The logistics of the situation shows that the only ones that suffer are the gay couples that miss out on the marriage benefits that come with having a spouse in peril. So it is really a matter of discrimination, rights shouldn't be withheld from people purely based on whom they choose to love unless of course it is not a right to begin with. Obviously you cannot get married in a church that does not support homosexual marriage and its that churches every right to do that but the argument is really about whether or not the government has the right to hold back such benefits and whether its for a good enough reason. What all this accomplishes i do not know.

[devonin]

Absolutely. Private agreements should mitigate all of those things, not government intervention.

I very strongly suspect that, like me, you would throw complete support behind the statement "Adults, who can prove themselves to be rational, reasonable and in possession of their mental faculties ought to be able to enter into a contract specifying absolutely anything they want"

[frankiesmithra24]

Why should the government even pass laws against Gay marriages? I think it's bull because it doesn't matter who people marry as long as their happy. Thats what I think. Being a homosexual is a way of life for those that chose to live like that. The government shouldn't pass laws against them and abortions.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by frankiesmithra24

Why should the government even pass laws against Gay marriages? I think it's bull because it doesn't matter who people marry as long as their happy. Thats what I think. Being a homosexual is a way of life for those that chose to live like that. The government shouldn't pass laws against them and abortions.

Er...they aren't passing laws against it, they just aren't passing laws for it. That's an entirely different -type- of issue.

[Kilroy_x]

Well, there's always the constitutional ammendment(s) at the state and federal level. Not technically laws, but bad (much worse actually) nonetheless. Legislation also has been both introduced and passed in a number of states.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Well, there's always the constitutional ammendment(s) at the state and federal level. Not technically laws, but bad (much worse actually) nonetheless.

Uh, why are they so much worse?

Legislation also has been both introduced and passed in a number of states.

And (here's the big problem I have with the gay marriage debate) also overturned by activist state-level judges. According to them, it doesn't matter what the people think.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Uh, why are they so much worse?

The desicrate the founding principles of our government and society and write ignorance and bigotry into the most important document we have. It's worse on so many levels. Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, but the constitution can't, which unfortunately means people are now going about rewriting the constitution to say "everyone has rights; except these people. They make us feel icky."

And (here's the big problem I have with the gay marriage debate) also overturned by activist state-level judges. According to them, it doesn't matter what the people think.

--Guido

Uh, I don't know how much you understand about the judicial system, but it was founded so that judges could make unpopular decisions. You can look up the perspectives of Jefferson on the subject if you really want to. "Activist judges"? Give me a break. The judicial system has done far more to protect civil rights across the board than legislation. In terms of our courts, yes, the will of the people is absolutely irrelevent. You're basically complaining about something because it works.

[Lamoc]

Anyone should be able to marry anyone else. And someone said about abortions earlier i'm going to put my comment of that as well. They shouldn't be able to prevent abortions. If the person REALY can't support the child or anything like that, a parent is sometimes forced to have an abortion. If the goverment is going to pay for that child to have a good life then go ahead. But some people realy can't support a child and have no way of taking care of it. Makes it cruel to both the parent and the child forcing them to take care of it.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The desicrate the founding principles of our government

STOP!

One of the founding principles of our government was that the people can draft constitutional amendments if they do not support the actions of justices who deem laws unconstitutional. Amendments exist specifically for the people to keep the judicial branch in check, and exercising that right in no way desecrates the founding principles. In fact, it shows that they're working.

and society and write ignorance and bigotry into the most important document we have.

Ignorance? I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that I'm ignorant on this matter. You have a better argument with bigotry, but still a weak one. I don't support a constitutional amendment for the definition of marriage because I hate gays. Quite the contrary. I'd be perfectly happy whatever the result of the vote.

Remember, though, that the most important document we have was designed to be changed. Just because we've only had one amendment in the past thirty-six years doesn't mean it's written in stone. It's meant to be changed when it needs to be changed.

It's worse on so many levels. Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, but the constitution can't

Yeah, let's just pretend the twenty-first amendment never happened...

You're basically complaining about something because it works.

Which is exactly what you're doing regarding constitutional amendments.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

STOP!

