To Great wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:34 PM:
" I have nothing to add, except that my name isn't Izzy. "
Great wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:48 AM:
" Ok, Izzy, whatever you say.
We all have the right to object to this or that and to work against things we don't believe in. No argument there. The point has been made repeatedly.
So anyone else got anything to contribute? What are your beliefs about whether same-sex unions threaten marriage or not? "
To To disgruntled taxpayer wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:13 PM:
" I am the one who stated I may give them a wedding gift. This was my first post on the story. There is no inherent right to not have your tax money go to things you find immoral, true, but there is a right to fight against sanctioning something that would cause this to happen. And, I don't have to justify why I find something immoral to anyones satisfaction but my own. Its my money. If I don't wish to contribute to something, for whatever reason, I have every right to fight to keep that from happening. "
to disgruntled taxpayer wrote on Jul 30, 2008 2:57 PM:
" You've made your point repeatedly. We get it. You don't want your tax money to go toward marriage benefits that might go to same sex couples since you consider them immoral. (Odd that you'd be willing to give them a wedding gift though).
We also understand that you can't define how they are immoral. We also understand that you can't explain why someone else would join your little "I won't pay taxes for things I find immoral" movement since there is no general principle at work. You've acknowledged that no right exists to refuse to pay taxes for things you find immoral. You just keep insisting that people not oppose your right to object. Great. Object away. Enjoy your right to object by endlessly repeating the same point over and over and over in response to virtually every post on this forum.
Or let me save you some time: he doesn't want to contribute tax money to things that make him feel icky. Got it?
For the rest of you reading, if you've got some substantive argument for or against same sex marriage, let's hear it! "
To A story wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:36 AM:
" I am sure I would have enjoyed the celebration-it sounds very festive. Heck, if I attended, I may even spring for a gift. But, as a taxpayer, don't ask me to financially support their lifestyle. "
A story wrote on Jul 29, 2008 10:01 AM:
" Two good friends of mine, both men, recently celebrated their wedding with a lovely garden party in Massachusetts. It was a simple, casual affair. Most people went in shorts; it was a hot day! Straight and gay folks, both family and friends, mingled and everybody was happy for my friends who were finally able to tie the knot. There was nothing sinister or offensive about the marriage. The sky didn't fall from any god's wrath. And the straight folks' marriages were not diminished in any way.
Of course, everyone has a right to object to same sex marriage for whatever reasons. And those reasons have been laid out here at length. But I believe that if more people were to attend a wedding like my friends', you'd see opposition melt away fairly quickly. "
Izzy to main point wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:27 PM:
" I don't think whether it is rational or not comes into it. If, as a taxpayer, I am asked to pay for something I don't wish to, I have every right to attempt to keep that from happening. I think that is what your responder was getting at. Whether rational or not, he wouldn't oppose your efforts. He asked you for the same consideration. "
To Main Point wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:59 AM:
" I do personally find homosexual activity immoral, whether you consider that rational or not. So, we will just agree to disagree. Have a good weekend. "
Main Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:53 PM:
" I am not morally opposed to heterosexual marriage or same sex marriage. There is no rational basis to be morally opposed to either. "
To Main Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:57 PM:
" I understand. And if you were morally opposed to heterosexual marriage, and didn't want your taxes to go to pay for it, I wouldn't oppose you. I simply ask for the same consideration. "
Main Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:53 PM:
" [I would argue it causes harm to the pocketbook.]
As does heterosexual marriage. In fact, looking at it that way, heterosexual marriage causes by far the most harm to the pocketbook. "
To Main Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:54 AM:
" I would argue it causes harm to the pocketbook. "
Main point wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:29 PM:
" Yeah, I was just trying to point out that things have drifted from the article's main point. It's very clear that same sex marriage causes no harm, that's all I was saying. "
To the articles main point wrote on Jul 22, 2008 4:08 PM:
" I never argued that point. My arguement is simply that I don't wish to support a lifestyle I find immoral, whether it threatens my marriage or not. "
The articles main point wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:07 AM:
" bears repeating:
The belief that a committed, loving same-sex couple can somehow undermine a committed, loving opposite-sex couple doesnt pass the test of logic.
This has proven itself true in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain and pretty much everywhere else where gay marriage is legal. The sky hasn't fallen there. Straight marriages haven't suffered one bit. To argue that gay marriage is a threat to others is ridiculous. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:05 AM:
" No, I understand that. My point was that even for those who favor same sex marriage, this confuses rather than clarifies. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:14 PM:
" Incidentally, polls consistently show that this is a non-issue among young people. They are squarely in favor of allowing same sex marriage. That gives me hope for the future. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:12 PM:
" My post wasn't really intended for those who are in the "ick factor" state of mind. They will never be convinced any expansion of rights to same sex couples is a good thing. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:39 PM:
" Thanks for the info. But, I am far from convinced that is a good thing. It seems it would get very confusing to have a marriage recognized in one state but not another. Assuming the couple moves back to their original state, they obviously could not file as a married couple in that state(as the state doesn't recognize the marriage). And, since they can't file as a married couple on their state return, it follows that they couldn't do so on their federal return. All this will do is muddy the waters. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:42 PM:
" Anyone still following this thread (bless your hearts!) may be interested to know that Massachusetts came one step closer to repealing a 1913 law that bars out of state couples from marrying there should the marriage not be recognized by their home state. The state Senate overwhelmingly voted to repeal and now the measure goes to the House.
The law was originally used to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry. It was later used by Mitt Romney to prevent same sex couples from doing the same from 2004 onward.
The archaic law seems headed for certain repeal. "
Posterwolf to GinnyLaw wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:35 PM:
" Ginny, I don't consider it a waste of breath (or typing in this case!)... I'm just trying to understand what makes the same-sex marriage foes tick.
But you may be right in that I'll never understand in any logical way since it's based on the 'ick factor' for them. Still, at least that's been put on the table. That admission is often lacking from the same sex marriage debate. "
Izzy to Ginny wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:03 AM:
" I think you are the one who is confused...laws against same sex marriage regulate behavior(people of the same sex getting married). Also, these same laws extend the same rights and restrictions to gay people and straight people. "
To GinnyLaw wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:58 AM:
" The reason it is less acceptable is because of the difference between race and behavior. "
GinnyLaw wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:31 PM:
" you're right there is a difference: racial bigotry is much less acceptable than bigotry against gay people.
i'm talking about people, not behavior. to use your own words: you must be careful not to confuse the two. "
To GinnyLaw wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:36 AM:
" Everyone is "bigoted" towards certain behaviors. There is a difference between that type of bigotry, and the bigotry against races. You must be careful not to confuse the two. "
GinnyLaw to posterwolf wrote on Jul 13, 2008 4:35 PM:
" you're wasting your breath arguing with these people. there is no underlying principle to their opinion except for prejudice. Or what you diplomatically call the irrational ick factor.
the money issue is just a smoke screen. everybody pays for their own marriage licenses anyway.
i agree it is sad that people's bigotry affects their vote. but it's even sadder since they don't care! "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:30 PM:
" My motivation is simply the desire to not support something financially that I morally oppose and am uncomfortable with. Go ahead and love who you want. Just don't ask me to help pay for it. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:09 PM:
" Discrimination did indeed occur in Mass. However, I agree that a claim of discrimination is harder to prove in cases where a state's constitution has been specifically amended to define the right of marriage as applying only to the union of a man and a woman.
