Same sex marriage & Polygamy

Out of curiosity, mack, where was the above photo taken, Kern County or where I live, in Orange County? I don't mean to be flippant and I actually liked your argument because it seemed to be in a legit debate format. I'm sure you will get plenty of responses, but I applaud your guts and openness. I'm just wondering that if Prop. 8 lost in Cali, if you would have made that post. I love you, mack.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

thanks mark. I would have still made the post. it was san diego. we had to vote on whether our state would reconvene to discuss a constitutional amendment in IL as well, and everyone I know voted NO. Apparently NO was the overwhelming vote - not only because of the gay marriage issue, but also because of our issue with our former Governor. we have serious corruption issues here.

__________________
something witty goes here......

I hope they didn't involve Obama!

I hope that you don't get neg repped Mack. Although I don't agree with your view point, you put your argument over well and, IMO, didn't insult or patronise anyone who'd take the opposing view.

I'm with Honey

That was a post Mack

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I really think the true problem is that marriage, which is a pseudo-religious practice, shouldn't be legally recognized. I know I sound like a Libertarian, but I think that separation of church & state was put in place to prevent controversies such as same-sex marriages.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

Ok first of all, thanks for responding. It took some guts and I appreciate it. Now onto the points you were trying to make:

I agree that belief doesn't not always equal hate, but it does mean discrimination.

People who think your belief is crazy aren't trying to take away your right to believe and worship whomever you see fit. It's the purpose of the state to protect all of its citizens and treat them all equally. This is why it's unfortunate that the religious majority has the right to change legislation to conform to its beliefs as in the case of California. Religious people don't have to respect gay marriage, only accept it as a legal, secular fact.

I think everyone understand this. Unfortunately, as stated above, the majority of people still have the ability to impose their religious beliefs on other people and deny them equal rights. Hence the hangup.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but the decision of the High court in which the ban on gay marriage way declared unconstitutional specifically states as follows:

"Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)"
See above.

No, it is not equal and no one is saying it is. But it does have a lot of similarities. A lot of black people see the connection and aren't offended by it at all (click me and read please). I'm not even sure why you would be offended, as if somehow gay people are appropriating, undermining or diminishing the plight of your people by saying they have gone through something similar?

I'm no expert in American law, but by perusing through the Supreme court decision (and the use of the dreaded wikipedia) I've come across the term "suspect classification" which "is a classification of groups which meet a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim is asserted against a law alleging unconstitutional discrimination. To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must meet all of the following criteria:

1. The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
2. The group shares a history of discrimination.
3. The group is politically impotent.
4. The group is a discrete and insular minority."

The Attorney General tried to argue that sexual orientation doesn't fall under this umbrella. Here's what the Supreme court had to say about it:

"In his briefing before this court, the Attorney General does not maintain that sexual orientation fails to satisfy the three requirements for a suspect classification discussed by the Court of Appeal, but instead argues that a fourth requirement should be imposed before a characteristic is considered a constitutionally suspect basis for classification for equal protection purposes — namely, that “a ‘suspect’ classification is appropriately recognized only for minorities who are unable to use the political process to address their needs.”

The Attorney General’s brief asserts that “[s]ince the gay and lesbian community in California is obviously able to wield political power in defense of its interests, this
Court should not hold that sexual orientation constitutes a suspect classification.” Although some California decisions in discussing suspect classifications have referred to a group’s “political powerlessness” (see, e.g. Raffaelli v.9 9 Committee of Bar examiners, supra, 7 Cal.3d 288, 292), our cases have not identified a group’s current political powerlessness as a necessary prerequisite for treatment as a suspect class.62

Indeed, if a group’s current political powerlessness were a prerequisite to a characteristic’s being considered a constitutionally suspect basis for differential treatment, it would be impossible to justify the numerous decisions that continue to treat sex, race, and religion as suspect classifications.63 Instead, our decisions make clear that the most important factors in deciding whether a characteristic should be considered a constitutionally suspect basis for classification are whether the class of persons who exhibit a certain characteristic historically has been subjected to invidious and prejudicial treatment, and whether society now recognizes that the characteristic in question generally bears no relationship to the individual’s ability to perform or contribute to society. Thus, “courts must look closely at classifications based on that characteristic lest outdated social stereotypes result in invidious laws or practices.”

