Is it just me or is the argument against gay marriage a little flawed

[Hippo_Tron]

Their argument: Society needs to preserve the image of marriage as being something between a man and a woman.

Wait, wait, since when do society and government become the same thing? The government's job is to provide civil liberties and equality for all. Society can do whatever the hell it wants because it is a free country. If society decides that marriage is something between a man and a woman then that's perfectly fine with me. But the government has an obligation to provide certain rights to ALL people no matter what.

[muchacho]

1. right

society changes much, much faster than industry or guvmnt.

[kayell]

2. Theocratic governments seem to see things a little differently

Some people are more equal than others in *s world.

[vi5]

3. a LITTLE flawed? It's a LOTTA flawed.

In a country where there is supposedly separation of church and state there is absolutely, positively, beyond the shadow of a doubt no reason to not allow gays to marry. And if anyone pulls out that half assed "in the insterests of the state to encourage marriage of man and woman for procreative purposes" then that would imply that people who cannot or choose not to have kids should not have legal rights to get married either.

[JasonDeter]

4. Society HAS decided marriage IS between a man and a woman.

In this case the judiciary is trying to exert their will or interpretation over Society. That is wrong and should be stopped by Contstitutional Amendment if necessary.

[morgan2]

5. the judiciary is interpretting the law correctly

If a church does not want to recognize a marriage between any two people they have that right. The Mass. consititution calls for equal civil rights. The court has deemed that a marriage, as seen by the court, is a right given by the government.. ie a civil right. If they want to amend their constitution to remove the equal civil rights part thats up to them, but seems morally reprehensible to me.

on edit:
society also determined that seperate but equal was ok.. society is stupid, face it.

[cardlaw]

6. I suppose

you felt SCOTUS was exerting its will or interpretation on society when it overturned bans on interracial marriage.

[mike1963]

9. Not the same thing. They affirmed a right, not took it away.

...

[cardlaw]

10. And this

makes a difference? The underlying fact is that people are being denied their right to get married, whether given or reaffirmed.

[Fight_n_back]

13. What right is taken away

when more people are allowed to marry?

[JasonDeter]

18. The American people told the few states,"NOT!"

on their racist attitudes. The collective wisdom of the American people has been fairly reasonable. Again in my opinion and the opinion of a majority of the American people, this is not a civil issue but a moral one. That is the wisdom of the American people. So you can't take a few racist attitudes in a few states equating that with 'society' and further equate that with the homosexual dilemma.

[cardlaw]

26. Not quite...

The "people" did not tell the few states they were wrong. The Supreme Court of the US did.

Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, made frequent reference to the 14th Amendment and its guarantee that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness … ." To this end, when interracial marriages finally become legal in 1968, a Gallup poll indicated that over 70 percent of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage. To this day, a significant number of people still disapprove of interracial marriage, but justice must not be based upon polls and public opinion — even if politics is. The true function of our democracy is not to impose the will of the majority, but rather to protect the rights of the minorities.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/rocham-1.html

[mondo joe]

36. Jason, you're so very wrong once again - the COURT, not the

Jason, you're so very wrong once again - the COURT, not the people, decided Loving v Virginia.

[kenny blankenship]

8. Well what do u say to Churches that marry gay people?

You want them reined in by the Federal Government?
...Ministers, rabbis dragged from the altar?



enjoy!
xoxoxo

[arewethereyet]

16. no, thats the jurisdiction of the church's leadership structure.

as you see being played out in the Anglican church these days.

[kenny blankenship]

24. Well JasonDeter apparently wants

Our Federal gummint to stop it from happening altogether with a Constitutional ban. Least that's what he said.
But since churches already do it, the weight of Homeland Security would have to be brought to bear on the problem of gay terrorism.



"Remember...take the Padre down first. One man, one woman --it's the law! "

[arewethereyet]

25. really doesn't matter

what the churchs do doesn't impact anything civil in nature. goernmentally speaking, its meaningless. by the same token, what transpires with the government is religeously meaningless.