The enactment of such amendments is quite sad. Even though it reflects the will of the majority in those cases, it writes a restriction on freedom and rights into a constitution. It's also motivated by a rather ugly, defensive, (and often mean-spirited) desire to relegate gay and lesbian people to a lower status in our society.
I respect those on this board who have at least had the honesty to admit their opposition to same sex marriage stems from their own personal discomfort with homosexuality. That's more than many same-sex marriage opponents are willing to admit.
I hope that some of you in that category would reflect a bit on that discomfort. Think about the effects of expressing it via political action on the lives of gay and lesbian folks. And even it it makes you uncomfortable, please realize that the gay couples seeking to wed are motivated by love. Yes, love.
What's your motivation? "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:51 AM:
" To anyone who ever opposes a particular law, there never seems to be a good reason behind the majorities will in support of said law.(see my example re property taxes). So, your opinion in that regard is not surprising. I agree with you regarding matters of civil rights being put up for a popular vote. But, there never has been(except in a couple states) a "right" of anyone to marry someone of the same sex. Since the law treats everyone equal, as I stated before, I don't accept your premise that this IS a civil rights issue.(again, refer to my example re property taxes). "
About discrimination wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:36 PM:
" In the case of Massachusetts, there was nothing explicitly defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And the same-sex marriage opponents failed to produce any valid reason why a couple should be denied a marriage license based on the gender of the applicants alone. Therefore, a form of sex discrimination did indeed occur.
This tactic is one of the best hopes for the same sex marriage advocates. But it may only work in certain states. Alas, in those states with constitutions amended to restrict the legal definition of marriage to one man and one woman, a legal claim of discrimination will not get very far.
It's quite sad that in those cases folks acted with prejudice instead of reason. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:28 PM:
" I agree that majority often prevails. What I've been saying is in this case there doesn't seem to be a good reason behind the majority's will (assuming for a moment that same sex marriage opponents are in the majority). The majority may indeed prevail on this issue, but my contention is that it would be unjust if it did and that the majority's motivations would be the "ick factor" we spoke of, and not anything concrete or demonstrable. Also, as a matter of principle, I don't believe matters of civil rights should not be put up for a popular vote. Whether they actually are or not is beside the point.
My hope is that majority opinion on this issue will shift once people realize that the sky doesn't fall when same-sex marriage is recognized; and that more states will permit it. Over time, attitudes have shifted on interracial marriage and justly so since opposition to that was largely based on an "ick" factor too. When I'm feeling optimistic, I believe that people's attitudes toward same sex marriage will evolve in a similar way. If not, we'll have to rely on the courts to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority." "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:50 PM:
" Sometimes in a pluralistic society, the majority rules, simply bacause that is how our system of Government works. Luckily, thats not how it "always" works, but some of the time it just does. Let me give an example: Say I pay to send my kids to private school because I don't like some of the things the public schools teach. Then, there is a referendum to increase property taxes to benefit the public schools. The many oppress the few by making everyone "throw money in the kitty", even if they will not benefit from the money, and even if the tax increase literally forces them out of their home. I can allege this is not fair. But, I can't allege discrimination because I am, in fact, being treated like everyone else. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jul 9, 2008 4:21 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
I don't want even a trivial amount of my tax money to go to support a lifestyle I find immoral. If, as you say, cost wasn't an issue and it was simply because I am morally opposed to it, I would want homosexual activity outlawed. But, I would absolutely oppose any effort to outlaw homosexual activity. But on the flip side, don't ask me to pay for it either.
----------
I have a better understanding of where you stand. Just realize that I'm being forced to 'pay' for heterosexual activity. If I were to find that activity immoral, and insist that I didn't want a penny of my tax money to go to fund it, I wouldn't have much ground to stand on if I were to work for a change in public policy. It would also sound quite silly and stubborn.
For the record I have no problem with paying taxes for heterosexual marriages. I do not find heterosexual or homosexual activity immoral. I don't imagine most folks in Mass. (and now California) are worrying too much about their taxes funding same sex marriages. But I acknowledge that for you it is a concern. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 9, 2008 1:09 PM:
" You wrote:
---------
Suppose the two reasons you list in the last paragraph of your 458pm post ARE the reasons people oppose it? Seems those 2 things would encompass the lions share for opposing anything(money and dislike of practice in question). Hey, if those are the reasons people have, what can you do?
----------
Of course, anyone is entitled to oppose anything they want for whatever reasons. What I'm saying is that the reasons offered don't seem based in much of substance and don't seem very persuasive on their own merits. I also disagree that cost and personal dislike constitute the lions share of reasons for opposing something. Lots of people base decisions on more logical/empirical factors such as, will it do harm? Does the thing in question (in this case same-sex marriage) provide any benefit? What are the consequences of supporting or opposing it (beyond cost), etc.
If someone opposes same sex marriage "just because" or just because they don't like it, that's all well and good. Carry on (and I'll carry on calling it baseless and irrational). I just wish there'd be more honesty around that motivation, especially since that dislike, when turned toward public policy, has a direct impact on my life as a gay person.
Just to clarify: I have no problem whatsoever with people holding personal opinions opposing same-sex marriage. I do have a problem when those opinions turn to political action to try to limit my freedoms.
Your freedom to hold an opinion is in now way compromised by state recognition of same-sex marriage. My freedom to marry the person I love, on the other hand, is on the chopping block. "
Izzy to poster wrote on Jul 9, 2008 12:08 PM:
" I have no answer to your question other than that I find it "icky". Purely subjective, I know. Possibly irrational. But, don't keep telling me that cost is not an issue, because it is. Yes, it may be a trivial amount(although that is also subjective), but I don't want even a trivial amount of my tax money to go to support a lifestyle I find immoral. If, as you say, cost wasn't an issue and it was simply because I am morally opposed to it, I would want homosexual activity outlawed. But, I would absolutely oppose any effort to outlaw homosexual activity. But on the flip side, don't ask me to pay for it either. "
To Loving v Virginia wrote on Jul 9, 2008 11:51 AM:
" That arguement does not sound familiar because when laws banning interracial marriage were in effect, the pool of potential partners for a black man and a white man were not identical. With laws prohibiting same sex marriage, the pool of potential partners for a straight man and a gay man is identical. "
Loving vs. Virginia wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:11 PM:
" Interesting side note from the Wikipedia entry on this case:
"Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's own decision in Naim v. Naim (1955), and also argued that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the "crime" of "miscegenation", an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama."
This was the failed argument put forth by interracial marriage opponents in the Loving vs. Virginia case. He basically argued that no discrimination was occurring because the black and white spouses were being treated the same. They both were held to the same restriction. Sound familiar?
By the way, Mildred Loving supported the freedom of same sex couples to marry. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:01 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
I just don't believe I should be forced to throw any money in the kitty, so to speak, to help support a lifestyle I am morally opposed to(even if some may find my opposition irrational)
----------
Fair enough, but why would someone join you in your opposition? What's the general principle folks would be agreeing with? That they shouldn't have to support a lifestyle they are morally opposed to? If that's the case, what makes same-sex marriage so worthy of singling out? What of the person who finds interracial marriage morally objectionable?
Since you refuse to specify exactly why you find same sex relationships so immoral, your position is indeed irrational (without sound reason). If you have rational reasons for why they are immoral, then lets hear 'em. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:52 PM:
" Izzy, can you please answer my question about the actual cost of same-sex marriage and why it should concern others? Just so we know what's on the table.
