If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[HopefulNikki]

As I have stated and you ignored, in this country rights/liberties are assumed unless there is reason to take them away. There was no proven reason to take away the rights of people to marry inter-racially. Therefore, that right was eventually recognized. There is no no proven reason to take away the rights of people to marry the same gender. Therefore, that right should be recognized. It is not a matter of the majority granting a right. You've got that a**-backwards. People have inalienable rights unless there is reason to take them away. The onus is on you to prove that this right should not be recognized.

Your explanation is only half-true. CERTAIN rights are guaranteed unless there is reason to take them away. These rights are guaranteed in the Consitution. Does the Constitution say anything about marraige?

Let me remind you of what you wrote to which I was directly responding.

"Since all the arguments heard thus far for homosexual marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incest, etc,"

It is irrelevant what your arguments are. All I have to do is show that there are people who disagree with you in this thread for your statement to be false.

Not at all...you would have to actually show how certain arguments in favor of gay marriage do not work for polygamy, incest, etc.

Umm, NO. I did not say that the majority of Americans agree with me.

Really? Did you not say, "And with close to half of Americans currently favoring legalized same-sex unions, no offense but I really don't have to care whether you're convinced or not. Gay marriage (or its legal equivalent) will be legal in this country in the near future." If you support gay marraige (which I assume by your posts you do), then you at least think that the majority of Americans will agree with you in the near future, if they don't already

I said that it doesn't even take a majority of Americans to agree in order to get a law changed. This is entirely consistent with what I've been arguing all along. Rights are not granted by the majority.

You're right, they're granted by the Constitution...when you can show me where the Constitution grants anyone the "right" to get married to someone of the same gender, we can go from there.

Shown by you to yourself. What an impressive feat.

You have yet to disprove this premise. Before you mock, try actually responding to the OP.

So you're arguing that our country will fall apart if we legalize gay-marriage but we'll have to wait centuries for your proof. And we should take your word on this why??

You shouldn't take my word on it. I have an idea. Let's both get criogenically (sp?) frozen, wake up in 1,000 years, then resume the debate, k?

 

[lilithu]

Your explanation is only half-true. CERTAIN rights are guaranteed unless there is reason to take them away. These rights are guaranteed in the Consitution. Does the Constitution say anything about marraige?

NO, ALL rights are guaranteed unless there is a reason to take them away. By your logic, we do not have the right to buy chewing gum because it doesn't expressly say so in the Constitution.

Not at all...you would have to actually show how certain arguments in favor of gay marriage do not work for polygamy, incest, etc.

No, all I have to show is that your statement:
"Since all the arguments heard thus far for homosexual marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incest, etc," is not true. Not ALL of the arguments heard thus far for same-sex marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incect, etc. Mine isn't. You do understand the concept of "all," right?

Really? Did you not say, "And with close to half of Americans currently favoring legalized same-sex unions, no offense but I really don't have to care whether you're convinced or not. Gay marriage (or its legal equivalent) will be legal in this country in the near future." If you support gay marraige (which I assume by your posts you do), then you at least think that the majority of Americans will agree with you in the near future, if they don't already

Funny that you should cut out the line right before that sentence.

I said: "It doesn't take 100% consensus to make something legal in this country. As the data above shows, it doesn't even take a majority consensus."

My point with the "close to half of Americans" is that number already far exceeds the percentage of Americans who condoned inter-racial marriages when the anti-miscegenation laws were stuck down.

You're right, they're granted by the Constitution...when you can show me where the Constitution grants anyone the "right" to get married to someone of the same gender, we can go from there.

When you can show me where the Constitution grants anyone the right to get married period, we can go from there.

What the Constitution recognizes (not grants) is our right to freedom, without undue interference from govt. Which means: ALL rights are guaranteed unless there is a reason to take them away. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

You have yet to disprove this premise. Before you mock, try actually responding to the OP.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=590455#poststop

 

[d.]