[kenny blankenship]

43. good then we can

dispense with all the blather about what the Bible or Xianity or Judaism or Islam teaches about marriage. 'Bout time, too.

I'll be sure to tell the next fundamental0st who says that marriage is forever restricted to men and women that he's full of eternal shit and that you helped me see the light.

[arewethereyet]

53. I guess you could try

but you've missed my point entirely.

The government cannot tell churches that they cannot perform whatever ceremony they want, thats seperation of chuch and state.

The churches cannot tell the goernment that they cannot perform whatever clerical functions they want, same concept.

At issue is having potentially coinciding events.

Anyone can marry so long as they don't expect the legal aspects to apply.

[JasonDeter]

19. Ichabod over their door.

or 'Where is the glory?' Thats what the Bible says.

[ulysses]

21. Huh?

The Bible says "Ichabod over their door"? Gotta find my copy of the apocrypha...

[PVnRT]

11. Ummm

That really makes no sense at all.

[JasonDeter]

20. No, it makes complete sense, you just don't agree with it. America!

Isn't that what makes America great? You and I have a right to disagree and the will of the American people as a whole will prevail in the end.

[smirkymonkey]

30. Yeah, it's called the tyranny of the majority...

and look where it's gotten us.

F***ing Freeper Nation!

[Joe Momma]

32. what do you mean?

[mondo joe]

35. Actually, the LAW is to prevail, not the majority

I wonder if you think there's a need for a Constitution at all - why not just poll the public and oppress the minorities every time?

[Fight_n_back]

12. Wrong wrong wrong

"society" is made up of "man". We are a nation of LAWS. Laws are blind to the individual.

Furthermore there isn't a "Society" in this country but rather a host of them. It is why pornography laws are aet up by individual communities, coummunity standards.

If your particular area of society doesn't want people to be able to love who they choose then by all measn don't sanction their marriage in your church or synagogue or ashram or klan meeting.

Some of us realize the power of love and wish that all could find it. The US government should not prevent people from finding love especially when that same government provides financial benefits to a civil union.

Unless you can show what harm is caused you by a gay mariage then you have no case.


Please be specific and show what harm is caused you. For example, it can be demonstrated that smoke has eefect on those not smoking so a reasonable case can be made to limit smoking to people who choose to smoke. What effect does a gay marriage have on you?

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. Jason...

...the other day you asked for proof that society has actually accepted homosexuals. I gave you that proof in that other thread. As yet, you haven't responded to it.

Your words are nothing more than pure bigotry. You have no idea about the history of the queer movement, and until you do, your words will remain pure bigotry.

If you aren't big enough to acknowledge that you have been wrong, then that is fine, but don't continue your hateful attack on my community.

You must truly be miserable in your life, to take your crap out on a community of human beings.

[JasonDeter]

27. Where are those societies? They don't exist anymore.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

28. Not very "Christian" of you.

Your supposed Christian beliefs have no bearing on my state's Constitution. I'm a married hetero Catholic woman who thinks you need to read about separation of Church and State.

While we're on the subject of bigotry, how do you feel about equal rights for women? Affirmative action? Abortion? I wonder if there's consistency in your beliefs or if you're just a raging homophobe.

[JasonDeter]

40. Instead of affirmative action I prefer equal opportunity.

Equal rights for women? Deffinately. Women should never be subservient to men, and any instance of anyone abusing women should be dealt with harshly. Having said that I think its unfortunate that in todays society, women have to work instead of staying home to raise the children. Today's children are, for the most part, raised by people who don't love them (strangers hired to be babysitters) and we wonder why society is so violent and troubled. Abortion is a horrible horrible act but it is a legal right for a woman to have an abortion. Having said that I look for the day when it is outlawed except for the life of the mother. I am disgusted that a man and a woman have so little self control over their sexual urges that instead of practicing contraception, they would (imo abortion is murder) murder a baby so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. Having said that, I would never berate a woman for having an abortion or get in her face with ugly pictures of aborted babies, and its evil to kill abortion doctors.