I don't think I ever denied that government marriage benefits incur some taxpayer costs. But obviously cost is not the basis for your opposition to same sex marriage, since, as you've admitted, you are "morally opposed" to it. The moral judgment is the primary motivation for your opposition. And since that's all in the realm of the subjective -- you'd have a hard time empirically proving that same sex marriage is immoral -- the other arguments are basically brought in as second-tier support of your primary motivation. After all, if you had no moral opposition, would you really care that much?
And yes, I'm *also* arguing that the cost is not a legitimate concern since: 1. It's likely a trivial portion of your taxes 2. We all support things we don't approve of via our taxes 3. Fairness: marriage benefits will now be distributed to same-sex as well as opposite-sex married couples 4. The lion's share of whatever the government spends on marriage-related stuff will still go to support heterosexuals unions. 5. It's not a strong or effective argument - even the same-sex marriage opponents in Mass. didn't use cost as the basis for their message.
I might add that there are cost benefits to same sex marriage that you may not have considered. Think of the benefit to the Calif. economy that's going on right now as a result of gay wedding tourism and bookings. Think of the positive effect on (tax-paying) businesses in the wedding industry. Also, same sex marriages enable gay and lesbian couples to more easily care for one another in a variety of ways. That lessens the burdens on other institutions such as health insurers, hospitals, etc. Marriage, as studies have shown, tends to make folks healthier in general. Healthy people live and work longer, contributing more to the tax base.
So if cost is really a concern for you, consider how these things offset it.
And please, if you're going to respond, don't just pick one detail out of my post to hone in on. Please try to address the entirety of my arguments. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:47 AM:
" Suppose the two reasons you list in the last paragraph of your 458pm post ARE the reasons people oppose it? Seems those 2 things would encompass the lions share for opposing anything(money and dislike of practice in question). Hey, if those are the reasons people have, what can you do? "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:19 AM:
" I am trying to figure out your position on whether cost is a legitimate concern. Is it a matter of degree? At some points you readily acknowledge there is SOME cost, yet at other points you seem to question it. Honestly, I was one of those "on the fence" and the cost issue is indeed what persuaded me. It wasn't my "uneasiness", as I am uneasy with a lot of things I don't think should be illegal. In fact, I don't believe homosexuality should be illegal. I just don't believe I should be forced to throw any money in the kitty, so to speak, to help support a lifestyle I am morally opposed to(even if some may find my opposition irrational). "
GinnyLaw wrote on Jul 7, 2008 6:27 PM:
" i'm a straight married woman and i fully support allowing same sex marriage. letting two men or two women marry doesn't affect my marriage in any way. the share of the taxes i pay for marriage certificates and benefits goes to both gay and straight couples, so it's fair.
whoever said it's about love and not behavior got it right.
being gay isn't a choice. if it were, any of us could choose to be in love with someone of the same sex. it just doesn't work that way. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 7, 2008 4:58 PM:
" Neither of you guys have answered my question about what exactly same sex marriage will cost the taxpayers. Or why it should worry them.
I fully support your right to object to paying taxes for things you don't support. But cost is hardly a persuasive argument. In fact, it's often the fall back argument. All this talk of taxpayer costs and the will of the majority and whatnot is window dressing for the fact that you simply don't want to see same sex marriage happen. Where I work there once was a lot of fuss about how much granting workplace benefits to domestic partners of employees would cost everyone. In the end, it came to about 1.5% of the total cost of benefits. That means 98.5% of the benefit costs went to heterosexual spouses, children, etc. But you didn't hear the gay folks complaining. I wonder why? Oh, and all that fuss died down about two weeks after the domestic partner benefits were granted.
At the heart of it, same sex marriage opponents base their position on their own undefinable unease with homosexuality. That whole 'I know immoral when I see it' business. Trouble is, that's not very persuasive. Sure, you're in good company. But how would you go about convincing someone who's on the fence? What are the logical reasons to deny same sex couples the right to marry? If it's all based on subjective beliefs, so be it, we've reached the end of the road. I can't convince you of the virtues of same sex marriage any more than I could have convinced the Heaven's Gate folks that a spaceship was not waiting for them on the other side of a comet.
But if you've got an argument about why exactly that on-the-fence person should oppose same-sex marriage aside from the fact that 1) it'll cost 'em a tiny share of their tax money and 2) a lot of people don't like it, then I'm all ears. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:54 PM:
" I have found that proponents of same sex marriage arguements go something like "What business is it of yours? It doesn't affect you". Then, when it is pointed out that it does indeed affect us as taxpayers, the argument switches to something like "well, even though you are affected, you should support it anyway(that is, take on the expense yourselves) in order to save same sex couples this expense." I just don't buy it, nor do I buy the arguement of "Well, you are forced to pay for other things you oppose, so you shouldn't object to paying for this also". I simply don't see that as valid. But, I have come to admire your tenacity. "
To Poster wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:47 PM:
" Posterwolf, as I read the posts, Izzy was merely offering advice that people are free to take or not to take. "Alternative lifestyle" is just that-an alternative. It is not a requirement. The being unable to wed and being unable to file joint tax returns is an alternative that some people are free to choose. The money must come from somewhere-the taxpayers as a whole or the people who are involved in this alternative lifestyle. Those are the only 2 choices, and I(as a taxpayer) simply do not wish to support someone elses alternative lifestyle. And, yes, I have acknowledged in the past that we all pay for many things we don't benefit from or approve of. But, my goal is to minimize that as much as possible. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:40 AM:
" You wrote:
----------
I guess the only advice I can give regarding the dilemma re hospital visits, inheritance, etc. is to not get involved with someone of the same sex.
----------
Gee, thanks a bunch. I'll take that one under advisement. I'll work hard on not falling in love with and starting a life with someone my heart desires. I guess you'd prefer I marry a woman even though I don't love her? What a great service that would be to both of us...
Or, I could work to have same-sex marriage recognized so I wouldn't have to lie to myself or anyone else. Hmm... sounds like a better option to me.
----------
I am confused as to how you can say that if same sex couples all of a sudden had "700 plus benefits and privileges", that it shouldn't worry the taxpayers.
----------
Why SHOULD it worry them? What exactly are those taxpayer costs? Please provide a dollar figure per taxpayer so we have something real to discuss. And while you're at it, I'd be interested to know the taxpayer costs to gay and lesbian folks who are not able to wed? How much do they lose out on being unable to file joint returns, for instance? Or how about the tax money that childless folks provide to the schools? Or the young to fund social security?
Again, as you've acknowledged, we all pay for things we don't benefit from or necessarily approve of. So what? "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:02 AM:
" Yes, I realize many of my views go against the will of the majority. I guess the only advice I can give regarding the dilemma re hospital visits, inheritance, etc. is to not get involved with someone of the same sex. I am stressing-that is only my advice. But, if these things are big concerns, don't put yourself in that position. I am confused as to how you can say that if same sex couples all of a sudden had "700 plus benefits and privileges", that it shouldn't worry the taxpayers. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:33 PM:
" Well, since most now favor civil unions, your opposition goes against the 'will of the majority':
http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=3834625&page=1
Not too long ago, most folks opposed civil unions also. Times and attitudes change along with people's perceptions of what's immoral. You may think it's for the worse, but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find any real negative consequences to same-sex marriage. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jul 3, 2008 3:36 PM:
" I can't speak for anyone else but, yes, I am also opposed to the Government issuing civil union certificates to same sex couples. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:56 AM:
" The basic argument that's been made against same-sex marriage here is:
"I don't want the government supporting something I find immoral."
And yet, nobody has spelled out exactly what's "immoral" about same-sex marriage other than to say they know it when they see it.
