[ThePenguin]

I've never said it was written in there somewhere, I've just heard it mentioned enough times to assume that Americans do try to be a bit more secular when it comes to governing their country.

The main problem in this thread is that you're the only one who has voiced the opinion of the other side. Most of the people who posted in this thread (before or after you) have been very pro gay marriage, so it would only make sense that they would voice their opinion in response to what you said. For the most part, it wasn't done in an uncivilized manner either. You pose your rebuttal to the comic, we post ours. The cycle continues until one of the sides sway or we agree to disagree.

Also, it's a bit unfair to imply that none of us has posted a "single, logical idea". It wouldn't be much of a discussion without that "single, logical idea" now, would it?

[Murray_Smith]

Xian, people jumped on the anti-you bandwagon because you posed a logically inconsistent argument.

"Gay people are allowed to marry heterosexually, even if it is against their preference, but gay marriage is useless to straight people because they won't marry people of the same sex."

That's just a little like saying, "Black people can use the water fountain on the left, even if it is filled with shit-water, but allowing both whites and blacks to use the same fountains is useless to white people because white people won't want to use the fountain on the left."

[Kjorteo]

XianLewis wrote:

Truthfully, the "Separation," described by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church, has no constitutional foundation. It was simply mentioned in a letter- in DEFENSE of a faith-based issue - and then applied by Supreme Court Justices hundreds of years later in a vague way. Thanks to journalism, the rest of the world and 99% of Americans are sure it's written in the US Constitution, somewhere.

Yeah, it is pretty elusive, though I think the Establishment clause may be a clue. You know, the part where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" I don't know how many alternate ways there are to interpret that. As for Jefferson's letter, I believe this is the excerpt of which you speak:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

I'm not sure how you're reading that, but it looks to me like Jefferson was praising the First Amendment because it separated Church and State. Sure, Jefferson is the one who actually used the phrase "separation of Church and State" in those words, but the Constitution is what actually does that, so I fail to see the point in nitpicking over it.

XianLewis wrote:

Someone else pointed out that one particular court ruled that sodomy was illegal between homosexuals, but legal for heterosexuals. [...] The latter author used a single legal case (as well as a single verse from the Bible later) out of context.

This entire passage makes me question your reading comprehension. Let's go over this from the top, shall we?

A) I said sodomy was legal. I never said sodomy was legal only for heterosexuals. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals decided the law saying that was not unconstitutional somewhere in the history of Lawrence V Texas, before it reached the United States Supreme Court, but I had to look the case history up after you made this post to learn that, just to try and discern what you were talking about. I certainly never pointed this fact out to you, especially because the ruling of the Supreme Court makes what pretty much every other court said obsolete anyway. So...where exactly did you get that?

B) I quoted Lawrence because it's the case that overturned the sodomy laws. You know how I said sodomy is legal now? That's why. Please explain why you consider this to be referencing it out of context.

C) I wasn't the one who mentioned the Bible. There were only two of us, so I guess you had a 50% chance of getting that right, but couldn't you have at least...you know...checked?

XianLewis wrote:

Sodomy laws in the US are almost universally obselete "blue" laws, and the penalties against sodomy are almost invariably enforced as add-ons to charges against rapists. Furthermore, a single case in Texas often has little to no bearing on the laws of other states, especially Louisiana. I would also remind everyone here that it is likely that case was and still is being appealed by someone, somewhere. This is America, after all.

I spy another contradiction. If Sodomy laws are universally obsolete "blue" laws only used to punish rapists, please explain why John Geddes Lawrence (as in the Lawrence V Texas guy, if you didn't make the connection) and Tyron Garner (his partner) were arrested in the first place. They certainly weren't raping anyone. And I might not have the legal expertise one can get from law school, but I'm pretty sure there aren't many places left to which one can appeal after the United States Supreme Court has its say.