[foreigncorrespondent]

29. Jason...

...that is the weakest cop-out, I have ever seen on DU.

But to answer your so "eloquent" cop-out, here:

Fact is, Ancient Egypt lasted a whole hell of a lot longer than the United States has. Ancient Egypt's history is measured in the thousands of years, not the mere 228 years for the United States.

But, Jason, you make it painfully obvious that you have no desire to debate this issue, you just want to "win", for what ever that win is worth to you.

Every single time I have taken the time to reply to you with an answer you apparently don't like, you have done nothing but shoot it down with your thinly-veiled disdain for my community.

While I will never give up on trying to teach tolerance and understanding, because I believe people with hearts can and will begin to understand the discrimination myself and my community faces. I do however, give up on you.

On edit: typo

[Joe Momma]

33. i am interested to know

what the gay community is wanting to accomplish? is it a union of two individuals that is called marriage? or would a union with all the benefits under the law of straights, but not called marriage, be ok?

[JasonDeter]

41. Some referendums are put on the March 2 ballot

Would you legalize marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

NO.

Would you support civil unions between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

NO.

[JasonDeter]

59. Again, thats the rub isn't it?

The American people, in fact the people of the world, agree with me. But America is a great country isn't it!? You have a right to try and change minds. Whether you give up on me, and don't think I don't understand what your really saying, is irrelevant to me. I will defend your right to disagre with me to the...well I'll defend it.

[mondo joe]

34. What do you think the judiciary's job is?

"In this case the judiciary is trying to exert their will or interpretation over Society. That is wrong and should be stopped by Contstitutional Amendment if necessary."

And pre Loving v Virginia, society decided marriage was between a man and woman of the same race only.

If the judiciary doesn't judge cases, what do you propose they do?

[JasonDeter]

42. A minority of people in America

thought allowing marriage between people of race was a moral issue when in fact it was a civil issue and the courts judged rightly on it. In this case a minority of people in America think allowing marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is a civil issue when in fact it is a moral issue and the courts are judgeing wrongly. That is what it boils down to.

[Laughing Mirror]

44. JasonDeter, Are you any relation to the Virginia Deters?

Specifically, Mildred Jeter, the wife of Richard Loving, as in Loving v. Virginia, 1967, referenced in post 34?

A TV movie made in 1996 about Mildred and Richard was on last night. The couple hated living in exile in DC, but they'd been arrested and thrown out of Caroline County and told to stay out of the state of Virginia for 25 years, because one was white the other was black. A felony in the state of Virginia, and in Caroline County, where they grew up down the street from one another in a little town named Central Point. Not allowed to be together just because of their race. How absurd it all sounds today.

It said in the movie that Mildred wrote a letter to Robert Kennedy, who was attorney general at the time, and he was so impressed by the eloquence of her letter, that he got the ACLU involved, and they took the case to the Supreme Court. It took a few years, almost a decade in all, but Justice Warren found in the Constitution (due process 14th amendment) no basis for racial discrimination. Therefore the miscegenation laws in the state of Virginia were null and void. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving could finally come home.

A little learning on Mildred Jeter might inspire you.

[JasonDeter]

46. I have never had a problem with blacks or interracial marriage.

I was a teenager in the 60's. I was shocked and deeply saddened and was in shock when John Kennedy was assassinated and cried when Bobby Kennedy was murdered.

Today I live in an interracial neighborhood. I say hello to everyone. I have never nor will I ever need anyone to teach me how to live peacefully in a non judgemental way with people of color. I instinctively knew that condemning a person simply because of the color of their skin was morally wrong and I fully support hate crime legislation.

My hero in those days was President Lyndon Johnson:

"Under Johnson, two landmark pieces of civil rights legislation were passed: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided for federal enforcement of voter registration and outlawed literacy tests. King did not give Johnson overwhelming credit for the legislation, stating that these resolutions were "written in the streets" by demonstrators.