First of all, I have to say that I did find this paragraph deeply insulting. Why? Because to suggests that homosexuality is a choice also suggests that I and many others like me willingly subjected ourselves to discrimination and humiliation for no apparent reason other than masochism. But I'm going to assume it stems from a profound lack of understanding, rather than deeply rooted homophobia. :\

It's a fact that we still haven't figured out why some people are gay and what role genetics and society play in that respect, but, in regard to the legal aspect of this case (and the suspect classes) it has been asserted (as quoted from the Supreme court's decision) that it is "a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs". It has therefore been deemed inappropriate to "require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." And this is all anyone should be concerned about.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

I'm not going to neg rep you, Mack, because I respect the time and effort you put into your post, even though I do not agree with alot of it. I'm not going to quote and respond to all of it because I lack the time and effort at the moment but would like to make a few points:

1. I don't think religions should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. There is nothing wrong with a civil cerremony. I don't think that any religious group has the right to interfere with any other group's marriage ceremonies, though. Religious groups don't have to like gay marriage, or even gay people, but they do have to treat them with respect. It constantly amazes me that religious groups who demand and receive protection from discrimination by law seem to think they have the right to discriminate against others.

2. You say some religious groups will never accept homosexuality and that's just how it is. Some religious groups will never accept women's rights, some racists will never accept people of a different race...does this make it ok?

3. You believe that homosexuality is a choice and that it is somehow personally offensive to you to suggest otherwise. That is just a belief, though, and one which is fairly insulting. Honestly, I thought that it was pretty widely accepted that it is not a choice. Even if it were, if the rights and beliefs of religious groups should be protected (religious views are not something we are born with) then why should the rights of gay people be denied?

Adi, thanks for the nice reply. I'll try not to go through your post line by line, but I think you've said some things I can clearly agree with, and others - not so much, so I will try to highlight certain via the "quote box." I'll try not to overdo the quotes, and not to ramble, as you all know I am wont to do, so again certain things points may stand more fleshing out, if needed.

In certain contexts, sure. We agree on that. And I wont be so smallminded as to pretend I dont understand what you mean. I completely understand you and I think you are right, but I DO want to also point out that "discrimination" in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Hear me out on this.

For example:
Discrimination
1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonyms see discernment

We all pretty much know the 3b definition of discriminating - but the part of the word I'm focused on is the 2 definition: "to make a difference between one thing as opposed to the other." This is why a connoisseur can be a person of discriminating tastes: they have the ability to discern a difference, and have a preference for one thing over another.

Side Note About "Preference"
A humorous thought occurred to me while I was writing this: the whole rhetoric surrounding homosexuality is that there is a differing ""preference" - that one should not think less of them because they have "discriminating" tastes - that they have a right to have a preference. This is really neither here nor there with regard to this discussion, but I think it bears on the fact that in a broad sense EVERYONE discriminates, because everyone chooses one thing as opposed to another. So discrimination in and of itself is not a bad thing, it is - as you have so clearly pointed out - considered bad when one person's preference is directly hurting another, and for reasons that are considered by the majority of society as unjustified.

So yes. We understand one another about discrimination.

The Philosophical Bit: Is Discrimination Good or Bad?
I only mean to say, however, that the context in which discrimination is viewed (read: whether it is deemed good or bad), is shaped by society as a whole. And from my admittedly young vantage point, I believe that the jury is still out on what society thinks about gay marriage. The debate still rages on, and on both sides (What is good? What is bad? What is moral? What is amoral? Is there a God? Who even cares? Why does it matter?). So without getting into what one believes (and unfortunately, religion does have a large part to play in this) to say simplisticly that "its discrimination and its wrong" is to presuppose that the person you are talking to sees the world as black and white, or from the same side of the debate and you see it.

They dont. I can clearly see that it is discrimination, but I discriminate every morning about which creamer I will have in my coffee. The question is not about whether discrimination exists, its about whether the discrimination is wrong, or unjustified - and in this case opponents of gay marriage clearly understand that they are discriminating, and do not care, because it does not fit into their personal "WRONG" category. It may never fit into the "wrong" category for opponents of gay marriage - but it might be forced into hiding by the law depending on how voting goes.