So the power of the same-sex marriage opponents lies not in objectivity or logic, but rather in the perception that the majority agrees with them. All well and good, some might say.
But consider the effects. If same-sex marriage is allowed, it harms nobody and infringes on no one else's rights. The worst effect is that a few extra cents of your tax money (that's already going to fund municipal clerks) will be spent on same-sex marriage certificates. The overwhelming share (dare I say the 'majority') will go to heterosexual marriage certificates, including to the Britney Spears of the world with their two-second marriages.
Now what about the effect of banning same-sex marriage? Gay couples will not be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital, convey inheritance to them, or enjoy and of the 700 plus benefits and privileges that straight married folks and their beloved already enjoy. Oh, and you'll sleep soundly at night knowing the few pennies you've saved are going to pure and 'moral' marriages only. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:37 AM:
" So I guess those of you who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it's costing you tax money also oppose civil unions? After all, it's even costlier to issue civil union certificates than to simply issue a marriage license. A whole separate procedure, in fact. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:11 PM:
" I believe the arguement would be that decriminalizing and regulating drug use and prostitution would save the taxpayers money, as you wouldn't have the costs associated with arrest, incarceration, etc. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:24 PM:
" No, they shouldn't necessarily be exempt from financially supporting it, no more than I should necessarily be exempt from financially supporting same sex marriage. My taxes go to many things I don't wish to support, so it would be silly of me to say someone should get an "automatic exemption" against paying taxes to things they oppose. They would only have the right to work against paying their taxes for something they oppose, such as by trying to change a law, get rid of a law, or make a new law. Just as I have the right to do so. Sometimes you are successful, sometimes not. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:22 AM:
" 1) That wasn't the question I asked. I wasn't asking about whether someone should have the right to work against something. I specifically asked:
'So if someone finds heterosexual marriage objectionable, should that person be exempt from financially supporting it? Should heterosexual marriage be outlawed on that basis?'
Please answer these questions directly.
2) So what is your 'admitted subjective definition' of immoral? Or are you still claiming you don't have one? Gosh, what a world we'd live in if everyone's vague, subjective feelings were the sole basis for public policy.
3) The regulation of prostitution and drug use should they be decriminalized would most certainly take from your tax dollars. And what about the tax money and time spent in Congress that went into drafting the Defense of Marriage Act? I paid tax money for that, and I find that morally reprehensible. Should I be entitled to a refund? Should you, since you don't want the government spending tax money on things people find immoral?
4. You write: 'No one has the absolute right to marry any consenting adult or adults of their choice. No one.' Not currently, because an injustice persists. But the tide is changing. Historically, those who have opposed minority rights (black civil rights, women's rights, etc.) have lost. They too felt that what these groups were struggling for was 'immoral.' They too felt the will of the majority would prevail. And they were wrong. If you think same sex marriage rights are so totally different somehow this time, think again. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:19 PM:
" I will address a few of your questions that we haven't discussed yet: 1)If someone truly found heterosexual marriage objectionable, they would have every right to do what they could, within the law(referendum, petition their Congressman), to outlaw heterosexual marriage.2)I meant immoral by my admitted subjective definition. "... forced to support something THEY, by definition, find immoral" 3)These other things would no more take my taxes by being made legal than homosexual activity being legal has taken my tax dollars. Same sex marriage being made legal would take my tax dollars. 4)Not to beat a dead horse but, yes, we may just have to agree to disagree on what is reasonable. No one has the absolute right to marry any consenting adult or adults of their choice. No one. The marriage laws treat everyone equally. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:44 PM:
" I agree with everything you said in your last post. (I think that's a first for this forum!)
:)
And even though we disagree, I do wholeheartedly support your right to advocate for what you believe in. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:04 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
not wishing to financially support a lifestyle you find objectionable doesn't seem unreasonable to me
----------
So if someone finds heterosexual marriage objectionable, should that person be exempt from financially supporting it? Should heterosexual marriage be outlawed on that basis?
----------
As far as my personal definition of immorality-I don't have one
----------
And yet, in your earlier post, you say that 'homosexual behavior' is immoral *by definition*.
----------
What offends my sensibilities may not affect someone elses. Which is why, although I find drug use, prostitution, and homosexual behavior immoral, I don't believe any of these things should be illegal.
----------
Why not add 'same sex marriage' to the list then if you grant that others may not be offended by it? Are you really that concerned about however many pennies of your tax money go to fund the modest increase in marriage applications? Aren't you concerned that the decriminalization and regulation of prostitution in Nevada is an 'endorsement' of immorality?
----------
not being able to marry absolutely anyone you want is not harmful-otherwise we are all harmed
----------
In this case it's less a question of harm, but rather fairness. (Although I will add that the denial of hospital visitation to a committed partner is certainly harmful, among many other effects of a ban on same-sex marriage). It just doesn't seem reasonable to deny some folks the right to marry the consenting adult of their choosing, solely because of that person's gender. Or because some people think it's immoral because they 'know it when they see it.'
So yes, I guess we do disagree about what's reasonable. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:22 AM:
" See my 6/25 9:19am post. Never claimed the will of the majority is absolute. We simply disagree whether the desire of the majority to not sanction(through their government) or endorse(through their tax dollars)is unreasonable(not wishing to financially support a lifestyle you find objectionable doesn't seem unreasonable to me), causes harm(not being able to marry absolutely anyone you want is not harmful-otherwise we are all harmed), or discriminatory(already discussed-a straight man and a gay man have the same rights regarding marriage-both can marry, neither have to).
As far as my personal definition of immorality-I don't have one. It is subjective-I know it when I see it. What offends my sensibilities may not affect someone elses. Which is why, although I find drug use, prostitution, and homosexual behavior immoral, I don't believe any of these things should be illegal. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:02 AM:
" You are correct-I think we are on the same page-we are just missing each other by a hair. I realize there is no specific right written down giving the majority this right. My answer would have been more apropos had you asked how the majority would be affected, which is how I admittedly took it. Of course, pro-life people's tax dollars go to planned parenthood, people who send their kids to private school have their tax dollars go to public schools, people against the war are nonetheless forced to fund it, etc. So, you are absolutely correct. As we stated, the courts and our laws are not perfect. All we can do is fight for what we believe is right. Remember, just because the majority is not immune by law from funding things they oppose, it doesn't mean they give up any right to fight anything that comes down the pike that would suck up their tax dollars. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:09 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
Specifically, the rights of the majority that would be violated would be the right to not endorse, through their Government, and not support,through their tax dollars, a lifestyle they find immoral.
----------
I hate to break this to you, but no such right exists. If we really had the right not to endorse or support things our government did, we wouldn't be in Iraq, for example. You do, however have the right to disagree with what the government does, sound off against it, and to agitate for change. All of which I wholeheartedly support by the way. But there is no 'clear violation' of anything. If I'm wrong, please show me a law, passage in the bill of rights, executive order or something out there in the world of established rights that states otherwise. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:01 PM:
" And as we've discussed, laws do not always directly reflect the will of the people and that will is not absolute. The courts are often one of the few ways to keep the majority in check when their will is unreasonable, does harm or is unconstitutional.
