Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Even if they both needed the exact same help, the heterosexual couple needing help is the exception, while the homosexual couple neededing help is the rule<< So what? Both couples are in long-term relationships with an interest in raising a family. Both should be able to marry the person they love.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The debate isn't about what is best for the individual, or even what is best for the couple. It's about what is best for society. If someone can present evidence that gay marriage will be more beneficial than detrimental to society, then I'll support it. So far, I haven't seen the evidence. And I suspect that if the evidence was available, advocates of gay marriage would be taking it to the voters, instead of running to the courts.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If someone can present evidence that gay marriage will be more beneficial than detrimental to society, then I'll support it. So far, I haven't seen the evidence.<< What kind of evidence would you accept?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The debate isn't about what is best for the individual, or even what is best for the couple. It's about what is best for society. << Liberty, freedom and equality ARE about "what's best for the individual" - not what's best for society. There's nothing in the constitution about the needs of society pre-empting the basic equal rights of the individual.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "The debate isn't about what is best for the individual, or even what is best for the couple. It's about what is best for society." You couldn't be more wrong. Where do you get this stuff? The Constitutionis all about individual rights. Loving was based on an individual's right to due process. So was Roe. So were all the rest of them. "And I suspect that if the evidence was available, advocates of gay marriage would be taking it to the voters, instead of running to the courts." Advocates of gay rights wait until some backward state passes a ban, they they get it thrown out. Advocates of gay marriage that hold office in the California legislature pass bills in favor of it, only to have the Governor say the court should decide it. See other examples as well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Plus, you might add, liberty, freedom and equality - having all citizens first-class and not second-class - IS in fact what is ultimately best for society.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "What kind of evidence would you accept?" He's been presented with plenty, he blithely dismisses it all. He's a rigid fundamentalist along the lines of Scalia (see his Loving approach). he also clings to the prehistoric idea that marriage exists solely for procreation purposes. Childless marriages, he maintains, don't benefit society. Neither does his point of view. We've been down this road before so much I can write his posts for him.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Tom, I went through Loving with Douglas months ago. He didn't listen then - to, you know, the actual language of the decision - and he's closing his ears again.>> <You were as wrong then as Tom is now.> Nope, but thanks for playing our game. <<I've gotten into this with Doug before as well. His reading of Loving is wrong, but he'll never tell.>> <We'll see.> There's nothing to "see." Loving is settled law. And, contrary to your assertion, it was about marriage, as the language in the decision makes crystal clear to everyone here with one obtuse exception.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'd like him to tell us what evidence he would accept that same-sex marriage is beneficial to society. He's got to have something in mind.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What kind of evidence would you accept?> I'm willing to look at any evidence, from any source.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "He's got to have something in mind." Seriously, he's got nothing in mind. It's his way of saying he'sopne minded about it, when it reality he'll dismiss out of hand whatever is put before him. Look at the way he choose to write about Fitzgerald's investigation. He's Obtuseman.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Liberty, freedom and equality ARE about "what's best for the individual" - not what's best for society.> There are some things that are best for both. Again, if someone can show me that gay marriage will be good for society and the individual, then I'll support it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Plus, you might add, liberty, freedom and equality - having all citizens first-class and not second-class - IS in fact what is ultimately best for society.> Not every benefit of society is available to every member.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder And one more thing. There's NO NEED to show a benfit to societ, By saying this, he's re-framing the argument. HE needs to show why gays should be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. Why in the world should it have to be shown why someone should have a fundamental right? That's asinine.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer <What kind of evidence would you accept?> >>I'm willing to look at any evidence, from any source.<< But what evidence would you accept? We know you'll look at the evidence, but what type of evidence in particular are you looking for that would demonstrate to you that same sex marriages are beneficial to society?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The burden of proof is on those who want to change society, not those who are in favor of leaving things as they are.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "STPH attacks me because he can't produce any evidence." Yeah, right. Read my other responses. There's NO NEED for any of us to submit to your standard. It's a strawman. How about you showing why gays should be treated differently than others? THAT'S the standard.
