Down in this thread, Jeromy Brown argued that it was simply a “slippery slope” argument to say that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples could lead to changing that definition to include polygamy, among other banned variations.
If you read Jeromy’s comments, the derision for the idea of such a “slippery slope” is palpable.
The case for gay marriage is not the same as the case for polygamy or incest, but you need to slip and slide around that in order to preserve your slippery slope. (Comment 9)
Well, I don’t have to slip and slide. As I pointed out, polygamists are already using arguments similar to those of gay marriage advocates. As quoted in this Newsweek article,
“Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle,” says Mark Henkel, who, as founder of the Christian evangelical polygamy organization TruthBearer.org, is at the forefront of the movement. His argument: if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy. Henkel and Hammon have been joined by other activist groups like Principle Voices, a Utah-based group run by wives from polygamous marriages. Activists point to Canada, where, in January, a report commissioned by the Justice Department recommended decriminalizing polygamy.
The polygamists are using the same argument which succeeded in Lawrence v. Texas case: that they have “the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.”
See the slippery slope yet?
But wait! There’s more!
Now comes this Elizabeth Marquardt article which discusses a couple of cases (could this be a trend?) of “Heather having two mommies and a daddy.”
On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case, Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, involved two lesbians who were the legal co-parents of two children conceived with sperm donated by a friend. The panel held that the sperm donor and both women were all liable for child support. Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, observed, “I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation.â€
The case follows a similar decision handed down by a provincial court in Ontario in January. In what appeared to be the first such ruling in any Western nation, the court ruled that a boy can legally have three parents. In that case the biological mother and father had parental rights and wished for the biological mother’s lesbian partner, who functions as the boy’s second mother, to have such rights as well.
The idea of assigning children three legal parents is not limited to North America. In 2005, expert commissions in Australia and New Zealand proposed that sperm or egg donors be allowed to “opt in†as a child’s third parent. That same year, scientists in Britain received state permission to create an embryo from the DNA of three adults, raising the real possibility that they all could be granted equal legal claims to the child if the embryo developed to term.
Astonishingly, few legal experts, politicians or social commentators have considered the enormous risks these rulings and proposals pose for children. Those who have noticed tend to say they are nothing new, because many children already grow up with several parent figures. But this fails to recognize that stepchildren and adopted children still have only two legal parents.
How does all of this affect the gay marriage debate? Because, as I stated previously (much to some trolls’ chagrin), marriage is about more than just the couple at the altar. Marriage is primarily about creating a stable and safe place to have and raise children. And as the laws surrounding marriage change, so do the laws surrounding the conduct in and outside that marriage. This includes the effects such changes have in areas such as parental rights, visitation, and the best interest of the children.
Because in these custody cases, the best interest of the children get pushed aside. Is it really in a child’s best interest to be shuttled from home to home to home because he/she has three parents? What if the child has five parents? And how will the courts decide who gets included and who doesn’t? In the Pennsylvania case, the sperm donor for the lesbian couple was only involved in a peripheral way, yet he (and then his estate) got dragged in to pay child support.
How will such court decisions affect parent-child relationships in the future? Marquardt discusses a study she and Norval Glenn of the University of Texas did of children of so-called “good” divorces. These are cases where there is little conflict between the parents and the child has lots of access to both parents. What they discovered–no big surprise here–was that even children of “good” divorces had higher levels of stress and must deal with situations which may be beyond their maturity. They have to travel between two households which can (and frequently do) have very different rules and expectations for the child. In short, the child must learn to be a different person, depending on which household he/she is in at the time.
If such situations are complicated enough with two parents, how much worse must it be for three? Or more? Marquardt points out that such custody suits could include a homosexual couple, the sperm and egg donors, and a gestational surrogate that carries the baby to term (remember, it’s a baby if you want it; it’s a “choice” if you don’t).
That slippery slope gets more slippery all the time. And not because the argument is a red herring.
Marriage is primarily about creating a stable and safe place to have and raise children.
Good good, except you don’t show where same-sex couples do not provide such a stable and safe place when they wish to have children. I’m sure you think a study of sex habits says something about raising children, but actual science says you have to have a reason to make vast pronouncements. And the only real science regarding this issue says that the assumption that same-sex couples are not as good at being parents as heterosexual couples is just flat-out false.
I did love that Eric on that thread dismissed psychology as bunk, yet “science” in the form of correlative studies by the FRC is all good. Hilarious, if stupid.
Marriage is about more than just the couple at the altar. Marriage is primarily about creating a stable and safe place to have and raise children.
I think this is the crux of the debate, right there. In some parts of our society, marriage is about the couple at the altar. In other parts of our society, it’s about having and raising children.
It’s not so much that gay marriage activists are trying to change the meaning of marriage; it’s that we live in a cultural milieu in which that meaning has already changed.
Okay, so if we’re doing this all in the interests of the children, why not outlaw divorce? I know it’s totally awesome for kids to grow up in a household where their parents hate each other and want a divorce, but can’t get one. Why, the fact that my mother was Catholic and could not divorce my lazy, POS father wasn’t a source of psychological stress for me and my sister at all. We smiled all the time, and everything was awesome.
You should try to get that ban passed. Have fun with that.
As a housekeeping function, since this thread has picked up where the Champagne thread left off, I have closed that one to further comments.
Hmm. Here I wrote up a long comment in response to the other thread, only to find comments closed.
*sigh*
Jeromy, at #4: You said: “And the day you find an argument against homosexual marriage that is logically valid and isn’t based on disgust, distaste, or viewing homosexuals as second-class citizens“. This does not comport with my experience of Sharon’s interactions with me.
Sharon, at #21: The Right isn’t trying to “pre-empt†public opinion. In those states where ballot measures are being proposed which would make it impossible for the Legislature to enact civil unions, part of the reason for such measures is a desire to lock in today’s political preferences against the possibility that those preferences will change tomorrow. That strikes me as being an attempt to pre-empt public opinion.
Dana, at #26: You do a good job at distinguishing the arguments “a state can recognize same-sex marriage” and “a state must recognize same sex marriage”. But neither of those are really where the debate is; the debate is about the question “is it true that the state should recognize same sex marriages”. I think it should, although i’m willing to give them a different name; it’s often not clear to me what people who argue that “it is not true that a state must recognize same sex marriages” fall on this issue.
Dana, at #27: If two men or two women choose to shack up, I don’t think that the state has a reasonable right to punish them for that — and I’d say the same for a threesome or moresome as well. Where this gets interesting, though, is what happens beyond that. In California, if Jared and I register as domestic partners, our income is taxed jointly. But at the federal level, it isn’t. This is … convoluted and obnoxious; I don’t see a good reason for federal tax law to not mirror state law in this regard, other than a general “we can’t recognize homosexual relationships in any way” feeling.
Dana, at #48: twenty years ago homosexuals simply could not adopt. This remains true in some states. (Which of course only makes your point about the paucity of data that much stronger). Also, if you think that child-rearing ends at 19, you are in for a surprise over the next decade.
Sharon, at #65: if you want gay marriage, then work with legislatures and with the public to persuade people to that view. It’s really not that hard. California’s legislature has passed a domestic partnership law in which domestic partnerships are equivalent to marriage except in name; the governor has signed it; nobody has been able to muster the signatures to qualify a ballot measure to overturn it. California’s legislature has passed a gay marriage bill, which was vetoed by the governor. My point is: legislatures *can* be convinced, in some places they will be, and the world will move on.
Bryan from the other thread: In any case, Cameron still gets published in peer-reviewed journals, so what is J-off trying to say?
Because he is still producing articles. That doesn’t mean the people aren’t going to review them and critique them. As of yet, I have seen few reputable scientists in his field accept his studies as scientifically sound. Maybe you have evidence that there are people who have verified his studies? I’m actually in the midst of a search for articles about same-sex couples raising children, and, as of yet, the only people agreeing with Cameron are at the FRC, and I’m sorry, but no one takes them seriously but right wingers. Not to say that makes them debunked, but these are people with an agenda. The APA uses multiple studies by multiple scientists, as opposed to one scientist who has shown he has a deep-seeded problem with gay people.
In Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas, he wrote that the case at hand:
However, the majority made no reference to the case not being used to push for same-sex marriage, and was referred to by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in its decision requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriage.
Mr Goff, it has been said before that if children wrote the laws, divorce would be illegal! It might not be unanimous, but I’d bet it would be a sizable majority.
I guess that I shouldn’t be, but I am continually amazed at the number of friends my daughters have who don’t live with both of their biological parents.
aphrael noted:
I assume that the two of you can still file separately in the state of my birth.
I’d agree that the various domestic partnerships and civil unions statutes have the potential for legal chaos. My first thought was that such should be treated more as an incorporation than anything else, but that presents its own share of problems; if you are incorporated, can Patterico buy shares of A-J Company?
In a (possibly fruitless) attempt to bring some structure to this debate, I’m reproducing a comment of mine from the other thread:
Sharon has conceded previously that states have the legal authority to define marriage in any way they wish, and could include same-sex relationships under the definition of marriage; Massachusetts has already done this, though the action of te legislature was compelled by the state Supreme Court. I’d guess that many of the supporters of same-sex marriage think that state-by-state legislation is a terrible way to do it, because:
If they can make the case that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, they sweep away the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and force all of the states to accept same-sex marriage, regardless of whether the people approve.
My question to the supporters here is: are my three points valid? Do you hold that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right which is being denied by the state, or simply that it is a bad decision taken by forty-nine of our states?
It might not be unanimous, but I’d bet it would be a sizable majority.
And hey, that works! Because the minority opinion can just suck it and deal. Good to know that “children ZOMG!” isn’t applicable in every instance.
Okay, so if we’re doing this all in the interests of the children, why not outlaw divorce?
And, for that matter, it is a demonstratable fact that black parents produce worse kids than white parents – as judged by the arrest rates.
Presumably the people saying “marriage is for the children” are also advocating that blacks not be allowed to marry or raise kids, and if they do get pregnant, their children be taken away to be raised by better foster parents?
Or does the argument only get raised for the socially acceptable bigotries?
Presumably the people saying “marriage is for the children†are also advocating that blacks not be allowed to marry or raise kids, and if they do get pregnant, their children be taken away to be raised by better foster parents?
Oh no, the slippery slope is only applicable where Sharon says so.
are my three points valid?
I would add that there’s a fourth point: There is a need to amend the bigotry that has been spread by the likes of the FRC and other anti-gay organizations that have put a lot of disinformation out there that portray same-sex relationships as somehow worse or more depraved than heterosexual couples because of unscientific arguments.
And yeah, no one ever said bigotry was easy to defeat in legislation. If it were, there would be no need for Brown v. Board of Education.
By pursuing the goal via appeals to the legislature, they are tacitly admitting that same-sex marriage is a legitimate choice for the legislature to take, and not a fundamental right.
In addition, though, I would say that this is merely a biproduct of the fact that “fundamental rights” does not include marriage, in a sense. I would say that marriage should be classified in the realm of privilege, and not a right, though granting the privilege to heterosexuals means that you must grant the same privilege to homosexuals, as there is no reputable reason to not do so. I guess this seems pretty mealy-mouthed, but I’ve yet to see any argument against same-sex marriage that isn’t a logical fallacy, not based on evidence that is verifiable, and marriage is not something that is given to every person, so calling it a right is equivocating when there is no real reason to do so. Though, I will say that just because it is a privilege, that does not mean it should not be an option for people who have no reason not to deserve the privilege.
I need to see a legitimate argument that shows that same-sex marriage is ethically wrong or that it has ethical problems that cannot be resolved by appropriate legislation.
I think this is the crux of the debate, right there. In some parts of our society, marriage is about the couple at the altar. In other parts of our society, it’s about having and raising children.
Actually, I think it is the crux of our marriage “crisis,” if you want to call it that. I don’t think marriage necessarily means to most people today what it did even 20 years ago. Up until fairly recently, very few people would have been childless throughout marriage. But with the advent of easily obtained and used birth control, far more couples are purposely childless. So, to me, the definition of marriage is changing. I wasn’t going to bring this argument up, but was waiting for someone else to do it.
So then, if raising children is not the primary purpose of marriage in society as it consists today, should all of the norms which connect marriage with children be eliminated? For example, all 3 of my children live in the same school district, but my oldest daughter lives with her father. When the administration enters all 3 children in their computer system, they tie them together as siblings, and make the oldest daughter the priority child. The problem with this is that mail for the other kids were going to my ex’s house. The administration seemed perplexed at how to fix this problem. I’m sure I’m not the only person in America with this situation.
But again, the post showed that, far from being an unfounded “slippery slope” argument, there are real world consequences for the sorts of changes being discussed.
I suspect that some sort of “civil unions” could pass in a lot of places, even relatively conservative states (maybe Texas?). And, as I commented over at Aphrael’s site, I’m disturbed that there are ballot initiatives designed to nullify the rights of gay couples and registered heterosexual couples to certain legal benefits. Once people start to rely on basic certainties, it seems patently unfair to take those away. Wasn’t there a Supreme Court case about 10 years ago that said that?
In addition, though, I would say that this is merely a biproduct of the fact that “fundamental rights†does not include marriage, in a sense.
Actually, marriage is a fundamental right.
Well, “fundamenal right” is completely ambiguous, for starters. The right to get married is a fundamental right. The right to be married? Doesn’t exist.
Looking at the Wikipedia page to which your link led, I see a bunch of rights that are not recognized by the United States. The Right to Life is obviously out. The right to choose when and where to have formal education is limited. The right to form contracts is restricted. The right to vote is restricted.
I would say that the government has absolutely no right to tell anybody that they cannot consider themselves married, or find some religious leader to perform a marriage ceremony. However, the federal and state governments are not obligated to recognize all, or even any, such unions.
The government has chosen to do so, and put restrictions on what kinds of unions it will recognize, and through what procedures a couple must go to have a marriage recognized. You have to get a marriage license. In most states you have to have some sort of health examination (usually a VD test). You may be required to present identification. You must not be legally married to someone else. Finally, you must have someone who is licensed to perform weddings do so; the license normally expires in a few days or a month if this is not done.
Ooh, you bastards! I’ll get to all of your nonsense, Sharon, trust me.
Meanwhile, let me make one thing clear, folks: when I dish out some smack-talking, I do not expect it to be taken as the logical part of my argument. For that, I expect the logical parts of my argument to handle that.
However, it is true that in virtually any comments section on a conservative blog, the first insult hurled by a liberal will lead to a chorus of, “THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE, INSULTS!” Mixed in with a bevy of insults in return, naturally.
My multi-part detailed responses that go after every scrap of Sharon’s arguments like an Indian with a buffalo go unnoticed.
But that’s not going to make me forget that I made them, folks. So who are you trying to fool, beyond yourselves?
I’ll tackle everything that resembles a point. That’s a promise.
And Bryan, don’t expect me to do your research for you. If you think Paul Cameron is suddenly a respectable and reliable researcher, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. Up until now, he has been an unethical go-to guy for anybody who wants to keep their boot on the heads of homosexuals.
Mr Goff wrote:
Perhaps the “civil unions” statutes are the method that several states have chose as “appropriate legislation.” All of the legal benefits of marriage, without the name of marriage.
However, I think you’ve assumed that the ethical argument must be accepted by all, which is a virtual impossibility. Heck, we can’t even get 100% agreement that infanticide (post-birth infanticide; this isn’t an abortion argument) is always ethically wrong, and the Phoenician once argued, a la Peter Singer, that a baby too young to have formed any sort of sentient consciousness should not necessarily be a legal person.
There are 300 million people in this country, of all sorts of beliefs, and they simply do not all agree on the morality of a whole lot of things. You could argue until you are a very deep blue in the face, and some people are not going to be persuaded that same-sex marriage is in any way moral.
The reverse is true: if Sharon found some absolutely slam-dunk research which said that rearing children in same-sex couple households leads to a tripling of the crime rate among those children, some people would still say that such has absolutely nothing to do with whether two people of the same sex should be able to get married.
Someone (I think it was you, but I can’t toggle back and forth between threads without losing the comment) said in the other thread that he opposed the idea of legalizing polygamy, because the internal relationships within polygamy were inherently unequal. That may be, but surely no one here is naïve enough to think that all relationships in heterosexual marriages are equal. And the statement assumes that society has a right to make a determination as to which relationships are acceptable, and which are not, based not upon the desires of the people wishing to form the relationship, but the judgements of society as a whole.
Eric (and Sharon): I am not bigoted against polygamists, I’ve simply explained that the reasons one would have against polygamy are quite distinct and worthy of an isolated discussion, and I’ve provided some simple-to-understand examples of what makes polygamy a logistical nightmare in a society composed of equal citizens. Consider this: Bill marries Jane. Jane marries Scott. Are Bill and Scott married? Scott marries Sally. Is Bill married to Sally?
In a patriarchal society where men have all the rights, it is not so, thus its previous ability to function in multiple societies throughout history.
Also, I’ve stated in an unrebutted manner that polygamy presents a true slippery slope, as the state must theoretically allow an infinite number of spouses if it goes beyond two consenting adults.
This is relatively simple to understand. No amount of repetition on the part of either of you will cause my answer to cease to exist, or to constitute an irrational opposition to bigamy. I really have no problem if a guy wants to have three women doting on him. But in today’s environment, the complications are, as far as I can figure, insurmountable. And nobody here has attempted to surmount them.
So, they stand as reasonable. And they are issues that are entirely distinct from the particulars of gay marriage. Allow gay marriage, and one must still deal with these questions.
Sure, Sharon, polygamists will try to abuse the situation, and you’re happily supporting them. You stand poised to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you’d just deal with gay marriage on its own merits, instead of your slippery slope fallacy, lashing everything and the kitchen sink to gay marriage in an effort to weigh it down, the polygamists would have less of a case.
But one shouldn’t be surprised to hear that polygamists will try anything. The point is, are they right? No, they’re wrong, just as wrong as you two.
The point of going to the courts is simple, and virtually identical for anybody that goes to the courts: One feels an injustice is being done, and wishes to see it corrected.
The question to be answered is, why wait for people to come around if your rights are being violated?
That said, the case for public persuasion is moving along swimmingly. As mentioned, the progress in the last two decades is exponential. The strongholds against gay marriage are getting old and dying off. The younger generations simply don’t hold such animosity towards gays, and considers allowing them to marry pretty much a no-brainer. They’re gay. That’s what they are. Mind your own freakin’ business, it isn’t hurting you. If you’re gay, don’t try to fake some straight marriage, you’ll hurt everybody involved.
The reverse is true: if Sharon found some absolutely slam-dunk research which said that rearing children in same-sex couple households leads to a tripling of the crime rate among those children, some people would still say that such has absolutely nothing to do with whether two people of the same sex should be able to get married.
Just absolute nonsense. Come up with one study that says anything remotely close to this. Dreaming does not equal an argument, which I hope you realize.
That may be, but surely no one here is naïve enough to think that all relationships in heterosexual marriages are equal.
OK, but that this is not something that you see as needing to be remedied is a problem.
And the statement assumes that society has a right to make a determination as to which relationships are acceptable, and which are not, based not upon the desires of the people wishing to form the relationship, but the judgements of society as a whole.
Ok, if society has no right to determine what relationships are acceptable, upon what basis does society exert its right to define what marriage is? If I establish a religion that says that homosexual marriage is okay and that there is no problem with it being enacted, what right does society have to tell me that my religion is wrong, and that the normal benefits society grants to other religions when they marry two people are no longer applicable to my religion? Why? On what basis?
Eric (and Sharon): I am not bigoted against polygamists, I’ve simply explained that the reasons one would have against polygamy are quite distinct and worthy of an isolated discussion, and I’ve provided some simple-to-understand examples of what makes polygamy a logistical nightmare in a society composed of equal citizens. Consider this: Bill marries Jane. Jane marries Scott. Are Bill and Scott married? Scott marries Sally. Is Bill married to Sally?
Go to one of the many pro-polygamy sites and I’m certain they can answer this question for you. And if polygamy were to become legal, there would be a framework set in place to deal with these situations. And if something wasn’t dealt with, we’d just make new laws to deal with those situations. Wow! The legislative process! Who’da thunk.
Meanwhile, let me make one thing clear, folks: when I dish out some smack-talking, I do not expect it to be taken as the logical part of my argument. For that, I expect the logical parts of my argument to handle that.
I hate to break it to you, Jeromy, but the supposedly logical parts of your argument don’t work any better. Found those citations to 9th Amendment cases yet?
However, it is true that in virtually any comments section on a conservative blog, the first insult hurled by a liberal will lead to a chorus of, “THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE, INSULTS!†Mixed in with a bevy of insults in return, naturally.
You know, Aphrael comments at any number of conservative blogs without insulting anyone. If you don’t want people talking about your infantile temper tantrums, then don’t throw them.
You might have some actual arguments–arguments with merit–without them. And someone might take them seriously. But once you start calling people homophobic for disagreeing with you, that shuts off any discussion.
I like a good debate. And one of the terrible things that happens to you when you go to law school is that you start seeing all sides to any particular issue. That means I can argue multiple sides to the same issue. In other words, many of the arguments here are academic to me. Including this one.
So, enjoy your name-calling if it makes you feel like you “won” the argument. But saying that doesn’t make it so.
My multi-part detailed responses that go after every scrap of Sharon’s arguments like an Indian with a buffalo go unnoticed.
No, Jeromy. Your responses go to the strawman arguments you build up as mine. You never addressed the theories of judicial review I gave you. You never came up with even one case that used the 9th Amendment as a basis for the decision. And your argument that there is no slippery slope between legalizing gay marriage and other unaccepted marital forms has been debunked by the fact that polygamists are using the same arguments that won the Lawrence v. Texas case. Does that mean nothing to you? Do you not understand the significance of that? To argue that there is no slippery slope when actual events contradict that viewpoint is blind.
But in today’s environment, the complications are, as far as I can figure, insurmountable. And nobody here has attempted to surmount them.
Actually, I did answer this. States will create legislation to deal with whatever difficulties polygamy presents, if they choose to recognize it.
So, they stand as reasonable. And they are issues that are entirely distinct from the particulars of gay marriage. Allow gay marriage, and one must still deal with these questions.
You pick one particular facet of polygamy and then generalize that because of that facet there are no similarities between gay marriage and polygamy? Who was it who was talking about logical fallacies. This is one, if ever I saw it.
Sure, Sharon, polygamists will try to abuse the situation, and you’re happily supporting them.
Jeromy, you need to learn English. Observing that polygamists are using similar arguments as gay marriage supporters is not “supporting” polygamy, any more than discussing the historical basis of marriage is a logical fallacy. Both are simply facts, something both you and Jack seem to have a hard time distinguishing from opinion.
If I observe that it is raining outside, I’m not endorsing the rain. I’m simply noting what is happening. The same is true in pointing out the similarity of tactics between gay marriage supporters and polygamists.
If you’d just deal with gay marriage on its own merits, instead of your slippery slope fallacy, lashing everything and the kitchen sink to gay marriage in an effort to weigh it down, the polygamists would have less of a case.
You don’t like comparisons of gay marriage with other unrecognized marital forms because it makes gay marriage look unacceptable. But it is simply ridiculous to deny any one group the right to marry if you are divorcing marriage from its original roots.
As both Aphrael and I pointed out, the real argument will be about the definition of marriage. Is marriage about having a family? Or is it strictly about the persons in the marriage ceremony? If the former, then heterosexual marriage will win out because of natural pro-creation. If the latter, then any group of persons, from 2 to 20, should be allowed the right to be happy.
You don’t like comparisons of gay marriage with other unrecognized marital forms because it makes gay marriage look unacceptable.
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but gay marriage is recognised. Indeed, there are legally married gay couples in the United States.
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but gay marriage is recognised.
Those people don’t count, of course. And they probaby abuse their children, because the FRC says so.
Pho, pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but the trolls aren’t talking about gay marriage in regards to what is legal in Massachusetts. They are talking about nationally, where gay marriage is not recognized any more than other unrecognized marital forms.
They are talking about nationally
Actually, an ethical argument is less about legal positivism for me, and more about whether something, be it a law or whatever, is ethical, but sure, I’d like it if our nation behaved ethically. Absolutely.
Because he is still producing articles. That doesn’t mean the people aren’t going to review them and critique them.
Nearly all journals have some standards for publishing a paper.
Granted, that standard is probably far lower in the soft sciences than for the hard sciences.
If you do a psychological study, good luck getting it published.
As of yet, I have seen few reputable scientists in his field accept his studies as scientifically sound.
Oh, well never mind, then. If “few” scientists in his field accept the validity of his studies, then they couldn’t possible be valid, could they?
Maybe you have evidence that there are people who have verified his studies?
I know he gets published. You hint at knowing a “few.”
I’m actually in the midst of a search for articles about same-sex couples raising children, and, as of yet, the only people agreeing with Cameron are at the FRC, and I’m sorry, but no one takes them seriously but right wingers.
My point in bringing up the controversy over the scientific findings was aimed at getting to the data, not on taking a poll as to how many experts of unknown ideological bent favored one view or the other.
Not to say that makes them debunked, but these are people with an agenda. The APA uses multiple studies by multiple scientists, as opposed to one scientist who has shown he has a deep-seeded problem with gay people.
Do you think you can separate yourself from your personal bias and judge the data objectively?
And Bryan, don’t expect me to do your research for you.
Who submitted the title of the work along with the names of the authors? You? I know what journal published the paper. If you’re dying to find out and you won’t take my word for it, then use a search engine and quit whining.
If you think Paul Cameron is suddenly a respectable and reliable researcher, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.
He’s respectable enough to get published, and the proof is self-evident if you’ll learn to use a search engine.
I made clear my point in mentioning Cameron’s work. If you wish to ignore it, I guess that’s up to you. It does seem to fit your pattern in arguing against Sharon, FWIW.
Do you think you can separate yourself from your personal bias and judge the data objectively?
I didn’t come up with the data the APA used, and the conclusions that they have made are from numerous people. All of them are biased?
If “few†scientists in his field accept the validity of his studies, then they couldn’t possible be valid, could they?
As of yet, I have actually found no psychologist that has bought into his methods. I was covering my ass by saying “few”. Are you aware of any reputable psychologists that allow that Cameron’s data is sound? Because there are little to no psychologists writing for the FRC that I can tell. Work on proving your own statements, not relying on me proving them for you. That’s an incredibly bad idea, since I can find no proof for them, other that Cameron’s studies, while numerous studies backed by the APA have debunked them.
He’s respectable enough to get published, and the proof is self-evident if you’ll learn to use a search engine.
This is actually not evidence for him not being reputable. Journals publish articles all the time that are by people with questionable methods in the psychological field, because it is a fluid field. Whether that person’s studies have been debunked is a completely different question from whether his research is reputable.
This is actually not evidence for him not being reputable.
Crap, should read:
This is actually not evidence for him being reputable.
And seriously, Bryan, multiple researchers for the APA have debunked all of Cameron’s studies, so don’t you think that it makes more since that Cameron has created a biased set of studies than numerous other people have created a biased set of studies? ESPECIALLY after he himself said that a gay person in the military would have a problem translating a document when a hot guy walked by, thus negating that gay person’s ability to do his job? That’s a psychologist you trust? Well, have at it, I guess.
it makes more since
Ok, I suck at typing. Should be:
it makes more sense
Dana, aha! I’m not going to get away from the question in #11, am I?
I consider gay marriage to be a fundamental right. The fact that my straight friends can marry the love of their life and I can’t marry the love of my life strikes me as being deeply discriminatory; and, while such discrimination can be justified as a matter of state policy, I think the burden should fall on those who want to discriminate.
That said, I realize that my position is a minority position, and I believe that attempting to get the position adopted by judicial fiat is likely to backfire. Also, I think that the number of states in which same-sex marriage could pass by legislation is larger than most of us think, and growing larger all the time; so, while I think many activists would agree with point #1, I think it’s overstated.
Jack Goff, at #27: Ok, if society has no right to determine what relationships are acceptable, upon what basis does society exert its right to define what marriage is? Who would you have define ‘marriage’ if not ‘society’? Maybe this is a pet peeve of mine, but the descriptive linguist in me rises up against such a remark.
Sharon, at #28: Aphrael comments at any number of conservative blogs without insulting anyone. Of course not! Calling names merely obfuscates the conversation and makes it harder for opponents to listen to each other and reach compromise. Flinging insults is in almost every case part of the problem, not part of the solution.
First of all, I told you I would get to everything. I’ve got a life and a loving woman to keep company. Debating on the internet isn’t sexy. But a few more quick shots before I sit down and go after the junk from the night before:
And using them poorly and illogically. How does a self-interested group blathering debunk anything? Of course, they’re going to warp things in their favor. Of course, they want to use the same slippery slope you do. So what? They’re wrong. You’re wrong. A sensible court should find the same. Polygamy isn’t the same issue.
Oh, you can’t answer my questions about polygamy, but somebody’ll figure it out someday? Jesus, Sharon, what a pathetic non-answer. You’ve been happy to puff yourself up, but when push comes to shove, you come up dry. You cannot tell me how to resolve polygamy among equal citizens. Your assurance that somebody else will figure it out means absolutely nothing whatsoever. Pure hot air.