I don't get it. What's the point you're trying to make? What I'm saying is that I believe consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.

sorry, joke. hence the 'wink'. probably shouldn't do that in a thread like this, sorry.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Oko, I'm going to bed after this, promise:

NO, ALL rights are guaranteed unless there is a reason to take them away. By your logic, we do not have the right to buy chewing gum because it doesn't expressly say so in the Constitution.

It isn't a right to buy chewing gum. It's a privilege afforded by the fact that certain companies make chewing gum and sell it to us. If all those companies stopped making their product and didn't offer it to us anymore, it wouldn't violate our rights in the slightest.

No, all I have to show is that your statement:
"Since all the arguments heard thus far for homosexual marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incest, etc," is not true. Not ALL of the arguments heard thus far for same-sex marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incect, etc. Mine isn't. You do understand the concept of "all," right?

Sorry, which argument have you promoted for gay marraige that cannot be applied to polygamy or incest?

F

unny that you should cut out the line right before that sentence.

I said: "It doesn't take 100% consensus to make something legal in this country. As the data above shows, it doesn't even take a majority consensus."

My point with the "close to half of Americans" is that number already far exceeds the percentage of Americans who condoned inter-racial marriages when the anti-miscegenation laws were stuck down.

And my point is, so what? You haven't yet connected the dots as to why we should change marriage agains just because it's been changed once.

When you can show me where the Constitution grants anyone the right to get married period, we can go from there.

My point exactly! Marraige isn't even discussed in the Constitution, stop talking about it like you're guaranteed it!

What the Constitution recognizes (not grants) is our right to freedom, without undue interference from govt. Which means: ALL rights are guaranteed unless there is a reason to take them away. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

You're right. So stop inventing Constitutional rights and pretending like the Constitution protects them.

 

[Tigress]

Right, or privilege, it is still one guaranteed only to heterosexuals, which, when considering the benefits of what a civil marriage offers, is nothing less than unjust where same-sex couples are concerned.--Same-sex marriage, like opposite-sex marriage, is still a union between that of two [unrelated] persons in love.

Edit to add: ...two [unrelated, consenting adult] persons in love.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Only time will tell, I suppose
And 1,000 years from now, people will be saying America fell because it had gone to such extremes in eliminating all boundaries and morals...

Yes, because I imagine legalising gay marriage is going to make you want to immediately run out and marry the next girl that passes - or group of random individuals, or your brother, or a goat - rather than some pretty tennis player.
Unlike you,I have no problem with same sex or polygamous relationships, but my morals aren't so fluid that I have the immediate urge to run out and do something I previously didn't agree with just because the government says I can, so I don't have any reason to fear them. I don't know anyone like that, actually. Do you?
Allowing homosexuals the right to legally recognised marriages legalises a union between two people. Just like interracial marriage. While I can see how someone could stretch the comparison to incest due purely to the numbers presumed to be involved - and I stress the word stretch, because frankly I think it's small minded, bigoted idiocy to even compare the two things - it doesn't apply to polygamy. Pesonally I have no issue with more than two people in a loving relationship, but I fail to see the natural progression from homosexuality to polygamy, just because a bunch of people claim it exists.
If America is going to fall, it'll have very little to do with allowing homosexuals the right to a legally recognised relationship. There are bigger roads to hell being dabbled in than something that doesn't actually affect in any way, any person other than those who are already involved in or of a sexual orientation to be involved in such a union.

And you act as though the fact that such countries haven't instantly disintegrated proves that gay marriage is ok...that's incredibly short-sighted. It could take centuries to ascertain the over-arching effect that gay marriage has on individual countries

I'll bet it results in homosexuals being married, with the legal rights that go along with that, instead of living together, being denied even the right to make their own legal arrangements at their own expense, being denied the right to see their partner in hospital, being at risk of having their children taken from their care if the legally recognised custodial parent is killed.
I think the long term effect might be something like homosexual couples being able to feel that they, their relationship and their family is more legally secure and protected.
What a shocking and horrible concept.Makes my blood run cold at the thought.