Until the gay marriage question is decided by American society with finality, for them the entire stage of the debate is informed on each side by their Belief. Each side will do everything they can to advance and defend that belief in every way: politically, socially, etc. It is because both sides have the opportunity to create (or preserve, in some instances) a world that they understand and in which they can happily exist. Thus the colossal "Morality Dukefest" begins over Cali Prop 8 and such like.

Those are merely my thoughts, and the context in which I view the debate, which is a caveat to all that it does not mean that this is "the way it is" for everyone, but I do think it may be for a large cross-section of religious people. Anyway, I hope if nothing else it provides some insight or understanding into why you hit a brick wall or get a blank look with the "you're discriminating!" argument: it is because you are putting the cart before the horse. We already know we are discriminating; now you need to prove to us why its wrong.

Religion is the Piper That Must Be Paid
And unfortunately, you cannot prove to religious people that it is wrong, if they believe as a part of their religious belief, unless you first prove to them that their Belief is flawed, and either needs to be reassessed and corrected, or altogether repudiated and thrown away. I wont even digress, because religious debate is another beast altogether, and all religions are different, and believe different things for different reasons. The point I make here is that unless the LGBT lobby becomes so vast and mighty and religion ceases to exist in the Earth - they will not be able to win the day against their religious counterparts by the very dull and simplistic argument that "Religion (or simply insert here: "you people are ") is stupid!"

That is the point at which many people just flip the "OFF" switch, or simply say "Hold that thought!" while they walk away and just never come back.

Point #1: Religion Must Be Won With Respect
My point on a very basic scale is that the debate with the "moral opposition to gay marriage" (i.e. fundies of any religion), is not one that will be won with a hammer of opposing rage, but with the decided wisdom understanding first, then persuasion.

Point #2: Moral Degragation is Expected
Realistically? Most people of any christian type religion already anticipate the loss of that battle, either now or in the future, because they already are convinced of an steady, known, unstoppable and predicted moral decline of the world. Any opposition to gay marriage, or TV violence, or whatever is an act of conscience - and is seen as a necessary thing for one to do one's part to delay for however much longer the general societal malaise. However, the decline is seen as inevitable, and every victory is realistically viewed as temporary, and appreciated momentarily.

Point #3: The Sanctity of Marriage
I won't linger long on this point because I thinks it so clearly obvious to anyone who really looks at it, but its worth its own heading because it could be an entire discussion in and of itself. People who believe in the "sanctity of marriage" and think that gay marriage will contribute to its demise are a lot like the people who believe TV Violence contributes to the moral decay of society. By saying that I mean to say that the argument is not as simplistic as "I wanna mind someone else's personal sexual business." It is more an umbrella philosophical argument about the decline of the institution of marriage as a whole, and the destruction of the family as the backbone of society - hence the destruction of society as we know it.

You dont have to agree with this argument, however if you dont understand this argument, specifically since the word POLYGAMY is in the title of this thread - its really not worth getting into. If you do not comprehend that we think polygamy is a BAD THING, and that we (apparently correctly) believe that this whole Gay Marriage lobby will eventually slippery slope itself into a Polygamy/Bigamy/No Marriage Necessary, potentially pederasty-and-pedophilic-is-ok argument, I wont waste my breath on the subject.

If the final word is that you really dont care about marriage anyway - why destroy it? I honestly believe that the LBGT lobby could more successfully lobby for a version of marriage that contains every right, privilege and protection of marriage - and obtain it. Why not do that? Then in 5 years show back up with the happy family figures and successful homes and family lives and call Congress and state legislatures out. The problem is that there is an entire contingent out there who really believe and successfully argue with facts and figures that the homosexual relationship is often (I do not say "always") itself of a transient nature.

Your Quotations of Law at Me
I'm not really sure what these points are meant to accomplish, because as I stated in my first post and in a detailed explanation above, we - and by "we" I mean American Society, are writing the decisions of our country in the Court of Public Opinion. I hope that you understand that I understand the inner workings of the Legislative, Executive and Court powers, and that I also understand (and assume that everyone in this conversation understands) that American Public Opinion shapes the policy of every branch of government.

A Supreme Court decision, as you may know, is merely an interpretation of the law. They may interpret it in whatever way they want, and if Legislators think they got it wrong, they simply write another, clearer law that leaves the Court no wiggle room. Hence the whole "Legislating From the Bench" debate between Congress and the Court.