If you can’t explain to me how polygamy works in America, why should I change my opinion that it won’t work?
No similarities, or that they differ in fundamental ways that require each be weighed on its own merits, with similarities too superficial and broad to be meaningful? Which one did I say, Sharon?
For someone who talks a lot about logical fallacies, you seem dangerously undereducated about them and pathologically prone to relying on them at every step.
Why 20? Are they all married to each other? Why should any partner be limited to the same parters as all the others?
All questions about polygamy that must be answered by those who wish to legalize it. Questions that have nothing to do with gay marriage.
Now let’s look at the Constitutional angle.
There was no rejection of reading Scalia’s dissent. I saw it. And it’s worthless. It’s the dissent, the side that lost, remember? And I already outlined my explicit differences with Scalia’s judicial philosophy, one that seems based on a brazen disregard of the 9th amendment. He agrees with those who say the Constitution doesn’t guarantee you the right to go out and get laid, because there isn’t a bleeding Amendment that says the words, “You have the right to get some strange.â€
So let’s look at the 9th amendment. You provided me a wonderful link, followed with “the Founding Fathers expressed some concern about enumerating certain rights as basic while not including others.â€
Exactly. You found the perfect link, Sharon. It explains every single thing I’ve said. What were those reservations?
Please, anybody and everybody, read the entire thing. This is the opposite of Scalia and the “strict textualists,†who seem to possess copies of the Constitution that don’t include the 9th.
Giving the 9th its due weight is a characteristic of liberal and libertarian thinkers. As most are aware, libertarian thinking isn’t so welcome among conservatives any more.
Ah, but Sharon says, “What about the 10th Amendment?†The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now let’s look at a passage from the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 10th Amendment is not a blank check for the States. They are still limited by the 9th and 14th Amendments to essentially play by the same rules as the Federal Government. The specific rights outlined in the Constitution are not meant to be a series of loopholes to dive through. And if heterosexuals can marry one non-related consenting adult at a time, there is a great burden on the state to deny homosexuals equal treatment.
So far, that burden has not even been remotely approached by Sharon, Dana, Eric, Bryan, or anybody I’ve ever debated on this issue.
Here’s that 9th Amendment link again:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
Thank you again for that, Sharon. It was good of you to help me undo your rightwing claptrap:)
Another thing:
Of course not. Legally unworkable doesn’t mean that we go busting up people living together. Not really sure where you got that, Sharon, your reasoning is murkily vague here.
Again, you really have little ground to talk to anybody about logic. There are lots of folks like you who like to throw around the word but seem completely incapable of actually applying it, or feel lip service to logic is good enough to completely circumvent the need to stick to the rules.
You had some other ramblings on polygamy, Sharon, which only seemed to coalesce here:
I wasn’t talking about who does the dishes, Sharon. All of the current rights and privileges of marriage are constructed around two more or less equal partners. Re-constructing them around an infinite number of more or less equal entities is something you haven’t displayed the slightest idea of how to resolve.
Currently, the polygamist is allowed one legal spouse, whom they presumably truly desire to be with. They may desire more, but they are at least given one marriage with the non-related adult partner of their choice.
A gay person denied same-sex marriage is essentially barred from marriage altogether. If you think being allowed to marry the opposite sex is a fair consolation, consider how comfortable a straight person would be marrying the same sex. The offer of a spouse outside your sexual orientation is an inherently unfair and unequal treatment that places the humanity of the homosexual well below that of the heterosexual.
Apologies, that was Dana’s comment.
It might be interesting to have some studies on the number of ‘gay marriages’ that have been formally terminated by divorce. Will the same rules apply? Just what extra-curricular activity will constitute adultery?
If there is a divorce, who gets custody of the gerbil?
So many questions.
So many questions.
And none of them bigoted, right Art? You guys should show your true colors more often, because I realize that behind that veneer of “common sense” lies really asinine bigots with incredibly stupid ideas about other people. (Name-calling, ZOMG!)
Who would you have define ‘marriage’ if not ’society’?
Truthfully? No one. I am not a fan of a society that has to have the institution of marriage as a pacifier. I would rather people were able to do what they wished respective of their religions, but since most people have the intellectual capacity of Art, that will not work, and people will try to subjugate other people. So, society, for all its faults, has to define the institution so people like Art don’t drag us to troglodyte levels.
Anyway, I was answering Dana’s statement with sarcasm.
Aphrael said:
That said, I realize that my position is a minority position, and I believe that attempting to get the position adopted by judicial fiat is likely to backfire. Also, I think that the number of states in which same-sex marriage could pass by legislation is larger than most of us think, and growing larger all the time; so, while I think many activists would agree with point #1, I think it’s overstated.
I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. After watching the abortion wars for 40 years, it seems to me that persuading people state-by-state to change law, even though it may take longer, is a better way to ensure uniformity and stability than to have the Supreme Court make a determination that will energize opponents. If you look at both the civil rights movement and the suffragette movement, those were aimed at changing the law, not through the courts, but through the legislatures. Once laws were changed, the courts were used to enforce the laws, which seems to be more in line with how the Founding Fathers pictured the judiciary working.
Calling names merely obfuscates the conversation and makes it harder for opponents to listen to each other and reach compromise. Flinging insults is in almost every case part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Aphrael has done more to change my opinion about a variety of issues (including gay marriage) by not calling me names than any troll who thinks this is an effective debate technique. If, as he says, the point is to trade ideas and theories, it works much better if you leave your invectives at home.
Jack said:
Ok, if society has no right to determine what relationships are acceptable, upon what basis does society exert its right to define what marriage is? If I establish a religion that says that homosexual marriage is okay and that there is no problem with it being enacted, what right does society have to tell me that my religion is wrong, and that the normal benefits society grants to other religions when they marry two people are no longer applicable to my religion? Why? On what basis?
First, I don’t know who would say society doesn’t have the right to determine the criteria for marriage. That was pretty much the point of discussing the historical basis for marriage.
Secondly, religions make the determination all the time which marriages it recognizes and which it doesn’t. For example, the Catholic church doesn’t recognize marriages not performed in the church (or it doesn’t consider them the same…Dana can clarify this for me). And there have been churches for years that have performed marriages (whatever they might choose to call them) for gay couples for many years.
The difference is in what the state decides to recognize, not what a religion determines to recognize. And, as Aphrael pointed out, the differences between state and federal law creates some problems for some people.
I was being sarcastic, Sharon. Sorry for the lack of a /sarcasm tag.
Dammit, my well-crafted response to Jeromy got eaten by my computer, so I’ll just do the bullet point version.
1. You dismiss dissents at your own risk, Jeromy. Today’s dissent can become tomorrow’s majority opinion (see Gonzales v. Carhart, for example).
2. I think you take the 9th Amendment argument too literally and misread the cite I left you. The point was that the Founding Fathers were concerned that the Bill of Rights would be construed as a laundry list of rights with no others included (this is similar to the way European law works). They believed that there were other rights unenumerated, but your interpretation of this idea is faulty. For one thing, the Founders would never have dreamed of marriage as anything other than a heterosexual institution given its purpose (and by purpose, I mean in the legal sense, not in any political sense). Your reading of the 9th Amendment could allow for polygamy and bigamy, btw, and a host of other social ills, which is why the loophole swallows your argument.
3. The 10th Amendment was designed to limit the power of the federal government so that states had more rights to regulate affairs at a local level. In combination with the 9th Amendment, it meant local control of affairs with limited governmental intrusion. This doesn’t really comport with your 9th Amendment argument that there can be no regulation. I’d love to see you try this argument with a law professor, just to see how he dealt with it.
4. You scoff at Scalia’s judicial philosophy as being simplistic, but Constitutional law shouldn’t be complicated. Scalia’s philosophy is if something isn’t stated in the Constitution, then it isn’t covered by that body of law and shouldn’t be adjudicated there. That isn’t quite what you tried to say. There are lots of areas of law, you know that, right? And not all of them should be governed by what is in (or not in) the Constitution. So, an issue like marriage is not enumerated in the Constitution but basically governed through state statutes and common law, and there is an incredible amount of case law supporting the idea of marriage as a heterosexual institution. Even the case cited in the Findlaw article discusses marriage but as a heterosexual institution.
5. I’m not sure you understand why it is important that polygamists are using the same arguments that gay marriage supporters use. You dismiss the idea that a court would find those arguments compelling when applied to polygamy. But keep in mind that a “sensible court” has also found a host of rights never before seen in the Constitution, including a right to abortion, homosexual sodomy, Miranda warnings, etc., as well as restricting rights long considered fundamental (such as property rights and the takings clause). Remember, the reason liberals love going to court is that it is much easier to persuade five justices of the rightness of your claim as opposed to a couple of hundred legislators.
Lawrence v. Texas is a great example of this. I was certain the Texas law would be overturned, but not on the reasons given. It seemed to me like a clear Equal Protection argument (i.e., heterosexual couples were treated differently from homosexual ones), but instead, Justice Kennedy–so reviled for the Gonzales decision–started discussing a right to private conduct without government regulation. As Justice Scalia pointed out, such a decision could be rife with consequences in other areas of the law. Up till now, Lawrence has been construed very narrowly, but there’s no guarantee that that will continue into the future. So, arguing that no reasonable court would accept the polygamists’ argument is whistling past the graveyard, IMO.
6. Jumping up and down and yelling, “I won! I won!” doesn’t win you an argument, Jeromy. This is about the 15th time you’ve done that. Just stick to the debate and leave the scoring to the judges.
Aphrael wrote:
Does it? In a way, we’re back to the polygamy argument: if “society” must justify its decision to discriminate against same-sex marriage, then it must also justify its decision to discriminate against all other sorts of proposed relationships which some people wish to see as legal marriages.
We’ve had that here, with Jeromy and (I think) Jack telling us why we ought not legalize polygamy. This seems to me to be a rather disingenuous position: if marriage is a fundamental right, as they claim it to be for homosexual couples, then why isn’t it a fundamental right for polygamous groups? (Almost typed couples there!)
It seems to me that they, by those arguments, had conceded the position that society, through the democratic process, can decide, legitimately, that certain types of relationships are not going to be legally favored — and that means they must respect the wishes of the voters in many states, who addd state constitutional amendments restricting legal marriage to one man and one woman.
Well, who knows? The state supreme court in New Jersey ruled that the legislature had to provide equal rights for homosexual couples, and the legislature in one of our bluest states came up with civil unions.
Actually, as much as I hate to admit it, I think Jeromy is right, that more and more states will wind up adopting same-sex legal marriage. My greatest concern is for the Church. The Roman Catholic Church will never accept the concept of homosexual marriage, but somewhere, at some point (and I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet in Massachusetts), a homosexual couple is going to walk into a Catholic Church and request a nuptial Mass, and the parish priest will have to decline. The couple will then sue the Church, which provides a legislated state function of performing marriages (legally, the priest is an officer of the state in his function of signing the completed marriage license) for discrimination.
And you would call vast pronouncements that same-sex households cannot provide as good a home to children as heterosexual households “science�“Consent†means a lot more than simply saying “hey, they consented!†There’s also a need for a understanding of legal rights and specifically what each person is entitled to from the relationship. If there was a legal way to establish the specifics for each person in a polyamorous marriage, educate them on what their rights are, to make sure their rights are equal, and that children produced in the marriage are taken care of, then I have no problem with polyamorous marriage.
But whether you have a “problem” with it is irrelevant. All that matters is that the persons involved agree to a formal, legally sanctioned relationship that is formed on their terms, not yours.
That’s a really good point, Dana. That would affect not just the Catholic church but all churches whose ceremonies serve the secular purpose of creating marriages. And this would be a direct conflict between an enumerated right in the Constitution: freedom of religion. The interesting question would be, does the fundamental right to marriage trump an enumerated right in the Constitution? Could be interesting.
oops, that should read “between an enumerated right in the Constitution (freedom of religion) and a fundamental right (marriage).”
Geez, my finger itches to hit the “post” button too soon sometimes, I fear.
This is actually not evidence for him not being reputable. Journals publish articles all the time that are by people with questionable methods in the psychological field, because it is a fluid field. Whether that person’s studies have been debunked is a completely different question from whether his research is reputable.
And now that we have established that journals publish articles “all the time” by “people with questionable methods” we shouldn’t see anyone simply appeal to experts in the field without citing the specifics of the data–right?
Jack takes the necessary step needed to grasp the point. Perhaps Jeromy will take note.
And seriously, Bryan, multiple researchers for the APA have debunked all of Cameron’s studies, so don’t you think that it makes more s[e]n[s]e that Cameron has created a biased set of studies than numerous other people have created a biased set of studies?[/quote]
It might make more sense if I could be assured that those involved in debunking the studies were not emotionally invested in the outcome and/or biased on the basis of worldview.
Debunking tends to be pretty easy in the soft sciences. The inferences are nearly always more tenuous than for the hard sciences.
ESPECIALLY after he himself said that a gay person in the military would have a problem translating a document when a hot guy walked by, thus negating that gay person’s ability to do his job?
Hey, Jack, are you sure you’re not lying? My recollection was that Cameron said that Bleu “might be distracted” or something along those lines. He said nothing, so far as I can tell, to suggest that the ability of one to do his job would be negated.
Do you think it is unreasonable to suggest that a homosexual could be sexually distracted while on the job?
That’s a psychologist you trust? Well, have at it, I guess.
I think you’ve got a straw man fallacy, there. Why don’t you go back and check the tape?
[...] Shorter Sharon: “but the dissent! the dissent!”…. [...]
Sharon wrote:
The Catholic Church’s structure has both a great deal more control going up the hierarchy, but also a great deal more financial responsibility. Many Protestant congregations are beholden only to themselves, so if a pastor of such a church rfuses to marry a same sex couple, a lawsuit could destroy that particular congregation’s assets, but that’s as far as it goes.
I find it hard to imagine that the state could tell a church that they had to perform a religious rite which the church did not wish to perform; that would appear to violate the establishment clause.
What I think is more likely is that such lawsuits would lead to a change in the rules wherein churches could no longer perform binding civil marriages — eg, getting married in a church would not be sufficient for the state to take notice of it, and you’d have to also get paperwork filed by a justice of the peace or some such.
That would be annoying and obnoxious, but other countries (Germany, for example), live with that just fine, and it would not be the end of the world.
Do you think it is unreasonable to suggest that a homosexual could be sexually distracted while on the job?
I think it’s unreasonable to suggest that a gay guy being distracted by a random guy walking by is more likely than a straight guy being distracted by a random gal walking by, or to suggest that that distraction would be *more incapacitating* for the gay guy than for the straight guy.
[...] There has been a fairly substantial discussion of this on my site, stemming from Sharon’s post concerning the similarities of arguments between those callong for same sex marriage as an undeniable, fundamental right, and those arguing exactly the same thing concerning polygamy. Two of my commenters, Jeromy of Iowa Liberal, and Jack Goff, who is a frequent visitor on this fine site, made perfecly reasonable arguments as to why polygamy should continue to remain prohibited, but they still view same-sex marriage as a fundamental right which is being denied. I happen to agree with their arguments concerning polygamy, but hold the position that if marriage is a fundamental right, one which cannot be denied due to the judgement of society that a particular form of marriage is bad, then that fundamental right must be extended to all, including incestuous relationships if the parties wish to be married. [...]
However, I think you’ve assumed that the ethical argument must be accepted by all, which is a virtual impossibility. Heck, we can’t even get 100% agreement that infanticide (post-birth infanticide; this isn’t an abortion argument) is always ethically wrong, and the Phoenician once argued, a la Peter Singer, that a baby too young to have formed any sort of sentient consciousness should not necessarily be a legal person.
Please don’t ever presume to speak for me again, Dana. Your ability to misrepresent people’s positions is passed beyond tiresome and entered the realms of actively malicious.
I stated that I did not consider a baby to be fully sentient, and therefore existentially not a human being. I noted that in the past babies had been considered less than full human beings (i.e. infanticide), and that the current situation was based on sentimentality and the ability of societies to afford to take care of babies when the parents couldn’t. And I stated that I was okay considering babies to be legal human beings because I’m as sentimental about them as anyone else.
Your dishonesty is annoying, but not unexpected.
Aphrael wrote:
I think you’ve missed the point. It seems extremely unlikely that the state would, or could, pass a statute requiring ministers to perform specific marriages. But that wasn’t what I suggested. Where I suggested the liability would lie would be in a tort action, where an aggrieved homosexual couple filed suit against a church for refusing to do so.
If that seems far-fetched (and few of the Pandagonistae agreed with me), change the word homosexual to interracial; what would happen if an interracial couple went to a church, asked to be married, and the pastor refused them because they were an interracial couple? We’d expect a lawsuit, given that race is a protected class, and that racial discrimination in public accommodations is prohibited, and legally actionable.
aphrael wrote:
I think it’s unreasonable to suggest that a gay guy being distracted by a random guy walking by is more likely than a straight guy being distracted by a random gal walking by, or to suggest that that distraction would be *more incapacitating* for the gay guy than for the straight guy.
Granted I didn’t direct the question at you, but you didn’t answer my question.
Given the editing of the video that spawned this conversation, how would you conclude that the position you call unreasonable has something to do with the conversation you’ve just joined?
Dana stated…
Now Dana why would anyone do that? It is not like anyone would have an agenda to hurt, damage, or abolish the Church is it?
It is not as if there are already thousands of homosexuals who feel aggrieved that the Church will not approve of their lifestyle and would see something like this as a method to force change.
No Dana you are just kid whistling past the graveyard.
Doing a little tap-dancing, eh, Sharon?
They never would have dreamed of rush hour traffic either. The world rotates, Sharon, time passes, new things are learned. The objective understanding of homosexuality has changed dramatically since then. Being rational, enlightened fellows for their time, I’d hardly doubt they would fail to absorb this new information. This is a rather disingenuous bit of nonsense.
It’s exactly what I said, Scalia acts in blatant contradiction to the 9th. The 9th has to have some meaning to it, and Scalia effectively nullifies it. The 9th stands up for other inherent rights and strictly forbids Scalia’s “If it ain’t in there, it ain’t our business†philosophy.
Constitutional law shouldn’t be excessively complicated, but simplifying it by crossing out parts of the Bill of Rights isn’t the solution.
Do explain. It should be prudent to take a libertarian approach, which puts the burden of proof on the government to interfere with our rights. The first instinct of any SC judge should be to protect the individual’s right to govern their life as they see fit if it does no harm to another. Scalia’s first instinct is to protect the rights of the state to interfere and institute any bit of morality it chooses, even to the ludicrous point of arresting consenting adults for having sex. If the SC ultimately won’t stand up for the individual, Sharon, there will be no one left to do so.
And if Scalia wasn’t there to protect two gay dudes getting it on in their own bedroom, then he’s abdicated his Constitutional responsibility.
In the case of polygamy, I’ve posed certain questions you flatly haven’t answered, questions that justify the government settling on two-person marriages. In the case of bigamy, a rudimentary understanding of genetics sustains a government case for declining to certify marriages between direct family, as well as another Byzantine maze for family law judges in figuring out what to do with daughters who are their mothers’ step-grandmothers, etc.
So, basically, Scalia can go fuck himself, and the dissent in L vs. T isn’t worth the paper it was written on. And you’ve not expressed the slightest understanding of the 9th either, nor the willingness to acknowledge the 14th as binding on states.
More on Lawrence vs. Texas: the case essentially ruled that if two guys wanted to fuck, that was not criminal. This only paved the way for gay marriage in that homosexuality was no longer criminalized. Of course it stands to reason that a person can have half a dozen sexual partners also without it being criminal. But in legalizing polygamy, one must look at all the ramifications of polygamy, not just ramming it through because gays are finally allowed into the institution of marriage. Polygamists are already allowed into the institution, they are simply limited in quantity.
Besides, I would question the equivalence of polygamists and homosexuals. Lots of people may think they’re incapable of marrying only one person. They’re called guys who really like pussy. Generally, it’s a tendency one can be expected to manage in order to get married in the first place.
The homosexual is simply restricted by nature to one gender. Naturally there is some fluidity to sexuality, but in varying degrees. Some pretty straight guys don’t mind choking down a little pipe here and there, some girls find a little cunnilingus between friends to be good fun, but the fact that most homosexuals are as predisposed towards only their own sex is indisputable. In most cases, sexuality is as fixed and immutable as race.
I’ve yet to see data on polygamists that supports a similarity, but the fact that they are still allowed at least one marriage of their desire makes their situation quite distinct from the homosexual who is allowed none.
Nor do I think it does. That’s why I do the hard work required to win it as well. I sure do notice you quick to proclaim your correctness, so why don’t you stuff it in your ear, Sharon?
Hmm, so logic isn’t actually what works with you, eh? I’ll be content to work you down to the point where your only rationale in disagreeing with me, Sharon, is your pettiness. As far as I know, that doesn’t hold much weight regarding Constitutional law.
If that seems far-fetched (and few of the Pandagonistae agreed with me), change the word homosexual to interracial; what would happen if an interracial couple went to a church, asked to be married, and the pastor refused them because they were an interracial couple? We’d expect a lawsuit, given that race is a protected class, and that racial discrimination in public accommodations is prohibited, and legally actionable.
And you’d be wrong. A marriage in any particular religious tradition is not “a public accommodation”. The church might be in trouble if it refused to give benefits to a married employee on this basis, but there’s no law which says they have to celebrate any particular marriage.
The simple proof of this is in the differing view the State and the Catholic Church have of the legitimacy of divorce. There’s no way to force a Catholic priest to perform a marriage involving a divorcee, for example.
But you know that already, don’t you?
Phoe: I thought that the word “necessarily’ covered your objection.
The Phoenician wrote:
Well, I don’t know of anyone trying to sue the Church for that, but being divorced is not exactly a protected class, the way race is federally and sexual orientation is in some states.
This:
“In the case of bigamy, a rudimentary understanding of genetics sustains a government case for declining to certify marriages between direct family…”
Should, of course, read, “In the case of incest…”
Well, I don’t know of anyone trying to sue the Church for that, but being divorced is not exactly a protected class, the way race is federally and sexual orientation is in some states.
Uh-huh. Please quote the bits of the particular State “sexual orientation” protections that you believe apply to private religious organisations…
Jeromy,
Your arguments still don’t work. Just keep filling ‘em with snark, sarcasm, & insults & that will solve the problem with them.
They never would have dreamed of rush hour traffic either. The world rotates, Sharon, time passes, new things are learned. The objective understanding of homosexuality has changed dramatically since then. Being rational, enlightened fellows for their time, I’d hardly doubt they would fail to absorb this new information. This is a rather disingenuous bit of nonsense.
I keep waiting for these brilliant argumentation skills you supposedly have to kick in. Your analogizing same sex marriage with rush hour traffic fails because no one is arguing that congestion-free traveling is a Constitutional right. So, I’ll try to make the instruction a bit simpler.
In the world of Constitutional law, there are certain philosophies and guiding logic that lawyers use. One of those philosophies concerns founders’ intent. What did the Founding Fathers mean when they said “X”? Given what we know about their writings, what would they think of “Y”? You get the picture.
To point out that the Founding Fathers would never have envisioned marriage as a homosexual right deserves better than the crappy, off-the-cuff remark you gives it. At a time when they were debating the purpose and proper scope of government all the time, pointing out that gay marriage is well outside the lines deserves more than your stupid, flippant dismissals.
And, btw, while the Founding Fathers might not have thought of rush hour traffic, interstate commerce gets quite a worout in the legal system. So much for the sarcasm.
It’s exactly what I said, Scalia acts in blatant contradiction to the 9th. The 9th has to have some meaning to it, and Scalia effectively nullifies it. The 9th stands up for other inherent rights and strictly forbids Scalia’s “If it ain’t in there, it ain’t our business†philosophy.
You need to get over this idea that 9th Amendment somehow grants you the right to demand the government recognize anything you wish. It doesn’t, and, as Walter Williams points out,
Courts don’t think this is such a winning argument, Jeromy. Time and time again, they’ve shot it down. And I’m surprised that such a self-styled legal expert as yourself wouldn’t actually do the legwork and find out what the courts say about it.
From the Wikipedia entry:
Professor Laurence Tribe shares this view: “It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of ‘ninth amendment rights.’ The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.”[6] Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed the same view, in Troxel v. Granville (2000):
So, it’s not like this argument hasn’t been seen before.
Secondly, you try to say this is a libertarian argument, but that doesn’t work, either. Libertarians want to be free of government entanglements. What you want is “affirmative state action.” That is, you believe *giggle* that the 9th Amendment requires government not to refrain from interfering in unenumerated rights, but to actually take some government action that you prefer. This isn’t a libertarian argument in any way.
The 9th Amendment, as the Findlaw article stated (and you should have known if you actually read the thing), is about prohibiting governmental interference with rights not explicit in the Constitution. And so it has! The government hasn’t interfered with homosexuals who want to order their lives together. It just hasn’t endorsed their relationships because–again–gay relationships haven’t met the criteria used for establishing a necessity for marriage in society.
And if Scalia wasn’t there to protect two gay dudes getting it on in their own bedroom, then he’s abdicated his Constitutional responsibility.
No, it is Scalia’s job to interpret the Constitution and rule in cases based on that. We already had the Bowers v. Hardwick case, which was scarcely 20 years old, which ruled there was no Constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. So, far from abdicating his Constitutional responsibility, he was upholding it.
But, here again, this is the sort of judicial activism moonbats enjoy: overturn decisions we don’t like, then scream when conservative justices overturn decisions we do. As Scalia pointed out (oops, I forgot that you can’t read dissents), the same logic used to overturn Bowers could be used to overturn Roe, which should give liberals pause, but won’t. Because they, like you, somehow think dissents are unimportant.
In the case of polygamy, I’ve posed certain questions you flatly haven’t answered, questions that justify the government settling on two-person marriages. In the case of bigamy, a rudimentary understanding of genetics sustains a government case for declining to certify marriages between direct family, as well as another Byzantine maze for family law judges in figuring out what to do with daughters who are their mothers’ step-grandmothers, etc.
Jeromy, I did answer your questions about polygamy. All of the questions you have about the workability of polygamy would be answered by legislation and litigation, which is the same way all questions of law get answered. You stupidly assume this is an evasion, but it isn’t. Why do you think we’ve had 40 years of abortion rights litigation and legislation? It’s all about determining exactly where the line will be drawn.
And sorry, your arguments against polygamy and incest boil down to “well, they’re icky. And it would be difficult to decide how many people get married.” But again, this would be something government would get to determine, and it really isn’t any different than deciding why two people should be allowed to get married versus three people. As I pointed out in the post, we’re already having courts determine that children have more than two parents. That should be considered unworkable, too, especially for the child, but that doesn’t stop the court from deciding it.
As for the incest argument, why shouldn’t two people who really love each other be able to get married? They can be sterilized so they don’t produce offspring. Would incest be ok with you if there were a requirement that they agree to sterilization before marriage? Why not?
Sharon wrote:
I’d note here that the laws against consensual sodomy, though reaffirmed as legal in Bowers v Hardwick, were only rarely enforced; most governments had adopted a live-and-let-live attitude even before Bowers. Why the Lawrence case got to the point it did still surprises me.
Regardless, the result of Lawrence was that the states could not prosecute consensual homosexual activity, which pretty much fulfills Sharon’s point.
Even Utah, which does have some offocials who try to prosecute polygamy, can do so only if the people in question attempt to obtain legal marriage licenses. (Occasionally they will do so by having a legal divorce with one spouse, even though they continue to live together, and then forming a legal marriage with another person; that would be considered a fraudulent divorce.) If the polygamists simply shack up, maybe have their own marriage ceremony in which no license is obtained and no state paperwork filed, I don’t know how the law would have much of an opportunity to get involved.
Besides, I would question the equivalence of polygamists and homosexuals. Lots of people may think they’re incapable of marrying only one person. They’re called guys who really like pussy. Generally, it’s a tendency one can be expected to manage in order to get married in the first place.
But why is that, Jeromy? You never heard of open marriages? Polygamy just takes wife-swapping to a different level and makes everybody related.
More on Lawrence vs. Texas: the case essentially ruled that if two guys wanted to fuck, that was not criminal. This only paved the way for gay marriage in that homosexuality was no longer criminalized. Of course it stands to reason that a person can have half a dozen sexual partners also without it being criminal. But in legalizing polygamy, one must look at all the ramifications of polygamy, not just ramming it through because gays are finally allowed into the institution of marriage. Polygamists are already allowed into the institution, they are simply limited in quantity.
Um, no, Jeromy, they aren’t allowed into the system. That’s why they want to change the law. They want what you argue homosexuals want: state-sanctioned recognition of their relationships. This is probably your weakest argument (although all the 9th Amendment crap is pretty close).
You should recognize that Lawrence has been very narrowly construed as to contain this mess. Yes, the 14th Amendment argument is stronger and, in fact, should have been the one used in Lawrence. But the courts haven’t recognized sexual orientation as a protected class yet, which is why there’s no Equal Protection argument made.
The homosexual is simply restricted by nature to one gender. Naturally there is some fluidity to sexuality, but in varying degrees. Some pretty straight guys don’t mind choking down a little pipe here and there, some girls find a little cunnilingus between friends to be good fun, but the fact that most homosexuals are as predisposed towards only their own sex is indisputable. In most cases, sexuality is as fixed and immutable as race.