O.k., so what is your definition of immoral then? "
To posterwolf wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Specifically, the rights of the majority that would be violated would be the right to not endorse, through their Government, and not support,through their tax dollars, a lifestyle they find immoral. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:49 AM:
" But, I think laws adapting and changing over time should be, for the most part, the result of the will of the people, not by some men in black robes. My personal reasons for being opposed to same sex marriage is because I find homosexual behavior immoral by definition. If same sex marriage was permitted, my tax dollars would directly go to support a lifestyle, that by definition, I find immoral. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:28 AM:
" But the point is that there are lots of good reasons why the government should allow same-sex marriage (or at least not forbid it). Laws adapt and change over time to suit new circumstances, often with good reason.
So since we're just two people exchanging ideas, tell me: Why shouldn't a man or woman be allowed to marry the person he or she TRULY LOVES and wants to care for? I'm interested in your personal reasons. "
Chevalier wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:51 PM:
" Hey everybody you heard it here first. We all endorsed Britney's marriage! Yep. Don't like it? Well, better amend your state's constitution to read: marriage is the union between one man and one person who is NOT an emotionally unstable pop star.
Better yet, we could have everyone who wants a marriage license go on a show like American Idol where we all vote on who gets the license and who doesn't. Let the people decide!
Oh wait, we shouldn't do that because it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. People shouldn't have a vote on my or your marriage so they shouldn't have a vote on gay marriage either! "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:16 PM:
" Please answer my question about what specific rights of the majority are being violated by granting same-sex marriage.
Please back up your claim. "
Posterwolf to Kim wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:07 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
Posterwolf, you are not being honest when you state those opposing your view state that "I don't like it" is the only criteria for not allowing something.
----------
That's really all I've heard here: the majority doesn't like it so that's why it should be illegal. Turning the question around (and not expecting a substantive answer): why SHOULD the government deny same-sex couples the right to wed? And please don't say "because they can already get married." That's the dishonesty here. Why shouldn't a man or woman be allowed to marry the person he or she TRULY LOVES and wants to care for? Hmm? "
GinnyLaw wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:02 PM:
" the government invaded and occupied iraq against the wishes of most people in this country and that has nothing to do with discrimination. so majority doesn't always rule except for discrimination. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:22 PM:
" By the same token, I can just throw up my hands and say "The law is the law. We are not bound by laws which Posterwolf thinks should be on the books, nor are we free to ignore laws posterwolf doesn't agree with.". But, that is silly. We are two people exchanging ideas. It doesn't matter whether a gay person wishes to marry someone of the opposite sex. The point is, they would have a right to if they choose. No one has the right to marry absolutely anyone they want. And anyone has the right to not get married. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:22 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
And my criteria for [discrimination] is the "pool of potential partners" test. I know you don't accept this(still waiting to hear why) nor do the courts(but the courts aren't infallible).
----------
I've explained why a number of times, but here we go:
1. Your test rests on the assumption that marriage is already defined solely as the union between one man and one woman and that this definition should not change. In Mass, there was no law or clause in the constitution stating such. So, the gender of the applicants was indeed being used as an exclusionary criteria. Hence, discrimination. Granted, this is not true in every state, as some have, sadly explicitly amended their constitutions to outlaw same sex marriage.
2. It's not what the plaintiffs were suing for. The plaintiffs did not sue for the right to the same available pools of partners. That's not relevant to same sex marriage cases.
3. Having the ability to marry a woman does nothing to help a man who wants visitation and inheritance rights (to name a few) for his partner.
4. Gay and lesbian folks would not want to marry members of the opposite sex.
5. Legal views of discrimination do not take into account "pools of potential partners." From wikipedia: 'Currently, discrimination based on sex is defined as adverse action against another person, that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex.' There ya go, the very reason why gays and lesbians were denied marriage licenses.
6. Only notions of legal discrimination are relevant to same sex marriage cases (you know, all that stuff about precedent and case law and constitutions and the constitutionality of laws). Gay and lesbian couples are not trying to argue in front of the court of Izzy Fabin where only his private logic applies.
Of course the courts don't "make law" per se. They interpret them, test them for their constitutionality and sometimes amend or overturn them to comply with valid arguments.
Got it? "
Kim Duk wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:51 PM:
" Posterwolf, you are not being honest when you state those opposing your view state that "I don't like it" is the only criteria for not allowing something. The examples you are fond of using regarding legit discrimination(such as bans on interracial marriage) do not pass the "pool of potential partners being identical" test regarding a class of person being denied a right to marry. This test seems very fair and just in recognizing the rights of the majority while not allowing the rights of the minority to be trampled. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:39 PM:
" You may be misunderstanding the "pool of potential partners" criteria. I know courts haven't used that criteria, but the courts are not infallible. Using your definition(paraphrasing) a gay person is not being denied the right to marry because of his or her "category or class". A gay person has the same right to marry as any other person(no denial to marry)....as evidenced by the fact that the POOL OF POTENTIAL PARTNERS is identical. That is what I meant by there being no discrimination, according to the definition you provided from the dictionary. "
Izzy to Poster wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:19 AM:
" Absolutely there are exceptions to majority rule. I have never denied that. I have stated many times that an exception would be if the resulting practice is discriminatory. And my criteria for that is the "pool of potential partners" test. I know you don't accept this(still waiting to hear why) nor do the courts(but the courts aren't infallible). But, I happen to think it is a valid and just test. Yes, we did, collectively, through our Government, unfortunately, endorse and sanction Britneys marriage by granting her a marriage license. I am getting very suspicious that you are trying to circumvent the correct proess of working to change laws through referendum or through our legislature by doing an end runaround through our courts. But, the purpose of the courts is not to make law. You do realize that, right? "
GinnyLaw wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:30 PM:
" hey, you know, same-sex marriage actually gives straights MORE rights. they now can marry a member of the same sex if they want to. remember that movie, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry? got an old buddy who fell on hard times and want to help him out? marry him! that increases the pool of available partners, to use a phrase from this forum. :) "
GinnyLaw wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:26 PM:
" to those of you who think same-sex marriage is immoral, what is your definition of immoral?
please explain to me how two people who love each other and want to take care of each other are immoral. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:16 PM:
" Please answer my question about what specific rights of the majority are being violated by granting same-sex marriage.
----------
The burden is on you to show why the will of the majority should NOT be the law.
----------
Because there's tons of precedent for it not being so (Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, to name but two). Each was an example of justice and rationality prevailing over majority opinion. See previous posts for more details! :)
----------
I am interested in your personal thoughts regarding why my test isn't reasonable.
----------
See previous posts. Recap: 'available pools' is not how discrimination is determined. Hokey as it may be, I turn to dictionary.com for 'discrimination':
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"
This is the essence of it. Category or class of person = gay; or more specifically one gender (as in man cannot marry another man) the characteristic of the person forming the basis of the negative distinction (denial) being gender. Nothing about available pools. See previous posts for examples that debunk this in other ways.
Still waiting for your answer the question on specific majority rights being violated. "
Posterwolf to Izzy wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:57 PM:
" You stated:
----------
[Secular Government's view of morality] ...is also based on what people are simply, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable with. As an example, prostitution.
----------
I'm not sure that prostitution is illegal simply because it makes people uncomfortable. Those opposed to it are probably making all kinds of arguments about the spread of disease, the attraction of crime, etc. (Note, *I'm* not making those arguments). And prostitution is indeed legal in some places, in defiance of the discomfort of the majority. In any case, I do not believe the discomfort of the majority, and that discomfort alone, should determine the law. At one point, the idea of racially integrated schools made the majority very uncomfortable. Do you think the courts should have let segregation persist because of that discomfort?
----------
I do not know how you can argue that the granting of a marriage license is not an endorsement of the marriage.