Its a back and forth, and that back and forth is determined ultimately by Legislation: the Court rules, Congress lets it stand, or gets mad and goes back to write another law with fewer margins. Congress gets mad enough they amend the Constitution of the US to force the court to do it their way and create new "precedent." (Hence the whole hulabaloo over McCain.)

If its not the Supreme Court on a federal level, its the same thing on a State Level all over again.

Bottom line? At present I do not plan on discussing the arcane points of SC holdings or dicta, because I'm not getting paid, and while care, I dont care that much. I am only making the philosophical point that Public Opinion is the court of concern and currently the greatest stage of the debate, and it shapes legal policy: it is why the Anti- Gay Marriage proposition won the day in California.



I appreciate your restraint as well Thursday, and I hope I can answer your questions, because I think they have merit.

I agree, depending on context. Generally, no one should be discrimintated against, period. When it comes to "religious things," I do think it is fair that individuals who have certain belief systems should have those beliefs respected, and there has to be a way in which the law can manage to respect both.

For example: a parent may not want their child to attend a Sex Ed class where homosexuality is taught as a normal thing. Why instead of making a big deal about it, cant they just let the parent pull the child from that class, and everyone go about their business?

People who have religious reasons for abstaining from certain things should be able to do so without retribution.

I also maintain that as long as religious institutions are not actively harming people, they should not have their arms twisted to do things that clearly contravene their doctrine in some weird twisted "force them to be tolerant" practice by the State. So far, the State has alway used a carrot to force tolerance (i.e. "Do it and we'll give you federal money") as opposed to a stick - at least when it comes to free speech issues like "thought."

For the reasons I expressed above about Belief - yes. People believe a lot of things for religious reasons, and I dont agree with them, because I dont agree with their religion. I understand that they do, though, and THAT is the point I was trying to make. At that level, you have less a problem with the person, and more a problem with their chosen life's philosophy. Until you can persuasively break the logic of that philosophy (or they for reasons of their own stop believing it) you cannot break the belief of that person, and they will not change.

But if we divorce religion/belief from this discussion for a moment, then no. Of course not. But as a black woman, I think harboring some unsung hope for a Utopian society where everyone likes and agrees with everyone else is an incredibly naive vantage point.

I was born Black, will be when I die, and have never regretted it. However, for me, racism exists, will exist and will never go away, because there are people whose Belief system allows them to justify it to themselves. For some, that Belief is unbreakable - others are willing to hear and consider argument for/against, and constantly re-evaluate based on that. Whatever the case, one has to learn to deal with dislike and opposition.

Forever, I mean.


Well, I hope you know that I didnt say these things to be insulting - by no means. And, I agree with you that it IS pretty widely accepted that it is not a choice. My point (and even Adi was able to agree in some context above), was that whether or not homosexuality is a BORN WITH thing or a CHOICE is debatable.

If I remember correctly, it is highly accepted as a theory, but it is also known everywhere that it is not proven fact.

So apparently, it is a "belief" on both sides, and one that is ripe for discussion and interpretation. I only proffered it as an explanation to the bewilderment over the passage of Anti-Gay Marriage laws. Clearly in spite of the fact that the "CHOICE" theory is "widely accepted," there is still a broad segment of american society (and not just blacks and mexicans) that hold the opposing view. And so no - the book isnt closed on the subject. The debate is still open, and the jury is still out.

There was a time when I thought I would never attend a gay marriage.
I still wouldn't want to.
I think I'm changing very slowly.
I don't support gay marriage, but I won't fight against it.
I think it's only a matter of time before it becomes legal, and we move on.
There are more important things to worry about.

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross

I'm just wondering, mack, if you can make the exact same arguments which you have above concerning abortion or how it might change based on that subject or any other which might be construed to include morals derived through religion? Does the Constitution only guarantee freedom OF religion and NOT freedom FROM religion, and how does one's interpretation influence the way they look at these type of arguments?

All i know is that gay marriage should be allowed so gay couples don't have to go through so much trouble protecting their assets or belongings in a long term relationship. Also if they want to have marriages and divorces like everyone, why should we stop them ?
They really need to stop trying for marriage go for civil unions instead and I think they will get less flack.