Wow, you don’t read what you write, do you? First, you argue that homosexuals are restricted “by nature” to only having sex with their own gender. Then you point out that lots of heterosexuals engage in homosexual sex. So, which is it, Jeromy? Are homosexuals special because they are the only ones restricted “by nature” to sex with their own gender?
And please, what happens with bisexuals? What if a guy is bisexual and wants to marry another guy and a woman? Why shouldn’t that be recognized? Or is only the male-on-male sexual relationship to be recognized because that’s his “restriction by nature,” whereas his relationship with the woman isn’t? You need to spend a little more time working on this argument before declaring victory and going home.
Nor do I think it does. That’s why I do the hard work required to win it as well. I sure do notice you quick to proclaim your correctness, so why don’t you stuff it in your ear, Sharon?
What’s the matter, Jeromy? Stressed out that I didn’t run away because you thought I would? I told you up front you were wrong. *sigh* So silly.
Hmm, so logic isn’t actually what works with you, eh? I’ll be content to work you down to the point where your only rationale in disagreeing with me, Sharon, is your pettiness. As far as I know, that doesn’t hold much weight regarding Constitutional law.
Oh, logic works with me fine. That’s why discussions with Aphrael are so refreshing. He actually takes the time to think through his arguments before sending a comment. He doesn’t waste time and energy being a blowhard and thinking this is a game of schoolyard basketball. Seems like you’re overcompensating for something.
Why? Because they’re weirdoes? Perverts? Or simply out of the “Mainstream” … ??
Eric: Can you bother introducing thought into your comments?
Polygamists are self-interested entities with an obvious agenda, and they’ve been consistently encouraged by the forced opposing gay marriage that they have a fighting chance to get polygamy recognized the second gay marriage is recognized. Why wouldn’t they go out there and try it?
It’s because people like you can’t simply address the subject of gay marriage without engaging in the slippery slope. Gay marriage opponents have regularly demonstrated that they’ll say virtually anything to stop it. Intellectual honesty is hardly their modus operandi.
Which is why it’s OK to be prejudiced against them. Got it.
I mean, seriously, if both gay marriage AND polygamy were legalized (which would seem like nothing more than basic fairness) then the latter would affect you how, exactly?
Pointing out that altering the rules of marriage encourages other alterations isn’t a slippery slope, Jeromy.
Sure, you can argue that there’s no reason not to legalize gay marriage. They love each other and can’t reasonably be expected to marry anyone else. They have a right to privacy. It’s nobody’s business who they love. There’s no great change in paperwork to include gay couples. The list of excuses goes on and on.
Please explain why any other group can’t use these same arguments. And why gay marriage should have a higher privilege than any other variation.
The reason heterosexual marriage was given preference was because of the procreational nature of heterosexual relationships. Whether purposefully or accidentally, heterosexuals have children, and the law was designed to protect the state’s interest in that process.
But now, marriage isn’t seen as the primary vehicle through which to have children. If you really want to argue that gay marriage should be recognized nationally, a better argument is that the nature of marriage has changed from one concerned mainly with having and raising children to one concerned mainly with the needs and desires of the couple. But then, this definition still does nothing to explain why bisexuals shouldn’t be able to marry both people they love or polygamists shouldn’t legalize their relationships.
Prejudiced, Eric?
Got anything to back that up, or are you one of those rare people whose very power of assertion stands as self-evident proof? All we get from you is assertion, assertion, assertion. What, you think it negative to say somebody acts in their own interests? My simple point was that the mere existence of polygamous sorts speaking out in their own interest is entirely unsurprising, and their arguments must still be judged on the merits. The mere existence of an argument means absolutely, completely, nothing.
Polygamy’s likelihood of affecting me personally? Little. I don’t see what that has to do with the rational case for the state to stay out of the polygamy business that I’ve made.
In two parts. Forgive any formatting issues…
1. No, Sharon, you’re still being a complete moron discussing the attitudes of the Founding Fathers towards homosexuals. They had no way of foreseeing what we would come to understand about the completely ordinary, intrinsic, healthy and benign nature of homosexuality. You couldn’t possibly get any stupider or cheaper in your rhetoric. A flippant dismissal would be wasted on your contemptible junk. Honestly, “…analogizing same sex marriage with rush hour traffic fails because no one is arguing that congestion-free traveling is a Constitutional right.�?? Are you completely deranged?
The Founding Fathers very likely had a less than well-informed opinion of homosexuality. That’s the point, Sharon. It’s a fact as well, one that renders your statement completely absurd. And it’s indisputable by you. Your squealing and frivolous noise indicates that I nailed you square in the ass.
2.
And to think that you whine about straw men. You really can’t function in an intellectually honest manner at all.
I really don’t need to restate what I already wrote, Sharon, I need you to start reading things right the first damn time.
3. Let’s cut to the point on the 9th Amendment: You and the man-god Scalia have expressly contradicted even the weakest readings of it, because you use the argument, “Well, it’s not in the Constitution, so…†You are correct to point out that the 9th by itself doesn’t actively support any particular right. What it does is shift the burden of proof onto the government in infringe on our liberties, to make the empowered individual the default. It doesn’t speak of marriage rights in the Constitution. As Dana pointed out, you don’t have a right to be married, i.e. you aren’t having your rights violated because nobody loves you yet. But in conjunction with the 14th, if I’m going to engage in such a common and nearly universal behavior among humans as deciding to head down to the courthouse with my beloved and get married, the state had better make a good case for treating me differently. What you don’t get to do is look at the Constitution, see my right to get married not explicitly listed, and say, “Well, that means you don’t get to do that.â€
By default, I do have the right to do it, I have, in Randy Barnett’s words, (from the same Wikipedia page you cited) “a presumption of liberty.†A compelling state interest must be given as to why I don’t have that right and why I would be treated differently.
And what I’ve stated over and over again is that you’ve failed to offer anything weighty at all to consider a reason by the government to treat gays in an unequal manner to heterosexuals. I understand that you think hetero parents are super-neatest, and that gay partners don’t directly produce children together. Yes, and…?
Your note on libertarians would be relevant if I were only citing the 9th, but they and I value the whole Constitution, darling. Libertarian thinkers overwhelmingly support gay marriage, Sharon. You should think of things like that before you pipe off.
4. Bowers vs. Hardwick didn’t uphold the Constitution either. I think it’s hardly controversial that the further you go back before an objective understanding of homosexuality was reached, the less likely the courts were to find homosexuality protected.
And I’m sorry about my Scalia comment…I should have said, “Vafanculo, Scalia!†That’s one he could hardly argue with flinging, eh?
5.
Oh, you promise? Maybe if you put some sugar on it, Sharon, I’ll swallow it? The truth is you haven’t the slightest damn clue at all. You have no idea how polygamy is workable in our civil system, period.
6.
Now you really don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Maybe it hasn’t met your arbitrary criteria, dreamed up solely to keep the gays away, but gay relationships can easily meet the criteria for marriage that straight relationships are expected to, in every single way but one: making sure what they’re packing in their pants doesn’t match. Marriage creates stability and order, and certainly one of the greatest things anti-gay activists fear is the banal normality of the married gay couple living next door. Certainly a slew of the negative things that have been hurled at homosexuals have targeted them for lacking monogamy (males, anyway). Yet the state persistently tells them they’re unwelcome in marriage, the institution of monogamy.
Statements like this really don’t help you in your quest to make us believe you’re a rational, level-headed person who doesn’t have problems with homosexuality. Your value judgments towards them consistently betray you. Lots of people used to claim they didn’t have a problem with black folk either, long as they knew their place.
It’s usually been my experience that bigots just get angrier when their bigotry is pointed out, whereas non-bigoted people actually stop and wonder, “Have I crossed that line?â€
7. No conservative means anything they say about “judicial activism.†Activist judges are judges they disagree with. If they agree with the judge, judicial activism is positively wonderful.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050617.html
8.
You’re definitely treading into straight-up undiluted lying here. If there’s even been a hint of that in anything I’ve said, please do provide an example, Sharon. If there is, it certainly hasn’t been offered as rationale as you’ve suggested, so you might want to retract that. Because if you start lying with me, you’re going to get called a liar, and no amount of whining and whimpering on your part is going to make me refrain.
9.
You don’t know the meaning of the word generally? Naturally if people want open marriages they’re free to agree on them, but there’s not really a strong case to be made that the state has to try codifying all that extra complication.
Holy smokes, that last bit of formatting was terrible. Anyway…
11.
Of course they’re allowed in. They get to be married to an adult non-related partner of their choosing. That’s marriage. They’re allowed in, just not in the quantity they desire. Again, this becomes unwieldy for the state, as you’ve been thoroughly unable to dispute.
12.
Another injustice so far…arguments based on unreasonable gender stereotyping could do the trick without much effort. When you tell a woman she can’t marry another woman the same way a man could marry that woman, it’s based on her sex. It’s telling that because she doesn’t have a penis, she can’t marry that woman. Again, this puts a burden on the state to justify such discrimination, one that cannot be met.
13.
Christ, I’ll try again if somebody wants to delete those…
Part one is stuck in moderation, obviously…
1. No, Sharon, you’re still being a complete moron discussing the attitudes of the Founding Fathers towards homosexuals. They had no way of foreseeing what we would come to understand about the completely ordinary, intrinsic, healthy and benign nature of homosexuality. You couldn’t possibly get any stupider or cheaper in your rhetoric. A flippant dismissal would be wasted on your contemptible junk. Honestly, “…analogizing same sex marriage with rush hour traffic fails because no one is arguing that congestion-free traveling is a Constitutional right.�?? Are you completely deranged?
You made the argument. The stupidity is yours. I gave you a Constitutional analysis of your argument. Nice to see when your argument falls apart how you handle it, though.
The Founding Fathers very likely had a less than well-informed opinion of homosexuality. That’s the point, Sharon. It’s a fact as well, one that renders your statement completely absurd. And it’s indisputable by you. Your squealing and frivolous noise indicates that I nailed you square in the ass.
If by “squealing” you mean “showed the stupidity of Jeromy’s analogy” then, yeah, I’ll bite. But the problem with your argument is that, whether the Founding Fathers held modern-day sensibilities about homosexuality, they were brilliant when it came to creating a democratic government with as little interference with personal freedom as possible. That’s why issues like marriage criteria weren’t included in the Constitution. They thought it was a state issue.
2. I really don’t need to restate what I already wrote, Sharon, I need you to start reading things right the first damn time.
Shorter Jeromy: I can’t argue with your 9th Amendment analysis, so I’ll just skip the case law and complain you didn’t read my screed.
3. What it does is shift the burden of proof onto the government in infringe on our liberties, to make the empowered individual the default. It doesn’t speak of marriage rights in the Constitution. As Dana pointed out, you don’t have a right to be married, i.e. you aren’t having your rights violated because nobody loves you yet. But in conjunction with the 14th, if I’m going to engage in such a common and nearly universal behavior among humans as deciding to head down to the courthouse with my beloved and get married, the state had better make a good case for treating me differently. What you don’t get to do is look at the Constitution, see my right to get married not explicitly listed, and say, “Well, that means you don’t get to do that.â€
No, the 9th Amendment doesn’t do that at all. What the 9th Amendment says is that people have certain rights that the government cannot infringe upon, not that you have a right to demand certain government action. That’s still your argument. Indeed, you can get married in a homosexual wedding. But until now, you don’t have a right to demand that the state recognize it.
It’s not simply that the right to marriage isn’t listed in the Constitution. The right to marry is a fundamental right, which is better, btw, than a Constitutional one. But stating that homosexuals have the fundamental right to marry when they have never fit the basic reasoning for marriage is a 20th Century fiction. This doesn’t mean you can’t argue and win that the change should be made, but there’s also simply no Constitutional reason to allow it. In other words, let the people decide if they want to allow this or not.
By default, I do have the right to do it, I have, in Randy Barnett’s words, (from the same Wikipedia page you cited) “a presumption of liberty.†A compelling state interest must be given as to why I don’t have that right and why I would be treated differently.
You obviously don’t understand that a “presumption of liberty” doesn’t mean that you have apresumption to demand certain governmental action. “Presumption of liberty” means you get to act without governmental interference.
And I, in fact, did answer your questions about why not gay marriage. Unless we determine that marriage’s primary function is not as a place to have and raise children, gay couples don’t fit the criteria.
4. Bowers vs. Hardwick didn’t uphold the Constitution either. I think it’s hardly controversial that the further you go back before an objective understanding of homosexuality was reached, the less likely the courts were to find homosexuality protected.
Um, yes, it did. That’s why it was decided the way it was. You may not like the case, and, indeed, the Supreme Court decided recently to overturn it, but that doesn’t mean that at the time it was written it wasn’t Constitutional. Do you have any understanding of the words you use? I mean besides the word “fuck,” that is.
5. Oh, you promise? Maybe if you put some sugar on it, Sharon, I’ll swallow it? The truth is you haven’t the slightest damn clue at all. You have no idea how polygamy is workable in our civil system, period.
So, let me see if I have this straight: You don’t like my answer, you complain that I didn’t answer your question. So I give you the reasonable, logical,and historical answer to your question on polygamy and you give a bullshit answer like this? Nice analysis.
6. Maybe it hasn’t met your arbitrary criteria, dreamed up solely to keep the gays away, but gay relationships can easily meet the criteria for marriage that straight relationships are expected to, in every single way but one: making sure what they’re packing in their pants doesn’t match.
Jeromy proves, yet again, he needs a Sylvan reading course. Here’s your assignment, Jeromy: try reading about the purpose of marriage–not the political one that you like to rant about, but the actual, everyday, historical purpose of marriage–and then tell me that homosexual couples fulfill that purpose. It’s not about me dreaming up arbitrary criteria. It’s that homosexual conduct did not fit the criteria for marriage (i.e., they could not produce children). That’s it! People get married for all sorts of ulterior motives besides love and companionship. The state doesn’t require any of that. But it is designed to protect the interests of those who were produced through the relationship: children.
7. No conservative means anything they say about “judicial activism.†Activist judges are judges they disagree with. If they agree with the judge, judicial activism is positively wonderful.
I’m not sure what this has to do with the rest of your argument but, whatever. Changing gears?
8. If there’s even been a hint of that in anything I’ve said, please do provide an example, Sharon. If there is, it certainly hasn’t been offered as rationale as you’ve suggested, so you might want to retract that. Because if you start lying with me, you’re going to get called a liar, and no amount of whining and whimpering on your part is going to make me refrain.
So, wait. You say my arguments boil down to “homosexuals are icky,” a statement I never made, but when I boil your arguments about the unwieldy-ness of polygamy to “polygamists are icky” you squeal like a stuck pig? Consistency, Jeromy. You don’t want your arguments mischaracterized, then stop doing it to me. There’s nothing–NOTHING–in any argument I’ve made that says “homosexuals are icky.” It’s just the sort of ad hominem attack your ilk use when they run out of talking points.
9. Possibly. As I’ve said before, the complications of mixing the classifications of spouse and relative are daunting. And I’d worry about the sterilization requirement being shrugged off eventually, sterilization being a generally harsh penance to pay, since a person can still divorce their relative and marry a non-relative. Plus, as I said before, a person is not fundamentally being excluded from marriage by being told they can’t marry the few people in their direct family. So those questions of mine would have to be resolved before I’d agree to incestuous marriage. I doubt they can be.
congratulations for proving that, yet again, there are no principles on the left. Thanks for playing!
10. You don’t know the meaning of the word generally? Naturally if people want open marriages they’re free to agree on them, but there’s not really a strong case to be made that the state has to try codifying all that extra complication.
But you haven’t even given a single reason why it shouldn’t be a government function to sanctify these unions. The idea that the numbers get too large is rather flimsy. They can set an arbitrary number, just like the city sets an arbitrary number for the number of pets one can own or how many times one can marry. There’s no magic number.
11. Of course they’re allowed in. They get to be married to an adult non-related partner of their choosing. That’s marriage. They’re allowed in, just not in the quantity they desire. Again, this becomes unwieldy for the state, as you’ve been thoroughly unable to dispute.
So, wait. There’s no difference between polygamists being allowed in because they can marry one spouse of the opposite sex with gay people being married to one spouse of the opposite sex. It’s still not the sort of marriage either group envisions. You keep acting like this is some brilliant logic, but you can’t escape the fact that neither group gets the marriage they want. And under your original premise, that’s just WRONG! Wrong, wrong, wrong! Boy, you’d have a lot in common with the logic of Justice Souter.
12. Another injustice so far…arguments based on unreasonable gender stereotyping could do the trick without much effort. When you tell a woman she can’t marry another woman the same way a man could marry that woman, it’s based on her sex. It’s telling that because she doesn’t have a penis, she can’t marry that woman. Again, this puts a burden on the state to justify such discrimination, one that cannot be met.
Except that laws based on sex don’t get the same scrutiny as race, 1st Amendment rights, etc. So, you’re better off trying to compare sexual orientation to race. You don’t want to make this argument.
13. You simply didn’t understand a word of what I wrote, and your false dilemma requires complete bastardization of my words, which were sitting right there quoted for you to see.
No, I didn’t misread what you wrote. On the one hand, you argue that homosexuals are “by nature” unable to copulate with the opposite sex. Then you argue (I suppose it’s “by nature”) that heterosexuals can. This is a ridiculous argument and doesn’t support your claims about why homosexuals can’t marry the opposite sex.
14. I certainly sympathize with the bisexual, but their situation doesn’t really alter the polygamy dilemma significantly. The bisexual is still allowed to marry, and with gay marriage they’re allowed to have either sex, and giving them that choice is a huge step forward for them. But requiring one legal spouse at a time is still reasonable on the part of the state.
LOL I love how, every time you are faced with some group seeking legal recognition of their form of marriage, you just dismiss them with “it’s reasonable for the state to restrict this.” Jeromy, the bisexual can’t marry who he/she wants, either, because one of those people may be the same sex. How do you get around that?
15. I’ve answered your questions repeatedly, have mostly restated the answers again tonight, and I expect I’ll have to answer them again. Disagree with me if you must, Sharon, but please don’t pretend you haven’t been given answers yet. You’re just having enormous difficulty because they completely kneecap your case for unreasonable discrimination against homosexuals.
Jeromy, here’s your logic:
(A) Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they don’t want to marry the opposite sex.
(B) It’s unfair that homosexuals can’t marry whoever they want.
(C) It’s perfectly reasonable for the state to restrict the right to marry whomever you want for other groups such as polygamists, bisexuals, etc. because at least one of the people they want to marry is a person they can legally marry.
(D) The state can’t legalize polygamy because, gosh darnit!, it’d just be unwieldy setting a restriction on the number of persons they can marry.
Read that list and tell me where I got your points wrong.
The problem is this: it’s logically dishonest. To say that one group restricted from marriage as it has been defined in this country since its beginning, but to deny that the same laws restrict other groups similarly is intellectually dishonest. Frankly, I’d have more respect for your point of view if you just decided restricting marriage along any of these lines was wrong. Instead, your logic is no different than any of the groups you’ve tried to associate me with: racists, homophobes, misogynists.
It’s that homosexual conduct did not fit the criteria for marriage (i.e., they could not produce children).
Again, lies. They can. You just don’t like that they can. Or you easily forget that they can. Either way, it’s a lie that homosexual couples cannot produce children, unless you say “by the only means acceptable to me”. And there lies a dire problem, specifically with infertile couples and people who must adopt. Surely, you wouldn’t put the limitation against marriage on heterosexual couples who cannot have children? Or do such couples not exist? Remember, also, that this is 2007.
Though I do understand what “homosexual conduct” means. You don’t like how they have sex.
Also, you keep forgetting that heterosexuals polygamists are given the same right to marry one person that they love as everyone else. Homosexuals are not. One is not a number more than one. There is no reason, based on discrimination that other people are not subjected to, to allow polygamy that you have come up with. Same with bisexuals. Incest, well, if it comes to that, that’s an ethical argument that has been debated for centuries, utilizing the same understanding, to no avail. If you want that answered now in order to give equal rights to homosexual couples, that’s an impasse that is not able to be breached, as you most likely know.
The Founding Fathers very likely had a less than well-informed opinion of homosexuality.
Sharon, where it suits her, has an opinion as informed as theirs. Just FYI.
Oh, Sharon’s been dripping with enlightened attitudes towards homosexuals. Any gay person should be nodding their head and accepting their fate at her hands.
Unfortunately, I’m going to enjoy myself tonight…more tomorrow, folks. I’ll have plenty of time while my honeypie is reading the new Harry Potter.
Would you care to translate this gobbledygook into plain English?
The upshot of all this is you still can’t come up with a compelling reason to ban polygamy other than “They’re too weird for me to accept as equals”.
That sounds like legalistic hair-splitting. I still haven’t seen any argument for banning polygamy that doesn’t seem to be based on pure prejudice – as in, “Those weirdoes should not be legally entitled to form their own marriages on their own terms, but must rather do it on OUR terms only”.
Eric, if I explain things to you and you need them to be simplified to the 7th grade level in order to understand them, that doesn’t mean you didn’t get an answer.
Those sentences were written in clear English. I think it’s your ideology interfering with your reading comprehension, but then again I suppose you could be some 13 yr old kid trolling.
But that “answer” was lacking something important, otherwise known as a “point”. It was just a bunch of verbiage that didn’t actually say anything. Clarity is a sign of true intelligence, regardless of what certain modern day intellectual poseurs might like to think.
More assertions, Eric?
How do you know it lacked a point if you didn’t understand it? You can’t call it gobbledygook and then claim you can decipher it at the same time.
They’re simple words, Eric. Here, again:
My simple point was that the mere existence of polygamous sorts speaking out in their own interest is entirely unsurprising, and their arguments must still be judged on the merits. The mere existence of an argument means absolutely, completely, nothing.
SO which sentence threw you/didn’t mean anything? The part where I said it was obvious that people would try to argue in favor of the things they want? Sounds simple to me. People who want polygamy will go out and advocate for polygamy. Surely you understood that much.
Maybe it was the second part, which stated that just because somebody makes an argument doesn’t make it right. Surely that was simple enough for you, no? And you would agree that not all arguments are correct? You would understand that somebody saying, “But they’re making the same argument!” doesn’t mean, “But they’re validly making the same argument!”, right? You do understand the importance of the word, “validity,” right? I’m not going to fast for you, am I, Eric?
Surely not. But perhaps I did lose you there, because you wouldn’t know “validity” in an argument if it hit you in the ass. You get to operate by assertion while everybody else has to go trying to prove their arguments. Indeed, Eric, I lost you when it came to the concept of validity, and it is truly no surprise.
Why I must be expected to compensate for your deficiency, however, would indeed be a great surprise to me.
1. Sharon, if you can’t handle a simple analogy meant to illustrate the limits of knowledge 230 years ago just say so. BTW, the Founding Fathers were also brilliant in their belief in the equality of human beings…it just took some time for women and blacks to be included in the club. It would be thoroughly ridiculous to suggest that such men wouldn’t recognize the equality of homosexuals.
2.
You grow increasingly deranged. I’ve never argued the 9th Amendment gives you the right to do anything you want.
3. I’ve noticed you’ve consistently avoided discussion of the 14th Amendment. You are hovering around the 9th because you found something that you were right about…that the government doesn’t have to recognize marriage at all. This is true, all marriage could exist entirely in the private sphere. All marriage laws could be turned into civil union laws as well, a suggestion some anti-gay activists (oh, no, not like you) have made to prevent the word “marriage†from officially touching the gays.
Your problem is that I already get that. But what else are you going to do but make noise?
As I said some time ago, however, in conjunction with the 14th Amendment, the codification of marriage rights into civil law necessitates equal treatment.
So, what are we left with? Reasons why not to have gay marriage, specific to gay marriage…
4.
They don’t fit the arbitrary criteria of Sharon and the gay-loving right, that is. Such as, marriage must have one primary function. Or that civil marriage in the United States today is entirely constructed around some baby-raising blueprint. It isn’t. I love my honey, and she’s a girl, which means I get to go get married anytime I want. We can adopt, have surrogate children, or have none at all, and we still get to be married. We don’t need to fulfill some “historical†or “traditional†purpose for marriage, we have to merely desire to become a united legal entity for all manner of purposes. Having children would be one of them, of course, but not the only one, and certainly not one our marriage would be contingent upon.
I suppose in Sharon’s little book of logic, though, begging the question is just as logical as the argument from tradition and the slippery slope.
I commit fallacies too, Sharon, I just don’t rely on them, they’re more like sugar sprinkled on top. Your arguments are composed almost entirely of fallacies. Ah, but I can’t say I win or Sharon gets grumpy! Pity, Sharon, but the argument from pity is a fallacy too.
5. If all your argument and huffin’ about homosexuals isn’t based on logic or the Constitution, Sharon, and you make statements like “homosexuality is just a behavior,†or “it would be better for a homosexual to have a heterosexual marriage,†then yes, it’s time to look in the mirror. If you don’t have a problem with homosexuals, you should reconsider borrowing every single one of your rubber-stamp arguments from people who do. Consider your problems even understanding the nature of homosexuality:
6.
Never did, Sharon, ever, and you can’t find where I did. You just keep saying, “I didn’t misread you!†and then proving that you absolutely did,; you’re just too haughty to admit it.
Since you won’t admit you have serious reading comprehension problems, let me lay it out again as simply as your advanced mind can handle:
Sexuality possesses some fluidity. People range from hard heterosexual to bisexual to hard homosexual. Some heterosexuals can have a little fun with their own sex without being fundamentally attracted to them, and some homosexuals can do the same, although usually they’re doing it to fit in and pretend. But this is all irrelevant to most people who are etched in stone. For a hard heterosexual, the idea of same sex intercourse can produce such ferocious resistance some would rather fight to the death than succumb.
The double standard here is yours. You think that for the homosexual, not only dabbling in hetero sex but settling down and marrying hetero would be “a good thing.â€
Clear now? Let me know if you need even more remedial explanation. Seems to be catchy in these here parts.
7. Re: Polygamy
Because you didn’t. But why don’t you lie about it?
Reasonable and logical? Heh. Anyway, you gave an historical answer, in that since polygamy worked out before, it would work out now. This is an assurance that entirely rests on avoiding my contention, that such systems only worked by making only the man the real citizen with greater rights.
Make all the women equal to him though? There’s no historical precedent for polygamy in our kind of modern Western equal rights-based culture, Sharon.
Your new answer is, “I dunno, we’ll just set some arbitrary limits.†Exactly. Because polygamy is a true slippery slope, there is no rationale behind any further limit. Why 20 wives? Dunno! Can each spouse marry different people without them marrying each other? Couldn’t say! What if nine of the spouses hate Jeff and want to divorce him, but ten still love him?
Again, polygamy presents its own quandaries and questions, and if you want to keep it illegal, Sharon, your argument should be more substantial than, “Well, the people can just ban whatever type of marriage they want without reason.†Because right now you just sound like a big polygamy advocate. I’ve presented some very objective, logical hurdles to the state against jumping into the mess of polygamy, questions that demand it be discussed on its own merits. Questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage.
No, polygamists get one of the marriages they want. And I’m still waiting for this data that suggests polygamists are no different than gays in having immutable fundamental dispositions. You’re basing an awful lot on an unsupported assertion made a week ago.
8.
Dementia creeping in, Sharon? I have a number of reasons I don’t support incestuous marriage, but because I don’t base it on “ooh they icky!†I have no principles? It would seem that you, who supports arbitrary banning of marriage rights for whatever illogical junk reasons you feel like has no principles. If “Icky!†was the last objection I had to incest, I’d concede I didn’t have much of an argument against it, but as I demonstrated, there are a whole host of reasons to be against incest. Be careful, or you’ll wind up advocating the intermarriage of the Bushes so the royal line can be preserved.
You should really avoid the temptation to make leaping assertions. But I detect increasing instability on your part. I know you want to prove you can stay in this debate, but your cracks are showing.
9.
Sexual orientation has elements of both sexual discrimination and racial. It boils down to how you are treated for fundamental qualities that you either cannot or should not change. The Constitution and the principles of the Founding Fathers were centered around a presumption of a person’s right to be left alone and treated equally. Still, the gender discrimination angle is thoroughly relevant, and more than worthy of winning a Constitutional argument. You’re discriminating based on sex, telling men and women how they should be acting in ways that are obsolete.
So here we are, all this time later, and you still can’t figure out how to tie polygamists and incestualists around the necks of homosexuals to prevent them from getting married. Here’s a clue: they have nothing to do with each other except in the most generalized category of “people who want something different…†Apparently, once we analyze the different alternatives to marriage any more deeply, you’re an advocate of polygamy and incest, as well as pedophiles marrying children and, of course, people marrying sheep and trees. If a gay person is allowed to marry one person they love, in Sharon’s book, then one must allow any kind of marriage arrangement no matter what.
Yet, sensing the weakness of your slippery slope fallacy, you still attempt to provide reasons why gays shouldn’t marry. But they’re based on wholly fabricated and fallacious arbitrary criteria that didn’t exist until gay marriage arose as an issue, criteria straights still don’t have to meet.