And check out this speech:

Johnson also contributed to the direction of the civil rights movement when, in a speech at Howard University on 4 June 1965, he outlined a new direction for his administration that set the precedent for affirmative action programs. "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity," Johnson stated. "All our citizens must have the ability to walk through the gates. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity -- not just legal equity but human ability -- not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

That was a civil issue AND a moral issue back then. Today, what the homosexual community wants it for the rest of America to legitimize their lifestyle and say it is the same as the lifestyle of a man and a woman. It can never be not matter how many hollywood stars, presidential candidates or homosexuals take to the streets demanding it! The civil rights movement was a civil issue and to continue to deny the blacks equal protection and basic human rights was immoral and the people of the United States stepped up to the plate and did the right thing. What the homosexual community wants is a moral issue only because the civil rights movement of the 60's gave the homosexual community basic human rights Johnson proclaimed in his speech at Howard University. Homosexuals cannot be discriminated against in the work place, in housing, in employment but to expect society to codify marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman can never happen and imo will never happen. It goes against the grain of the sense of a majority of Americans.


edit to supply link re: Johnson;
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/johnson_lyndon.htm

[mondo joe]

47. Wrong, Deter - it's a civil rights issue

"That was a civil issue AND a moral issue back then. Today, what the homosexual community wants it for the rest of America to legitimize their lifestyle and say it is the same as the lifestyle of a man and a woman. It can never be not matter how many hollywood stars, presidential candidates or homosexuals take to the streets demanding it!"

You're quite wrong.

Same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, and an issue of equality.

Equality before the law doesn't "legitimize" anything, and legal recognition of same sex marriage won't MAKE anyone accept it.

But it is the right thing to do, legally, morally and ethically.

[JasonDeter]

50. The only way the homosexual community claims discrimination

is the right to be treated like a man and a woman in marriage and the rights that marriage bring. When a man and a woman marry and consumate that marriage they become one. They are able to procreate and have babies. Marriage between a man and a woman is a special thing that the God of nature has bestowed upon it and common throughout all species on the planet. In the animal kingdom the males impregnate many females or only the strongest male impregnates a female of its specie but Humans are not amimals which is why one man and one woman has been the historical norm for healthy well balanced families. There have been a few instances in human history where that has not been the norm but not for humanity as a whole. As a whole the norm for humanity has been one man and one woman, procreating and creating an enviornment for healthy children, those societies that have made that their norm have been health and long lived (except for the last 20 or so years), those who haven't no longer exist or are fragmented and IMO that is why it is not a civil matter but a moral one.

[mondo joe]

51. You're wrong Jason - let's count the ways:

1. "When a man and a woman marry and consumate that marriage they become one."

To the contrary - they remain individuals with individual rights, and they gain a set of rights in recognition of their exclusive contract with each other.

Nothing about this limits marriage to opposite sex partners.

2. "They are able to procreate and have babies."

Again you are in error - many couples can't procreate, and many choose not to.

Reproductive ability is not now and never has been a condition of marriage.

3. "Marriage between a man and a woman is a special thing that the God of nature has bestowed upon it and common throughout all species on the planet."

Marriage is common among all species on the planet? Wrong. And your beliefs about god have no more bearing on same sex marriage than beliefs about god are a jusatification to prohibit interracial marriage.

Put simply: Your beliefs about your god do not limit my rights.

4. "As a whole the norm for humanity has been one man and one woman, procreating and creating an enviornment for healthy children..."

As a whole the norm is extended families raising offspring. And as a norm, women have had much less than equal rights throughout human history. And as a norm, there have been kings and tyrants and despots, not democracies.

So the norm and the history are irrelevant to matters of law and the constitution.

[JasonDeter]

52. Rearranging words or denying facts does not bolster your argument!

1. "When a man and a woman marry and consumate that marriage they become one."

To the contrary - they remain individuals with individual rights, and they gain a set of rights in recognition of their exclusive contract with each other.