XianLewis wrote:

Finally, I think it is fabulous that two people joined together to congratulate each other and post numerous and vociferous posts in response to my one. There is a common trend in academia for a single person in a discipline to posit an idea, only to have it torn apart by the other persons in that field who build reputations on their criticisms without positing a single, logical idea themselves. I am glad that Murphy's Law and that trend both continue to find enthusiasts in the modern world.

This is a verbal (or textual, I suppose) debate, not a tug-of-war. Personally, I believe anyone on either side can make a valid and well-thought-out point, regardless of how many opponents may be in play. If your points are valid, I could somehow conjure fifty friends to join in, and that wouldn't magically make a post you wrote beforehand any less true. However, I don't think your points are valid anyway, for reasons I just stated.

[BMooyaso]

Kjorteo wrote:

Yeah, it is pretty elusive, though I think the Establishment clause may be a clue. You know, the part where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" I don't know how many alternate ways there are to interpret that. As for Jefferson's letter, I believe this is the excerpt of which you speak:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

I'm not sure how you're reading that, but it looks to me like Jefferson was praising the First Amendment because it separated Church and State. Sure, Jefferson is the one who actually used the phrase "separation of Church and State" in those words, but the Constitution is what actually does that, so I fail to see the point in nitpicking over it.

You seem to miss the distinction: it's the Church that needs protection from the State. Not the other way around. We seem to have this misguided perception that, if we are exposed to something we find disagreeable, we have been caused offense, regardless of our level of participation. That congress should be prevented from placing one religion or denomination above another (Establishing) is a very good thing. Else we would be marginalizing religions we disagree with: revoking tax-exempt status and/or increasing taxes based on religion, then on to prosecution for "religious crimes" (Think of England during Mary Tudor's reign) I find a "Muslim Tax" to be just as offensive as I'm sure you do.

Beyond that there is nothing that says laws can't be made for religious reasons nor that religious persons should be prevented from taking part in the democratic process. Remember that "Moral" and "Religious" are not the same even if they have the same origins. We as a society, for the most part, still agree that murder is a moral wrong and have made laws codifying and laying out what we consider appropriate punishments for that. That most religions agree is a side note. But what of the religions that don't agree? Are we trampling on their religious freedoms? Absolutely not, because it's not a religious law, it's a moral one.

I am annoyed and angered any time one uses their Athiestic or Secular religious tendency to attempt to marginilize and demonize any other religion. An Athiestic State, is just as likely (maybe more so) to commit Crimes Against Humanity based on religion as a full Theocracy.
All that said, I agree with Xian that homosexuals have just as much right to marry as heterosexuals. We as a society have decided that the marriage union is a worthy institution that builds a strong and healthy society. It is part of the Democratic that those who disagree can make legislation to alter that. It is likewise part of the process that they be opposed. Mandates from the Judicial brance are a form of legislation and a breach of the separation of powers.
Now, if all you wanted was to afford homosexual couples the same tax favors and freedom from government regulation that married couples enjoy, I'd agree fully. I feel we are all over taxed and far too heavily regulated. I want to see the tax burden on all private citizens to be relaxed and I think that any individual should be able to transfer any amount of private wealt to anyone they choose without the government getting thier grubby paws on it. But this does not require a redefinition of a foundational supports of society.

[Voyager]

What I find more interesting to this whole debate is, to the best of my knowledge, Japan have never had homosexual marriage, despite, again, to the best of my knowledge, associating absolutely no sigma to it at all. I've never even heard the concept mentioned, and considering their cultural history, I would have expected them to have a rather complete view on the subject.

Come to think of it, ancient Greece and Rome never did either, even with praising it as the heighest form of love. If there was ever a culture that loved to plaster naked men all over their dinner-ware, ancient Greece was it.

It just always struck me as funny, that's all.

Harry Voyager

[grainfedprairieboy]

OK lefties, these questions are not to flame but I would like real answers if possible.

Marriage has generally been regarded as an institution most effective in which to procreate and raise the offspring that provide for the continuity of the species at large and the society in general. As such, in Western socities certain rules have evolved to ensure the most successful results are achieved such as forbidding marriage between immediate family members or allowing multiple partners.