Both parts of my response in moderation…
Your inability to express yourself clearly doesn’t constitute a deficiency on my part. Why should I waste the effort to hack my way through the dense jungle of your long winded verbiage when your “point” can be summed up as: “Gay marriage = yummy, polygamy = gross”.
There. In the space of one short line, I “summarized” your entire argument.
That’s, right, Eric, U R l33t & I am teh suxorz!
You don’t have to read nothin’ you can’t handle, but you can still summarize it anyway! I can’t complain, because liberals created an accountability-free world where everybody’s smart, you’re just livin’ in it!
Jeromy wrote:
So far, that burden has not even been remotely approached by Sharon, Dana, Eric, Bryan, or anybody I’ve ever debated on this issue.
How did you conclude that the law is applied unequally, again?
I’m a heterosexual guy, and the government would not recognize my marriage to a guy (if such were to occur).
A homosexual male can’t marry a guy, either.
So how is the law applied differently, IYO?
Bryan: Ah, but a woman could marry that guy.
Quick flash to the future: The most paranoid fears of mens’ rights activists come true! Women can produce babies without men. Men are obsolete. Women, a majority in power, declare the perfect family structure exists without men, who can only teach violence and conflict to future warmongers. The ideal marriage is between woman and woman. The porousness of the 9th amendment means men are helpless as society redefines marriage as to exclude them. Citing the 14th amendment, men fight for the right to marry. Conceding the point, you are duly informed that you have that right: the right to marry another man.
So, Bryan, you’ll bite your upper lip and discover what an orgasm caused by a cock hitting your prostate feels like, and get used to your kisses being a little scruffy, right?
Jeromy wrote:
Ah, but a woman could marry that guy.
Yes, and?
The law treats her equally, also. She is able to marry one of the opposite sex (and have it recognized by the government), same under the law as for the men.
Quick flash to the future: The most paranoid fears of mens’ rights activists come true! Women can produce babies without men. Men are obsolete. Women, a majority in power, declare the perfect family structure exists without men, who can only teach violence and conflict to future warmongers. The ideal marriage is between woman and woman. The porousness of the 9th amendment means men are helpless as society redefines marriage as to exclude them. Citing the 14th amendment, men fight for the right to marry. Conceding the point, you are duly informed that you have that right: the right to marry another man.
It’s not a likely scenario, is it?
So, Bryan, you’ll bite your upper lip
… and watch your discourse regress to the level of a 15-year-old.
Jack said,
Again, lies. They can. You just don’t like that they can. Or you easily forget that they can. Either way, it’s a lie that homosexual couples cannot produce children, unless you say “by the only means acceptable to meâ€. And there lies a dire problem, specifically with infertile couples and people who must adopt. Surely, you wouldn’t put the limitation against marriage on heterosexual couples who cannot have children? Or do such couples not exist? Remember, also, that this is 2007.
Jack, you really have a reading comprehension problem. I realize you don’t care about the historical basis for marriage, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the reason marriage is as it is currently defined is because heterosexuals can, and do, have unplanned children. This was a huge problem back when being illegitimate was literally worse than never being born.
About 98% of humanity is heterosexual, and having children outside the boundaries set by society was a real no-no. That’s a problem homosexuals never have had, and never will have, to deal with. You do realize this, right? That homosexuals do not reproduce naturally?
As for the fact that someheterosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, well, the law is designed to discuss the majority of a given situation. In other words, just because some heterosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, it doesn’t negate the biological fact that most heterosexuals do, in fact, reproduce naturally.
Now, as I’ve stated before, if you want to argue that this historical basis of marriage is no longer valid, that’s a different situation entirely. You can argue, for example, that because illegitimacy is so common these days and the legal bars for bastards inheriting have been raised that there is no longer a reason to consider marriage to be primarily about having a family. But that’s not the argument being made here.
Though I do understand what “homosexual conduct†means. You don’t like how they have sex.
Frankly, I don’t care how they have sex, and nothing I’ve written states an opinion one way or another about the way homosexuals have sex. The term “homosexual conduct” is the legal one. But I keep forgetting that you don’t like discussing the legality of the situation.
Also, you keep forgetting that heterosexuals polygamists are given the same right to marry one person that they love as everyone else. Homosexuals are not. One is not a number more than one. There is no reason, based on discrimination that other people are not subjected to, to allow polygamy that you have come up with. Same with bisexuals. Incest, well, if it comes to that, that’s an ethical argument that has been debated for centuries, utilizing the same understanding, to no avail. If you want that answered now in order to give equal rights to homosexual couples, that’s an impasse that is not able to be breached, as you most likely know.
No, polygamists–like everyone else–may marry a person of the opposite sex. There’s no requirement for any emotional attachment whatsoever. So, polygamists have the same marital rights as homosexuals and monogamists: they may marry one person of the opposite sex.
Sharon, where it suits her, has an opinion as informed as theirs. Just FYI.
Which is still better informed than yours, judging from your attempts at argumentation.
Jeromy said:
You would understand that somebody saying, “But they’re making the same argument!†doesn’t mean, “But they’re validly making the same argument!â€,
But, in fact, they are validly making the same argument. You don’t want to legalize polygamy for reasons that are the same as people who do not want to legalize marriage (it’s unwieldy, it’s immoral, they aren’t equal, etc., etc.). The difference is that you’ve decided it is inherently unfair not to recognize gay marriages but don’t mind drawing the line at other variations on marriage.
The point, of course, is that once you step away from marriage as it has been defined (at least in this country) for 300 years, it opens up room for other interpretations besides your own. There’s 300 years of case law explaining why marriage as we know it is right and acceptable under our laws. There’s not a similar history for any of the other variations that have been discussed here, including gay marriage. That doesn’t mean you can’t make arguments for changing marital law, but don’t try to argue that, somehow, other groups shouldn’t use those arguments where it benefits them, as well.
1. If you can’t handle the fact that your analogy fails through logic and legal analysis, just say so. I dissected your analogy and it didn’t work, not just because of the illogic of it (although that’s a big hurdle), but also because in the legal sense it doesn’t work.
2. You’ve argued that the 9th Amendment bars government interference with fundamental rights (which is true, btw), but that that bar includes requiring affirmative action where you choose to require it (such as in marital law). If you think the 9th Amendment requires the government to give you certain affirmative state actions where you desire them, then that’s the same thing as saying you think the 9th Amendment gives you the right to whatever you want.
3. Actually, if you read what I wrote, you would have seen me say that the 14th Amendment argument works better, but since sexual orientation is not a protected class, homosexuals cannot argue about equal protection. The argument would be about due process (which is what happened in Lawrence v. Texas).
4. It’s not an arbitrary criteria to say that marriage is designed as a place to have and raise children. Go check out a family law textbook or two and you’ll see that, yes, indeed, that is the primary purpose of marriage. But seriously, if creating an environment for the rearing of children is an “arbitrary criteria,” then virtually any other criteria would also be “arbitrary.”
And, actually, Jeromy, your arguments do depend on logical fallacies, including creating strawmen arguments, using ad hominem attacks, etc.
5. Ah, another lecture from the guy who has shown his own bigoted tendencies by wanting marriage for those he wants and not for others. I hate to tell you this, Jeromy, but in the real world, our sexual identity is defined by our behaviors. And frankly, this sort of name-calling doesn’t really help your argument at all, but, again, I guess you have to go with what you’ve got.
6. Jeromy, you have said repeatedly that homosexuals “by nature” cannot marry a person of the opposite sex. See comments 44, 68, as well as indirect references to this idea in comments 83 and 84. This isn’t even including the other thread where you made this argument repeatedly. BTW, you make another reference to this idea in this very comment, where you say that “Some heterosexuals can have a little fun with their own sex without being fundamentally attracted to them, and some homosexuals can do the same, although usually they’re doing it to fit in and pretend.” In other words, that when heterosexuals participate in homosexual conduct, they aren’t gay, but when homosexuals participate in heterosexual conduct, they’re still really gay. That’s quite the double standard.
7. I answered your questions about polygamy, but you don’t like the answer, so you claim I didn’t answer it. I’ll use itty bitty words for you: there’s a larger historical basis for polygamy than for homosexual marriage. That means it has worked in previous societies, at least for some persons. There are polygamists in the U.S. today, which means polygamy is still working for them. They just want the state to recognize their unions.
How would the state deal with recognizing polygamy? The same way it has dealt with all alterations in marriage: by statute. And, yes, the state can set an arbitrary number of people who can be married at the same time, just as states have limits on the number of times a person can be married, the age of the people married, the degree of consanguinity of the people married. They are all arbitrary limits. Why does the city get to tell you how many pets you can have? Why 2 dogs and 2 cats? Because it has to set a limit or else the nutty cat lady will have 20 cats. Setting a limit for the number of people who can be married at once would work the same way.
8. You stated that you would find legalization of incest to “possibly” be acceptable provided the participants were sterilized (see comment 83). This, IMO, is an immoral position. If you seriously considered incest to be inherently wrong, you could have made such an argument. The fact that you didn’t is telling.
9. The court decided in Craig v. Boren that classifications based on sex deserved what’s called intermediate scrutiny (although in U.S. v. Virginia, the Court said a sex-based classification requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification”). And sorry, “sexual orientation has elements of both sexual discrimination and racial? Where’s the citation for this? Your ass? When I tell you that comparing sexual orientation to race is a better argument than comparing it to sex, it’s because race-based classifications get strict scrutiny.
At this point, you’re just arguing to argue. You don’t give a shit if what you argue makes sense at all.
10. And then you continue with your Wile E. Coyote, super genius imitation. I have explained to you why homosexual marriage has a similar basis in law to other unrecognized marital forms. You don’t like the arguments. I’ve continued to explain what the courts have said about marriage and Constitutional law. You start bringing up stupid analogies and get mad when I point out the logical fallacies of them. Then you complain that I didn’t answer your question. The loop continues.
Oops. This
Should read:
Bryan: So you don’t have to answer the question because you don’t think you’ll have to face such a situation?
But you’re asking gays to face such a situation?
C’mon, your opposition to having sex with a man isn’t “because the traditional way is for man and woman to be together,” is it?
But I understand your need to dodge my point. You absolutely would not accept such a thing as fair, but to admit so would be to understand the fundamental unfairness you expect gays to gladly endure.
Pt. 1
1. Sharon, the Founding Fathers had an inadequate understanding of homosexuality, but their beliefs in life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and equality all encompass our modern understanding of homosexuals and their right to be treated equally to heterosexuals.
There it is, as literally as possible. I’ll avoid using metaphors, they seem to confuse you, make you extend them too far, and then blame it on me. Even restating my point doesn’t cause you to desist, so just stick with that literal plain paragraph above, instead of hammering home the point that you can’t bleeding read.
2. The 9th Amendment in conjunction with the 14th Amendment gives gays their right to marriage, Sharon.
Were there no legal marriage, you’d have a point, at least from the raw libertarian angle. But that’s not how our society works, and for the rights that go along with marriage to be recognized, they must be codified. So one could easily argue that pragmatically speaking, if the state doesn’t recognize your marriage, your marriage rights are being denied. Otherwise, the only thing being affirmed is your freedom of speech in saying “We’re married.†Is that truly a defense of one’s marriage right? Not at all.
3. Your accusations of bigotry, Sharon, might mean something if you were using them on any level higher than, “I’m rubber, you’re glue…†But you’re not. In fact, the second it seemed to you that I wasn’t using bigotry to justify keeping incestuous marriage illegal, you declared “the left has no principles!†So you consider bigotry a principle, one you apparently have and feel justified in pointing the finger at others for not having.
In truth, I do have value judgments towards incest and polygamy. But I’ve made a point to keep them out of the debate. Are they bigoted? As in, are they irrational? I think in the case of incest certainly not, which supports my little theory that the truest moral principles have reason behind them. If something is wrong, of course there are going to be valid reasons behind it.
Unless, I suppose, you think things have no inherent meanings, and that some things are only wrong because God says so.
Polygamy? It’s usually about patriarchal societies where men are the real citizens and women are objects. If you could show me a case where it wasn’t, I might understand, but I still wouldn’t think that cause for the government to get involved, even moreso because the complexity of equal citizens engaging in polygamy increases exponentially. Again, these are not separate from believing it’s generally wrong, they’re reasons why it is wrong.
This isn’t about throwing marriage wide open to whatever and whoever, which is the straw man you need to be real. It’s about looking at the case for gay marriage and saying they’ve met the criteria for equal treatment. It would be good for society and marriage to include them in it. And in light of there being everything good about gay marriage, and nothing bad, their right to marriage equality becomes a necessity.
4. You can exclude any attack of mine you’ve ever felt to be ad hominem as part of my arguments, Sharon. In fact, I wish you would, because that’s what I do with you, and because you just sound like a damn whiner. Yes, at the end of my argument, I conclude you to be an intellectually dishonest unimaginative harpy. Disagree? Good, let’s talk about the argument that led me to believe so.
5. On that point, you’re either a goddamn liar or a complete moron. Homosexuals do not by nature marry the opposite sex, and cannot be reasonably expected to do so any more or less than heterosexuals. They “can†do it, just like you “can†go muff-diving, but the point is, how would you feel about it?
But you turn that into this:
That’s a double standard? Let me see:
Heterosexual who has an encounter with the same sex = still heterosexual.
Homosexual who has an encounter with the opposite sex = still homosexual.
Gee, the standard is the same for both.
Furthermore, you excluded a word, Sharon. “Usually.†Because homosexuals are usually, I think, pressured more to have heterosexual relations. You might be aware of that, since you pressure them to have heterosexual relations.
So intellectually honest of you, that exclusion.
This is the time, Sharon, to admit you just plain screwed up. Because if stupidity isn’t what’s caused you to go completely insane over my discussion of the nature of sexuality and produce the idiotic babbling quoted above, then I think it’s mendacity. If you’ve any other suggestions, feel free. Oh, go ahead and just blame me for not writing clearly or something. Whatever salvages your ego. But if you continue mangling up this very simple point, then I’m afraid you’ll be crossing the line of honesty.
What was it you said? Oh, yes…
Mirror time, Sharon.
Pt. II
6. Hi, my name is Sharon, I can say “go look at a family law textbook†and call that an argument.
No, Sharon, go look at what it takes for heterosexuals to get married: non-matching genitals. What happens after they get married? They become legally united, a new entity, with a whole host of rights related specifically to their relationship with each other. Naturally with the presence of children there are more rights, but as was pointed out, divorced parents or parents who were never married are still covered by the penumbra of such laws. The fundamental purpose of marriage in the USA, not the land of Sharon and the fundamentalist right’s imagination, is to unite two people in a profoundly deep bond that stabilizes them and whatever family they accumulate.
That is the real thing that this world needs, stabilization, the thing that you’re actually talking about, not the rules as they were laid down 2000 years ago in the freakin’ desert. Marriage cements society together. Families have used this to unite, most famously in diplomacy between monarchies. The primary purpose of marriage for them was to, for example, cement a bond of peace between England and France by a marriage between Henry V and the daughter of Charles VI, or the T’ang Dynasty and the Uighers in 814.
For a childless couple, marriage isn’t some free house they get to stay in, it’s a huge and magnificent thing, with massive legal implications. It’s not a technicality, Sharon. It’s marriage. Two people in love forming a bond of stabilization. And when it comes to a gay couple, that’s exactly what you want as well: stabilization. You want to cement those bonds and strengthen their familial connections. The alternative is to have them drift about from person to person, increasingly isolated in society.
If the gay couple has children, could one sanely propose that marriage would not serve to benefit them and society in return? Does, “Oh, but you didn’t have the children with each other, so we have to keep your family unstable,†truly sound like a reasonable proposal? You say, marriage is for straights because most of them have children, but is that the same as giving cause to leave some children behind? We can afford to do without that degree of stabilization, because…?
Well, why, Sharon? How does your narrow, self-serving slice of marriage necessitate the further exclusion of homosexuals and their own brand? What about you trumps that right for them, a right you’d be livid if denied to you? Where is the burden of proof met by the state to create this exclusivity, and to prohibit this inclusiveness?
This is what would demonstrate the true strength in marriage, its architectural integrity. We used to think only men and women could form bonds that strong, but guess what, same sex works to. We’ll have a greater number of two-person entities out there, cemented together, slowing down the turbulence of single life. We simply get more couples with that same kind of bond.
What you fail to comprehend is that incest and polygamy both change the nature of the bond itself. Incest combines with another familial role, but this alters the integrity of the bond rather than doubling its strength. Polygamy in a society where men and women are equal demands to link bonds together in haphazard fashion and worry about getting tangled in the knots later.
So as far as the “purpose†of marriage goes, it is wholly served by gay marriage but fundamentally altered by either incest or polygamy.
Again, the differences between the separate issues define them, not your vague generalization that tells me nothing about any of them.
7. Actually, homosexuality came first. The numbers were small enough, and of course in harsh desert cultures they were usually able to be ostracized or executed. In some lands where there was more plenty, gay marriages did occur.
But, as I said, the argument from tradition is an illogicality, a fallacy. 300 years? Slavery lasted hundreds of years in America. 300 years? Good, let’s have gay marriage tomorrow, and in 301 years it’ll be tradition too.
Actually, about two generations would do the trick. In 1000 years, it’ll be in the ancient scrolls.
Won’t it be super-cool?
8. How to deal with polygamy? “The same way it has dealt with all alterations in marriage: by statute.â€
Wrong. You just told me that if gay marriage is allowed, it’s all on. There’s no case against stopping anything, regardless. The people that want to marry 21 people just go straight back to court. “Oops, sorry, the gays can marry so you’ve got to let them marry 21 people.†The people that want two separate spouses unrelated to each other go straight to court. “Ooops, sorry, the gays can marry so you’ve got to let them have unrelated marriage bonds.”
You can’t tell me, Sharon, that I’ll have let the cat out of the bag, and then tell me that you can still contain the situation. The cat is out of the bag, Sharon. Right?
Or wrong? Which is it? Is marriage containable once gay marriage is allowed? Can reason still be used?
9. You’re probably right, I phrased that statement wrong. Discrimination based on sexual orientation has commonalities with racial discrimination, it is not the Frankenstein monster made of both.
Wow, you finally scored a point on me. I’m getting old
Still, however much weaker you believe sexual discrimination protections to be, they do still exist.
And you have still, still not met the burden for leaping over those protections.
Jeromy wrote:
So you don’t have to answer the question because you don’t think you’ll have to face such a situation?
If you can ask a question without making it unfit for adults, then I’ll answer it.
But you’re asking gays to face such a situation?
Gays can get their kisses however they wish.
C’mon, your opposition to having sex with a man isn’t “because the traditional way is for man and woman to be together,†is it?
My opinion on that issue has little to do with the issue of homosexual marriage. Rather, it’s Jeromy’s method of degenerating the discussion with a fallacy of distraction.
But I understand your need to dodge my point.
If you don’t think you could have made your point in a more distinguished manner, then I feel sorry for you.
Why don’t you try communicating like an adult instead of using “adult communication” and see if you get better results?
You absolutely would not accept such a thing as fair, but to admit so would be to understand the fundamental unfairness you expect gays to gladly endure.
I guess it stands to reason that if you can make up Sharon’s position for her you can also invent my positions for me.
I’m sorry, Bryan, but if you’re going to tell people that offering a fundamental violation of their sexuality is fair treatment, you shouldn’t rule out the discussion of sexual orientation.
You just reacted like a snail sprinkled with salt when I brought up sexuality foreign and disgusting to you because you’re heterosexual. You can’t even bear reading it.
Yet you think it fair to offer a homosexual the chance to marry the opposite sex, to tell a lesbian woman she should just pinch her nose and grab hold of a penis.
Get serious now. You said this was “equal” treatment.
Well, how is offering hetero marriage to a homosexual fair?
For someone who speaks of the “fallacy of distraction” you spend an awful lot of time not answering the question.
There’s a classic Three Bong Hit answer …
And the same could be said for polygamists. After all, why should they be treated as outcasts and 2nd class citizens just because some people consider them freaks and weirdoes .. ???
Or three or four or five …. unless you’re prejudiced against them for being a bunch of weirdoes and perverts.
And how are your arguments any less narrow and self serving? It’s like “I want marriage redefined in a way that’s advantageous to me, but let other minority groups (polygamists) advocate for marriage on their terms, and it’s – F*** You, perverts!”
Now THERE’s a self-serving argument if ever I heard one!
1. Oddly enough, the Founding Fathers supposedly had an inadequate understanding of slavery, women’s rights, voting age limits, alcohol, term limits, interstate commerce, abortion rights, pornography and so on. But we determined through the amendment process to change what wasn’t in the Constitution.
There’s no Constitutional right to marriage anywhere. That includes heterosexual marriage, btw. Once again, you have this moronic knowledge of the Constitution and common law. Go do some reading and get back to me when you understand what the Constitution is about.
2. The 9th Amendment doesn’t do anything to support your gay marriage rights argument. Nothing. You have no right to demand that the government affirmatively act in any particular way just because of the 9th Amendment. What you are demanding is that the government act the way you want them to–whether it’s recognizing gay marriage or giving you a pony–which is exactly the opposite of what the 9th Amendment says–that the state cannot abridge certain unenumerated rights.
The 14th Amendment due process argument is better. It is based on already existing case law (you know what this means, right?), which gives it more weight in the courts. My bet would be that, after Lawrence, if the SCOTUS is going to recognize gay marriage, this will be how they do it, although Aphrael disagrees with me.
3. I accuse you of bigotry because you argue against other unrecognized forms of marriage using the exact same language you accuse people of when they dislike gay marriage. To point out that you then show an incredible lack of morality in saying that incest should be legal under various circumstances has nothing to do with this accusation. They are 2 entirely different points.
You constantly state that this isn’t about opening up marriage…it’s just about opening up marriage to gay couples. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way in the real world. You may think that your “stunning” logic about gay marriage precludes other unrecognized forms of marriage from becoming legalized, but, as I’ve shown again and again, your arguments for gay marriage are perfectly logical for any other group, as well. And, in fact, you’ve even shown that, for the most part, your arguments against other forms of marriage come down to the emotional arguments you accuse others of engaging in.
Legalizing homosexual marriage–changing the definition of marriage as it has existed in this country for 300 years–gives hope to other groups that their variation will gain legal recognition. When they see appeals to emotion (but if people love each other…it’s unfair…it’s their happiness…), appeals to the Constitution (but the 9th Amendment in conjunction with the 14th Amendment…) and other sorts of pseudo-intellectualism, it’s no wonder those in favor of traditional marriage tie these groups firmly to gay marriage supporters. Once you decide that the definition of marriage as we currently understand it is inadequate, there’s simply no logical reason not to allow others to do so as well. And if you dislike the dissent in Lawrence, get ready for 1,000 O’Connor hair-splitting decisions which decide no Constitutional issues, because that’s what will happen.
4. If you want ad hominem attacks to be excluded from your arguments, then don’t make them, Jeromy. But you’re childish and petulant and your arguments just show it. Your logical fallacies don’t end with ad hominem attacks, they begin with them. So don’t act like I’m whining when I point out the stupidity of using those tactics. But hey, why not throw in a couple of more dumb analogies? That will cover the problems, right?
5. Ah, yes. When confronted with your actual words, now I must be lying. Surely, I forced you to write that homosexuals “by nature” are forced to do certain things that you clearly don’t consider heterosexuals forced “by nature” to do. Well, Jeromy, if you don’t want your own words to come back to haunt you, don’t say them. It’s really that simple
And then there’s more Wile E. Coyote.
Look, Jeromy, you started this argument and have blustered your way through it for 100 comments or more. I told you at the time I don’t back down from an argument, and that usually the liberal has to resort to name-calling, false analogies, and just lying about my positions before huffing and puffing and walking away. You’re at that point. You’ve made arguments that are unsupported by facts, the Constitution, or case law. You gloss over every case you’re given and return to the same, tired, tactics. This is how you”win” arguments? Ha!
6. Hi, my name is Jeromy. I don’t have any argument, so I decide to be sarcastic and show my ignorance.
Got case law to back up your arguments about what marriage is about? And make it from the last 20-30 years, since you don’t like the historical background.
BTW, bringing up diplomatic marriages doesn’t really strengthen your argument for gay marriage. It just points out the fact that emotional attachment to another person has never been required for marriage. This sort of works against your “but they love each other” argument.
7. Actually, heterosexuality came first. I mean, if we’re going to go by timelines here. And yes, if homosexual marriage were allowed, within a generation or 2, people would say it was normal. Unless, of course, you do it by judicial fiat, and then you just energize those who dislike the idea. Sort of like abortion. Nope, you want gay marriage normalized, go through the legislatures. Things work better that way.
8. Now we get into the mischaracterization of arguments. When I tell you that allowing gay marriage means other variations will want recognition, that doesn’t mean that the state won’t be able to regulate how many people get married at once. It means that all forms of marriage will lobby for recognition (that free speech thing is wonderful, ain’t it?). And sure, if polygamists want to marry more than the requisite number of people, they’ll argue in court whether they have the right to do so. But that’s no different from people going to court to argue about having 4 cats and 2 dogs or getting an exception to some city ordinance. In other words, they’ll work through the system just like every other plaintiff does.
9. Good to see that you occasionally admit when you’re wrong. Now if you just admit that you screwed up on the other 8 points, the discussion will be done with. And, amusingly, I give you Constitutional analysis, case law, court opinions, etc. that back up my arguments and you still have the audacity to claim that I “haven’t met the burden” of defeating your arguments. Priceless!
And not recognizing homosexual marriage isn’t forcing homosexuals to marry heterosexuals, Jeromy. They can still be in homosexual relationships, just as the polygamist is involved in his own relationships. The difference is whether the state is required to recognize those relationships as legal. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone’s head and telling them they have to engage in involuntary sex.
I’m sorry, Bryan, but if you’re going to tell people that offering a fundamental violation of their sexuality is fair treatment, you shouldn’t rule out the discussion of sexual orientation.
Uh–what?
What fundamental violation of sexuality are you talking about?
You just reacted like a snail sprinkled with salt when I brought up sexuality foreign and disgusting to you because you’re heterosexual. You can’t even bear reading it.
Thanks for confirming, at least in part, that you intended it as a distraction.
I read it, Jeromy, and I recognized that you were trying to use it as a distraction–and now you’re playing it for all it’s worth instead of trying to express a relevant as would an adult.
Just because I do not quote something does not mean that I didn’t read it.
[quote]Yet you think it fair to offer a homosexual the chance to marry the opposite sex,[/quote]
As Sharon and I (and probably others) have pointed out, homosexuals are free to marry. Their unions simply aren’t recognized by the state (unless it’s the state of Massachusetts).
Again, the state’s interest in marriage is overwhelmingly because of the encouragement of families with children.
Get serious now. You said this was “equal†treatment.
I was serious. Give me a serious objection.
Well, how is offering hetero marriage to a homosexual fair?
The same way that offering (recognition of) marriage to one woman to a guy who wants to marry 18 women at the same time is fair.
I thought we were talking about “equal under the law” but now Jeromy wants to talk about “fair”–but that’s okay. Let Jeromy explain how it isn’t fair if he can’t figure out how it’s not equal under the law.
For someone who speaks of the “fallacy of distraction†you spend an awful lot of time not answering the question.
Leaving aside the coincidence that your question was the distraction, eh?
Jeromy wrote:
I’ve missed four days worth of debate here, but when I spotted this one, my jaw dropped.
You have just made a “purposes of society” argument here. That’s absolutely fine with me, because I happen to agree with it. But in making the purposes of society argument as a reason to support same-sex marriage between two people, but ban it for polygamous unions, you have completely forfeited the “fundamental right” position.
Why? You have just justified society defining marriage based on the points that are good for society in general! If society has the right to say, “X type of marriage is not good for society,” then society, in our case the expressed will of the legislature or the people via referenda, have every right to limit X to monogamous heterosexual unions, or even polygamous heterosexual unions, and not include homosexual unions of any number, at all.
Which was, I think, Sharon’s initial point: if you use the fundamental right argument to support same sex marriage, then said argument includes, inter alia, other forms of marriage some people desire but are currently not approved by society or law. What you have conceded, it seems to me, is that society gets to take a decision about what is to be accepted and preferred, and are now simply debating whether society’s judgements were wise.
The traditional definition of marriage is under attack simply because some folks are into the trendy.
While turkey basters and adoption may make a sort of a family, the old ways seemed a lot simpler.
There is a merit to a civil arrangement in that two people of the same sex could avoid great inconvenience in certain situations, such as when one suffered a medical emergency.
There is a wide gulf between tolerating and celebrating.
Dana: I’ve forfeited nothing. Sharon has made the argument that gay marriage isn’t a right and it doesn’t fit the purpose of marriage. I’ve made the case that it is a right and it does.
Which is perfectly consistent for either of us, Dana, not just Sharon. Rights are balanced, and I’ve stated consistently that for the state to step in and say “no” to gay marriage, it must make a case for clearing Constitutional protections of equal treatment.
Sharon’s purpose is to set the Constitutional hurdle for regulating marriage about two inches off the ground, allowing her to ban whatever kind of marriage she feels like, which allows her extremely weak and fallacious grounds for opposing marriage to take hold.