It just dont understand. Also I think people are just trying to force their views on them because, they are differant and that doesnt go over well in America. I hardly think it will last forever . Well maybe in the state of UTAH, you wont be able to be married gay . But I can see where people would get upset by forcing churches to perform cermonies of this type. When they believe it wrong . Here where I live we have gay churches . It is just refusing people freedoms they feel they need and it really doesnt hurt anyone.

im smiling that you asked that mark, because I found myself in some serious hot water over the abortion issue with my conservative friends this past election. not because I agree WITH abortion, but because Id rather leave it alone as opposed to get involved in the legal abortion debate. I was publicly vilified as a Bleeding Heart Liberal Pro-Choicer, all because I said in an open debate that while I do not agree with abortion as a whole on religious grounds, I understand the very precise decision of the legislature to allow a young girl to obtain an abortion without parental consent.

this is what I said (please note that it was written to a singularly Christian audience, and so the rhetoric and tone below was not intended for anyone other than people who agreed with its basic premise - sharing it here is not intended to air an abortion debate or to offend, but merely to shed light on the tone of the debate within a select (multicultural I might add) christian community):
This statement above apparently rocked my friends far and near, and I had people all over america - midwest, east, south, west - accusing me of (and I quote) a "moral lapse."

To be fair to them, their great problem is over partial birth abortion, which I, too, feel is pretty sick. I agreed with them that it was wrong and hoped they won the day on that issue, but I wasnt willing to vote Republican in order to accomplish that goal. Why? Because I, and large score of very conservative "christians" still felt there was a more paramount morality within the Democratic Party idealogy. And if some moral beliefs we had (abortion, gay marriage) lost ground as a result of some Democratic Ideals, we still felt very strongly that in the advancement of Republican Ideals we would also suffer moral losses, so the choice was not between Good and Evil as some of our Really Right friends suggest, but rather between a choice of Evils, or conversely a choice of Goods.

The question became not whether moral losses would be suffered, but which. And what I think most people do not understand is that the "which" of it is all is really the only reason many black conservatives are still Democrat.

Without getting into the minutia of the arguments, I share the above to underscore the fact that there is an entire philosophical argument currently raging in some religious communities over whose concept of morality will win the day: Democratic concepts or Republican concepts. My conscience allowed me to vote Democrat in spite of the Democratic support of partial-birth abortion; theirs did not. The above paragraphs should have explained to everyone why blacks in California could both vote for Obama, and against Gay Marriage.

With that context, I'll try to answer your question.

1. I havent really shared a real argument for/against gay marriage. I've only attempted to clarify the starting point and framework for application of the argument against gay marriage. It is from this point that one can take off the gloves and get down to brass tacks on the issues themselves.

2. You could attempt to apply this exact framework for discussion to the abortion issue. I dont, because I dont feel its as applicable, because:

a. For religion, abortion is just as morally wrong, but its effect is not as utterly pervasive. To me, its effect isnt as utterly pervasive because I may feel society is declining because women are having abortions, but I seriously doubt that allowing a woman to abort even a child at full term is going to affect the decision of another woman in another household. For Gay Marriage, however, for reasons I have already stated in prior posts, some see it as a threat to the future longevity and existence of the institution of marriage for everyone. (*I should mention here that as stated above, conservative democrats are in the minority on this view.)

b. Since its not as utterly pervasive - to me, it is one of those chosen "moral losses." Not happy to lose on that point, but there are more important things to fight for. (*The note under 2a applies here as well.)

c. As the parentheticals have suggested, another person might determine that abortion is a paramount moral issue.

Really, the general thought you could extrapolate from the Gay Marriage argument to this one is that the Abortion argument is still obviously up for debate, because it is also being aired in the court of public opinion (although from a much weaker position for conservatives).

You know I feel really bad that you even have to ask that mark. I hope by now that I have conveyed that I do think the Constitution protects people from religion.

Question:
Do you suggest that religious people seek to impose their will upon others, regardless of what the Constitution says, or in direct contradiction of the Constitution?

Imposition of Will
While I do think there is truth in that argument, I also think that it is extremely simplistic and somewhat hypocritical at base. From a bird's eye view, every voting individual seeks to impose their will, each time they vote - merely by making a decision for one thing over another.

Interpretation
Clearly we all "interpret" the world differently - even the Constitution, because if we didnt, we wouldnt have what we call "liberal" and "conservative" Supreme Court Justices, who I guarantee you each believe in their own right that their interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one.

