Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Doesn't that matter to these people? If you want to oppose gay marriage - fine, think whatever you like. But keep yer filthy mitts off of the constitution - it's bigger than you are.>> The constitution has been changed and ammended many times Gadzuux. It's not easy to do, but it is something the founding fathers set up so it could be ammended if need be. Attacks on marriage is one of those times it might need to be ammended.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm not comprehending how allowing gay marriage would automatically lead to all the other marriage possibilities you aluded too... why couldn't they simply change laws to state "between two consenting adults" rather than "between a man and a woman."> They could change the law by rewritting it and putting it up for a vote, just like you said. However, the advocates of legal recognition of gay marriage realize they don't have the votes to do that, so instead they go to the courts and try to carve out an exception. Trouble is, you can't rule that marriage is a "fundamental right" for every couple, and then rule that it's not for certain couples. When people say that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, they are using one definition of marriage and applying the idea to another. In Loving vs Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the State does not have the power to forbid people from forming relationships. This is very different from forcing people to grant every couple the legal benefits of marriage.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The constitution is written to put constraints on the government - not the governed. It's there to protect us, "we the people" from our government.> Right. An amendment which clarifies that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman would protect the people from the government. The government would not be able to force people to recognize unions to which they object.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. There's no qualifier such as the word "gay". And when a right is fundamental, then it is available to everyone, whether straight, gay, or even you. >> Where is written that marriage is a right? The reality is that marriage is set up to better society and create a place where families can be formed to have children. This is why their are RULES AGAINST marrying your sister, another married person, a child, multiple partners These rules are in force because these versions of marriage do not benefit society, they damgae it. Gay marriage is the same thing. But according to you and your kooky logic, a good judge is going to look at Gay marriage and say it has to happen yet that same judge is going to not allow all other forms of marriage? Using your " logic " , that judge would be discriminating against pedopholes, polyigamists, and any other group of people who want a new wacky version of marriage. You lose.
Originally Posted By KachinaBear You keep mentioning that marriage was set up primarily for people to have children... this may be true, but then I believe the "reason" for marriage has changed since then. I mean, I was a bridesmaid in two weddings in the past nine months... in both cases, the bride was 49 years old, the groom in his fifties, each was either widowed or divorced and definitely through with having children... by your definition, it would appear these weddings had no reason to take place. Obviously, the people involved in said weddings feel differently. You keep referring to a fear that gay marriage would change the definition of marriage... I think in a lot of ways it has already changed.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hi Kachina, good morning. A couple that doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases. Admittedly, society's interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children. There is no reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent--of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that. Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage. As I have been pointing out to STPH, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one's choice of marriage partner--just as they are central to the restriction against "marrying" a person of the same sex.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> However, the advocates of legal recognition of gay marriage realize they don't have the votes to do that, so instead they go to the courts and try to carve out an exception. << It's not an 'exception', it's an 'inclusion'. And the reason they do that is because both advocates and opponents of gay marriage know exactly what the constitution says - equal protection under the law. In order for gay marriage opponents to prevail in the courts, first they must change the US constitution. But they can't because their change would create a subversion of the constitution. They know this too, and seemingly don't care. >> Right. An amendment which clarifies that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman would protect the people from the government. << Not right. You say it's a "clarification" - it's not - there's nothing within the constitution now which speaks to the state of marriage, but nice try. This amendment would place restrictions on the rights of one class of citizen - hence, "unconstitutional".
Originally Posted By KachinaBear I definitely see what you're saying, and I agree that all of your reasons make sense for the ORIGINAL purpose of marriage... however, society is constantly changing. It's a matter of fact that cannot be prevented. The definition of marriage is changing. All of the arguments in your last post, while valid, still sound to me rather arcane and ultimately, not entirely relavent to modern times. I know and you know there is more to modern marriage than children... it is one of many faucets to the whole instiution, so why make it the sole focal point? Because that's what it was in the past? This isn't the past.
Originally Posted By KachinaBear Something else I thought of... Beau, I know you are already married with children (so am I, for the record) so it might be hard to think of this hypothetically however, please answer this: If you knew you were, for a medical reason or whatever, incapable of naturally conceiving a child, would you still have married your spouse? I'm pretty confident that I would have. Why or why not?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << If you knew you were, for a medical reason or whatever, incapable of naturally conceiving a child, would you still have married your spouse? I'm pretty confident that I would have. Why or why not? >> Good question. Yes, I would have married her. But that doesn't change the fact that marriages are encouraged by the state not because people love each other. They are encouraged because we need children and strong family units to survive. Liberal societies are having a problem right now with a lack of children. Why? Because liberals are more into self gratification and self pleasure than others. So they bow out of having children much of the time so they can travel more, buy more stuff for themselves, not have to worry about the " hassle " of watching kids 24/7. If kids are not the key factor to marriage what does the government care who I love or who I will be living with?
Originally Posted By KachinaBear <If kids are not the key factor to marriage what does the government care who I love or who I will be living with? My guess would be it's because that's how it's been for so long... and sometimes it takes time for the government to catch up with what's going on with the people. I honestly think that thing are changing... for better or for worse... and that sooner or later the government will be forced to recognize this.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You keep saying things are changing. Maybe they are. But the main thing government has to deal with is what is BEST for the standard good. Does letting a guy marry 5 wives help the common good? Would you be OK with legalizing polyigamy?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The constitution has been changed and ammended many times Gadzuux. It's not easy to do, but it is something the founding fathers set up so it could be ammended if need be. Attacks on marriage is one of those times it might need to be ammended.> The Constitution has only been ammended once to restrict the rights of the people: Prohibition. And we all know how that one turned out. Another ammendment a dozen years later to overturn it. Also, Beau, there are many good reasons for the government to encourage marriage other than children. RoadTrip and others have pointed these out: married people engage in less crime, tend to have higher incomes, are more productive, healthier, consistently say they're happier, etc. The government encourages (through tax breaks and other means) forms of economic or social behavior that are far less a proven benefit to society than marriage. So quite apart from children, there's good reason for the government to do so. And there's good reason to include millions of gay people in that as well.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And on the other side of the coin, there's no "good" reason to prohibit gay marriage. That's the reason we hear such lame reasons as "it will undermine heterosexual marriage". Don't you think if they had a better rationale than that, they'd use it?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Dabob, are you trying to tell me that 2 gay guys who get " married " will be more faithful to each other and happier? Do you know the stats regarding sex partners and infidelity for gay men? It's amazing. Getting married is not going to change a gay mans behavior. If you have studies that it does I would love to see it. But, yes, married couples are happier and live longer. But the government is not around to make sure people are happy. It is there to make sure we are protected from attacks and that we continue to function as a nation. Being happy is something you need to do on your own.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<And on the other side of the coin, there's no "good" reason to prohibit gay marriage.>> Are you OK with polyigamy then? How about the studies from Scandanavia that PROVE gay marriage has produced more single parent households because marriage has been devalued?
Originally Posted By gadzuux You're leaning on some tired crutches there. Polygamy is a red herring and has nothing to do with this topic. The only reason it keeps coming up is because you bring it up. Likewise, monogamyand and "faithfulness" is irrelevant, and applies to everyone equally. The government has no involvement in fidelity - it's not against the law to "cheat". Good thing, too.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Polygamy has to be allowed if you allow gay marriage Gadzuux. Don't you understand that? So I bring it up.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Legalizing Gay marriage would be a very slippery slope for sure for which there would be no returning.