My point is that the bar is much higher, and the case for opposing gay marriage doesn’t even reach the two-inch level. The case for not having polygamy or incestuous marriage can very easily clear that Constitutional bar, however.
Sorry.
Bryan: This is really simple. Homosexuals don’t love heterosexually, they don’t partner heterosexually, they have virtually zero choice in the matter, and thus offering them heterosexual marriage is completely unequal to the heterosexual who gets a marriage of his/her sexual preference.
And again, you’ve made it clear what you’d feel if you were put in their shoes. You’d call it unfair, and yes you’d call it unequal. You’d find your sexuality highly deserving of consideration, no?
But you’re just not going to put yourself in their shoes, are you?
Lastly, for those who wish to continue to state equivalence between homosexuals and polygamists, beyond Sharon’s “social scientists would tell you differently…” which has yet to be supported by any data, there’s not been a word backing this up.
Presuming a premise and running it into the ground…yes, this must be a rightwing blog.
Nice way to duck out of the issue. Why not just be intellectually consistent and admit that you want to re-define marriage in a purely self-serving way, but want to deny that same right to other groups who may also not happen to fit into the “mainstream” of society.
You may say to yourself – It’s all just hypothetical, inasmuch as the only people lobbying for polygamy are a handful of weirdoes out in rural Utah. Well, guess what? There’s another religion that fully endorses polygamy, it’s been around for about 1,400 years, and has roughly a billion followers. These people are increasing immigrating to Europe and the USA. If you think that this isn’t going to become an issue in the near future, and that the arguments put forth by Sharon and myself won’t be thrust forward in the courts and elsewhere in the name of “equal rights” and “religious freedom”, then you’re either naive or just so full of yourself that you can’t see how a set of principles that will benefit you can also be used to argue for the “rights” of people that you apparently disapprove of.
This is really simple. Homosexuals don’t love heterosexually, they don’t partner heterosexually, they have virtually zero choice in the matter, and thus offering them heterosexual marriage is completely unequal to the heterosexual who gets a marriage of his/her sexual preference.
So, what you’re telling me is that New Jersey’s former governor (McGreevey) was/is not a homosexual. Or maybe you’re just saying that he never loved his wife (and lied when he said he did).
Doesn’t that seem a bit presumptuous of you?
And again, you’ve made it clear what you’d feel if you were put in their shoes. You’d call it unfair, and yes you’d call it unequal. You’d find your sexuality highly deserving of consideration, no?
If it’s supposedly clear what I’d feel if I were in their shoes, then why bother asking the question?
Try to be serious for a moment, Jeromy. You made it up. If you want my position on things, the adult thing to do is get that position from me–not to make it up to suit your prejudices.
But you’re just not going to put yourself in their shoes, are you?
I think I probably would if the attempt to put me in their shoes weren’t astoundingly juvenile. But you’re just not going to make that effort, are you?
Lastly, for those who wish to continue to state equivalence between homosexuals and polygamists, beyond Sharon’s “social scientists would tell you differently…†which has yet to be supported by any data, there’s not been a word backing this up.
Presuming a premise and running it into the ground…yes, this must be a rightwing blog.
Must be a fever-swamp lefty visiting the so-called “rightwing blog.”
Jeromy commits a twin fallacy above, taking my statement that the fairness of a marriage law that excludes recognition of homosexual unions is the same type of fairness one finds in the exclusion of (the recognition of) polygamous unions draws an equivalency between homosexuality and polygamy.
It’s a fallacy of hasty generalization, since the one point of analogy does not equate with equivalency (“You have a mustache like Hitler’s!” “Oh, so you’re saying that I’m the equivalent of Hitler, eh?”)
It’s also a straw man, since Jeromy wants the reader to reject my position based on the equivalency that I did not draw (but which came from his alternation of my position).
Where did Jeromy get the idea that he can argue a point logically, anyway?
Sharon has made the argument that gay marriage isn’t a right and it doesn’t fit the purpose of marriage. I’ve made the case that it is a right and it does.
No, you’ve made the case that you think it is unfair to deny homosexuals what you wish to deny every other group seeking legalization of their marital form. And aside from the “it’s unwieldy” argument, which got taken out about 100 comments back, you have nothing to back up your claim that the state couldn’t regulate polygamy.
Dana’s right. You’re now trying to argue that society has the right to determine which sorts of marriages are beneficial to it and thus worthy of recognition. But that’s what I told you back in the original post: that the definition of marriage is what it is because society decided that worked best. Nice to see you finally agree with me.
Lastly, for those who wish to continue to state equivalence between homosexuals and polygamists, beyond Sharon’s “social scientists would tell you differently…†which has yet to be supported by any data, there’s not been a word backing this up.
The equivalence is that both are marital forms barred by the state and neither has been able to prove some compelling interest in lifting that ban. You cannot find a Constitutional basis for gay marriage: it isn’t there. There is no case law supporting gay marriage. You don’t have tradition supporting gay marriage. And, not surprisingly, you don’t have any of those things to support polygamy or any other marital form, either. In short, the equivalence is that none of these forms have been able to convince enough Americans that they deserve recognition of their relationships.
Now, if you’d like, we could run around the tree again about why that is so. You seem really good at arguing the same thing comment after comment and then complaining that you didn’t get the last word.
Circular logic? Strawmen? Ad hominem attacks? Must be a liberal response to an argument he can’t win.
1.
And I throw some in the middle, but they still don’t comprise my actual arguments, but by all means, don’t let me stop you from lying. You need some kind of life vest here.
2. Again, I’ve cited the 9th in conjunction with the 14th for quite some time now. Time to wake up, Sharon, and deal with the arguments at hand.
3. Hmm, so you’ve just jumped forward past the polygamy/incest debates to declaring yourself correct on everything. Begging the question in overdrive, eh, Sharon?
Well, no, Sharon, you’re wrong on everything, and still rely on a slippery slope. Gay marriage is not polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.
No, my arguments against polygamy and incest do not rely on emotion, they are reasonably opposed, and you’ve still not shown otherwise.
No, my arguments do not use “the exact same language†you use to argue against gay marriage. Your arguments against gay marriage on the merits are complete shit, based on your notion that marriage laws have ONLY ONE PRIMARY FUNCTION which is childrearing, and that no other must be allowed, although the rest of heterosexuals can get swept in as a sort of nice little bonus courtesy of your mercy. If I doubt it, I need to go look up your legal arguments for you! My arguments against polygamy and incest are based on, surprise, polygamy and incest, which fail on their own merits. Surprise, we have reasons against them, not just Sharon’s willy-nilly “I can regulate marriage however I want!†argument.
No, I never envisioned any circumstance where incest could be legal, pointed out that sterilization wasn’t good enough, and cited other concerns that would keep incest illegal, entirely reasonably. I concluded that I was still against incest. You ignored every word of it except “Possibly…†More blatant dishonesty from you. But what else do you have?
4.
Repetition isn’t really going to work on me I’m afraid, Sharon. I know that’s pretty much the only way a rightwinger knows how to communicate, but you’re just going to have to stick to the points. It’s hardly logical to assume that because something requires a modification that everything must be changed. Marriage as it is has been worked out pretty well, it just left out a group that simply does not merit being left out, homosexuals.
5.
Except you haven’t been using my own words, Sharon, which is why you’re a liar. This goes beyond stupidity, I’m sorry. Putting two words in quotes and then making up everything else is certainly “using†my “words†but entirely dishonestly. Then again, Sharon, there was the time you said, “I†“hate homosexuals†and “resort to†“huffing and puffing†but admitted that you “appreciate†“Jeromy.â€
I would absolutely adore it, Sharon, if you would actually use my words. You’re excluding every single thing I said about hard heterosexuals and hard homosexuals, people for whom there is no dabbling or desire to go outside of their orientation. You’re presenting a completely false imbalance which was never stated or implied by me about those who do dabble outside of their orientation, when I just stated explicitly how they are exactly the same. “By nature†applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual, no difference. At all.
There’s been only your lying here, Sharon. I suspect you also have a malformed view of sexuality, but we’re clearly at the point where you could have gotten what I was driving at if you were actually listening. But you still can’t admit you just plain screwed up, and keep screwing up more.
That must be exhausting.
6. Actually I’m still waiting for you to cite any law, Sharon. You told me to go do my research for you, but I declined.
On the other hand, do you need to go look up the fact that marriage laws have a multitude of implications for a couple with or without children?
7. Diplomatic marriages illustrate that the various purposes of marriage are not necessarily mutually exclusive. While kings married princesses to secure borders, others still married for love all the same.
Your argument against gay marriage specifically depends on the mutual exclusivity of childrearing and any other possible reason to get married. And you still haven’t supported that exclusivity.
8. “When I tell you that allowing gay marriage means other variations will want recognition, that doesn’t mean that the state won’t be able to regulate how many people get married at once.â€
Better to say it doesn’t mean the state can’t still deny them recognition. They must earn it on their own merits, Sharon, not via slippery slope.
1.
And I throw some in the middle, but they still don’t comprise my actual arguments, but by all means, don’t let me stop you from lying. You need some kind of life vest here.
2. Again, I’ve cited the 9th in conjunction with the 14th for quite some time now. Time to wake up, Sharon, and deal with the arguments at hand.
3. Hmm, so you’ve just jumped forward past the polygamy/incest debates to declaring yourself correct on everything. Begging the question in overdrive, eh, Sharon?
Well, no, Sharon, you’re wrong on everything, and still rely on a slippery slope. Gay marriage is not polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.
No, my arguments against polygamy and incest do not rely on emotion, they are reasonably opposed, and you’ve still not shown otherwise.
No, my arguments do not use “the exact same language†you use to argue against gay marriage. Your arguments against gay marriage on the merits are complete shit, based on your notion that marriage laws have ONLY ONE PRIMARY FUNCTION which is childrearing, and that no other must be allowed, although the rest of heterosexuals can get swept in as a sort of nice little bonus courtesy of your mercy. If I doubt it, I need to go look up your legal arguments for you! My arguments against polygamy and incest are based on, surprise, polygamy and incest, which fail on their own merits. Surprise, we have reasons against them, not just Sharon’s willy-nilly “I can regulate marriage however I want!†argument.
No, I never envisioned any circumstance where incest could be legal, pointed out that sterilization wasn’t good enough, and cited other concerns that would keep incest illegal, entirely reasonably. I concluded that I was still against incest. You ignored every word of it except “Possibly…†More blatant dishonesty from you. But what else do you have?
4.
Repetition isn’t really going to work on me I’m afraid, Sharon. I know that’s pretty much the only way a rightwinger knows how to communicate, but you’re just going to have to stick to the points. It’s hardly logical to assume that because something requires a modification that everything must be changed. Marriage as it is has been worked out pretty well, it just left out a group that simply does not merit being left out, homosexuals.
5.
Except you haven’t been using my own words, Sharon, which is why you’re a liar. This goes beyond stupidity, I’m sorry. Putting two words in quotes and then making up everything else is certainly “using†my “words†but entirely dishonestly. Then again, Sharon, there was the time you said, “I†“hate homosexuals†and “resort to†“huffing and puffing†but admitted that you “appreciate†“Jeromy.â€
I would absolutely adore it, Sharon, if you would actually use my words. You’re excluding every single thing I said about hard heterosexuals and hard homosexuals, people for whom there is no dabbling or desire to go outside of their orientation. You’re presenting a completely false imbalance which was never stated or implied by me about those who do dabble outside of their orientation, when I just stated explicitly how they are exactly the same. “By nature†applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual, no difference. At all.
There’s been only your lying here, Sharon. I suspect you also have a malformed view of sexuality, but we’re clearly at the point where you could have gotten what I was driving at if you were actually listening. But you still can’t admit you just plain screwed up, and keep screwing up more.
That must be exhausting.
6. Actually I’m still waiting for you to cite any law, Sharon. You told me to go do my research for you, but I declined.
On the other hand, do you need to go look up the fact that marriage laws have a multitude of implications for a couple with or without children?
7. Diplomatic marriages illustrate that the various purposes of marriage are not necessarily mutually exclusive. While kings married princesses to secure borders, others still married for love all the same.
Your argument against gay marriage specifically depends on the mutual exclusivity of childrearing and any other possible reason to get married. And you still haven’t supported that exclusivity.
8.
Better to say it doesn’t mean the state can’t still deny them recognition. They must earn it on their own merits, Sharon, not via slippery slope.
Feel free to delete the first version, I tried to stop it and fix it but both went up.
Jeromy wrote:
You may have made the case that committed same-sex relationships fit the purpose of marriage, but in doing so, and excluding polygamy, you have wrecked your own position that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right.
Polygamy has existed in various human societies for as far back as we have historical records; it has “worked” in many different cultures. Monogamous same-sex marriage has no such history; so few attempts at such existed in the past as to be simple, individual quirks, and the very recent history of such is but a few years old.
For you to decide, then, that polygamy is somehow unworkable is ahistorical, at best. But more, it demonstrates your acceptance of the notion that society has a right to take judgements as to what kinds of relationships are societally acceptable, and which are not. That isn’t an argument for rights; it’s an argument over whose judgement will prevail.
Jeromy wrote:
They are? Balanced against what?
If rights are balanced, then there are no rights. We say that we have a right to freedom of speech, but if you are going to say that free speech rights are subject to being balanced, then it’s obvious that the government can say, at any point it decides, that your expression has gone too far, and it is “balancing” away your freedom of speech for the good of society.
And that is no right at all.
The true balancing point of rights comes where they conflict with the rights of other individuals, not with “society.” This is the old “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose” position; your right to freedom of speech ends where it causes specifiable harm to someone else, whether the crowd (the old “yelling fire in a crowded theater” notion) or individually (libel or slander). Your right to freedom of religion ends at the point at which you attempt to compel others to join you (though you can always ask others.)
Your arguments concerning polygamy have absolutely nothing in common with that. For you to say that marriage is a fundamental right, but it must be balanced, you must find specifiable individuals who will be harmed, whose rights will be violated, if plural marriage is allowed. If Mrs Brown and you decide to add a third person to your marriage (you are married, aren’t you?), as long as that third person is not already married to someone else who does not consent, and that third person consents, there is no one whose rights have been violated.
How, then, can we decide that your right to a plural marriage can be denied — as you have advocated — unless it is not a fundamental right with which to begin?
Dana: Of course your free speech rights are balanced. You can’t lie under oath.
Your insistence that gay marriage must either be a fundamental right, or it must fit the purpose of marriage makes no sense whatsoever. The two go hand in hand. What would you expect? For a marriage valuable to society to not be a right?
You really are repeating yourself a lot here, Dana, which is kind of frustrating at this point. How many times are you going to bring up that polygamy was workable historically, and how many times must I say, “history never had equal rights polygamy”? Honestly, Dana, ignoring my answers doesn’t make them go away.
Regardless, you’re still trafficking in the slippery slope fallacy, which you folks seem determined to describe as solid logic. No matter what you do, you can’t make gay marriage the same as polygamy.
Marriage is a right, but as has been argued in here, one cannot force the state into an affirmative action like offering civil marriage to recognize that right.
Where one runs into trouble is the 14th Amendment, which demands people be equally treated if there is an affirmative government action. The thing that makes gay marriage stand out is that the homosexual is completely excluded from all but sham pretend marriages which end up creating more unstable families.
And sexual orientation is simply more fundamental to one’s identity than number of partners. There’s no equivalence there. It’s simply impossible to equate a gay person never marrying any person they love and a straight person not being able to marry every person they love.
A plural marriage being denied still recognizes your right to be married. We’re just talking quantity here, and as Sharon has admitted, even in a post-gay-rights world, the number of marriages can still be limited. It can just stay at two.
Polygamy simply does not merit the seriousness that sexual orientation warrants. The average heterosexual male will certainly find coping with two women in bed a much different endeavor than coping with another man in bed.
Jeromy wrote:
And why? Because lying under oath violates the rights of other people, the people being tried!
Jeromy wrote:
Jeromy, that’s like saying that monogamous heterosexual marriage was unworkable, because, until very recently, we never had equal rights in that, either.
“Equal rights polygamy” would certainly be simple to establish: the law would merely have to designate that each partner in such a relationship had the same rights as all the others, and make some specificity as to division of property in the event of a divorce.
Of course, you may well be referring more to social inequality, or male dominance. However, even with our supposed equal rights, we have not and cannot legislate how individuals will relate to each other within a marriage.
To whom? Perhaps not to youm, but certainly to other people, it does. There are people who are actually in prison for attempting legalized plural marriage, while there are no homosexuals who are in jail for that.
Of course, despite your titilating example, most plural marriages wind up with just two people in bed at one time. Even there, the state does not regulate how often anyone must (or must not) sleep with his spouse.
I see no fundamental difference in denying to polygamists the right to be married as they choose and denying to same-sex couples the right to be married as they choose. In both cases, the desires of individuals are being denied state recognition.
What I see is a strange desire to use the power of the state to legitimize those relationships of which you approve, yet not legitimize those relationships with which you disagree — and turn around and call it a fundamental right. I have no problem with either argument as an argument, but they are mutually exclusive.
If the state has the power to prefer a particular type of relationship as a marriage, then that power extends to all such relationships.
Dana: Why would I approve of illegitimate relationships? Or disapprove of legitimate ones?
Wouldn’t that be highly backwards? Sometimes, Dana, a cigar is simply a cigar.
And sometimes greed just isn’t a right. Polygamists want more of something they’re already getting, marriage. It’s self-evident that those who don’t even get one legitimate marriage are more greatly denied than those who wish to keep stacking marriages indefinitely.
You asked who suffers if polygamy is recognized? Here’s an article from the Baptist Press which is entirely sympathetic with your argument, yet which still does more than anybody in here: offer some rationale for staying away from polygamy.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17889
Fair enough, I say! We can logically discuss polygamy on its own, and say, “We are reasonable not to have it.” Same sex marriage should receive the same treatment, the chance to be weighed on the merits of itself, not any other issue, not on your beloved slippery slope.
The question of sexual orientation is undoubtedly far deeper than “whatever you desire.” The average heterosexual would feel their sexuality to be absolutely non-negotiable. They aren’t the kinds that go to prison and have sex with other men. It’s women or nothing for them. The offer of same sex relations offers no value to them whatsoever.
In fact, some will react quite negatively to the suggestion, won’t they, Dana? With great ferocity, sometimes fatally. Yet these very same people refuse to believe the same applies to gays and heterosexual sex, and wave off sexuality as some mere “desire” or “choice.”
Which is where things eventually boil down to, the question of how fundamental sexuality is. Is it non-negotiable, or is it something the ex-gay ministry can brush off of you with a few pillow-hitting sessions and man-hugs? Can a gay man “suck it in” and marry a woman to make everybody else happy? Where you align on that question typically ordains where you’ll align elsewhere.
Specifics honor the truth of things, which is why the slippery slope is illogical. It misrepresents, leaves out important information, and lumps together dissimilar things. It signals a lack of understanding, and if you brush off the de facto exclusion of homosexuals from marriage as being identical to a guy not getting a dozen wives, you have failed to honestly assess human nature.
p.s. But I would agree nobody should be in jail for polygamy, they simply shouldn’t have more than one marriage legalized, the rest dissolved. Perhaps they could be liable for any fraud perpetrated, but short of outright scams they shouldn’t be put in the slammer.
I don’t have time to go back through the point-by-point arguments made earlier, especially since you are just repeating yourself.
But here’s the problem, Jeromy. No one here is advocating polygamy. What we have said is that you don’t have the right to alter marriage to allow what you wish and then think it is somehow logical to exclude other groups using the exact same arguments you seem to loathe others making against homosexual marriage.
Also, it isn’t asking you to “do my homework for me” when I ask you to cite cases upholding homosexual marriage using the 14th Amendment. That’s your homework to support your argument.
They’re not the same arguments, Sharon, no matter how often you repeat that. The arguments against polygamy are specific to polygamy. The arguments against incest are specific to incest. And so on. And, presumably, you agree both shouldn’t be practiced, although since you disagree with every reason I cite I can’t figure out why on earth you do oppose polygamy.
If the best defense you’ve got against polygamy is, “Well, I argue the Constitution gives marriage so few protections that I can disallow any kind of marriage I feel like without making a strong case,” then guess what? You won’t have a strong case.
I recommend you folks start figuring out why you think polygamy is wrong, or polygamy activists will continue using your arguments in their favor. You’ve only demonstrated that they wouldn’t like my exact arguments at all.
I recommend that you actually read what I write, Jeromy. That would help you form actual arguments instead of the faux arguments you create after mischaracterizing my arguments.
The question isn’t whether there are separate arguments for or against polygamy or incest. I realize you need to distinguish gay marriage from other unrecognized marriage forms as an attempt to separate it from those other, less acceptable (in your eyes) marital variations.
But the argument against gay marriage doesn’t have to be any different than it is for other groups. We don’t have to provide unique reasons for disagreeing with gay marriage. Why not? Because there’s nothing either in the Constitution or in case law that supports the position you take. You can bloviate all day that you laughably quote the 9th Amendment and then tie it to the 14th Amendment and say that there’s a requirement to treat gay marriage as heterosexual marriage, but, to date, there have been zero cases which take this approach.
Some states have argued that their state constitutions allow for gay marriage, even when such a right hasn’t been recognized for 300 years (where are such rights being hidden? Under some chewing gum stuck to their constitutions?). But that is fully within their states’ rights to do so.
You probably should drop this argument, Jeromy, although I’m sure you won’t. You’ve made your points and they’ve been rebutted. Unless you have court cases supporting your reading of the Constitution and common law with respect to families, you don’t have anything else to say.
It’s not that there aren’t strong policy stands against polygamy or incest. But the same court cases which disallow polygamy contain the policies which disallow other forms of marriage…including gay marriage.
And polygamists use all arguments that forward their cause, just as gay rights supporters use arguments presented by civil rights supporters. In other words, hijacking somebody else’s argument because it works for you isn’t anything new. I’m really surprised you think this should be considered out of bounds. You do it every time you argue about civil rights in conjunction with gay marriage.
More half-witted self-serving summaries and broad assertions, eh, Sharon?
It seems that I can quite thoroughly explain myself on any issue only to have you plugging your ears yelling “La la la!” You keep telling me to pull out case law to support my already well-supported statements, and then continually insist that I just trust you about broad claims that “family law” serves as arbiter of marriage’s “true purpose” as one thing and no other.
Please, Sharon, this country is crawling with lawyers, why on earth do you expect your own authority to serve as proof of anything?
As for your question regarding where long-unrecognized rights “hide,” they are usually hidden under the bigotry of others.
Nothing you’ve said indicates that a gay marriage proponent shouldn’t feel that the courts are a fair place to sort out this difference of feeling. Plain readings of the 9th and 14th amendments tend to give people the feeling that they should have their fundamental rights codified equally.
Yet there’s nothing you’ve specifically explained about polygamy that truly logically ties to gay marriage, other than “something other than the norm.” Change one thing, and you’ve given up the whole!
Which is patent nonsense. If the definition of marriage had previously been, “a union between a man and a woman who are not kin and who own their own land,” you could remove “who own their own land” without tossing everything up for grabs.
Again, polygamists may act in their own interests in co-opting gay marriage arguments because Sharon tells them they’re right to do so, but that doesn’t mean the arguments actually work for them.
For reference, see those who have previously attempted to argue against gay marriage because sexuality was a choice, not an immutable characteristic. They could see gays using similar arguments for gay marriage, but they disagreed on the merits of gay marriage.
Turns out they were wrong and discredited (at least in objective circles, I’m sure they’re still swellingly popular on the right). But again, gay marriage needed to be weighed on its own merits.
And the question with polygamy is, how similar is it to gay marriage, really? What is the commonality of argument? You’ve given us this:
But this is private conduct, Sharon. This case determined that two adults can pretty much do in the bedroom whatever they feel like, which naturally applies to polygamy. If you want two women, you can have them.
Where does this tie into gay marriage arguments? Where is this “same argument” you’ve claimed is so valid?
All I’ve seen is an attempt to suggest polygamists are in the same boat as homosexuals who are more or less excluded from meaningful marriage. But as I’ve asked more questions, that issue has become neglected.
I’m afraid it’s getting time for you to put up or shut up, Sharon. Get as brassy as you want, you’re still spewing a lot of noise and hoping I’ll run away crying.
It seems that I can quite thoroughly explain myself on any issue only to have you plugging your ears yelling “La la la!†You keep telling me to pull out case law to support my already well-supported statements, and then continually insist that I just trust you about broad claims that “family law†serves as arbiter of marriage’s “true purpose†as one thing and no other.
Jeromy, your statements aren’t well-supported. That’s why I keep asking you for the case law. Case law supports legal arguments. You keep trying to argue that the 9th and 14th Amendments allow for gay marriage. I’m asking you to provide the citations that back that assertion up. But no, you keep arguing why you don’t have to do that, which is complete nonsense.
The person who needs to put up or shut up is you, Jeromy.
Please, Sharon, this country is crawling with lawyers, why on earth do you expect your own authority to serve as proof of anything?
I don’t stand on my own authority. I’ve cited you case law, I’ve given you links to various opinions, and yet, you are either so dumb or willingly obtuse that you continue to argue how you don’t have to provide the same. My arguments aren’t based on emotion. They aren’t even based on the notion of “fairness” which, as you’ve aptly demonstrated, depends largely on who it is you want to support and who you don’t.
As for your question regarding where long-unrecognized rights “hide,†they are usually hidden under the bigotry of others.
Not really. They’re usually hiding in the minds of disengenuous guys who are unwilling to read the plain meaning of words and want to cram all sorts of meaning into phrases that are usually quite simple to understand.
Nothing you’ve said indicates that a gay marriage proponent shouldn’t feel that the courts are a fair place to sort out this difference of feeling. Plain readings of the 9th and 14th amendments tend to give people the feeling that they should have their fundamental rights codified equally.
Yes, and if Jeromy thinks he has a fundamental right to a pony, then the 9th and 14th Amendments should be argument enough. Forget any case law that backs up the assertion. Nope, that’s Jeromy’s form of argumentation. And he’ll get really pissed off if you keep asking him to provide case law to back up his Constitutional arguments.
Yet there’s nothing you’ve specifically explained about polygamy that truly logically ties to gay marriage, other than “something other than the norm.†Change one thing, and you’ve given up the whole!
I can’t figure out why you think there has to be some great “tie” between polygamists and gay marriage supporters outside of the fact they all want their marriages recognized. If they all have sex the same way, is that enough for you? Or if they all file the same tax returns? Or if society regards them all the same way? What is the problem here? You argue that polygamists can marry one person at a time and therefore should be happy with that, even though that denies them the fundamental they want: to marry lots of people at once. And this doesn’t even touch the idea of gay polygamists. Do you think a gay polygamist would have less right to marriage because of the polygamy part of their marriage beliefs?
Again, polygamists may act in their own interests in co-opting gay marriage arguments because Sharon tells them they’re right to do so, but that doesn’t mean the arguments actually work for them.
Polygamists co-opted gay rights arguments not because I said anything one way or another. They just do it, Jeromy. And it’s up to public opinion whether those arguments work. But again, your arguments against polygamy are self-serving and thin. You don’t like polygamy, therefore it should be banned. But because you like gay marriage, you are willing to come up with all sorts of equalities between gay marriages and straight ones. The idea of a gay polygamist must really put you in quite the dilemma.
Where does this tie into gay marriage arguments? Where is this “same argument†you’ve claimed is so valid?
One of the long recognized rights in family law is the right of marital couples to have sex, Jeromy. By stating, in Lawrence, that homosexual couples have basically the same right, the Court is setting up the argument that gay couples should be allowed to marry the same way straight couples can. It doesn’t take a legal genius to see that, although you obviously missed it, which says a lot about you. So far, courts have construed Lawrence very narrowly, but it really only takes one nutbag 9th Circuit decision to send the whole thing to the SCOTUS, where there are still the votes to support that reading of Lawrence.
Instead of repeating yourself, go find me the case law that supports your reading of the 9th and 14th Amendments with respect to gay marriage. I’ll be waiting.
In other words, Sharon, you want me to prove that gay marriage has already successfully used the 9th and 14th Amendments in federal court to win victories.
Well, no surprise why you’d want to set my bar there, but that doesn’t make it the case when I’m arguing that gay marriage proponents should use them to go to court and be successful.
Please try to keep things in order, Sharon. I understand you’re getting itchy for a way out, and you’re clawing for soundbites to keep repeating at me, but I’m rather immune to such techniques.
On the other hand, you’re still waiting for me to go do your legal research for you regarding “the purpose of marriage.”
And you still haven’t cited anything whatsoever to support your assertion than a polygamist with one wife is just as wronged as a gay person with no spouse. I’ve maintained that sexuality is a far more serious and fundamental issue. You’ve told me, “a social scientist will tell you differently.” But we’re talking about quality vs. quantity here, two fundamentally different situations.
Instead, I get improbable statements like, “The idea of a gay polygamist must put you in a dilemma!” Um, no, if I don’t support polygamy for rational reasons, why would I irrationally regard gay polygamy any differently? Polygamy is an entirely separate question from sexual orientation, although you have an enormous amount of difficulty grasping it. I don’t. If we’re discussing number of spouses, it’s irrelevant what sex they are.