 

[lilithu]

You're right. So stop inventing Constitutional rights and pretending like the Constitution protects them.

You really have no understanding of the Constitution whatsoever. What do they teach you in school?! When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, people like James Madison - the father of our Constitution - were initially against it because they feared that if they explicitly listed some rights then people like you would take that to mean that those rights which are not listed are not guaranteed. That is absolutely false.

If things were done your way, we would not have the right to do anything unless the govt passed a law specifically granting us the right to do that thing. I thank God that our founding fathers had more foresight than you.

The Constitution recognizes our general right to FREEDOM. It does not provide a laundry list of what we are allowed to do. We can do what we want. We have the general RIGHT to do whatever we want. The onus is on the govt to prove that it needs to restrict our rights in order for it to legally do so.

When anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, the Supreme Court said that they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That means that govt had made laws restricting our freedom that it didn't have the right to do. It is not the case that the majority decided, ok, let's grant people the right to marry across race. The Supreme Court, citing the Constitution, told us that taking away that right violated our constitution.

For various reasons, there are laws in our society that wrongfully violate the right to FREEDOM for some of us that the rest of us enjoy, without any proven reason. That is unconstitutional. Such laws have been recognized in the past and changed. The same will happen for laws that privilege heterosexual unions.

 

[sojourner]

There's a lot of traffic here with regard to the social damage that will occur when homosexuals are allowed to marry. Let's have a reality check here: Homosexuals have always lived together in family units. Society has not been damaged by this. What has damaged society is the propagation of bigotry and hatred put forth by religious conservatives. Homosexuality has always been part of our society. Heretofore, everyone has turned a blind eye, or denied the issue for fear of reprisals from those who feel it is their duty to "clean up" society. Now, when homosexuals are finally being granted the civil freedom to let their voices be heard in the public forum, the conservatives are screaming "moral degredation." Folks, it's always been this way!!!

Homosexuals aren't asking for the blessing of the religious right -- they're asking the government for the same rights to financial and legal protection as any other adults who live together as a family.

This issue isn't a moral argument -- it's a civil rights argument. That's why this is such a protracted issue. People want to use government to sort out a clearly religious issue: "Is homosexuality morally OK or not?" The only question the government has any business asking in this country is: "Are everyone's civil rights being protected under the law?"

Let's let the religious institutions duke it out amongst themselves to decide the moral issues, and free up the government to do its work.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There's a lot of traffic here with regard to the social damage that will occur when homosexuals are allowed to marry. Let's have a reality check here: Homosexuals have always lived together in family units. Society has not been damaged by this.

I'll never get tired of quoting this:

Plato, Symposium, 192a

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or thewilling mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

The very man that Christian conservatives follow more than anyone, Plato, preserves the view that homosexuality is perfectly normal...

 

[MaddLlama]

And don't forget that pirates also lived in homosexual "family units" when not at sea. I'll have to get a hold of that book again...it had some really interesting information. From what I remember once they returned to shore to homestead (mostly in France) they lived in small communes and in thier own form of marriages.
I know, I know, pirates are not exactly the best role models, but think about that whether or not you consider them civilized at all.

 

[Green Gaia]

Then maybe you should revisit the OP, because it's not directly about the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. It's about whether condoning homosexuality leads to the condoning of other behaviors such as polygamy, incest, etc.

I was willing to work within the OP until you started blaming all society's ills on gay people. I admit your attacks angried me which was wrong of me to let that happen. You obviously have a problem with gay people and therefore me, so I have nothing else to say to you. Have a nice day. :rainbow1:

 

[Green Gaia]

On the topic of civil rights, I made this post in another thread, but I think it goes well in this discussion too.