Since homosexuals are not confined by the restraints of the civic duty of creating and rasing the next generation should the following be permitted:

SSM between family members ie father/son or brother/brother?

SSM between groups of 3-100 who believe they love each other collectively?

Marriage between humans and animals?

Marriage between humans and objects?

Self Marriage?

For supporters of SSM, please explain Yes or No.

Cheers.

[ThePenguin]

BMooyaso wrote:

Now, if all you wanted was to afford homosexual couples the same tax favors and freedom from government regulation that married couples enjoy, I'd agree fully. I feel we are all over taxed and far too heavily regulated. I want to see the tax burden on all private citizens to be relaxed and I think that any individual should be able to transfer any amount of private wealt to anyone they choose without the government getting thier grubby paws on it. But this does not require a redefinition of a foundational supports of society.

This, exactly, is something I can agree with. I was born and raised Catholic so I can at least understand why the religious would be opposed to such legislation, rather than quickly dismissing they qualms. As I've told people who know me personally, I have no problem with any form of marriage/union/whatever you may call it that would grant homosexual couples the said tax favours and freedoms.

However, my only issue is that I wouldn't want them to start enforcing this on my Church. Though I disagree with them, I believe they reserve the right to keep their traditions and beliefs for as long as they see fit. I suppose this makes me a supporter of same-sex unions then, not necessarily mariage?

[ThePenguin]

"Since homosexuals are not confined by the restraints of the civic duty of creating and rasing the next generation should the following be permitted:"

SSM between family members ie father/son or brother/brother? No, the same rules should apply in a hetero marriage, wherein you can't marry anyone who is too closely related to you. All you're changing is the gender of the persons involved.

SSM between groups of 3-100 who believe they love each other collectively? I'm not too keen on polygamy, though I'm not exactly against it either. As with what I said earlier, this is all based on traditional marriage: if the law says traditional marriage isn't restricted to only two persons, then by all means. Until then, no.

Marriage between humans and animals, objects or self? No. Again, the change would and should only be regarding the gender of those involved. I've heard this argument before, and I can only feel a bit insulted that same-sex marriage is being paralleled to marriage between the above.

And since I feel this is coming up soon, marriage between a man and child: If there's enough conclusive studies to prove that children are able to understand what love is, what is entails and what being in a married, commited relationship is, then why not? Until then, the same goes for both hetero and homo marriages.

grainfedprairieboy wrote:

Marriage has generally been regarded as an institution most effective in which to procreate and raise the offspring that provide for the continuity of the species at large and the society in general.

Alright, question to you as well: as procreation goes, why allow sterile couples get married? Post menopausal? Couples who have no intention to bear children? If it simply is about raising children, homosexual couples should be more than capable to do so.

[The_Spectre]

grainfedprairieboy i agree with your logic. I mean once we take a step into this direction, where will it end?

First you ban gay marriage, whats to stop them from banning interracial marriage?

Whats to stop them by from banning people from outside their income bracket?

Well besides the fact they are all of legal age consenting adults who can enter into contracts with each other, which most of your "what if" don't apply too. The slippery slope works both ways.

Personally I feel that if they want to continue to use the religious term "marriage" then it has to apply to every one. However, if they want to make a marriage from a church different then a marriage according to the law, they i have no problem with them changing the name to civil unions. That way both heterosexual and homosexual couples will have a civil union, and only those who wish it to be a religious thing can get a marriage.

[USCAdad]

grainfedprairieboy wrote:

Marriage has generally been regarded as an institution most effective in which to procreate and raise the offspring that provide for the continuity of the species at large and the society in general. As such, in Western socities certain rules have evolved to ensure the most successful results are achieved such as forbidding marriage between immediate family members or allowing multiple partners.

Well this is the problem. Marriage is usually placed with this role. Not all marriages produce children and even when they do it ends at some point. To be consistent providing massive tax benefits to people actually having children, or supporting the mormon polygamists might be options. Otherwise, the biggest value of marriages is encouraging people to form family units so that people take care of each other rather than relying on government. If two gay boys desperately want to live together, and take care of each other for the rest of their lives, what's the problem? We let old people and baren yuppies marry. There is value to family beyond procreation.