Society not a Piece of Paper
It's 3am over this way and my screen is starting to blur, so I'm definitely not clicking on all cylinders over here, but I do hope that somewhere in the above posts I have clearly expressed that this is less about 'the Constitution" as a document, and more about the fact that society as a whole gives it its power.

For example: we can debate the current language of the Constitution til we are blue in the face, and you can cite me precedent out the wazoo. Then Congress can turn around, convene, and amend the Constitution based on public sentiment, and completely undo or destroy some long held principle or precedent. An imposition of majority public will on all of society.

For example: we can stack the Supreme Court full of conservative or liberal judges for so long that the decisions coming from them are bent one way or the other (this is what we do now), to interpret law the way we want it done. An imposition of presidential(? thus party? thus a cross segment of american?) will on all of society.

All we are is a society that has agreed to be bound and live by a set of ever-changing rules. Emphasis on the phrase "ever-changing." Those rules are under constant scrutiny and re-evaluation: first in public opinion, then in legislature, and finally in the courts (or back to the drawing board, if congress wants to supersede the court).

Everyone loves the discourse and disagreement when they have something they want to disagree with, or a law or concept they want to impose upon others (e.g. legalize marijuana). But when its their turn to lose precious ground on a prized issue, it is very insincere to then cry foul and suggest that the political or legislative process is broken, that others are cheating it somehow.

Oh boy. I was waiting for this little argument to pop out. The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality (and I can't believe I actually have to point it out) is that the former is considered abuse because one of the parties is unable to give consent. This is why society frowns upon it and why at the current rate of progression it is highly unlikely to ever regress and approve such relationships. As far as its relation to same sex marriage, I fail to see one. Homosexual relationships have long ceased to be illegal and that hasn't had any effect on the social acceptability of pedophilia.

As far as bigamy and polygamy goes, I have to ask what you think the purpose of marriage is? Because in my opinion, the purpose of marriage is to promote stable, long term relationships which obviously have a beneficial effect on people and society as a whole. And I don't think gay marriage, bigamy or polygamy threaten this. On the contrary, legalizing such factual situations would further promote stable relationships and remove some of the stigma that is currently associated with them (btw, you haven't actually explained why polygamy or bigamy are morally wrong. I believe the Bible has quite a few examples of them. ).
[quote]
In other words, we would have a seperate but equal status. That sounds eerily familiar. As opposed to heterosexual relationships? C'mon now.
Incidentally, if happy family figures and successful homes were a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage laws, the institution would have to be abolished altogether...

Well for one thing, a part of your post was dedicated to the argument that no one has the right to force religious organizations to change their practices and marry gay people. I was pointing out that the Supreme court clearly states this was not going to happen. Gay marriage is a secular institution and will remain that way.

You also tried to make the (legal) argument that homosexuals don't fall under the protected classes. I was merely pointing out what the Supreme court, as the highest authority on legal matters, thought of that issue (assuming suspect classes are a synonym to protected classes).

Like I pointed out earlier, I'm not very familiar with American law, but I was under the impression that the opinion of the Supreme court does matter a great deal in America. I believe it was the Supreme court that paved the way for the expansion of civil rights and liberties of black people not so long ago and that if it were up to the public, interracial marriages wouldn't have been made legal for many years to come.

Actually, I have to correct you, I flat out said homosexuality is not a choice, but did question whether it is a trait one is born with or that comes to be through other, societal influences. What I was also saying is that it is an immutable characteristic which makes it qualify for the suspect class status as discussed earlier (I'm not sure if being born into it is mentioned anywhere, I couldn't find any references to it and it seems a bit illogical for that to be a prerequisite for special protection given that that would pretty much exclude all disabled people who weren't born with their disability. Again, I'm just a layman when it comes to American law).

Every sane person should agree that no one can choose to be attracted to another person. If it were that easy, a lot of people would probably save themselves a lot of hassle and choose to be heterosexual (not to mention all the wonders that would do for ones sex life ). Also note that there is a huge difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Anyone can engage in homosexual sex, but not everyone is attracted to the persons of the same gender.

The debate was open for a long time as to whether or not black people are equal to white people. I guess the fact that a lot of people believe in stupid things excuses them from stupidity...