............
Thank you for agreeing with me, you can change the words around but the meaning is the same. The two are as one.
.....
Nothing about this limits marriage to opposite sex partners.
.......
Well a man and a man nor a woman and a woman can't consumate the marriage and get pregnant. I'd say thats a pretty big limitation on being equal with a man and a woman wouldn't you?

2. "They are able to procreate and have babies."

Again you are in error - many couples can't procreate, and many choose not to.
Reproductive ability is not now and never has been a condition of marriage.

.......
Yes many can't but they are such a small minority as to be negligable to the arguement...BUT procreation and making them sweet little babies is a major reason WHY most couples have gotten married in the past. Please don't try to deny that! Just because many of todays couples are more concentrating on careers does not nullify the major historical factor of marriage, which is making babies creating a family.

3. "Marriage between a man and a woman is a special thing that the God of nature has bestowed upon it and common throughout all species on the planet."

Marriage is common among all species on the planet? Wrong. And your beliefs about god have no more bearing on same sex marriage than beliefs about god are a jusatification to prohibit interracial marriage.

Put simply: Your beliefs about your god do not limit my rights.
.............

But all religions overwhelmingly believe homosexuality is not normal. Even those not religious do not accept homosexuality as normal behavior. That is the rub isn't it? Homosexuals are asking, even demanding what society cannot give to it, and that is 'normalcy.'

4. "As a whole the norm for humanity has been one man and one woman, procreating and creating an enviornment for healthy children..."

As a whole the norm is extended families raising offspring.
...............

Are you sure you don't want to take that one back?


And as a norm, women have had much less than equal rights throughout human history. And as a norm, there have been kings and tyrants and despots, not democracies.

So the norm and the history are irrelevant to matters of law and the constitution.

........
AS a norm it has been a man and a woman. Historically that is accurate. You can't deny that! And it is not irrelevant and it will never be irrelevant up to the very end. There may be a short time when another way to procreate is allowed for those who can't have babies but thats another argument.

[mondo joe]

55. More errors, more ways:

1. "Well a man and a man nor a woman and a woman can't consumate the marriage and get pregnant. I'd say thats a pretty big limitation on being equal with a man and a woman wouldn't you?"

A same sex couple can certainly consummate a marriage, and getting pregnant isn't a requirement.

2. "Yes many can't but they are such a small minority as to be negligable to the arguement..."

By the same argument, the number of homosexuals who would marry are a minority and thus negligible - but that would just carry on your fallaqcious point.

The FACT is that reproduction is not required in any way shape or form for marriage in the United States. You'd do well to drop the idiotic point.

3. "But all religions overwhelmingly believe homosexuality is not normal. Even those not religious do not accept homosexuality as normal behavior. That is the rub isn't it? Homosexuals are asking, even demanding what society cannot give to it, and that is 'normalcy.'"

No - homosexuals are asking for equal civil rights, and there is no religion that has the authority to deny that to them.

4. "AS a norm it has been a man and a woman. Historically that is accurate. You can't deny that! And it is not irrelevant and it will never be irrelevant up to the very end. There may be a short time when another way to procreate is allowed for those who can't have babies but thats another argument."

And as a norm interracial marriage has been prohibited, as has women's suffrage.

You are talking about the United States - the country that by its very existence DEFIED the historic norm.

I suggest you rethink your fallacious arguments against equal civil rights for all Americans.

[JasonDeter]

58. I have in the past fully trusted in the wisdom

of the American people as a whole. The American people have been a moral people and will, given enough time see any issue clearly and make the right choice. The wisdom of the American people as a whole will right all real wrongs and that is what has made us such a great nation. But thats the rub isn't it? The American people as a whole don't agree with the homosexual movement and agree with me.

[mondo joe]

60. Given time? So the South should have decided slavery on

Given time?

So the South should have decided slavery on its own timeline?

The SCOTUS shouldn't have taken on Loving v Virginia?

The SCOTUS shouldn't have taken on Separate But Equal?

It's quite astonishing that you think civil rights should just be left to the tyranny of the majority.