Or lies like, “You don’t like polygamy, therefore it should be banned.” No, Sharon, me not liking polygamy means I don’t plan on engaging in it. I don’t advocate banning everything I don’t like, which is why I’m not a rightwinger.
And this is the point you keep sliding around. Is the objection to polygamy weak rationally? I don’t think it is at all. I suspect a lot of people could concur, including a judge.
But I asked you how polygamists were using gay marriage arguments specifically, and you pinned yourself down a bit.
You state, “One of the long recognized rights in family law is the right of marital couples to have sex, Jeromy. By stating, in Lawrence, that homosexual couples have basically the same right, the Court is setting up the argument that gay couples should be allowed to marry the same way straight couples can.”
This doesn’t quite jibe with reality, although I’m sure you, being the ultimate judge of all legal matters, can explain. Since when was having sex solely the right of married couples, Sharon? Didn’t Lawrence vs. Texas establish that gays have right to fuck the same as straights, married or not? Where did marriage come into play? How did the case suggest that anybody who can fuck legally can marry legally? The only thing I’ve ever heard is that those who objected to gay marriage specifically because homosexuality was criminal had to find new arguments.
Maybe you can answer those questions, Sharon, but you’ve done a poor job so far. Premises must be established, and to be establishing them a couple hundred comments late is poor form.
Another problem I notice is that you say that so far, Lawrence vs. Texas has been read narrowly, to mean what it says. Yet you simply assume that some crazy judge will read it wrong.
But that’s not a legal argument at all. You’ve just told me that the polygamists don’t have a real case, but some judge will wave in whatever junk they put together.
That would make a major flaw in your argument, Sharon. I can only debate the Constitution, not your fear of crazy judges who rule without reason.
Except that a gay person can live with another gay person in what is, for all intents and purposes, a state of marriage. So no “wrong” has been committed.
Jeromy said:
In other words, Sharon, you want me to prove that gay marriage has already successfully used the 9th and 14th Amendments in federal court to win victories.
Well, no surprise why you’d want to set my bar there, but that doesn’t make it the case when I’m arguing that gay marriage proponents should use them to go to court and be successful.
The reason I ask you to cite cases that support your argument is that your argument is meaningless without them. Remember term papers from high school? You didn’t get to just make shit up and then not provide citations for your assertions. This is a similar thing.
Perhaps this just shows your complete ignorance about the Constitution and the law supported by it. It would be understandable if that was why you are so huffy that I’ve called you on this, the lamest excuse you’ve come up with.
Without citations, Jeromy, you might as well replace “gay marriage” with “grape jelly sandwiches” in your arguments.
Jeromy: People should have a constitutional right to grape jelly sandwiches because strawberry jam sandwiches are already allowed and some people–by their “nature–don’t want to eat strawberry jam. The 9th and 14th Amendments support this argument.
Sharon: There’s no such right to something just because you think something else allowed is unfair.
Jeromy: But the Constitution guarantees my right to grape jelly sandwiches because of the 9th and 14th Amendments! You might as well stop arguing about this now. I’ve won this argument hundreds of times.
Sharon: Do you have any citations to cases that support this viewpoint?
Jeromy: Just because I don’t have any cases doesn’t make my argument less valid!
Sharon: Er, yes, it does.
The End
Please try to keep things in order, Sharon. I understand you’re getting itchy for a way out, and you’re clawing for soundbites to keep repeating at me, but I’m rather immune to such techniques.
You’re the one looking for an exit strategy. You keep trying to bluff your way out, but I already told you that that wouldn’t happen.
On the other hand, you’re still waiting for me to go do your legal research for you regarding “the purpose of marriage.â€
When did I say that? Because I want you to provide citations supporting your constitutional theories? Here’s a clue. I don’t need you to do my legal research for me. I already gave you a number of citations about the traditional purpose of marriage. But if that wasn’t enough, here’s some:
–In Ruth Morrison, et al., v. Doris Ann Sadler, et al., Judge Michael Barnes found that Indiana’s DOMA is not unconstitutional “because opposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment… The ability of opposite-sex couples to reproduce ‘naturally’ and unexpectedly is the characteristic that rationally distinguishes them from same-sex couples.”
–In Andersen v. King County, the Washington Supreme Court found “the plaintiffs have not established that as of today sexual orientation is a suspect classification or that a person has a fundamental right to a same-sex marriage.”
–In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit stated “that the same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents who filed the Nebraska case disregarded ‘the expressed intent of traditional marriage laws—to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed marriage relationships.’ The court concluded that Nebraska’s laws ‘limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.’” (Note here that same sex marriage is given rational basis review–that is, the lowest standard of review there is because sexual orientation does not rise to the level of a suspect classification such as race. This complies with Lawrence, where the Court applied rational basis review to the Texas statute and found it to be unconstitutional).
That’s just for starters, Jeromy. That’s 3 more cases than you’ve shown supporting your argument. Ready to call it quits yet?
Jeromy said:
And you still haven’t cited anything whatsoever to support your assertion than a polygamist with one wife is just as wronged as a gay person with no spouse. I’ve maintained that sexuality is a far more serious and fundamental issue. You’ve told me, “a social scientist will tell you differently.†But we’re talking about quality vs. quantity here, two fundamentally different situations.
Yes, I have, Jeromy. The polygamist with one wife is just as wronged as the homosexual couple who can’t marry because he isn’t getting marriage the way he desires it. Just as the homosexual marrying a heterosexual would be a “charade” to you, so for a polygamist marriage to only one person is a “charade.” This isn’t necessarity a quantity issue, although you trivialize it this way. Polygamists frequently feel that having multiple spouses is about the quality of the relationship. But again, you wholly dismiss the idea that polygamists are in it for anything other than group sex.
Instead, I get improbable statements like, “The idea of a gay polygamist must put you in a dilemma!†Um, no, if I don’t support polygamy for rational reasons, why would I irrationally regard gay polygamy any differently? Polygamy is an entirely separate question from sexual orientation, although you have an enormous amount of difficulty grasping it. I don’t. If we’re discussing number of spouses, it’s irrelevant what sex they are.
No, the dilemma for you is that the gay polygamist still wouldn’t be able to have the marriage desired by same sex marriage. For someone who believes in polygamy, having one spouse ain’t gonna cut it. You should really try reading some pro-polygamy literature to grasp an understanding why your constant focus on who’s shagging who is the most insulting part of your stupid argument.
Or lies like, “You don’t like polygamy, therefore it should be banned.†No, Sharon, me not liking polygamy means I don’t plan on engaging in it. I don’t advocate banning everything I don’t like, which is why I’m not a rightwinger.
Well, I guess I’m not a rightwinger then, either, because I don’t advocate banning everything I don’t like. I don’t like artichokes but it’s fine with me of other people eat them. Or boiled shrimp. But, yes, your arguments against polygamy boil down to the idea that you don’t like it, so ban it. And it’s really quite amusing watching you try to worm away from that, since every argument you make for gay marriage can be used for polygamists. But then you’ll just shriek that “they’re not the same!” Again. I can’t wait!
This doesn’t quite jibe with reality, although I’m sure you, being the ultimate judge of all legal matters, can explain. Since when was having sex solely the right of married couples, Sharon? Didn’t Lawrence vs. Texas establish that gays have right to fuck the same as straights, married or not? Where did marriage come into play? How did the case suggest that anybody who can fuck legally can marry legally? The only thing I’ve ever heard is that those who objected to gay marriage specifically because homosexuality was criminal had to find new arguments.
Your ignorance of the law is hilarious. Jeromy, up until the 1960s, the law stated that sex was a right of married couples and no one else. Try reading up on abortion law a little bit and you’ll discover what I mean. I’ll even give you a couple of case names to Google since you can’t find anything yourself: Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, which extended the right to contraceptives to unmarried persons. You really are an idiot about this stuff, Jeromy. Don’t you do any research before you start typing? It’s like you just throw up all over the keyboard. I don’t like pointing out when someone has shown enormous stupidity, but this is a really easy argument for you to look up yourself. Really. God, you are embarrassing.
Another problem I notice is that you say that so far, Lawrence vs. Texas has been read narrowly, to mean what it says. Yet you simply assume that some crazy judge will read it wrong.
But that’s not a legal argument at all. You’ve just told me that the polygamists don’t have a real case, but some judge will wave in whatever junk they put together.
That would make a major flaw in your argument, Sharon. I can only debate the Constitution, not your fear of crazy judges who rule without reason.
It’s not a gigantic leap to argue that the SCOTUS is setting up precedent for legalizing gay marriage, Jeromy. This is the way Anglo-American jurisprudence works: courts take itty bitty baby steps in changing law so that there aren’t enormous fluctuations that call the judgements into question (except, for example, in Brown v. Board or Roe v. Wade, or the Miranda case, in which the Court just didn’t give a damn how ridiculous it looked suddenly discovering a whole host of rights never seen before). So, today’s case which legalizes homosexual conduct becomes tomorrow’s case about the right to same sex marriage.
The difference so far is that sexual orientation is still getting rational basis review (go look that up on Google), which means that the state doesn’t have to have a particularly good reason for a law, just a rational one.
And I didn’t say polygamists didn’t have a “real case.” What I have said is that, unsurprisingly, they use the same arguments that gay marriage proponents do. Why? Because those arguments seem to create sympathy for same sex marriage supporters.
1. There is hardly any secret here, Sharon, that gay marriage proponents have not yet been successful at the federal level in the courts. You can, and unsurprisingly so, show me several cases where state laws banning homosexual marriage have been successfully defended in courts. Of course, the relevance is a little lacking when we talk of state courts, for obviously in some states gay marriage proponents have won court battles. But federally, yes, gay marriage has a losing record so far, although the matter is not yet settled by SCOTUS.
You need this to contradict what I’m saying, Sharon, and you are ramping up your righteousness because you think you’ve got an angle here, but you don’t. As I said, the rights of others are often hidden under the bigotry of others. My point is that these rulings are wrong and are at variance with the Constitution. My source for that is the Constitution, the words of which you flee from like a witch from water, purely by coincidence I’m sure.
The truth is most of these judges got their law degrees when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disease. And I see that warping a lot of opinions.
Case in point: Rational they’re certainly not. Gay marriage is every bit tied to legitimate state interests, were one actually looking at the state interests and not engaging in irrational discrimination. A judge with more enlightened attitudes towards homosexuality could easily disagree.
All you need is a judge who is faithful to the Constitution who recognizes the immutability of sexual orientation and classifies it as a form of sex discrimination, something which creates a higher bar for the state to jump over than “rational basis,†which basically congratulates the state for being able to form a sentence.
You can argue all day, Sharon, that this hasn’t happened yet, but the question is, who on earth thinks it has yet? We’re talking of what ideally should happen here, based on the Constitution, based on reality, based on reason and logic. The stuff that drives people to go to court and win after multiple defeats.
What do you have? Attacks in store for judges who rule differently. Aw, Sharon no like dem judges! Well, what do you know…we’re allowed to disagree with judges.
SO far Sharon has implied I’m not worthy of disagreeing with judges.
A remarkable double standard.
Again, the greatest sign of rightwinger insecurity on this issue is the desire to pass a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning gay marriage. The lack of success for gay marriage so far has hardly encouraged them to feel safer, has it? They fear the day the judges stop going along with them, thus the desire to alter the Constitution to make sure things go their way.
2. I apologize for stepping on your sensibilities regarding polygamous folks and their virtuous natures.
Why do you oppose polygamy again? Are you sure you do?
3. If a polygamist’s first marriage is a charade, why should he be trusted to have more? Seems strange. Anyhow, this certainly is a quantity issue, and quantity is something you agree can be regulated regardless of what happens with gay marriage.
First thing’s first though, gay people need to at least be let in the door. Polygamists get in the door, they just can’t have more than anybody else. How important that is to them they’ll have to prove in court on their own, but I rate it below the importance of gender and you don’t bother to dispute that yet.
4.
Thanks for answering the question. So that’s when polygamous couples got the right to shack up together, albeit sans legal recognition. So what does Lawrence vs. Texas have to do with polygamy? The polygamists should have had their case made as soon as extramarital sex was recognized as a right, no?
I’m listening, but you got some ‘splainin’ to do.
5.
With you, certainly. Perhaps you can represent a polygamous couple someday, you do such a good job of it here. Not enough to convince me polygamy in an equal rights society is anything less than a clusterfuck of gigantic proportions waiting to happen.
But you’re jumping around again. You claimed that only a misreading of Lawrence v. Texas by a crazy judge would result in a victory for polygamists. Now you claim you didn’t say they lacked a real case.
More explaining…
6. “”But then you’ll just shriek that “they’re not the same!†Again. I can’t wait!”"
Actually, it was you who claimed they were the same and who has since failed to offer anything to support that other than vague language about “desires.” I’ve been waiting for you to back up this claim that polygamists are in the same boat as homosexuals.
7. “the gay polygamist…â€
Sometimes you need several whacks over the head with a shovel to give up a losing point, don’t you? Again, Sharon, I’m only concerned about the gay polygamist’s inability to have at least one marriage. Once they want to stack marriages, they’ve lost me. Still wondering what my “dilemma” is.
1. Shorter Jeromy: How dare you give examples where the purpose of marriage is defined the way you said it was!
Yes, Jeromy, I used state cases because there have been a whole bunch of state cases decided just in the last couple of years that clearly state that marriage is designed to benefit the having and raising of childrren. There are, quite honestly, older federal cases I can go dig up for you, but then you’ll just argue that they’re old or something.
You lost this argument, Jeromy. You admitted no one has used your argument and now you’ve decided we’re talking about “ideally” here. Well, we’re not talking about “ideally.” We’re talking about the way the law is written, how it has been written, and why it is what it is.
Again, wish for the pony, Jeromy. Your legal argument works as well for that one.
BTW, it is irrelevant when the sitting judges obtained their law degrees. The Constitution is what it is and was written by men who didn’t have to sit for a bar exam.
Also, it was pretty funny reading your supposed counterpoint to rational basis review. Stick with the stuff you know, Jeromy, like how anal sex works. You don’t know a thing about judicial review and what you wrote isn’t even worthy of a law school professor’s withering gaze.
2. Why do you care why I oppose polygamy? This has nothing to do with my feelings about either gay marriage or polygamy. But you aren’t really doing a very good job defending your position on the topic.
3. The law isn’t designed to probe the motivations of couples getting married. There’s no requirement that they have any feelings for each other whatsoever. But again, polygamists just want the same right to marry the person–or people–they love just like homosexuals.
4. All people have always had the right to shack up together. Including homosexuals. To say that the law stated that sex was for married couples–that is, that married couples had a fundamental right to procreational sex is not the same thing as saying no one did this.
Go read Lawrence, Jeromy, although, given your ignorant and childish arguments to this point, I sort of doubt you’d understand much of what they are saying about homosexual conduct. The court ruled that the government couldn’t interfere with private sexual conduct (in this case, sodomy). That’s the same argument the polygamists use: “Lawrence says the government should get out of our business, too!” Now come back and tell me how polygamists already have the right to do this, because that’s going to be your next argument.
5. I didn’t claim that misreading Lawrence would result in a victory for polygamists. You did. It’s not illogical to read “the government should not interfere in private sexual conduct” to include polygamy. And maybe you should analyze why, regardless of arguments to the contrary, you still consider polygamy to be wrong. And then you just might understand why there are folks who still think homosexual marriage is wrong–not because they hate gay people, but because they understand in their gut that marriage has a particular definition and that homosexual marriage doesn’t fit that.
6. Jeromy, you read what you want to read. I’ve explained to you repeatedly why homosexual marriage is similar to polygamy, incest,bigamy and other unrecognized variations on marriage. But you don’t want to accept the similarities because it doesn’t help your argument. So, keep arguing that I didn’t show you.
7. The dilemma, of course, is the gay polygamist is still not celebrating the type of marriage they want. You are still denying the gay polygamist the “fundamental right” that you think homosexuals should enjoy.
Here’s your homework, Jeromy. Go read up on judicial review. Find out what the difference is in the standard applied under rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Then read why different classifications get different standards. Oh, and find me some case law supporting your Constitutional *reading.”
1. I admit, you had me confused there for a second. You almost made me believe you’re completely ignorant of the Massachusetts ruling, which dismantled every stale fallacious argument as to why gay marriage doesn’t fit the purpose of marriage.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031120.html
Really, Sharon, you can only stretch the fallacy of tradition so far. The Massachusetts court echoes virtually every single thing I’ve said, even my “laughable” bit about anti-gay marriage arguments not even meeting a rational basis. But it was still a reasonable conclusion to make beforehand.
I don’t need the Massachusetts court’s affirmation that my Constitutional theory is sound for it to be sound. But I suppose it helps deal with the likes of you, relying on the fallacy of tradition. According to Sharon, no case can be won until it has already been won! Well, Sharon, somebody won a case using my logic, debating the merits of gay marriage by itself.
Note, the Massachusetts court does state that their constitution is zealous about personal liberty, but any federal judge should look at the 9th and get some zealousness about personal liberty in his/her blood as well.
So, I suppose to you Massachusetts, of course, isn’t good enough. A federal case winning on the same merits is simply unimaginable…except you feel its inevitable, thus the support for a Constitutional Amendment to fix that nasty presumption of personal liberty embedded in every word of the Constitution.
But it should be obvious by now, Sharon, that gay marriage proponents are entirely reasonable in going to the courts to see their rights that they know to exist gain a victory that will last.
Surely you knew about Massachusetts…why didn’t you pre-empt that answer, Sharon? Did you presume I wouldn’t figure it out, even though you knew it was a legitimate answer? My, that wouldn’t have been very honest, would it?
2. “BTW, it is irrelevant when the sitting judges obtained their law degrees. The Constitution is what it is and was written by men who didn’t have to sit for a bar exam.â€
Among those with objective attitudes towards homosexuality, recognition of the equality of homosexuals is more likely. And all due respect to the Founding Fathers, but it’s inarguable that the attitudes of their time caused them to miss the mark a little on guaranteeing equal treatment for all. NEXT!
3. Again, I’m treating the gay polygamist exactly the same as the heterosexual polygamist. You seem to be implying that I care more about a gay polygmist’s desire to have many men than I do about a hetero polygamist’s desire to have many women. Or something. I’m not really sure why you choose to keep drawing attention to your own fumbling on this. I guess, as is consistent with your throw-shit-and-see-what-sticks approach, you’ll drop it soon just like you did with your astounding failure to grasp basic truths about sexuality.
4. I find it very curious that you who are so eager to spread fear that “the polygamists are coming!†cannot actually explain why polygamy isn’t in the government’s interest to codify, and push several rather weak arguments in favor of polygamy. You even pretend changing the structure of marriage from two person couples to amorphous collectives isn’t a rather dramatic alteration far beyond what gay marriage proponents suggest. All this would be expected from a polygamist activist, but in trying to stop polygamy you perpetually argue in favor of it.
All in all, polygamy still merits its own discussion and should not be automatically waved in on some imaginary “you can marry anybody you want!†defense. After all, gays don’t want to marry anybody, they just want to marry somebody. This difference is something you simply cannot wish away, Sharon, no matter how often you keep doing it.
In fact, to date the only defense of polygamy that you’ve raised that really has any weight behind it, Sharon, is the religious defense. But again, this is unique to polygamy and has nothing to do with homosexuality.
I think it would be rather shocking to other people to realize that you didn’t have a rational defense against polygamy. Especially when you believe you have a rational defense against homosexuality, which is entirely irrational.
5. Regarding Lawrence vs. Texas, I agree with the polygamists who you don’t bother actually citing (probably because you warp them just as badly as everybody else you paraphrase): The government should stay out of their business. Entirely. The husband should delegate which wife he wants to get all the legal rights and protections, and after that he’s on his own. If he wants to bring home a fresh young one every couple years and she’s okay with that, that’s their business. But enshrouding every damn one of them with all the rights and protections of marriage? As you agree, Sharon, the government still has sufficient power to limit the number of marriages in a post-gay marriage world, and to draw the limit at two people in a marriage is simply the most rational place to put it.
6. Good to hear that your argument against gay marriage boils down to what’s in your “gut.†Stephen Colbert would be proud of you, Sharon. Now that we can dispense of the notion that you have anything rational to put forth against gay marriage.
As I said in the beginning, there is no rational case against gay marriage. You have confirmed this for me, Sharon, but also reaffirmed for me that there isn’t a rational legal case against it either.
trapped in moderation…
1. The only problem with using the Massachusetts case is that they were, indeed, interpreting their state constitution. That’s perfectly permissible. In fact, back in the first couple of comments I left (and periodically since), I’ve stated that it is perfectly acceptable for state’s to change their definitions of marriage.
But you have argued that the federal government, by virtue of the U.S. Constitution, should legalize gay marriage everywhere. There’s absolutely zero case law that supports that position, something you found out for yourself and, in fact, argued that the state law cases I found–which upheld heterosexual marriage–weren’t good enough because they were only state law. So, why is it, when you find a state that agrees with your viewpoint, you suddenly think it debunks all the other states, which have found the gay marriage argument to be unpersuasive?
2. Among those with objective attitudes towards homosexuality, recognition of the equality of homosexuals is more likely. And all due respect to the Founding Fathers, but it’s inarguable that the attitudes of their time caused them to miss the mark a little on guaranteeing equal treatment for all. NEXT!
Well, no, not next. On the one hand, you want to argue that the document they created was ingenius enough to include sexual orientation, yet, on the other hand, you want to argue that they aren’t enlightened because they didn’t include sexual orientation. There’s a logical fallacy for you.
Sexual orientation isn’t a suspect classification according to the Constitution. Nor is the right for homosexuals to marry a fundamental right by virtue of tradition and common law. That’s a pretty high hurdle you think you can ignore.
3. Again, I’m treating the gay polygamist exactly the same as the heterosexual polygamist. You seem to be implying that I care more about a gay polygmist’s desire to have many men than I do about a hetero polygamist’s desire to have many women. Or something. I’m not really sure why you choose to keep drawing attention to your own fumbling on this. I guess, as is consistent with your throw-shit-and-see-what-sticks approach, you’ll drop it soon just like you did with your astounding failure to grasp basic truths about sexuality.
I brought up the idea of a gay polygamist because I thought a different analogy might make you realize the stupidity of your arguments. You argue that it is impermissible for state’s to limit marriage to heterosexuals, but have no problem with limiting marriage to 2 people. And you see no cognitive dissonance there. It’s truly amazing. The old addage is right: there’s none so blind as a liberal who cannot see but wants to claim his right to a pony under the 9th Amendment.
4. I find it very curious that you who are so eager to spread fear that “the polygamists are coming!†cannot actually explain why polygamy isn’t in the government’s interest to codify, and push several rather weak arguments in favor of polygamy. You even pretend changing the structure of marriage from two person couples to amorphous collectives isn’t a rather dramatic alteration far beyond what gay marriage proponents suggest. All this would be expected from a polygamist activist, but in trying to stop polygamy you perpetually argue in favor of it.
First, I’m not spreading any fear in pointing out that changing the definition of marriage one way encourages other alterations, as well. It is logical to assume that once we start questioning the fundamental basis for marriage, lots of groups that are less than desirable will want recognition. This isn’t fear, but a fact. And it’s not that the government doesn’t have an interest in barring polygamy, but that you want to split hairs about where government can limit marriage and where it cannot. And only someone who favors gay marriage would say that recognizing gay marriage isn’t a dramatic alteration of the institution. Sorry, Jeromy, gay marriage is just as dramatic a change to marriage as legalizing polygamy would be.
5. Regarding Lawrence vs. Texas, I agree with the polygamists who you don’t bother actually citing
This is a lie. I already cited the polygamists in the previous post and in another post prior to that. I can’t emphasize the importance of reading enough.
The government should stay out of their business. Entirely.
You’re lying here again, or at least making a very, very stupid statement. You don’t really believe the government should stay out of their business any more than you think the government should stay out of homosexuals’ business. You want government endorsement of homosexual relationships. That’s government action, not restraint. But at the same time, you want the government to bar polygamy and cling to the idea that not acting in that instance is permissible, but impermissible for homosexuals.
As you agree, Sharon, the government still has sufficient power to limit the number of marriages in a post-gay marriage world, and to draw the limit at two people in a marriage is simply the most rational place to put it.
The government has the right to limit marriage any way it wishes right now. That’s what you hate; because society made a choice to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
6. Good to hear that your argument against gay marriage boils down to what’s in your “gut.†Stephen Colbert would be proud of you, Sharon. Now that we can dispense of the notion that you have anything rational to put forth against gay marriage.
There’s nothing that I’ve said to lead to this conclusion, Jeromy, other than the fact that you are tired and looking for a way out of this argument. I’ve given you a number of reasons gay marriage isn’t legal in the U.S., but time and time again, you have skirted those issues and tried to divert attention to some other nonsense. Now you argue that it boils down to what’s in my “gut.” That’s not quite as stupid as your laughable constitutional arguments, but it really does come quite close.
As I said in the beginning, there is no rational case against gay marriage. You have confirmed this for me, Sharon, but also reaffirmed for me that there isn’t a rational legal case against it either.
Jeromy, you were wrong in the beginning when you said there was no rational case for traditional marriage. I gave you several cases up front that supported the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage. You find one state with a different reading and now you think that wins the day. Unfortunately for you, Jeromy, it doesn’t. It’s sad that you’ve wasted so much time and energy trying desperately to find an argument to support your personal prejudices.
First you argued that the 9th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution support gay marriage, yet could find no case law that supported this argument.
Then you tried to argue that traditional marriage was “sex discrimination.” I then pointed out that sex only gets intermediate scrutiny and wasn’t a terrific argument. I then pointed out in subsequent comments that sexual orientation doesn’t even get that elevated scrutiny; it only gets rational basis review, the lowest standard available.
After this, you tried arguing that no one would “rationally” think gay marriage wasn’t marriage, a laughable attempt at judicial analysis.
Next, you argued that I hadn’t given any case law to support the notion that the purpose of legalized marriage was to create a stable place in which to have and raise children. I provided several cases that stated exactly that.
Finally, you discover, by some miracle, that there was a court involved in the Massachusetts case, and suddenly think that because Massachusetts judges decided that their state constitution upheld the idea of gay marriage, that no other state was right to preclude homosexuals from their state’s constitutional definition of marriage. This is an amazing leap of logic, particularly since, previously, you argued that it was the U.S. Constitution that provided the basis for homosexual marriage.
In short, your arguments still boil down to: “Gay marriage should be legal because Jeromy thinks it is unfair to do anything else. Plus, if Massachusetts agrees with me, then it doesn’t matter that 49 other states don’t.” That’s a pretty weak argument under any circumstances.
1. All of the merits of the Massachusetts decision are directly relevant to the U.S. Constitution. Jeebus’ sake, Sharon, they held them to the rational basis standard. Where was the inconsistency with the U.S. Constitution? It isn’t a mistake that state constitutions will tend to echo the same respect for rights and equality emanating from the federal Constitution, it’s the 14th Amendment.
And you’re right, it would be cool if some federal courts were following suit. That’s why the fight goes on, isn’t it?
Anyway, I think I successfully proved my Constitutional theory and thoughts on rational basis didn’t come from Mars, although honestly you already knew that, so let’s stick to the logic, Sharon.
2. Do you always feel that saying, “In short, you’re really saying…†gives you license to lie freely afterwards, or do you sometimes feel guilt and console yourself that you’re doing it for “families†or something? You certainly do it a lot.
3. Ah, so either the Founding Fathers were perfectly enlightened or they weren’t enlightened at all.
Enjoy little either/or fallacies, don’t you? Oh, who are we kidding, Sharon, you think of fallacies as tools, nothing more. It’s all for “families!â€
4. Tradition is a low hurdle when it comes to individual rights, and also a logical fallacy. Oh, look, another fallacy from Sharon. Knock me over with a feather.
5. You are f’ing terrible at writing adages. Stop now. There’s no cognitive dissonance on my part, just a simple respect for logic and the duty to be unimpressed by fallacies. By your logic, all gay marriage supporters have to give the okay to polygamy, because there’s no way to treat the two as different subjects. Those who are actually interested in what the gay community needs would almost certainly stress monogamy. Why? Because gay or straight, polygamy is an issue unto itself, with rational arguments against it. The gay bigamist will just have to thank me for at least advocating he get one spouse, instead of none.
6. You think a gay person wanting their sexual orientation respected is as frivolous a wish as wanting a pony, Sharon.
You are incorrect, Sharon. It is as frivolous as your desire to have your sexual orientation respected.
7. Gay marriage is still monogamy. It may make you and your friends feel icky, Sharon, but it has the same structure and function: two people united for life, stabilizing each other and any family they form (somebody’s gotta adopt all those babies you don’t want aborted). Polygamy changes the structure altogether, e.g. as powerful men accumulate women, which is what happens in the real world, other men go without.
8. “First, I’m not spreading any fear in pointing out that changing the definition of marriage one way encourages other alterations, as well.â€
But be afraid! The irony, Sharon, is that you are the one here most encouraging to polygamists, not me. Fortunately, encouraging a thing does not guarantee that thing, and lacking a proper argument polygamists should be treated like anybody else.