----------
How can you argue that it is? Did the government endorse Brittany Spears' two second marriage? Did it endorse all of Liz Taylor's? Even if the government *were* endorsing them, it doesn't mean you (or anyone else) has to. You still have the right to disapprove. You're not forced to do anything.
----------
So, for the most part, majority should rule. Not always. But, as it relates to same-sex marriage, yes.
----------
So you admit that there are exceptions to majority rule. What is the basis for those exceptions, I wonder? Why does same sex marriage not count as an exception? So far, all I've heard on here is:
Because most people don't like it
I've cited a number of examples of other things most people didn't like at one time (women voting, integrated schools, interracial marriage) but which are now allowed by law. So 'I don't like it' as an argument, doesn't always cut it. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:52 PM:
" There are definitely precedents that allow the opinion of the majority to become law. Referendums are the most obvious example. Laws which are made through our elected representatives(elected by the majority) is another. The burden is on you to show why the will of the majority should NOT be the law. You allege discrimination. I say there is no discrimination. My criteria is the "pool of potential partners" test, which you reject. The courts have not used this test, but the courts are not infallible. As you argued, the laws currently on the books banning same sex marriage are not infallible either. So, we are at a standstill. Just two people talking. I am interested in your personal thoughts regarding why my test isn't reasonable. "
Izzy to Posterwolf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:04 PM:
" In one of your posts, you stated that our secular Governments view of morality has to do with infliction of harm on others. When you were called on it, you qualified that it is also sometimes based on harm to self. I was pointing out that is inaccurate, that it is also based on what people are simply, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable with. As an example, prostitution. You must also remember that what is rational to some may not be rational to others. I do not know how you can argue that the granting of a marriage license is not an endorsement of the marriage. So, I must repeat my point that people shouldn't be forced to endorse something they are morally opposed to, whether you find that opposition rational or not. We are not islands. We all must live in this society. So, for the most part, majority should rule. Not always. But, as it relates to same-sex marriage, yes. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:10 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
The rights of same sex couples are protected as no one is outlawing homosexual behavior, nor is anyone saying you can't be with who you wish.
----------
Really? So a gay man can now have full visitation rights for his partner in the hospital? He can designate his partner as the uncontested beneficiary of his estate should he pass away? He can file jointly with him on his federal taxes? Wow, news to me. Didn't realize our rights were so protected.
----------
BUT, to demand everyone adjust the definition of marriage so that same sex couples can get married is a clear violation of the rights of the majority, who think homosexuality is immoral and don't wish to support it in any way.
----------
As I've said repeatedly, nobody has to adjust their definition of anything. If you want to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, go right ahead. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't ask "everyone" to do anything.
Please explain exactly what "rights of the majority" are being violated by allowing same-sex marriage. Be specific. Keep in mind that there is no established right of the majority to have their opinion become law. So, please, do tell. What rights are violated? "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:57 AM:
" Izzy took some of the words from my keyboard :)
Government does not make laws strictly based on whether they harm self or others(prostitution, etc). The rights of same sex couples are protected as no one is outlawing homosexual behavior, nor is anyone saying you can't be with who you wish. BUT, to demand everyone adjust the definition of marriage so that same sex couples can get married is a clear violation of the rights of the majority, who think homosexuality is immoral and don't wish to support it in any way. "
Posterwolf to Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 23, 2008 4:43 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
Posterwolf, how does prostitution harm others OR oneself?
----------
I wasn't the one making that argument. It was what I assumed to be the point of another poster who brought it up as an example of the government's wider use of the law in regard to morality. Best to ask the other poster.
----------
Sorry, but the thoughts of many people regarding "how things should be" are the basis on which our laws are made... If people are stating these things here, chances are there are many people out there that agree. And, our laws(for the most part) are supposedly based on the collective will of the people.
----------
I don't completely disagree with this. But that doesn't mean that laws are *purely* based on the will of the majority of people. If 52% of the country decided murder should be legal, they'd be unlikely to succeed in changing criminal law, and for good reason. There should be some rational basis and some checks and balances against the 'tyranny of the majority.' Historically, the courts have been the ones to uphold civil rights, often against the tide of popular opinion.
I don't disagree that many people, even the majority of people, in this country oppose same-sex marriage. I just think they do so out of personal discomfort with the idea, not out of any rational basis. At least no one here has made a convincing argument against them.
There are, by the way, more and more people who favor allowing same sex marriage. One day, they may even be in the majority themselves, much like, I imagine, folks who favor allowing interracial marriage are today. "
Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:40 PM:
" Posterwolf, how does prostitution harm others OR oneself? Sorry, but the thoughts of many people regarding "how things should be" are the basis on which our laws are made. They may seem arbitrary at times, but that's how it is. So, when people are offering "their view" or the standard on which their view is based, it is very relevant. If people are stating these things here, chances are there are many people out there that agree. And, our laws(for the most part) are supposedly based on the collective will of the people. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:57 AM:
" You wrote:
----------
You ignored my qualifier when responding to my post. I stated the exception would be if the resulting policy would be discriminatory. My view is that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are not discriminatory.
----------
Key words here being: 'my view'. I have laid out valid reasoning why those laws are indeed discriminatory. This reasoning is the one behind the recent court rulings allowing same sex marriage. Neither you nor anyone else here has successfully rebutted that reasoning, except to offer 'in my view' or some other standard that has no bearing on reality ('available pools').
----------
As a side note, what fantasy world do you live in that our secular Government's definition of something wrong/immoral has to do with the infliction of harm and others? Look at laws against prostitution, personal drug use, seatbelt use, etc.
----------
I stand corrected. The government does indeed also seek to impose restrictions on things that pose clear harm to self. Some of these are more debatable than others -- many favor the legalization of prostitution and marijuana, for instance. But as a category of law, you're right. Still, it's hardly relevant since same sex unions do not pose harm to self either. On the contrary, I'm willing to bet a healthy same sex marriage is quite beneficial to both parties involved.
----------
Besides, no one is proposing homosexual behavior between consenting adults be outlawed. Only that society has no obligation to endorse it or sanction it.
----------
The granting of a marriage license is hardly an endorsement. Even if you believe it is, you can still choose not to consider it one. The government's granting of that piece of paper does not force anyone to change their beliefs.
Society does have an obligation, however, to assign its rights and privileges in a way that is fair and nondiscriminatory. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:03 AM:
" You ignored my qualifier when responding to my post. I stated the exception would be if the resulting policy would be discriminatory. My view is that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are not discriminatory. As a side note, what fantasy world do you live in that our secular Government's definition of something wrong/immoral has to do with the infliction of harm and others? Look at laws against prostitution, personal drug use, seatbelt use, etc. Besides, no one is proposing homosexual behavior between consenting adults be outlawed. Only that society has no obligation to endorse it or sanction it. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:26 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
What I allege is that the State should not be compelled to sanction and endorse the union between 2 people(in this case people of the same sex) if the majority of people find the union itself, by definition, immoral.
----------
This very argument was used by those opposed to interracial marriage. At one time, a large majority of people found that kind of union 'immoral.'
Fortunately, our government has processes in place, which, when they work well, protect minority rights against the 'tyranny of the majority' that you describe.
If the union could be considered immoral by some rational standard, I might be inclined to agree with you. But there is nothing inherently wrong with gay unions. My definition of wrong/immoral (and for the most part that of our secular government) has to do with the infliction of harm or infringement on others. Gay unions do not harm others.