Hammertime.

One of the founding principles of our government was that the people can draft constitutional amendments if they do not support the actions of justices who deem laws unconstitutional. Amendments exist specifically for the people to keep the judicial branch in check, and exercising that right in no way desecrates the founding principles. In fact, it shows that they're working.

Hardly. Our government was envisioned as "rule by law, not rule by people" by one of our founding fathers. The concept of a tyranny of the majority was in many ways anticipated and inspired by the thinking of the founders of this country as well. Checks and balances don't equal "founding principles", they simply reflect attempts to design government based on them. In this particular case, I think this check deserves to be bounced. Take your ridiculous historical revisionism and apologetics for pure Democrocy elsewhere.

The constitution was written in order to limit the role of government to a very minimalist set of duties in order to protect liberty. Most new ammendments should be distrusted in the first place purely because they seek to add to what the government can do. Ammendments like those proposed against flag burning and gay marriage also have the double effect of proposing things in opposition to the constitution. They limit freedom of speech in both, freedom of association in the latter, and this is also an act of federalizing something that according to the constitution should be left up to each individual state if it's a political issue at all (which it shouldn't be) and each individual person otherwise.

Ignorance? I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that I'm ignorant on this matter.

It depends on how honest you're willing to be with yourself, really. It's entirely possible the answer is "not at all", in which case I most certainly will have a hard time convincing you of anything.

You have a better argument with bigotry, but still a weak one. I don't support a constitutional amendment for the definition of marriage because I hate gays. Quite the contrary. I'd be perfectly happy whatever the result of the vote.

Right. It's not bigotry that leaves you advocating that bigots should be able to control the country, but rather blind faith in the justice of majority rule even when this rule by nature causes harm to a minority. I'm aware of that, and it's no less disgusting a way of thinking than homophobia in my opinion.

Remember, though, that the most important document we have was designed to be changed. Just because we've only had one amendment in the past thirty-six years doesn't mean it's written in stone. It's meant to be changed when it needs to be changed.

It doesn't need to be changed to give government more power and to restrict the people any further. The constitution is meant to protect liberty, not to let the mindless masses of our country write their opinion into official social capacity. If we're just doing that, why not rewrite the constitution to make Christianity the state religion? Why not take away all rights from certain groups? I'm sure we could find majority sponsorship for plenty of reprehensible uses for the constitution.

The constitution is meant mostly to be used to restrict government, not to restrict the people except when their actions against each other might be especially harmful. Perhaps then under this second reasoning we should adopt a constitutional ammendment to prevent idiots from abusing the constitution? Any further amendments should be made in order to preserve liberty, not to preserve popular opinion in the shrine of national authority.

Yeah, let's just pretend the twenty-first amendment never happened...

Actually it's funny, the 21st amendment wouldn't have happened if the 18th amendment hadn't been in violation of the people's rights to begin with. I don't believe the 21st amendment stated that the 18th was unconstitutional, it just reversed the decision. Regardless, I would rather have a senseless amendment not passed to begin with than repealed later. After something is on the books anywhere it tends to be excessively difficult to remove it. Alchohol prohibition was only removed because there was a very sizeable portion of the populace that continued to drink. When less than 10% of the population is harmed by something it's practically unthinkable that a constitutional prohibition that harmed them would ever be overturned.

Which is exactly what you're doing regarding constitutional amendments.

I'm not exactly sure how complaining when people manage to use the most important document in our country to further restrict essential liberty is equivalent to complaining because something works. This seems like a pretty huge flaw in process to me.

[Kamunt]

I love how this threat is now just an argument about the inner workings of the American government, the Constitution & its Amendments. Activist judges do actually exist, by the way. And last time I checked, judges are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not the majority opinion of the people. Sometimes judges have to make unpopular decisions, but that's what they have to do: it's their job. Sometimes their decisions are just plain stupid, however. Not gonna lie.

[devonin]

I love how this threat[sic] is now just an argument about the inner workings of the American government, the Constitution & its Amendments.

Yeah...funny how a thread that was supposed to be about the -political- ramifications of legalising gay marriage is suddenly all political. Hooray for being on-topic!