Actually, it didn't really. What are the differences in moral values that make black people continually vote for democrats, despite their conservative beliefs? *honest question, if somewhat of a digression*

But how? Will straight people stop getting marriage because others are given the same right? Will the divorce rate be higher than it already is? And how does a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same sex devalue the same relationship between people of the opposite sex?

Adi,
I appreciate your feelings, nor am I suggesting your arguments do not have merit, and are not worthy of discussion. All I am saying, and have been saying these many posts is that your argument is more of a second base argument - and you cant get to second base without first getting past first base.


First Base = Choice v. Non-Choice

Second Base (and beyond) = Prejudice, Hatemongering, Equal Status, Love, Acceptance, etc.


The major miscommunication we seem to be having (and maybe its me - maybe I have not explained it clearly enough), is that you are assuming that because the Supreme Court has stated that gays are a suspect class, that everyone accepts this. All I have been saying this entire time is that this is not the case - clear examples that State Supreme Courts, and "The Supreme Court's" decisions are not 100% accepted by american society are the machinations of various government offices (congress, executive / state legislatures, governors) to amend the US and State Constitutions, respectively.

You think I disagree with you on your Second Base arguments - I have been attempting to say this entire time that probably, for the most part, I do not. We disagree on First Base, and this is the sole reason of great frustration for people who agree on a general democratic ideological base, but disagree fundamentally on religion and the choice argument.

Do you understand? We are more alike than NOT alike (for the most part), but we differ in one seemingly minor, but very key way.

Now, as a side note, I do want to address a few statements you made:


I appreciate that. However, as you know, law is up to interpretation, and there are those that feel that the the Hate-Crimes Law was written broadly enough to encompass in some way punishment of pastors who merely teach as a course of belief that homosexuality is the "wrong" choice. In sum, punishment for thought, or free speech. I am merely sharing this, not because I am going to argue it here, but to explain why some may believe that the Supreme Court IS going to force religious organizations to submit to homosexuality in contravention of their beliefs.

You are gravely mistaken. I dont "try" to make legal arguments, and if I were making one, you wouldnt need to infer it. I seriously hope you understand that nothing about this discussion has been a "legal" exercise for me. This is a friendly conversation online about an interesting subject with people I respect, and any bullet points or bolded headings for me are nothing more than my attempt to keep myself precise as I navigate this very treacherous subject, and to make reading my drivel easier, because I know I'm longwinded.

That said: what I did was acknowledge that according to the US Supreme Court, gays are considered an insular minority, and therefore DO fall under a protected class. I merely suggested that some people do not agree with this ruling.

I proffered that explanation NOT to argue the law of the Supreme Court, but as an explanation to your bewilderment as to WHY americans are even entertaining amending the constitution to overturn gay marriage.

So. I really dont know how to explain it anymore, save like this:

Person A: I dont understand why Americans are against gay marriage.
Person B: They think its wrong.
Person A: But the Supreme Court already said it wasnt!
Person B: They dont agree with the Supreme Court.
Person A: I still dont understand. They're hatemongerers! See? The Supreme Court said so!
Person B: They dont feel they are hatemongerers - which is why they overturned the Supreme Court decision by amending the Constitution.
Person A: But I dont understand - its WRONG - they shouldnt be changing this law!
Person B: You have to convince THEM its wrong, so they wont change the law: thus fight the battle in the court of public opinion.

I hope that makes sense.

Semantics. Its not necessary to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing alone, because I DID correctly restate your view. I've already agreed it is widely accepted that it is NOT a choice, but that even people who accept this theory (for whatever reason), know that it is a theory. That was my singluar point in restating YOUR views about the theory itself and whether or not it was a theory or proven fact. Only that.

Now. This is your "for whatever reason" argument, and it does nothing more than explain WHY you accept the theory that homosexuality is NOT a choice. It is a very fair argument.

Now that's a good argument, because it exceeds the CHOICE issue, and drives home the point that maybe choice doesnt even matter. This argument is a horse I would ride all the way home.

I really don't want to go where some would consider off-topic, but last night, after I went to sleep, I wondered if these "arguments" or "outlines of arguments" would work for the death penalty.