A society that bases its laws solely on majority views on morality, no matter how unreasonable, is one much closer to Sharia law than than to a constitutional democracy. "
Posterwolf to Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:18 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
I guess I don't understand why we are discussing this if you are willing to just fall back and rest your case on what the courts have done in the past? If I were to take that tact, I would just say that same sex marriage is not permitted by law and leave it at that.
----------
I'm not 'resting my case' on past court actions. I'm saying that there are tests and proofs and types of reasoning that have shaped precedent in court cases involving discrimination. The reasoning you put forth would not pass muster. The way you envision discrimination is not how discrimination is determined.
----------
If you don't think the "pool of potential partners" being identical is not valid criteria, you are certainly free to offer a counter-view. Otherwise, we have probably reached the end of the road.
----------
I did offer a counter-view: see my other posts re: arbitrary characteristics (a point you ignored). This very view, in fact, was used by the Massachusetts courts when they determined discrimination was being practiced in that state.
If you don't wish to acknowledge the point or have nothing to counter it with beyond the fallaciously-reasoned "identical pools", then indeed we have reached the end of the road. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:24 PM:
" I do not allege it would affect my marriage. What I allege is that the State should not be compelled to sanction and endorse the union between 2 people(in this case people of the same sex) if the majority of people find the union itself, by definition, immoral. The exception would be if the resulting policy is discriminatory. And I have already laid out my reasons for my belief that a ban on same-sex marriage is not discriminatory. I understand you disagree. "
Posterwolf to re last poster wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:51 AM:
" Actually, I'm not opposed to government just issuing civil union certificates, so long as that's the sole option open to every applying couple, straight or gay. If government got out of the business of marriage, we probably wouldn't have this debate.
But since the government does provide recognition of marriage and isn't likely to change soon, the option should not be restricted on the basis of the gender of the applicants.
You also wrote:
-----
That's fine by me as long as it doesn't affect me. But lets not change what marriage is.
-----
It's less about changing what marriage is then about changing access to it. How does the marriage of two men or two women to one another affect you or your marriage in the slightest? Remember, we're talking state recognition of marriage, not your private view or any religious institution's view. "
Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:04 AM:
" I guess I don't understand why we are discussing this if you are willing to just fall back and rest your case on what the courts have done in the past? If I were to take that tact, I would just say that same sex marriage is not permitted by law and leave it at that. We are discussing whether the practice is discriminatory, and I believe my criteria is a fair analysis. If you don't think the "pool of potential partners" being identical is not valid criteria, you are certainly free to offer a counter-view. Otherwise, we have probably reached the end of the road. "
re last poster wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:17 PM:
" Yes, marriage should be equal for all. Everyone who wants to get married has that freedom and choice. However, marriage is and always has been by definition, an act between a man and a woman. So, yes, gay people have the same freedom to marry. But, being of a different sexual orientation, marriage is probably not a choice that is in their best interests. How about a gay civil union with equal tax benefits? That's fine by me as long as it doesn't affect me. But lets not change what marriage is. "
Posterwolf to Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:40 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
Posterwolf, I reject your assertion that the majority of people(if given the choice) would not allow women to vote or would not allow interracial marriage.
----------
You're assuming I meant if it were to be put to a vote today. In the past, majority opinion very clearly would not have allowed those things. Those groups would not have those rights now if popular vote in the past had prevailed. Fortunately, it didn't.
----------
That aside, gay people are not allowed to marry people of the same sex. Straight people are not allowed to marry people of the same sex... Point being, the law treats everyone absolutely equal, so a charge of discrimination is not valid.
----------
I already addressed this. It's like saying segregated water fountains are not discriminatory because white people can't drink from 'colored' people's water fountains either so everyone is treated the same. It's a disingenuous argument. The fact is that people want to marry the person they love. A gay man seeking to marry is in love with another man. A straight man seeking to marry is in love with a woman. Allowing the gay man to marry a woman does him no service. Turning the argument around, the issue of discrimination aside, why not allow him to marry another man? What rational reason is there?
----------
A law banning interfaith marriage does not treat everyone equal, as the pool of potential partners for a Jew and a Christian would not be identical.
----------
As I've said, this whole 'pools of potential partners' argument is moot since it's not considered by courts in determining discrimination. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:33 PM:
" Once again, pools of potential partners has nothing to do with it. This is a criteria you've apparently invented in your own mind allegedly to explain why no discrimination is occurring. It is not one used by courts. Read over civil rights cases (Ex. Loving vs. Virginia) and you'll see no mention of pools of potential partners in the reasoning for the decisions.
What the courts *do* rely on are tests of whether access to a right or privilege is being denied to someone based on an arbitrary criteria or characteristic (race, religion, etc.). In this case, the gender of the marriage partner is the arbitrary characteristic. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:08 PM:
" I never stated a valid reason is "because its always been that way". You said you would "play along" with my assertion, but then you did not do so. Laws banning business partnerships between men and women and blacks and whites are not the same, because the pool of potential partners would not be identical. This is the key point of my criteria. So, again, my assertion is that a ban on same sex marriage is not discrimination. States that ban same sex marriage are justified in doing so if the majority of people don't wish to sanction or endorse it with their tax dollars because, again, there is no discrimination. "
Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:07 PM:
" Posterwolf, I reject your assertion that the majority of people(if given the choice) would not allow women to vote or would not allow interracial marriage. That aside, gay people are not allowed to marry people of the same sex. Straight people are not allowed to marry people of the same sex.(You may scoff at this, but it does bear mentioning. If given the choice, some straight people may marry their same sex roommate for tax benefits,etc. The law currently does not allow them to do so). Point being, the law treats everyone absolutely equal, so a charge of discrimination is not valid. A law banning interfaith marriage does not treat everyone equal, as the pool of potential partners for a Jew and a Christian would not be identical. This leads to my original point-redefining marriage to include people of the same sex is best left up to a voter referendum, or legislature. Not the courts, since it is not an issue of discrimination. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:20 PM:
" You wrote:
----------
The restrictions that apply to them apply to anyone and everyone else also. So, everyone is treated equally. The pool of potential partners is a valid point, if you give it some thought.
----------
O.k., I'll play along for a minute. Suppose you (assuming you are a man) and another male associate wanted to form a business partnership. Say you're both tax attorneys and you want to merge your practices. Now let's say that whatever legal body grants recognition to business partnerships denies the request stating that only business partnerships between a man and a woman are legal and valid. Most people would find this ridiculous and discriminatory on the face of it. In your logic, no discrimination is occurring because the restriction applies to everyone seeking business partnerships. Also, in this scenario, at one point in the past, blacks and whites were barred from forming business partnerships until the courts ruled otherwise (thus setting a precedent for considering such restrictions a form of discrimination). Now, what would be the state's rational reason for denying the two men their business partnership? There would be none. It's discrimination. The fact that it's always been that way just doesn't hold water.
This analogy isn't so far off. Essentially, from the state's point of view anyway, a marriage is a type of recognized partnership with inherent legal rights and responsibilities, tax implications, etc. It's the other meanings and emotions that folks attribute to marriage that make the difference. Basically, most folks object to same sex marriage because, at the heart of it, it makes them feel icky to think about it. The state should not practice discrimination just because people would feel icky if they stopped. "
Posterwolf to Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:04 AM:
" You wrote:
---------
Posterwolf, most reject the notion that not allowing people of the same sex to marry IS a civil rights violation.
---------
Most may reject the notion, but that should not and (for the most part) does not come into consideration in court decisions.