Quote:

Since homosexuals are not confined by the restraints of the civic duty of creating and rasing the next generation should the following be permitted:

What about the lesbian couble at my preschool coop. One's a cop. They have two adopted children. I believe that they are from a destroyed family. Now granted these particular girls aren't my cup of tea, they're good parents.

Quote:

SSM between family members ie father/son or brother/brother?

Again, this is about the ability to take care of each other, not necessarily sex. What if the son or brother was severely dissabled and the parent wanted to put a grown child on their benefits? I see no problem with this either. I believe adult incest is still illegal.

Quote:

SSM between groups of 3-100 who believe they love each other collectively?

Yup, people should be free to make decisions that are right for themselves. Different family structures should be allowed for changing times. It's not governments job to tell people how they can create their lives.

Quote:

Marriage between humans and animals?

I'd have a hard time seeing how this would be a benefit to society. Given how many people would take this option I would think that it would be above government intervention.

Quote:

Marriage between humans and objects?

See above.

Quote:

Self Marriage?

What benefit to anyone would there be. Again what would be the harm... what's the worst case senario?

Quote:

For supporters of SSM, please explain Yes or No.

Well, you got a bit more than yes or no. I should add that my answers are for unions, not marriage. I think the term "marriage" should be given to the Christians.

[gattsuru]

So, equality is providing random things to people that aren't provided to everyone else, because they prefer a different thing?

I'd also note that in the countries which allow gay marriage, the right to self-defense is effectively limited to only the very rich and/or the very well-connected (and this remains true in the parts of the United States which allow gay marriage). Hm... right to live remaining equal for everyone, or state recognition of marriage... difficult choice, there.

Murray_Smith wrote:

"Gay people are allowed to marry heterosexually, even if it is against their preference, but gay marriage is useless to straight people because they won't marry people of the same sex."

That's just a little like saying, "Black people can use the water fountain on the left, even if it is filled with shit-water, but allowing both whites and blacks to use the same fountains is useless to white people because white people won't want to use the fountain on the left."

That's not even logically consistent.

The current situation isn't that gay individuals are 'forced' to use a separate system. In fact, they have access to the same system as everyone else. The reality is closer to :

"Everyone can use the same water fountain, but if you don't like the taste - even if the vast majority of other folks do - the government must make new water fountains just to fit your preferences."

I don't think we're going to end up getting cola-flavored water in every government building just because tap water sucks.

Hell, it's not even like we're preventing gay folk from having a wedding ceremony if they so wish and can find a group willing to perform (such acts are protected under the right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom from government intrusion into religion), it just won't have any recognition from the government.

Voyager wrote:

What I find more interesting to this whole debate is, to the best of my knowledge, Japan have never had homosexual marriage, despite, again, to the best of my knowledge, associating absolutely no sigma to it at all. I've never even heard the concept mentioned, and considering their cultural history, I would have expected them to have a rather complete view on the subject.

Come to think of it, ancient Greece and Rome never did either, even with praising it as the heighest form of love. If there was ever a culture that loved to plaster naked men all over their dinner-ware, ancient Greece was it.

Ancient Japan (and pre-Christian Greece) has a rather surprising viewpoint on homosexuality. Rather, they don't really have a view on it as such. The basic assumption was merely that people should continue the family line, and whatever works for you outside of that didn't matter much. In both cases, there weren't really words for gay or straight individuals, instead just focuses on positions (in Greeco/Roman tradition) or individual acts and age groups (Japan). Modern Japan's viewpoint is far less tolerant of same-sex actions, although it still gets less attention (in all ways) than the same issues in modern America.

This is fairly interesting in anime/manga, because many situations that Americans consider as lesbian or gay are really relatively normal affairs - a girl kissing another girl in public would attract more attention for the act of kissing than what Americans consider a lesbian show. That's not to say the differences from the norm earn no attention, merely that the focus is different.