The reason why my argument is mostly regarding this "second base" is because I consider the first base to be practically non-existent. It should be provable with a simple experiment and self evident to anyone with a modicum of common sense; those who believe homosexuality (not homosexual behavior) is a choice should make a choice to be gay, for one hour or one day choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. If you can't perform this little thought experiment and come to the same conclusion as I, I'm afraid we don't have much more to discuss... :\

No, that's not my assumption because if I thought that way I wouldn't have written the part about the role of the Supreme court as the guiding light of the development and expansion of civil rights. I'm perfectly aware of what most people think about homosexualy and gay marriages, but as I said previously, if we left these things to the majority vote, very little would be done.
Well then some people clearly don't know what they're talking about otherwise they'd know hate crime laws don't conflict with free speach rights , but since we're not arguing it, I won't get into it further. This also has nothing to do with the equal protection clause on which gay marriage advocats base their arguments.


You really didn't. Which is why I corrected you. It's not a theory, it's a fact. Read the first paragraph.


Well you are one of "them" and you're doing a very good job of avoiding all the points I'm making and not answering any of the questions. And I'm getting tired of going around in circles. I'm not getting paid for this either.

Wow, this discussion really went somewhere and I'm incredibly impressed with the statements made, especially addidass' arguments.

I am surprised to read that some people still think homosexuality is a choice. That it is even debatable is at the root of this problem. It is certainly not a choice. I believe as the younger generation takes over, it won't be long before that false assmption will ultimately disappear. I sincerely have that hope and it may take a while, but it will happen.

Second, the other major false assumption that will disappear with time is the notion that somehow gay marriage hurts straight marriage. I challenge anyone to prove it. That's just it, it cannot be proven because it is simply untrue.

And when you take away the rights of a group of people, it is discrimination. Period. Gays have the right to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is what this country stands for. At some point, no matter what a person's "belief" is, voters in this country need to understand that their discrimination against an entire group of people is just flat out wrong.

I also believe that churches can decide who they will marry and who they won't. Nothing will change that. The fact that those against gay marriage bring this up is a straw man argument. As I understand it, that doesn't change.

I still think it all comes down to human decency. It is indecent, in my mind, to deny others the right to share their lives and love who they want to. They are only asking for the same rights as others have.

But you will

Yeah, wow, this is a cool thread. I wish I had some kind of definitive stance on gay marriage, but I really don't. I do think the whole debate is kind of ridiculous, though. Marriage is, without a doubt, a wholly religious institution. No one can argue that. You can definitely argue that gay marriage or polygamy or whatever in no way whatsoever compromises the sanctity of marriage and you can argue the other way as well. I'm not religious, so I, for one, don't really care if marriage retains its sanctity. Maybe if marriage (for any kind of couple) wasn't called "marriage" by the government, we'd be able to make some serious progress on the issue. Because, really, wouldn't it be great if anybody was free to have any kind of ceremony they wished to have, sanctioned by nobody except themselves, and then they could just go sign some kind of civil union document at their local town hall? Every kind of couple, gay or straight, would get all those wonderful benefits and no religion would feel offended or anything and nothing would be unfair and that's that. That would be great.

I can see what mack is saying with the whole "slippery slope" argument, but, yeah, I don't know how any thinking person could draw any sort of connection from gay marriage to pedophilia. I had a lot more to say about this, but even I don't know what kind of point I'm trying to make here, so I'm just going to stop. All this can get very difficult and I realize many people (from both sides of the argument) take it very seriously. I just wish I lived in a perfect world where none of this even mattered. I don't know what I'm talking about.

To stir up a little controversy, though, while I think everybody has a right to do whatever the flip they want, I will say I'm a little hesitant on same-sex couples or polygamous (uh, triples and quadruples?) adopting children. Because, yeah, homosexuality and whatnot isn't necessarily a choice, but I think the environment a child is brought up in is a huge contributing factor in their sexual orientation. Plus, it is a little unfair, and I'm sorry if I'm being offensive or un-PC about this, to subject a kid to the inevitable abuse and discrimination they'll have to endure with same-sex or polygamous parents. The stigma surrounding homosexuality has certainly disappaited, especially amongst teenagers/high school kids, but that stigma is still very much there. So I don't know. I do know that gay or polygamous parents can be just as capable/incapable of raising children as straight parents. But that's not the only thing to consider there.

Oh, and as far as polygamy or anything else being "morally wrong": Doesn't that completely depend on an individual's morals? How could anybody legitimately and objectively argue something is or isn't morally wrong? I think crunchy peanut butter is morally wrong.