---------
In fact, one of the justices on the court in California acknowledged that they probably overstepped their authority, and an issue concerning the definition of marriage should have been decided in the form of a referendum. Which of course would be popular opinion.
--------
And other justices did not feel they overstepped their authority. What's your point there? Frankly, it's bizarre that California allows a simple majority referendum to change its constitution. If a question got on the ballot to ban marriage between Jews and Christians and enough folks voted in favor of it, bye bye interfaith marriage just like that simply because it's "unpopular." Historically the courts have been the only defense against such lunacy. Ever hear the expression "the tyranny of the majority?" Of course plenty of people are just fine with letting the majority decide everything (if that happened, women would not have the right to vote and interracial marriage would be outlawed). But our country has a TRADITION (since many folks here also like that word) of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. It's one of the key principles of a democracy. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:40 AM:
" You hit the nail on the head when you said it is "based on the gender of the TWO marriage applicants". That is precisely the point. Individually, the two applicants have the same rights as anyone and everyone else. The restrictions that apply to them apply to anyone and everyone else also. So, everyone is treated equally. The pool of potential partners is a valid point, if you give it some thought. "
Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:03 PM:
" Posterwolf, most reject the notion that not allowing people of the same sex to marry IS a civil rights violation. In fact, one of the justices on the court in California acknowledged that they probably overstepped their authority, and an issue concerning the definition of marriage should have been decided in the form of a referendum. Which of course would be popular opinion. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:22 PM:
" Laws governing civil rights and marriage do not rely on any "identical pool" test such as the one you describe. Rather, the test is whether a set of rights or benefits is being denied to someone based on some arbitrary characteristic. In the past, that characteristic was race (e.g. a black man could not marry a white woman). Hence, the benefit was denied on the basis of race. In same-sex marriage cases, the characteristic is gender (a man cannot marry another man). The benefit is being denied based on the gender of the two marriage applicants. "Available pools" has nothing to do with it. "
To Posterwolf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:28 PM:
" Your comparison of not allowing a white woman to marry a black man is not valid. Here is why: when determining discrimination regarding marriage, you must look at the pool of potential partners. Lets say a white man and a black man both wish to get married. Laws banning interracial marriage were clearly discriminatory because the pool of potential partners was not identical. That is now corrected, and if a black man and a white man both wish to get married, their pool of potential partners is absolutely identical. Now, lets look at a gay man and a straight man both wanting to get married. Their pool of potential partners is absolutely identical, so discrimination does not exist. Requiring everyone to follow the same rules, even if some people don't like the rules, is not discrimination. "
Posterwolf to anonymous wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:17 AM:
" You wrote:
'I don't object to gay marriage. Gays already have the right to marry. They just have to follow the same rules as everyone else. What I object to is same sex marriage. Not only do I wish to not have one, but I don't wish to help pay for others to have one either. Sorry you disagree.'
Ah yes, the old you-already-have-the-right-to-marry argument. That's sort of like telling a white woman in 1960 who can't marry the black man she loves that she already has the right to marry. She just has to marry a white man.
Thanks so much for affirming my right to marry someone I'm not in love with. I guess in your view then marriage has nothing to do with love.
I respect your wish not to want to pay for same sex marriages. And I'll still respect your right to not want to pay for them when they're made legal. "
Posterwolf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:12 AM:
" Maybe the author of the editorial chose to remain anonymous because he or she feared the inevitable hate mail and death threats that get directed to outspoken supporters of gay marriage. "
Posterwolf to Izzy Fabin wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:09 AM:
" You claim that I am asking the government to endorse and sanction a behavior. I am not. I am asking the government to extend the same rights and privileges that are available to heterosexual couples to gay and lesbian couples. Behavior has little to do with it. Marriage license applications don't ask (or care) about people's behavior.
That's really the fundamental issue for many same sex marriage opponents. They see "homosexual behavior" where I see gay and lesbian people. One view is dehumanizing and judgmental, the other more empathetic and realistic.
You also say:
'That doesn't mean everyone automatically gives up any right to ever object to something being supported by tax dollars.'
Of course not. You still have the right to object to same sex marriage. That's one of the things that makes this country great. Luckily, however, most courts don't interpret civil rights cases based on popularity of opinion. If they did, women would not have the right to vote today, for example.
I will not stop making comparisons to interracial marriage simply because some people may find the comparison offensive. More and more scientific evidence points to the innate and immutable nature of sexual orientation, a trait that is not chosen any more than race is chosen.
Could you just decide to change your innate attraction to one sex or another? You could change your "behavior" (to use term you seem to understand best) but you could not change who you are. That's what same sex marriage is about: who we are as gay and lesbian people. Not what we "do." "
Boo yah wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:57 AM:
" As of today in California, gay marriage is now legal! This is just a stepping stone people! Hopefully the rest of the U.S. will follow suit soon. Although California would be a cool place to get married! Finally, liberty and justice for ALL! "
To Re Tradition wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:31 AM:
" Your logic fails because you are trying to compare peoples race to peoples lifestyle choices. Because these are two different things, the legal comparisons between the two aren't valid. Traditions can and do change, but usually only do so when most people want them to. At this point., most people have no desire to endorse and support same sex marriage. "
this is funny wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:00 PM:
" Christians are pretty funny people, but so are homos. "
RE TRADITION wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:13 PM:
" "Do you also not ACCEPT interracial relationships?"
If they are Male and Female why would it matter and why do people like you always assume that people would make the mistake of confusing the 2?
I love the Traditions change comment
If a Tradition changes then it is no longer a Tradition, DUH, and that's what this is really all about. CHANGING TRADITIONS and making everyone accept the gay marriage thing
Also Mr.Logic makes a GREAT POINT
" Does anyone think that it would be important for an editor of a local newspaper to own his/her opinions by giving their name on editorials? "
They hide behind the Anonymity of the newspaper editorial because they don't want there local neighbors to see them for who they really are "
To in the end wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:57 PM:
" I don't think anyone on this blog asserted that homesexuals aren't loved by God or won't get into heaven. God does tell us in His Word how we will be judged: What did we do with his Son? Did we accept Jesus' sacrifice for our sins? "
Chris King wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:18 PM:
" Re: "in the end"
1. God's love is for everyone, including homosexuals, is demonstrated in His grace by granting us eternal life with Him, IF we repent of our sinful disobedience to his Word and place our faith in Jesus Christ alone!
2. We can know, because He has told us in His word.
3. God loving us, and whether we are justified before Him has nothing to do with each other. He loves all of us, but he is a God of righteous justice. Without faith in Christ we will get our just punishment of eternity in Hell.
4. Wakeup! Repent and place all of your faith in the one, true God, Jesus Christ. IT IS THE ONLY WAY! "
In the End wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:43 AM:
" IN THE END...NONE OF THIS IS GOING TO MATTER...
HOMOSEXUALS WILL GO TO HEAVEN!!
HETEROSEXUALS WILL GO TO HEAVEN!!
I DON'T KNOW IF GOD EXISTS AND NO ONE TRULY KNOWS. THEY JUST HAVE TO HAVE FAITH AND READ THE SCRIPTURE. AND NO MATTER WHAT, GOD LOVES EVERYONE...NO MATTER WHAT!!
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO PROVE TO ME THAT HOMOSEXUALS AREN'T LOVED BY GOD OR THAT THEY WON'T GET INTO HEAVEN...PLEASE PROVE IT TO ME. BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS HOW GOD WILL JUDGE ANY OF US IN THE END. NO ONE!! "
To Friday four forty five pm
Advertisement 
Advertisement 