However, there was a portion of time where homosexual acts were considered decadent in Rome before it totally absorbed Greek culture, and today there are still some acts of discrimination taken against Japanese individuals who commit predominately homosexual acts.

[ThePenguin]

gattsuru, I don't feel like the water fountain analogy is working. Let's try this one:

The actual reality is closer to the fact that the citizens of the country get milk. After some time, some citizens have grown lactose intolerant. Try as they might, milk just isn't working for them. It's true that they may choose not to drink the milk since no one is forcing them to, but then why can't the government just let them have a different kind of milk instead? It doesn't even have to be milk, it could just be juice-- provided they could still have some form of drink since everyone else is entitled to it.

It's easy for straight people to say, "Just deal with it," like a Muslim in Saudi Arabia would tell non-Muslims when it comes to practicing their religion on their soil. But when you try and see it from the minority's perspective, it really sucks.

It's not as if we could stop the attraction we feel for people of the same sex-- believe me, if I could I would. I've always told my friends that if I had the option to be straight, I will. Everything is there for you and there's nobody questioning whether or not you just have it wrong, whether or not you should be able to adopt, whether or not you should get married, whether or not you should get tax breaks, etc. Life is just that much easier.

And to be honest, I don't even feel the need to get married as the romanticized version of the word goes. I just believe that I should be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as the next person, regardless of the gender of the person I'm with.

[Kjorteo]

For all of my answers, I draw the line at whether all parties involved are adults capable of informed consent. I refer you to the book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country" by Peter McWilliams. It is available for reading online for free, in its entirety, here.

Also, in circumstances where allowing same-sex marriage would give homosexuals more rights because the same situation is not legal for heterosexuals, I am fully in favor of extending the privilege to heterosexuals as well, making it legal for everyone, so there's no inequality issue.

SSM between family members ie father/son or brother/brother? - Assuming everyone's a consenting adult, then yes, absolutely.

SSM between groups of 3-100 who believe they love each other collectively? - Assuming everyone's a consenting adult, then yes, absolutely.

Marriage between humans and animals? - No, because I do not believe animals are capable of informed consent.

Marriage between humans and objects? / Self Marriage? - I fail to see why one would want to do this, except to attempt to get the tax benefits of being in a marriage without actually finding a partner. At this point, we have stopped talking about love and morality and are now talking about tax fraud, so I would be against this.

[Psudo]

ThePenguin wrote:

The main problem in this thread is that you're the only one who has voiced the opinion of the other side.

If that's a significant problem, allow me to jump in: I'm against gay marriage, too. Very few US politicians are willing to voice support for gay marriage, and many ballot initiatives banning gay marriage at a state level have passed. (ABC News lists 20 states with gay marriage bans.)

How is that relevant, though? Popularity isn't the same as morality. Slavery was wrong even in states that overwhelmingly supported it by popular vote. Whichever side of the gay marriage debate is right, popularity vote isn't the way to decide the morality of the issue.

---

Oops. Reading on, that wasn't your point. I'm leaving my comment, though, because the morality vs. popularity point needs to be made.

---

On another note, why is an opposition to gay marriage inferred to be inherently religious in nature? Is it necessary to be a religious zealot (or religious at all) to side against gay marriage? I can think of secular reasons to oppose gay marriage (reproduction and propagation of the species, higher STD rates, blah blah). Who decided the argument was saints vs. sinners?

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

For all of my answers, I draw the line at whether all parties involved are adults capable of informed consent.

I think that's too few arguments. For example, you fail to define what an "adult" is. If a nation wants to pass a law saying anyone over the age of 9 is of the age of consent, does that inherently make it moral for a 10-year-old to sleep with a 65-year-old? Any fix to that either 1) creates an arbritrary line-in-the-sand age requirement for consent (which makes sex between a one-month-too-young individual and a one-month-too-old individual 'statutory') or 2) creates an age range limitation as an additional criteria above and beyond mere consent.

Consent as a lone determinant is a flawed legal design.