I wonder if you think there should be a Constitution at all.

[Terran]

56. All your arguments are worthless JT

for one reason: the only thing that matters here is that the XIVth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees everyone equal treatment under the law. No exceptions--none. Not based on religion, or what's commonly accepted in society, or what a few misguided people think is right. There is NO argument against gay marriage that can overcome this fact. That is why certain people are undertaking the radical step of trying to amend the Constitution. There is NO OTHER WAY to prevent it from happening.

Dirk

[mondo joe]

49. You're wrong again

Just like segregation, just like separate but equal, just like assignment to the back of the bus, any prohibition of same sex marriage is inequality and must be eliminated.

[Cloud]

7. I agree

That is why that marriage amendment is pissing me off. Read the amendments of the constitution. It is all about inclusion and equality. I will never support an amendment that excludes a group of people from persuing happiness.

[arewethereyet]

14. because this aspect of society is directly tied to government

Estate, taxes, social programs, Health and Child protective...

it is tied to all these things and more and inextricably so.

[VOX]

15. It's very flawed! What the hell happened to "smaller government?"

The right wing has been screaming about smaller government for decades now.

Since when does a government -- *our* government -- have the right to tell us whom we can marry? Since when did our government, which is supposed to be smaller and less meddlesome (according to the RW), take such an interest in our privacy?

[arewethereyet]

17. because it impacts them directly, see above

this change of status will cost government billions, thats why they care. It will seriously cut into their pork.

[Walt Starr]

23. Read this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1122659

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Jimb100]

37. Marriage

The real problem I see starts with the government's muddying the line between marriage and civil union.

Clearly, the prohibition separating church and state got left by the wayside when marriage laws were enacted, rather than sticking to civil unions.

IMHO, all law regulating civil unions should only address issues of inheritance, issues resulting from illness, division of property in the event of dis-union, etc. Marriage is not the business of government.

These are all conveniences recognizing that partnerships exist for mutual benefit.

Clean that bit of business up and gay marriage and the like get a lot easier to incorporate into the law and societal acceptance.

[mondo joe]

38. I don't disagree, but this one point...

"Clearly, the prohibition separating church and state got left by the wayside when marriage laws were enacted, rather than sticking to civil unions."

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your post - just one point.

I don't think the Separation was left by the wayside when marriage laws were enacted. They recognized a difference between a civil marriage and a religious one.

It's only left by the wayside NOW when people started to think the state was performing a sacrament.

[napi21]

39. I think I have the snawer to this Preservation argument

If the intent is to preserve marriage between a man & woman, then idealy, we need to outlaw divorces.

Wouldn't you just love to see the response to that!

You get married, that's it! you stay together forever!

Seens to me, there are whole lot of divorced folks on the Right, don't ya think?

[opihimoimoi]

45. Its a DISTRACTION. The Pubs put up these kinds of divisive

controversies to distract from themselves. They want to keep the arguement/discussion away from their own failed philosophies.

It shouldn't be about gayness/marriages, abortion, guns, Nascar, etc. Those Pubs are very clever. They want us unbalanced and weakened. They do this by using strawman discussions.

Very conniving.clever. Think about it

[boobooday]

48. These are the people who believe in limited government

For corporations.

As for individuals, they want to stick their noses into every aspect of our lives, our wombs, and our bedrooms.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[OneTwentyoNine]

54. Yeah,you beat me to it.....

These are the thugs,especially Limbaugh that screech on a daily basis on how we need to get "Government out of our lives." And they do this by proposing a Constitutional amendment?? Uh yeah.....


David

[screwfacecapone]

57. Gee, you'd think that

Jesus christ, you'd think that with Britney spears getting married and annuled within 24 hours, a 50 percent divorce rate, and a socitey that practically encourages couples to cheat on each other, gay marriage wouldn't be such a big deal. The only reason people are against it is becuase of the bible, but there is seperation of church and state. It's a sad state of affairs when more people are up in arms about gays than a president who lies to start wars.