In Loving vs. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court declared that, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Race was the issue in that case, but we believe it applies to everyone. If the state denies same gender couples access to marriage they are saying same gender couples are not a valid form of relationship and if they do this they would have to give their reasons. There are no valid reasons against same gender couples outside of religious beliefs, which the government cannot push on everyone. Therefore, the state must recognize same gender couples and they must allow access to the same rights that opposite gender couples have. To do otherwise would violate the US Constitution that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

 

[Revasser]

As I have stated and you ignored, in this country rights/liberties are assumed unless there is reason to take them away...

....People have inalienable rights unless there is reason to take them away. The onus is on you to prove that this right should not be recognized.

Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Indeedly doo.

 

[Inky]

I do see your point here, and yes, 100 years ago interracial marriage was taboo, and it has become acceptable now. My point, however, is when is the line going to be drawn? We make one change here, one change there, and soon marriage is completely different than it was originally (although maybe you don't perceive this as a bad thing.)

Personally, I'd say draw the line at things that hurt people. Forced marriages and marriages with underage people (who psychologically aren't prepared for a mature relationship) are the only kinds I can think of right now that are actually harmful. If we're using a 1700s or earlier definition, marriage has already disintegrated, even if you remove the gay issue. I don't see that as a bad thing, because I don't see why 1700s marriage is preferable to 2000s marriage. (Heh, it looks weird to write 2000s.) Similarly, by 2300 marriage will probably be unrecognizable to us. Is that bad? I don't think so. It's always happened, and always will.

To me, it seems foundational to marriage that it be between a man and a woman; humans are generally monogamous creatures who procreate heterosexually, it only seems reasonable to define marriage within that context. I realize that others feel differently, but I get the feeling we're never going to convince each other.

That doesn't seem foundational to me, and I have a feeling it won't be foundational to people growing up twenty years from now. One of the problems may be that we see marriage as having two different purposes. Since you mentioned procreation, I'm guessing you view it partly as a system of support for reproduction? To me marriage is about the bond between the partners, and reproduction is not necessary to make it legitimate.

Since all the arguments heard thus far for homosexual marriage are just as easily applied to polygamy, incest, etc, we have no reason to recognize gay marraige before any other minority romantic union...many of which I think the vast majority of humanity agrees are horrid.

The argument for gender-equal marriage, marriage without consent of parents, incestuous marriages, interracial marriage, childless marriages, polygamous marriages, interreligious and intercultural marriages, marriages which allow for divorce, etc, are all the same. This argument is that people should be able to do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. Doing something which someone else thinks is gross isn't hurting them. What is fundamentally different about the marriage rights you accept, other than the fact that they've been in place for a while so you're used to them?

Also, not to criticize, but the way you use the idea of "minority" could be offensive to some people, because you seem to be implying that people should have to make special cases for rights if those rights aren't likely to be used by the "majority". The law is not here to prevent actions which a large number of people find distasteful; it's here to prevent actions that are harmful.

Also, from a more technical standpoint, I don't see a case for preventing something from becoming legal because it might eventually lead to other things becoming legal. If you could present a few cases in which this happened and was considered constitutional, there would be a premise, but as of now I've never seen an implication that the law works this way.

 

[HopefulNikki]

Right, or privilege, it is still one guaranteed only to heterosexuals, which, when considering the benefits of what a civil marriage offers, is nothing less than unjust where same-sex couples are concerned.--Same-sex marriage, like opposite-sex marriage, is still a union between that of two [unrelated] persons in love.

Edit to add: ...two [unrelated, consenting adult] persons in love.

And why stop there? Polygamy is just a union between THREE unrelated persons in love, right? The more the merrier? And for that matter, why only unrelated persons? Don't give me that old bigoted line about having retarded children; my sister and I don't want kids. We just love each other and want our civil rights upheld.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And why stop there? Polygamy is just a union between THREE unrelated persons in love, right? The more the merrier? And for that matter, why only unrelated persons? Don't give me that old bigoted line about having retarded children; my sister and I don't want kids. We just love each other and want our civil rights upheld.