9. Really? Which polygamist did you quote, again? What was the source? The right to engage in private conduct is the only one you’ve cited, and that doesn’t lead to demanding official recognition of polygamous marriages at all. You cited another stating his conclusion that gay marriage should lead to polygamy, but that’s not an argument, that’s his wish. The “why†is missing. Otherwise, what’s the big scoop? A group is speaking out for its interests, spinning the facts, big deal.
I think there’s a rational case against polygamy because of the problems unique to polygamy, you don’t. If you don’t support something, Sharon, you might find it helpful to not tell people who agree with you they’re irrational in doing so. Have it your way, but I’ll bet the public would agree with me that there are good reasons against polygamy.
10. No, Sharon, I really do believe the government should stay out of the private business of polygamists. Certify the first marriage, and they’re on their own after that.
The state can rationally endorse monogamy, but cannot rationally treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. That’s entirely consistent with rationality, and not consistent with your slippery slope. It’s the merits of each case that must be weighed.
“In short,†I believe polygamists don’t get a free ride on the backs of gay marriage advocates. Were you trafficking in logic, this would be elementary.
You’re not.
11. But, Sharon, you said in a post-gay marriage world the government could still regulate marriage quantities. So can everybody get a pony, or not?
12. Yes, I hate the bigotry against homosexuals, Sharon. I’ll fess up to that one.
13. You’re switching things around, Sharon. We’re talking about the rational case against gay marriage required to keep it illegal by the rational basis. If you don’t have the rational case, you don’t have a good legal case either. One that might win with social conservative judges who, like you, see the Constitution as a series of loopholes into which all rights disappear and gays as people who “choose a behavior/lifestyle.†But not a case that really honors liberty or equality.
So in talking about your rational case, you should exclude that which resides in your gut. Just a tip.
14. Here’s how you don’t understand logic:
Legal cases. I’m talking about the rational case against gay marriage, Sharon, the rational case that determines the legality. You’ve shown me judges that say “Yes, the purpose of marriage is procreation.†That doesn’t make it rational. That’s the appeal to authority and tradition, more fallacies from you.
15. I still believe sexual orientation discrimination is simply sex discrimination. That’s a belief I think the courts should take, Sharon, not one they’ve already taken. You really have failed to understand that distinction repeatedly.
As I’ve said, however, even if one is doing a rational basis review of gay marriage, it should still pass. That’s the correct answer, one echoed in Massachusetts, one I’d hope to see in any other court handling the matter.
16. So I’m still waiting for that rational case. You’ve demonstrated that some states have declared a purpose of marriage that excludes homosexuals, but that’s simply telling me what things are today. That doesn’t tell me why they should remain so tomorrow. That doesn’t tell me that that state hasn’t violated the Constitutional rights of its gay citizens. That doesn’t tell me why gays can’t be added to the rest of those who can marry. That doesn’t tell me gay marriages are going to affect straight marriage. That doesn’t tell me why it isn’t in state interest to stabilize the homosexual community with officially recognized monogamy…etc., etc.
Time to show whether you can actually think and reason about this subject, Sharon, or if you’re just skating by on some cheap lawyer rhetoric.
1. All of the merits of the Massachusetts decision are directly relevant to the U.S. Constitution. Jeebus’ sake, Sharon, they held them to the rational basis standard. Where was the inconsistency with the
U.S. Constitution? It isn’t a mistake that state constitutions will tend to echo the same respect for rights and equality emanating from the federal Constitution, it’s the 14th Amendment.
I can make the same argument about all the cases I cited, too, Jeromy. Every one of them took the historical view of marriage that I told you about in the very first comment I wrote. It’s not that you won’t find a case occasionally that backs up what you want to say. It’s whether that case is applied widely. In this case, I have far more law on my side of the argument than you do.
Anyway, I think I successfully proved my Constitutional theory and thoughts on rational basis didn’t come from Mars, although honestly you already knew that, so let’s stick to the logic, Sharon.
Not really. Without a federal case (and there are federal cases which uphold the traditional definition of marriage) you’ve got ONE state with ONE interpretation of ITS constitution. Using your logic, I successfully proved my Constitutional theory and thoughts, too. But you don’t accept that, do you?
As I told you originally, Jeromy, states are permitted to make the laws regarding marriage they choose to make. That includes finding same sex marriage in a document written 300 years ago (amazing!). But it also includes the right of states to decide their state constitution does not include the right to same sex marriage. Once you finally accept this fact, then the debate is over.
2. Do you always feel that saying, “In short, you’re really saying…†gives you license to lie freely afterwards, or do you sometimes feel guilt and console yourself that you’re doing it for “families†or something? You certainly do it a lot.
I don’t lie. When I say “in short,” it’s simply summing up the argument to that point. Lying is the way you frequently mischaracterize my arguments such as what you said just above. Or writing silly posts about what you’d like to think I said about a subject.
3. Ah, so either the Founding Fathers were perfectly enlightened or they weren’t enlightened at all.
Enjoy little either/or fallacies, don’t you? Oh, who are we kidding, Sharon, you think of fallacies as tools, nothing more. It’s all for families!
Oh, I think the Founding Fathers were far more enlightened than you are, Jeromy. For starters, they were willing to allow states to make their own decisions regarding family matters, rather than using the heavy hand of centralized government to do the bidding of a minority. After all, they’d already lived with an obnoxious central government which determined what they could & couldn’t do.
4. Tradition is a low hurdle when it comes to individual rights, and also a logical fallacy. Oh, look, another fallacy from Sharon. Knock me over with a feather.
Tradition is only a fallacy to those who have no respect for history. Unsurprising there that you would be one of them.
5. You are f’ing terrible at writing adages. Stop now. There’s no cognitive dissonance on my part, just a simple respect for logic and the duty to be unimpressed by fallacies. By your logic, all gay marriage supporters have to give the okay to polygamy, because there’s no way to treat the two as different subjects. Those who are actually interested in what the gay community needs would almost certainly stress monogamy. Why? Because gay or straight, polygamy is an issue unto itself, with rational arguments against it. The gay bigamist will just have to thank me for at least advocating he get one spouse, instead of none.
I’ll make you a deal, Jeromy. You acknowledge that states have the right to make whatever rules they desire about marriage (including the right to interpret their own state constitutions to either embrace or bar same sex marriage) and I’ll stop putting you in the dilemma of having to explain why you use the same arguments against polygamists that traditional marriage supporters make against gay marriage, ok? It isn’t that all gay marriage supporters have to embrace polygamy. But they cannot use exactly the same sort of bigoted arguments to deny polygamy that they despise for same sex marriage. In other words, don’t argue that it would be “unwieldy” for polygamist unions to be recognized and other nonsense like that. It’s the same argument traditional marriage supporters use about gay marriage and you don’t like it there, either.
6. But be afraid! The irony, Sharon, is that you are the one here most encouraging to polygamists, not me. Fortunately, encouraging a thing does not guarantee that thing, and lacking a proper argument polygamists should be treated like anybody else.
Oh, I’m not afraid that making an argument that makes you uncomfortable will actually encourage civil polygamy, Jeromy. After all, that’s what gay marriage supporters have tried to do for years and they still haven’t got the population behind them.
7. Gay marriage is still monogamy. It may make you and your friends feel icky, Sharon, but it has the same structure and function: two people united for life, stabilizing each other and any family they form (somebody’s gotta adopt all those babies you don’t want aborted). Polygamy changes the structure altogether, e.g. as powerful men accumulate women, which is what happens in the real world, other men go without.
No, as the one study I provided you with shows, gay marriage is not monogamy. What most gay men accept would be completely unacceptable in heterosexual marriage. Why? Because part of the bond of marriage is about the exclusivity the two people feel toward each other. Obviously, there are a lot of gay people who do not feel that toward each other. And given that gay marriages have declined sharply in Massachusetts, it’s really does question how many homosexuals actually want to get married.
9. Really? Which polygamist did you quote, again? What was the source? The right to engage in private conduct is the only one you’ve cited, and that doesn’t lead to demanding official recognition of polygamous marriages at all. You cited another stating his conclusion that gay marriage should lead to polygamy, but that’s not an argument, that’s his wish. The “why†is missing. Otherwise, what’s the big scoop? A group is speaking out for its interests, spinning the facts, big deal.
The “big deal,” of course, is that the gay marriage crowd has given polygamists a legitimate argument to use in their quest to have their marital form recognized. And, really, Jeromy, how many articles would it take for you to accept the polygamists argument? 10? A dozen? 100? If you are really so stupid that you don’t see why your arguments for homosexual marriage work equally well for polygamists, well, that’s just another proof of your low I.Q. And virtually every argument you make against polygamists can be used against same sex marriage. Get it yet? I don’t mind going through the exercise again, since you seem to be a very slow learner.
I think there’s a rational case against polygamy because of the problems unique to polygamy, you don’t. If you don’t support something, Sharon, you might find it helpful to not tell people who agree with you they’re irrational in doing so. Have it your way, but I’ll bet the public would agree with me that there are good reasons against polygamy.
Well, let’s have it my way, Jeromy. Most people agree with me about same sex marriage, too. But you don’t like to acknowledge that, either.
10. No, Sharon, I really do believe the government should stay out of the private business of polygamists. Certify the first marriage, and they’re on their own after that.
Why is that? Because you consider it to be unequal treatment? That would be your Constitutional argument. But your other arguments are just as emotional as the ones against same sex marriage. Don’t tell me you want to appeal to history now!
The state can rationally endorse monogamy, but cannot rationally treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. That’s entirely consistent with rationality, and not consistent with your slippery slope. It’s the merits of each case that must be weighed.
Well, no, then the courts would be tied up with individual claims about marriage. But I’m glad you’ve finally decided that states do have the right to set their own marriage standards. Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of states don’t agree that homosexual marriage passes rational basis review.
In short, I believe polygamists don’t get a free ride on the backs of gay marriage advocates. Were you trafficking in logic, this would be elementary.
You’re not.
Ah, yes, the Wile E. Coyote school of reasonable argument. “Your argument isn’t logical because I don’t like its conclusion.” Well, sorry, Jeromy, you don’t get to determine the standard of logical argumentation, given your lack of skills in this area. Polygamists have the same right to piggyback onto gay rights arguments just as the suffragettes piggybacked on the arguments made by the abolitionists. You see, when an argument makes sense and works, you use it. That’s why you tried (until recently, when you dropped it, I see) to argue about the 14th Amendment, and about miscegenation, and all manner of other silly things. You thought the arguments worked until it was pointed out why they didn’t. That’s why you cling to the Massachusett’s state court opinion like a hungry infant after his mommy’s tit. You think that one state ruling validates your points, and you disregard the numerous other state court rulings which expressly reject your viewpoint. But you won’t let logic stop you, Jeromy!
11. But, Sharon, you said in a post-gay marriage world the government could still regulate marriage quantities. So can everybody get a pony, or not?
I never said everybody got a pony, Jeromy. You did. I’ve always said that the state can regulate who gets ponies and how many ponies they get.
12. Yes, I hate the bigotry against homosexuals, Sharon. I’ll fess up to that one.
Well, that’s a start. You are also bigoted against anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of the Constitution. You’re bigoted against polygamists. You’re bigoted against anyone who actually thinks marriage has always had a real purpose, not just to make a couple of people happy for some period of time. Oh, and you’re bigoted against logic and case law.
13. You’re switching things around, Sharon. We’re talking about the rational case against gay marriage required to keep it illegal by the rational basis. If you don’t have the rational case, you don’t have a good legal case either. One that might win with social conservative judges who, like you, see the Constitution as a series of loopholes into which all rights disappear and gays as people who “choose a behavior/lifestyle.†But not a case that really honors liberty or equality.
So in talking about your rational case, you should exclude that which resides in your gut. Just a tip.
Coming from the guy whose arguments are all illogic and emotion. Riiiight. Ok, let me see if I have this straight: I spend 100+ comments explaining to you the traditiona purpose of marriage. I explain that states have the right to set their own marriage standards, and if gay marriage supporters are serious, they should go to the people of the states and make their arguments there. I give you case law which supports the traditional purpose of marriage and why gay marriage doesn’t fulfill that purpose. I also give you a quickie lesson on judicial review. And now you want to argue that because one state agrees with your opinion, that anyone who disagrees is looking for “loopholes”? The ones looking for loopholes are on your side of the argument, Jeromy. You don’t have either history or law on your side, so you have to look for something–anything–which will back up your claims. So, if you want to accept the right of states to make their own criteria for marriage, then you’ll actually be on the right side of both history and the case law.
14. Legal cases. I’m talking about the rational case against gay marriage, Sharon, the rational case that determines the legality. You’ve shown me judges that say “Yes, the purpose of marriage is procreation.” That doesn’t make it rational. That’s the appeal to authority and tradition, more fallacies from you.
No, Jeromy. You aren’t talking about the rational case against gay marriage. You are talking about an emotional case against gay marriage. Your argument boils down to “It’s not fair that gay people can’t marry each other like straight people do.” That’s not a logical appeal.
My arguments are consistently logical. Why? Because I do go to the case law about what is legal and what is not. And, unlike you, I look at why the law is what it is. That’s not a logical fallacy (you might want to look that term up, also. Crying “logical fallacy” when you don’t like another person’s argument doesn’t win anymore than when you tried to declare victory a few posts back means you win).
The problem for you is that you reject the traditional and historical basis for marriage, but want to use the institution to meet your own needs. Why? Because somewhere beneath all the lies, blustering, and bloviating, you know that marriage is an important institution which bestows a level of legitimacy on its practitioners. When a judge points out that the purpose of marriage is procreation, that is a rational argument. It’s saying that providing a sound environment for raising children is an important state interest, since the state has a HUGE interest in how the next generation turns out.
This is at least the latest place where your argument fails. Like most liberals, you think of a “right” simply in a selfishly individual sense. But the government acknowledges marriage because of its importance to societal good, not simply for the good of individuals (after all, this is why the 10th Amendment leaves these sorts of decisions to the state). That societal good is creating families for children which will be better off with both parents than just with one. And that’s where gay marriage doesn’t meet the criteria. They don’t have “little accidents” which need the protection the state is offering.
But, again, you don’t really want marriage, Jeromy. You want some stylized version of marriage. To get that, you really need to spend more time at your state legislature and persuade them.
15. I still believe sexual orientation discrimination is simply sex discrimination. That’s a belief I think the courts should take, Sharon, not one they’ve already taken. You really have failed to understand that distinction repeatedly.
It’s funny. I reject an argument you make, but, in your eyes, I just don’t understand the argument. I understand your argument completely, Jeromy. But saying sexual orientation should be treated like sex under the law has no more validity than using the 9th Amendment to require the government to give you a pony. There’s no–here’s that term again–rational basis for treating sexual orientation like sex. That’s distinct from the emotional arguments you want to get into.
16. So I’m still waiting for that rational case.
I’ve given you the rational case. If you pull your fingers out of your ears (or in this sense, your hands away from your eyes), you’d hear the rational case.
You’ve demonstrated that some states have declared a purpose of marriage that excludes homosexuals, but that’s simply telling me what things are today.
Yes, and the way they’ve been for 300 years or so. It’s a pretty good indication of that rational case you supposedly want.
That doesn’t tell me why they should remain so tomorrow.
Well, yes, it does. Because the definition of marriage as we know it didn’t just spring forth from Zeus’ forehead, fully formed. It came about because enough people realized that this was the best way of creating families, and that creating those families provided a society benefit.
That doesn’t tell me that that state hasn’t violated the Constitutional rights of its gay citizens.
Again, yes, it does. Gay people do not have a Constitutional right to marriage.
That doesn’t tell me why gays can’t be added to the rest of those who can marry.
Nobody here has argued they can’t be added to state definitions of marriage.
That doesn’t tell me gay marriages are going to affect straight marriage.
Actually, I did, when I pointed out the other marital forms which will (and are) seeking validation of their marriages. And all such changes will inevitably weaken the original purpose of marriage.
That doesn’t tell me why it isn’t in state interest to stabilize the homosexual community with officially recognized monogamy…etc., etc.
It might be in a state’s interest to do all that. And they can do that right now, Jeromy. But you don’t really want states to do this. You want the U.S. government to force all states to recgonize gay marriage. Why? Because you don’t trust states to fulfill their obligation to create laws the people want.
But see, I have more faith in the legislature than that. I think if people really want gay marriage, then they can persuade enough other people to change their state’s definition of marriage. Until that happens, there’s no reason to do it by judicial fiat.
Time to show whether you can actually think and reason about this subject, Sharon, or if you’re just skating by on some cheap lawyer rhetoric.
shorter Jeromy: I’ve run out of arguments but I’m scared to death to admit I’ve lost.
Bingo!
I’ll have to respond tomorrow, but my, my, my…you really are getting unhinged there, Sharon. I’m bigoted against logic? Looks like you caught a case of assertional logorrhea. You should really calm yourself down before you try debating. I’m very passionate about logic, Sharon, very concerned about establishing premises, avoiding relying on fallacies, making proper conclusions, etc. It’s the method that allows me to untangle your contorted harpy shrieks and sort out when you’re putting forth something new and when you’re simply repeating your rhetoric.
However, I will ask for that link you mentioned that tells us how gay marriage isn’t monogamy. I must have missed this fine objective bit of research. I would surely not be able to conclude that being called a bigot by you would be a badge of distinction, and that you were merely a projecting pig.
I’ll have to respond tomorrow, but my, my, my…you really are getting unhinged there, Sharon.
There’s nothing unhinged about pointing out all the various flaws in your arguments, Jeromy, including the logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and complete lack of logic. You can’t make your arguments reasonably, so you resort to the oldest trick in the liberal playbook: attack the other person and say they are being illogical.
I’m bigoted against logic? Looks like you caught a case of assertional logorrhea.
Nope. You’ve argued repeatedly for one thing, then when that argument didn’t pan out, argued the other direction. First you argued that the right to homosexual marriage is found in the U.S. Constitution. Then, when that didn’t work for you, you argued that the Massachusetts case was somehow dispositive, even though I had told you repeatedly that states may interpret their own constitutions any way they choose. It’s illogical to keep changing your arguments, then act like, amazingly, I didn’t tell you these truths at the very beginning of the argument.
You should really calm yourself down before you try debating. I’m very passionate about logic, Sharon, very concerned about establishing premises, avoiding relying on fallacies, making proper conclusions, etc.
How do you explain, then, your constant logical fallacies, if you are so “passionate” about logic? It stands to reason you are either lying or stupid and, frankly, I haven’t decided which yet.
It’s the method that allows me to untangle your contorted harpy shrieks and sort out when you’re putting forth something new and when you’re simply repeating your rhetoric.
Ah yes, there’s more of that dispassionate appeal to reason (“contorted harpy shrieks”). Well, Wile E. Coyote, keep claiming that you’re larger, faster and more intelligent. Meanwhile, I’ll just put dynamite down your pants and we’ll see who’s right.
However, I will ask for that link you mentioned that tells us how gay marriage isn’t monogamy. I must have missed this fine objective bit of research.
I gave you the link to the study of homosexual behavior farther back up the post. You want to find it, do it yourself. But again, you dismiss studies–and mountains of case law–that don’t support your opinions, so why bother?
I would surely not be able to conclude that being called a bigot by you would be a badge of distinction, and that you were merely a projecting pig.
oh, I’m so huuuurt! Being called names by such a big, strong, pompous ass idiot like you is just soooo painful.
A word of advice, Jeromy. Try to keep your emotions out of the argument. That way you’ll only look like a moron when you try to make my arguments to support your case.
1. So you can’t point out the substantive difference between the Constitutional reading in Massachusetts and the federal Constitution. I didn’t think so. What you’re left with is treating this like a basketball game- ‘I got more cases that agree with me!â€
Wonderful, Sharon, now good luck on freezing time forever so that nothing may ever change.
2. The Founding Fathers may have left some things to the states, but, of course, the 14th Amendment still binds the states to not violate the rights of citizens. A state can no more irrationally bar homosexuals from equal treatment than the federal government can.
3. That was cute how you completely skirted past your either/or fallacy! Fallacies are tools to you, right, Sharon?
4. No, Sharon, relying on tradition is a fallacy to anybody who actually paid attention in logic class. I understand you want to rewrite the rules to support your irrational argumentative techniques. You can’t. You don’t get to continue discriminatory behavior against homosexuals just because you always used to be able to. That’s simply not a reason, since, as I mentioned, time, at least in Newtonian physics, has a way of moving forward. Today’s radical new change is tomorrow’s tradition.
5. States have the power to regulate marriages, Sharon, but not to shut out homosexuals entirely.
6. If everybody gets a pony, Sharon, then you can’t limit the number of marriages to anything, or even demand everybody in a marriage be united as one. Bob gets 50 husbands and wives, all who have their own husbands and wives, whatever.
7.
They don’t. Polygamy has a range of problems that are unique to polygamy.
8. There’s nothing unwieldy about gay marriage, and comparing it to polygamy is absurd. Nearly every aspect of marriage law is left unscathed by allowing men and women to marry within their own gender. The two-person structure is intact. Polygamy blows it wide open, especially, Sharon, if everybody gets a pony.
I don’t think everybody gets a pony, never have, and I’ve never argued it. Not everybody can have everything, but to leave homosexuals out entirely is unjustifiable.
9. I’m quite comfortable, Sharon. Thanks for being concerned though. I’m curious though, how to people who argue in favor of gay marriage make others uncomfortable? By the mere mention of their humanity? Also, do you suppose heterosexuals have ever made things uncomfortable for gay people?
10. No luck on that study yet, eh? Feel free to tell me more of your opinions about gay people though. You seem to keep dodging whether or not homosexuality is a choice.
11. Obviously a lot of the initial gay marriages were backlogged, people who would have married decades ago. Doesn’t a decline after a few years seem elementary, Sharon? BTW, relevance? We’re talking about individual rights here, surely there are enough couples out there to matter, no? Last I checked, they were still U.S. citizens.
12. I’m not really sure how many articles it would take to convince me polygamy is a right. I think it’s kind of important what people say, not how often they say it. I guess that’s one of the many places where you and I part company.
13. Actually most of the arguments in favor of polygamy, i.e. tradition, religion, breeding, etc. are the arguments against homosexuality.
14. Yes, most people, by a steadily dropping gap, support you at the moment, Sharon. Again, do you tell them they’re irrational for doing so?
So is it that opposition to gay marriage is rational, but opposition to polygamy is irrational, Sharon? Is that really what you’re saying? Because that would imply even more differences between them.
15. I’m still not sure where my argument against polygamy is emotional. Are you writin’ checks your rhetoric can’t cash, Sharon?
16.
They have the right to free speech, of course. But the suffragettes didn’t get a free ride, they earned the ride. The connections were logical. Just like my connection of gay marriage to miscegenation is logical. Just like the 14th Amendment demands equal treatment of citizens. It’s all still thoroughly valid, Sharon, and I haven’t dropped as many arguments as you seem to think I have. You’d have to knock one down first.
17. You said, Sharon, that allowing gay marriage was giving everybody a pony. How can you put any limit on the number of marriages if everybody gets ponies, Sharon? Stop dodging the question.
18. I’ll continue to consider item #12 of yours to be pure comedy gold. Bigoted against case law!
19. You’ve not “explained†anything to me about the purpose of marriage, Sharon, you’ve simply offered assertions I’m already very familiar with. Over, and over again.
20. The 9th Amendment demands respect be given for the rights of the individual. It exists to guarantee that the Constitution is not seen as a complete list of rights. To have a bias in favor of individual rights, Sharon, is to be following the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. That is not looking for loopholes, which is what you’re doing in order to horde the state’s power to regulate on your favorite hot-button moral issues.
Again, I did not need concurrence in Massachusetts to justify my decision, Sharon, it was merely a pleasant bonus to stop your endless “Do you have any case law!?!?!†yammering. The Constitution and Reason are really all one needs. If you have both on your side, you have a chance in court to establish a superior interpretation of the Constitution’s penumbra.
Still, you keep acting like I pulled an appeal to authority when I merely answered your question. I appealed, Sharon, to the logic presented by the Massachusetts court in the rational basis weighing of gay marriage.
You have not interrupted that logic.
21. “Your argument boils down to “It’s not fair that gay people can’t marry each other like straight people do.â€â€
Not fair, equal, honorable, logical, justifiable, warranted, reasonable, ethical, rational, or constitutional, actually. And personally I consider it quite immoral, but that’s a personal conclusion not a premise.
22. I always explain why I consider something a fallacy, Sharon. Accusing me of not is lying. You’ve been awfully short on the “why,†Sharon, although I keep asking. Why must childbearing be the sole exclusive purpose of marriage? People that want to get married and have children do so. People who can never have children still find partners they want to marry. Marriage covers both, Sharon, and quite aptly, which is why non-breeding heterosexual spouses aren’t technicalities. They’re marriages. Their rights aren’t denied because they’re barren, and any serious court would back any sterile heterosexual up were they denied.
That is a gaping hole in your argument.
23. “Gay people don’t have ‘little accidents’…â€
Again, gay couples don’t make children directly with each other, but this doesn’t mean they don’t end up with them anyway. How they got the child is completely irrelevant to the environment that kid is going to grow up in. Those kids could benefit from married parents too.
24. “There’s no…rational basis for treating sexual orientation like sex.â€
Why? Not all men team up with women. Expecting them to be content marrying women is discriminating against them on the basis of their sex. Expecting all women to marry men is unequal treatment. There’s a reliable percentage of the population that standard gender roles simply don’t apply to. Psychologically, rationally, this is considered completely normal and not something these people need to “fix.†To exclude them from marriage, something many gay couples can do better than many straight couples is irrational.
25. “Because the definition of marriage as we know it didn’t just spring forth from Zeus’ forehead, fully formed. It came about because enough people realized that this was the best way of creating families, and that creating those families provided a society benefit.â€
You’re still not telling me the why, Sharon. Yes, I know most societies were highly ignorant about homosexuality. Obviously older societies never thought to include it, it was usually considered kind of them not to imprison or execute somebody for being homosexual. Some societies today still criminalize homosexuality. This does not tell me why they should continue, it only tells me what they do.
That’s why appeals to tradition are fallacies, Sharon. Slavery was a tradition too. Again, good luck with that time-freezing machine.
26. Who says gay marriage weakens straight marriage? It’s certainly not going to affect my parents’ marriage. Anybody you know, perhaps?
The truth is that I’m simply about allowing gays to live out their lives much the same way straight people do. The two will no more intermingle and impact each other than they do now. Heterosexuals will still get married, Sharon. The suggestion that gay marriage “weakens†marriage is code for people who would view gay marriage as besmirching straight marriage, making it “dirty.†Allowing a sinful homosexual couple into the institution corrupts it, goes the thinking.
You’re a rightwinger who knows the rightwinger lingo. Whoopty doo, so do I.
27. I expect states to pass laws that are Constitutional, not just whatever the hell the people want. Some people are just Confederate Christian Dominionists who see the Constitution as the heresy of men. Many people are just like I was when I was a kid in rural Iowa, caught up in a Darwinian environment where masculinity is constantly challenged. And the teaching of Constitutional rights in schools is usually atrocious. The Constitution confers upon the states a responsibility to abide by it, not whatever the people want.
1. So you can’t point out the substantive difference between the Constitutional reading in Massachusetts and the federal Constitution. I didn’t think so. What you’re left with is treating this like a basketball game- ‘I got more cases that agree with me!â€
You want a substantive difference? Here’s the substantive difference: states may interpret their constitutions in ways barred by the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because the breadth and purpose of state and federal regulation is different.
If I disagree with some state regulation, I can move to another state and not be burdened with that regulation. But if the federal judiciary (since we can’t expect Congress to legislate, right?) suddenly “finds” a right never before seen in the Constitution, it affects every American citizen. That’s a pretty substantive difference.
It’s no fluke that so many states haven’t found a right to homosexual marriage in their state Constitutions (and there are literally dozens). The fact that you have to argue that the number doesn’t matter shows the weakness in your argument.
Face it, Jeromy. Your side gave up on the amendment process and legislative change when it couldn’t get the ERA passed. From 1982 on, liberals haven’t even attempted to mount real change through the legislative process. Why? Because trying to persuade people of the rightness of some change is just too difficult for liberals to deal with. Instead, it’s a lot easier to persuade 5 judges that some right–a right never heard of in Anglo-American jurisprudence has been hidden for hundreds of years. This is not what our legal system was designed to do. If you want to change the law, then go through your legislatures and change the damn law. If you really, really think homosexual marriage is a fundamental right, then go through the amendment process. That’s what black people did. That’s what women did. Homosexuals aren’t more special than they, are they?
2. The Founding Fathers may have left some things to the states, but, of course, the 14th Amendment still binds the states to not violate the rights of citizens. A state can no more irrationally bar homosexuals from equal treatment than the federal government can.
The federal government can bar a variety of activity not deemed to be sufficiently worthy to society, Jeromy. The 14th Amendment doesn’t require the federal government to treat homosexuals as a suspect classification, and the vast majority of case law supports the idea of marriage as a one man-one woman institution. You want to change that, go through the amendment process.
3. That was cute how you completely skirted past your either/or fallacy! Fallacies are tools to you, right, Sharon?
It’s not cute that you can’t put together an argument without resorting to logical fallacy, including this one.