Polygamy, I think, could actually hurt the social structure of America. I'm thinking specifically of the incredible legal mess...

If polygamy were ever to become legal, I will become a divorce lawyer.

Americans have no clue how to commit, divorce is ugly enough as it is.

 

[Revasser]

Revasser, I'd just like to point out that it says "Certain rights" not "All rights." That wording might throw a monkey wrench in the works.

My point was that just because a right is not explicity laid out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. That's all.

 

[darkpenguin]

Polygamy, I think, could actually hurt the social structure of America. I'm thinking specifically of the incredible legal mess...

If polygamy were ever to become legal, I will become a divorce lawyer.

Americans have no clue how to commit, divorce is ugly enough as it is.

i agree! :yes: : hamster :

 

[HopefulNikki]

Yes, because I imagine legalising gay marriage is going to make you want to immediately run out and marry the next girl that passes - or group of random individuals, or your brother, or a goat - rather than some pretty tennis player.

My heart will always be for Andy, you blasphemer! I'm not sure and condoning homosexuality would create more members of other sexual minorities; however, I do believe that those people and their sexual practices would become more accepted in the public eye.

Unlike you,I have no problem with same sex or polygamous relationships, but my morals aren't so fluid that I have the immediate urge to run out and do something I previously didn't agree with just because the government says I can, so I don't have any reason to fear them. I don't know anyone like that, actually. Do you?

Not at all, and I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that legalizing gay marraige will instently transform formerly monogamous heterosexuals into polygamists, etc. I am saying that those sexual minorities which are out there already will be more accepted in the public eye, even to the point of wanting their "civil rights" upheld by altering the definiton of marraige to fit their particular needs.

Allowing homosexuals the right to legally recognised marriages legalises a union between two people. Just like interracial marriage. While I can see how someone could stretch the comparison to incest due purely to the numbers presumed to be involved - and I stress the word stretch, because frankly I think it's small minded, bigoted idiocy to even compare the two things - it doesn't apply to polygamy. Pesonally I have no issue with more than two people in a loving relationship, but I fail to see the natural progression from homosexuality to polygamy, just because a bunch of people claim it exists.

The progression goes something like this, as I've been explaining...as lilithu has pointed out, if we make one change to marraige, why not more? We're eliminating the importance of the genders of the people involved in a marraige, why not change the number of people involved? Who said marraige had to be confined to just two people? I mean, sheesh, not too long ago we allowed gays to marry, why can't I get married to TWO people that I love?

I'll bet it results in homosexuals being married, with the legal rights that go along with that, instead of living together, being denied even the right to make their own legal arrangements at their own expense, being denied the right to see their partner in hospital, being at risk of having their children taken from their care if the legally recognised custodial parent is killed.
I think the long term effect might be something like homosexual couples being able to feel that they, their relationship and their family is more legally secure and protected.
What a shocking and horrible concept.Makes my blood run cold at the thought.

And I'll bet the results of polygamists and incestuus couples being married, with the legal rights that go along with that, instead of living together, being denied even the right to make their own legal arrangements at their own expense, being deind the right to see their partner(s) in the hospital, being at risk of having their children taken from their care, etc. I think the long term effect will be that they will be able to feel that they, their relationship and their family is more legally secure and protected. What a shocking and horrible concept

 

[HopefulNikki]

Polygamy, I think, could actually hurt the social structure of America. I'm thinking specifically of the incredible legal mess...

If polygamy were ever to become legal, I will become a divorce lawyer.

Americans have no clue how to commit, divorce is ugly enough as it is.

Oh, Angellous, stop being such a polygaphobe! Stop making such horrible excuses to deny people their civil rights! My two husbands and I just want to enjoy the legal status of our infinitely loving relationship, to protect our family, to be free of discrimination! And as for my SISTER and I, you have no clue what we go through on a daily basis; why are you denying our love??