4. No, Sharon, relying on tradition is a fallacy to anybody who actually paid attention in logic class. I understand you want to rewrite the rules to support your irrational argumentative techniques. You can’t. You don’t get to continue discriminatory behavior against homosexuals just because you always used to be able to. That’s simply not a reason, since, as I mentioned, time, at least in Newtonian physics, has a way of moving forward. Today’s radical new change is tomorrow’s tradition.
The argument from tradition isn’t that we should do something simply because it has always been done some particular way. The argument is that marriage has been traditionally defined a particular way because human beings understood certain relationships were more important than others. That’s why, as important as friendships are, they aren’t regulated by the state, either. Having children is a bigger burden and benefit to society than two people loving each other. Why? Because the children have certain needs that are considered more important than the wants of adults. Ensuring that children have always grown up in the best and most stable situations available has a societal benefit because those children are far more likely to grow up and be good citizens.
The view of marriage you advocate is a completely selfish one, concerned only with the internal happiness of the couple involved. Am I happy in my marriage? Absolutely. But there are lots of relationships that can be personally fulfilling. Marriage is supposed to be about more than just that rather shallow purpose. Again, I have no problem with you advocating a legislative change of definitions. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences involved.
5. States have the power to regulate marriages, Sharon, but not to shut out homosexuals entirely.
Yes, they do, Jeromy. That’s why Massachusetts has gay marriage and Indiana does not.
6. If everybody gets a pony, Sharon, then you can’t limit the number of marriages to anything, or even demand everybody in a marriage be united as one. Bob gets 50 husbands and wives, all who have their own husbands and wives, whatever.
Why not? Government limits the number of ponies you get all the time. You can’t be married to more than one person at the same time. Most states have a limit on the number of times one can be married. And if you want to go to the more mundane, the state absolutely regulates how many ponies you can have and where you can have them. You can’t keep a pony in your backyard in the city, for example.
7. They don’t. Polygamy has a range of problems that are unique to polygamy.
But you have repeatedly used the same sorts of arguments that people who support traditional marriage use. Changing laws would be “too unwieldy.” “Polygamy (homosexuality) has unique problems in that it alters the basis for marriage.” And so on.
8. There’s nothing unwieldy about gay marriage, and comparing it to polygamy is absurd. Nearly every aspect of marriage law is left unscathed by allowing men and women to marry within their own gender. The two-person structure is intact. Polygamy blows it wide open, especially, Sharon, if everybody gets a pony.
Not really. I already gave you the family case law at the top of this post where homosexual couples are now fighting to have multiple people recognized as parents. That’s a definite change in the law and society. Why must they change the law? Because homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, requiring them to bring additional people into their relationships in order to create children.
I don’t think everybody gets a pony, never have, and I’ve never argued it. Not everybody can have everything, but to leave homosexuals out entirely is unjustifiable.
No, Jeromy, you don’t think everybody gets a pony. You just think that the group you support today should get one. That’s amazingly like the people who already get ponies and think that nobody else should have one. Oddly enough, the people who want to include today are always the ones who will insist on excluding tomorrow. But don’t tell them their irrational!
9. I’m quite comfortable, Sharon. Thanks for being concerned though. I’m curious though, how to people who argue in favor of gay marriage make others uncomfortable? By the mere mention of their humanity? Also, do you suppose heterosexuals have ever made things uncomfortable for gay people?
Unsurprisingly, I don’t worry about making people comfortable or not comfortable. And I’m quite comfortable with gay people, thanks for asking.
10. No luck on that study yet, eh? Feel free to tell me more of your opinions about gay people though. You seem to keep dodging whether or not homosexuality is a choice.
Still haven’t taken that Sylvan course yet? The study is back up in this comment thread. Look for it yourself and stop asking me to do your research for you.
11. Obviously a lot of the initial gay marriages were backlogged, people who would have married decades ago. Doesn’t a decline after a few years seem elementary, Sharon? BTW, relevance? We’re talking about individual rights here, surely there are enough couples out there to matter, no? Last I checked, they were still U.S. citizens.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for about 2-3 years, Jeromy. There should still be a backlog. The fact is, the number of homosexual couples lining up to be married there dropped off precipitously. Why is that relevant? Because it shows that marriage isn’t exactly the burning issue gay marriage supporters want you to believe. Are there some gay couples who want to be married. Absolutely. But those are the ones who went out to do it right away. The main purpose of legalizing gay marriage was to lay the foundation for requiring other rights.
12. I’m not really sure how many articles it would take to convince me polygamy is a right. I think it’s kind of important what people say, not how often they say it. I guess that’s one of the many places where you and I part company.
In other words, regardless of the evidence that contradicts your opinion, you will stubbornly cling to your belief in the Tooth Fairy. That’s fine for you. I, on the other hand, look at the case law and say, “Hmm. Is it really likely that so many learned people over so many years would be completely irrational about this? Or should I look at what they say and try to understand why the law would work this way.” It’s one of the things they teach in school, but I guess you missed that day to attend a rally to protest meat or something.
13. Actually most of the arguments in favor of polygamy, i.e. tradition, religion, breeding, etc. are the arguments against homosexuality.
That’s one side of the argument. The other side is that when the discussion centers on personal happiness, it’s difficult to argue that homosexuals have a greater right under law to personal happiness than polygamists.
14. Yes, most people, by a steadily dropping gap, support you at the moment, Sharon. Again, do you tell them they’re irrational for doing so?
Why would I tell them that? Unlike you, I don’t feel compelled to tell people that they are “unfair” and “wrong.” I’m just pointing out all the inconvenient facts to you.
So is it that opposition to gay marriage is rational, but opposition to polygamy is irrational, Sharon? Is that really what you’re saying? Because that would imply even more differences between them.
I think opposition to both is perfectly rational. Or opposition to both can be irrational. It all depends on the person.
15. I’m still not sure where my argument against polygamy is emotional. Are you writin’ checks your rhetoric can’t cash, Sharon?
Your arguments against polygamy still boil down to the fact you think they are icky. So, you cover up by saying it would be “unwieldy” for the state to regulate the number of persons who could get married (when they do that already) or point to historical inequities in polygamist marriages (inequities which existed in traditional marriage, as well). Thus, your argument boils down to policy, which is always an emotional argument. Remember, first year law students always argue policy when they run out of facts and case law.
16. They have the right to free speech, of course. But the suffragettes didn’t get a free ride, they earned the ride. The connections were logical. Just like my connection of gay marriage to miscegenation is logical. Just like the 14th Amendment demands equal treatment of citizens. It’s all still thoroughly valid, Sharon, and I haven’t dropped as many arguments as you seem to think I have. You’d have to knock one down first.
There’s nothing illogical about the polygamist use of gay rights arguments, Jeromy. They all revolve around the idea that the wants and desires of the individual are paramount. You just don’t like their desires.
And your arguments about miscegenation were already knocked down, Jeromy. That’s why you dropped it in favor of something else. Which you dropped in favor of something else. Which you–well, you get the picture.
17. You said, Sharon, that allowing gay marriage was giving everybody a pony. How can you put any limit on the number of marriages if everybody gets ponies, Sharon? Stop dodging the question.
This is just a restatement of the previous questions about pony jurisprudence, and I already answered it. But, since you’re a slow learner, I’ll repeat it. Just because everybody gets a pony doesn’t mean the government can’t regulate how many you get or when you can ride your pony or what you have to feed your pony or how you take care of your pony. Why is that? Because you don’t have a right to do whatever you want with your pony, even as a fundamental right. Believe it or not, there are limits even to fundamental rights.
18. I’ll continue to consider item #12 of yours to be pure comedy gold. Bigoted against case law!
Shorter Jeromy: I’m an idiot who can’t make a cogent argument!
19. You’ve not “explained†anything to me about the purpose of marriage, Sharon, you’ve simply offered assertions I’m already very familiar with. Over, and over again.
Yet again, you prove you can’t read or comprehend. If this is how you think you win arguments, then it is no wonder people walk away from you. It’s like having a conversation with a very stupid dog.
20. The 9th Amendment demands respect be given for the rights of the individual. It exists to guarantee that the Constitution is not seen as a complete list of rights. To have a bias in favor of individual rights, Sharon, is to be following the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. That is not looking for loopholes, which is what you’re doing in order to horde the state’s power to regulate on your favorite hot-button moral issues.
The 9th Amendment does not demand government action, Jeromy, which is what you want. In fact, the 9th Amendment deliberately bars state action for an unenumerated list of rights.
21. Not fair, equal, honorable, logical, justifiable, warranted, reasonable, ethical, rational, or constitutional, actually. And personally I consider it quite immoral, but that’s a personal conclusion not a premise.
This is an emotional argument. Congratulations, Jeromy. You’re entitled to your opinion.
22. I always explain why I consider something a fallacy, Sharon. Accusing me of not is lying. You’ve been awfully short on the “why,†Sharon, although I keep asking. Why must childbearing be the sole exclusive purpose of marriage? People that want to get married and have children do so. People who can never have children still find partners they want to marry. Marriage covers both, Sharon, and quite aptly, which is why non-breeding heterosexual spouses aren’t technicalities. They’re marriages. Their rights aren’t denied because they’re barren, and any serious court would back any sterile heterosexual up were they denied.
If what you mean is you keep repeating yourself, that’s not explaining anything. Why is creating a place to have and raise children the primary purpose of marriage? Because it is the one thing that marriage offers society that is most beneficial. Everything else you argue for in marriage (companionship, happiness, etc.) are areas that can happen naturally without interference from the government. The reason the government regulates in the interest of children is because society benefits from happy, stable children raised by parents who will be invested in the outcome.
Yes, some heterosexuals don’t have children. But that’s the exception to the rule. Rules are made for the majority of cases, not the exceptions.
23. Again, gay couples don’t make children directly with each other, but this doesn’t mean they don’t end up with them anyway. How they got the child is completely irrelevant to the environment that kid is going to grow up in. Those kids could benefit from married parents too.
You either don’t have children or are just willfully stupid. This is almost as ridiculous as your argument about who can have sex, and not nearly as amusing. It’s totally relevant how people end up with children. There’s an enormous difference in two people determining to go through the headaches involved with in vitro fertilization and two people who have an oopsie. People who go through the one process are totally invested in the best interest of the soon to be child. By definition, such parents are more likely to do all in their power to be good parents. In the second instance, the parents did not make a conscious decision to have children. They may be good parents or they may not. But marriage creates a bond between those people that typically leads them to work together for a common good, as opposed to simply their own happiness.
24. Why? Not all men team up with women. Expecting them to be content marrying women is discriminating against them on the basis of their sex. Expecting all women to marry men is unequal treatment. There’s a reliable percentage of the population that standard gender roles simply don’t apply to. Psychologically, rationally, this is considered completely normal and not something these people need to “fix.†To exclude them from marriage, something many gay couples can do better than many straight couples is irrational.
Because sex has been a bar which prevented women from fulfilling essential life functions for millenia. Homosexuality has not been such a bar. You just can’t marry that cute guy. That’s not the same thing as telling someone they can’t contract or own property.
25. You’re still not telling me the why, Sharon. Yes, I know most societies were highly ignorant about homosexuality. Obviously older societies never thought to include it, it was usually considered kind of them not to imprison or execute somebody for being homosexual. Some societies today still criminalize homosexuality. This does not tell me why they should continue, it only tells me what they do.
You mistake rejection for ignorance, Jeromy. Not every relationship is equal or deserving of state sanction.
26. Who says gay marriage weakens straight marriage? It’s certainly not going to affect my parents’ marriage. Anybody you know, perhaps?
The truth is that I’m simply about allowing gays to live out their lives much the same way straight people do. The two will no more intermingle and impact each other than they do now. Heterosexuals will still get married, Sharon. The suggestion that gay marriage “weakens†marriage is code for people who would view gay marriage as besmirching straight marriage, making it “dirty.†Allowing a sinful homosexual couple into the institution corrupts it, goes the thinking.
So, if a law doesn’t affect you personally, you don’t think a person should have an opinion about it? Drug laws don’t affect me personally. Does that mean I shouldn’t think drug use is a problem? What about regulation of alcohol? I don’t drink, so why should I care? Do you think divorce affects your marriage? If not, then why not just let anybody get divorced. Oh, wait. We have that. And all those kids affected by divorce affect all those kids whose parents are still together. See, it’s not about whether something affects you personally. But then, again, you are a liberal, so I can see how the world revolves around you.
27. I expect states to pass laws that are Constitutional, not just whatever the hell the people want. Some people are just Confederate Christian Dominionists who see the Constitution as the heresy of men. Many people are just like I was when I was a kid in rural Iowa, caught up in a Darwinian environment where masculinity is constantly challenged. And the teaching of Constitutional rights in schools is usually atrocious. The Constitution confers upon the states a responsibility to abide by it, not whatever the people want.
Um, you do know that the Constitution was created by people to be what people want, right? And that’s what legislation is about: making the laws people want. Your ignorance is absolutely amazing.
BTW, is there any way you could shorten your argument list? I know that liberals like to argue every period in a sentence as a way to supposedly “win,” but you had multiple points arguing the same thing. Try to be a bit more concise.
Exactly. Sharon 1, Jeromy 0
Sharon 2, Jeromy 0
Insert “Polygamy” for “gay marriage” and your question remains the same.
Eric 1, Jeromy 0
Seriously, your arguments would be a lot stronger if you’d at least concede the possibility that many of the arguments that apply to gay marriage apply to polygamy as well. Ditto for arguments against both. And, as a purely practical matter, if the advocates for legalizing one of them prevail, it then establishes a precedent that would greatly encourage advocates of the other.
Keep in mind, Eric, that Jeromy is boxed into the argument that there are no fundamental differences between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, but profound differences between monogamous marriage and polygamous marriage. Such arguments are nonsense, of course, because there are profound differences in all sorts of marriages. But he must continue to argue that the number of persons in a marriage is what makes the difference. This is a pretty shallow difference, but, hey, that’s what he wants to argue.
And while he argues verbosely about these trivial differences, he dismisses the essential difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual ones. That is, there are no “accidents” in homosexual relationships that alter those relationships profoundly, unlike heterosexual couplings. There’s many a book and movie made about that happening, and that traumatic alteration of relationships is why we have marriage as we know it.
IMO, if Jeromy wanted to make a better argument than all the stuff and nonsense he has so far bloviated, it would be this: Marriage is no longer about being the fundamental building block of society, but is simply another choice people make in living arrangements. With better and more reliable contraception, married couples can (and do) spend far more of their time together alone (generally speaking) than they do raising children, and because of this, the purpose of marriage has been fundamentally altered from one of creating a family to one of personal fulfillment in a couple.
But that’s not Jeromy’s argument (and he cannot co-opt it now). His argument is about “fairness,” without understanding the amazing amount of hypocrisy in being overly concerned with “fairness” to people who have never had the right to marry, while dismissing the “unfairness” of denying marriage to people who have historically had it. Amazing!
I think Jeromy considers himself to be an activist. Just like our friend Jes, he will constantly and repeatedly make the same points over and over again not because they are either true or logical, but because he has been taught that “reframing” the argument will, over time, influence some people, possibly some of the casual readers of this blog. He is not particularly good at it, but he makes up for that with energy.
Fine, I’ll avoid a bullet-list, Sharon. It’s time, Sharon, to break down your fundamental and willful misunderstandings and fallacious structure and make some conclusions. For instance, look at this exchange:
What fallacy? This was pure “I’m rubber you’re glue!†Sharon. I keep identifying the specific fallacies you rely on, and you keep saying back to me, “You’re committing fallacies!†“Oh, that was a big fallacy!†“Did I mention your argument is a fallacy?â€
One could read every word you’ve written and not be entirely sure you understand what fallacies are, Sharon. This would explain why this debate is going on as it does, because you simply don’t understand the difference between logic and rhetoric. Really, if you were denied the straw man, you’d barely be able to speak. Look at this one:
Or when I stated my feelings about the immorality of bigotry towards homosexuals were simply a person conclusion, not a premise in my argument, you responded, “That’s an emotional argument.†What, are you snorting meth to keep up with me?
Really, I hesitate to just brand you a liar because you’re trained to shriek louder (while hurling every name in the book at me, mind you), but honestly, what am I supposed to think at this point? I’m debating somebody who isn’t operating in good faith.
You’ve insisted every argument I’ve made against polygamy isn’t rational, but then when finally cornered you say there could be a rational case against government recognition of polygamy. Nice flip flop there, Sharon. Of course, you stop just shy of implying that there’s a rational case for gay marriage, which would make possible the scenario in which rationality advocates both supporting gay marriage rights and maintaining the status quo on marriage as a monogamous institution. Oily, Sharon.
You’ve insisted that all bets are off for polygamy if gay rights wins, but then claim that the state could still limit the number of people in a marriage, it just can’t pick “2.†The two arguments are complete opposites, I’ve called you on it, yet you just glide along.
You’ve repeatedly claimed equivalence between a homosexual afforded no marriage and a polygamist afforded one. This is because you apparently view homosexuality as a behavior, and thus a choice. Yet you won’t answer if you think homosexuality is a choice. Surely otherwise you’d understand the difference between a homosexual and a polygamist, the difference between a right to a thing and the desire to have as many of those things as you want.
This is what happens when you skirt fundamental premises, Sharon. And when we dig into those premises, we hear things like “it would be good for homosexuals to marry heterosexually,†or “gay marriage isn’t monogamy,†or “gay marriage isn’t of value to the state,†etc. But as soon as the subject of your own sexuality comes up, you clam the hell up. At best I can expect a “Don’t be gross!†or some other variant, ala Bryan, which will just illustrate the hypocrisy all the more.
I ask why gay marriage will “weaken†het marriage, and you go on a diatribe about how everybody is affected by divorce. Well, obviously divorces that obliterate marriages weaken the institution. But you do all that and don’t even answer the question. Do you belong to the “As long as you keep talking, they haven’t beat you!†school of argumentation?
You declare marrying for love “a shallow purpose.†Non-breeding heterosexuals are waved in on a technicality, lumped in with the real married people who have children. You say, “Rules are made for the majority, not exceptions,†but it should be relatively simple enough to deny sterile couples marriage licenses, shouldn’t it? By your logic, the state can do it tomorrow.
This is really what completely undoes your “purpose of marriage†argument, because you repeatedly and pathologically assume marriage can only have one real purpose. Uno, no dos! Nicht mehr als eins! You seem completely ready to accept an alteration in the definition of marriage, but in Sharon’s world, it’s either/or. If marriage is an institution for uniting two people in love, then it’s no longer about the children.
Sounds like a strong reason to make sure non-reproductive heterosexuals don’t get married, Sharon. We can only have one purpose.
There’s no room for wavering here, Sharon. We must ban sterile marriages tomorrow. You don’t want to do it? Fine, but in my state we’re going to do it, because we care about families. In fact, we’re going to revoke marriage licenses from those who don’t have at least one child in the first ten years, maybe fifteen if we’re nice. Should be an easy case to defend in court, no? They don’t have “oopsies!â€
Yet no matter how many times I raise this question, you just roll right on.
When one looks at where you really stand, Sharon, it’s rather obligatory to disagree with you, emphatically. The truth is that the right to marry a person you love would be overwhelmingly victorious in every court right on up to the Supreme Court. Marriage would be vindicated as a mighty institution, attaining near universality in appeal among humans because of the wonders that arise from the union of persons. It would be seen to encompass a multitude of purposes, and love wouldn’t be seen as some accident of families, but the stuff families are made of. And the non-sterile marriage victory still wouldn’t necessarily argue that you’d have the right to marry everybody you loved, thus no guarantee of polygamy. Monogamy would be rock-solid intact.
Without the “one purpose,†Sharon, you’re just a bag of hot air. Straight people aren’t afforded the luxury of marrying for love by the state, it’s their right, and you’d be beaten bloody trying to take it away from them.
What fallacy? This was pure “I’m rubber you’re glue!” Sharon. I keep identifying the specific fallacies you rely on, and you keep saying back to me, “You’re committing fallacies!” “Oh, that was a big fallacy!” “Did I mention your argument is a fallacy?”
Jeromy, it is a logical fallacy to rely on ad hominem attacks repeatedly (as you do) to try to bolster your points. You also have constantly used argumentum ad ignorantiam (“you don’t know that fundamentally changing marriage would cause other marital forms to follow suit”), argumentum ad logicam (your straw man arguments), argumentum ad misericordiam (appeals to pity–it’s not “fair”), argumentum ad nauseam (repetition), and others. This is not an exhaustive list, but most of your arguments fall into these categories among others.
One could read every word you’ve written and not be entirely sure you understand what fallacies are, Sharon. This would explain why this debate is going on as it does, because you simply don’t understand the difference between logic and rhetoric.
And one could read every word of your arguments are realize you understand nothing of history or law. Frustrated you can’t get the last word? I warned you when you started this that you wouldn’t, but you blustered your way about.
Or when I stated my feelings about the immorality of bigotry towards homosexuals were simply a person conclusion, not a premise in my argument, you responded, “That’s an emotional argument.” What, are you snorting meth to keep up with me?
No, I’m pointing out yet another example of your emotional appeals. It’s fine for you to think traditional marriage bars homosexuals from marriage and that it is wrong, but, frankly, I don’t give a damn about your opinion there.
Really, I hesitate to just brand you a liar because you’re trained to shriek louder (while hurling every name in the book at me, mind you), but honestly, what am I supposed to think at this point? I’m debating somebody who isn’t operating in good faith.
Shorter Jeromy: I’ve run out of arguments. How do I get out of this?
You’ve insisted every argument I’ve made against polygamy isn’t rational, but then when finally cornered you say there could be a rational case against government recognition of polygamy. Nice flip flop there, Sharon. Of course, you stop just shy of implying that there’s a rational case for gay marriage, which would make possible the scenario in which rationality advocates both supporting gay marriage rights and maintaining the status quo on marriage as a monogamous institution. Oily, Sharon.
There’s no flip-flop in pointing out that a case could be made for polygamy and that your answers to the polygamy question don’t support your conclusion. As I said, you repeatedly use the same types of complaints about polygamy that people against gay marriage make, yet you see no irony! It’s hilarious! And I actually did make a rational case for gay marriage, but it isn’t the argument you’ve tried to make. In short, there’s nothing deceptive about the way I’ve effectively knocked down your arguments. You’re just frustrated because both law and history are on my side.
You’ve insisted that all bets are off for polygamy if gay rights wins, but then claim that the state could still limit the number of people in a marriage, it just can’t pick “2.” The two arguments are complete opposites, I’ve called you on it, yet you just glide along.”
No, Jeromy. The state could legalize polygamy, yet still set a limit to the number of persons one can be married to at the same time, just as it does now. Law isn’t as crude as you are. I haven’t just “glided along.” I’ve explained to you repeatedly that the state, in fact, does regulate the number of persons to whom one can be married, both presently and in the past and future (most states have a limit on the number of times one can be married). It is YOU who have “glided along,” refusing to accept that legalizing polygamy doesn’t mean you have to legalize a 100-person marriage. The state still has the authority to limit the number of persons in a marriage, even if some polygamists would consider that unfair. Now you just sound desperate.
You’ve repeatedly claimed equivalence between a homosexual afforded no marriage and a polygamist afforded one. This is because you apparently view homosexuality as a behavior, and thus a choice. Yet you won’t answer if you think homosexuality is a choice. Surely otherwise you’d understand the difference between a homosexual and a polygamist, the difference between a right to a thing and the desire to have as many of those things as you want.
Legal marriage is a privilege awarded by the state to those unions it considers most beneficial to society. This has nothing to do with one’s views of homosexuality or polygamy, Jeromy. That’s why I say all your arguments are based on emotion. I am flattered that you still don’t know my particular views on homosexuality OR polygamy at this point, because my opinion about such matters is irrelevant.
This is what happens when you skirt fundamental premises, Sharon. And when we dig into those premises, we hear things like “it would be good for homosexuals to marry heterosexually,” or “gay marriage isn’t monogamy,” or “gay marriage isn’t of value to the state,” etc. But as soon as the subject of your own sexuality comes up, you clam the hell up. At best I can expect a “Don’t be gross!” or some other variant, ala Bryan, which will just illustrate the hypocrisy all the more.
First, I said gay people have married heterosexually and that, from the statistics, gay married couples don’t look at monogamy the way straight people do. And no, gay marriage has never been a value of the state because they don’t naturally produce offspring (and up until the last 20 years, couldn’t ever produce children). There’s no value judgment placed on those statements, Jeromy. This is what you are angry about. I state inconvenient facts, and you can’t dismiss them just because they don’t say what you want. That’s because all your arguments boil down to the idea that not permitting gay marriage is unfair. No amount of history, law, or logic will ever penetrate that. Let’s face it: you need for me to make an appeal to something you can argue about, like Biblical interpretation or feelings about gay people, because you think your emotional arguments are more appealing than those emotional arguments.
I’m not into that sort of argumentation, Jeromy. I look at history and I look at law and I ask myself, “Why do we have the laws we have? What purpose do they serve and what purpose have they served in the past? Is there reason to change them and what is the best way to do that?” But instead of just agreeing on the points we can–that states have the right to interpret their own constitutions any way they desire and that the will of the people should prevail–you want to endlessly argue that I’ve committed logical fallacies because I point out all the problems with your argument, or that polygamy isn’t like gay marriage. *eye roll*
I ask why gay marriage will “weaken” het marriage, and you go on a diatribe about how everybody is affected by divorce. Well, obviously divorces that obliterate marriages weaken the institution. But you do all that and don’t even answer the question. Do you belong to the “As long as you keep talking, they haven’t beat you!” school of argumentation?
I don’t have to do that, Jeromy. You just keep blathering on and on. I’ll be kind and not say you are lying about what you said. Instead, I’ll call it a mischaracterization. You asked me if I “knew anyone whose marriage had been affected” adversely by gay marriage. This is a logical fallacy, btw, since there aren’t enough gay marriages to have that sort of data available. That’s why I gave you divorce as an analogy. (Look that up in the dictionary, if you need to). See, once upon a time, a lot of particularly liberal people thought no-fault divorce would be a universal good, and so they passed a lot of laws to that affect. 40-50 years later, we see that no-fault divorce was not a universal good, and, in fact, has been very bad for marriage. But we can’t put that genie back in the bottle either. Substitute “gay marriage” for “divorce,” if you’re having trouble following along.
You declare marrying for love “a shallow purpose.” Non-breeding heterosexuals are waved in on a technicality, lumped in with the real married people who have children. You say, “Rules are made for the
majority, not exceptions,” but it should be relatively simple enough to deny sterile couples marriage licenses, shouldn’t it? By your logic, the state can do it tomorrow.
Yes, the state could bar sterile heterosexual couples from marrying tomorrow if they so desired. And I said that marrying for love is inherently selfish and self-centered because it is wholly about the couple. Anyone with children can tell you that raising them is a distinctly unselfish act. And law is about the majority, not the exceptions, Jeromy. There are lots of what are called “legal fictions” to deal with real life problems. The infertile heterosexual couple is one of them. Still, infertility among heterosexuals is extremely low, whereas gay couples cannot ever reproduce naturally.
This is really what completely undoes your “purpose of marriage” argument, because you repeatedly and pathologically assume marriage can only have one real purpose. Uno, no dos! Nicht mehr als eins! You seem completely ready to accept an alteration in the definition of marriage, but in Sharon’s world, it’s either/or. If marriage is an institution for uniting two people in love, then it’s no longer about the children.
Yes, in Sharon’s world–a.k.a., the real world–marriage has the primary purpose of creating an environment to have and raise children. You do know what primary means, right? There can be other purposes, but none of them are as important, nor do they require the government sanction of marriage that having children does.
Sounds like a strong reason to make sure non-reproductive heterosexuals don’t get married, Sharon. We can only have one purpose.
Jeromy shows his reading problem, again.
There’s no room for wavering here, Sharon. We must ban sterile marriages tomorrow. You don’t want to do it? Fine, but in my state we’re going to do it, because we care about families. In fact, we’re going to revoke marriage licenses from those who don’t have at least one child in the first ten years, maybe fifteen if we’re nice. Should be an easy case to defend in court, no? They don’t have “oopsies!”
Watch Jeromy come unravelled as he thinks he found a point. Too bad I dismantled it 2 paragraphs ago.
Yet no matter how many times I raise this question, you just roll right on.
Yes, that’s because I answered it in this comment and the previous one and the previous one and the previous one…
When one looks at where you really stand, Sharon, it’s rather obligatory to disagree with you, emphatically. The truth is that the right to marry a person you love would be overwhelmingly victorious in every court right on up to the Supreme Court…
The courts, Jeromy, agree with me. I’ve produced 3 times the cases (and can find many more) that agree with me about the primary purpose of marriage. None of that says 2 people loving each other isn’t ideal. But there’s never been a requirement that 2 people love each other to be married. Ever. You find me some court cases that require love for marriage, ok? Then we’ll discuss your blathering emotionally about it for a while.
Without the “one purpose,” Sharon, you’re just a bag of hot air. Straight people aren’t afforded the luxury of marrying for love by the state, it’s their right, and you’d be beaten bloody trying to take it away from them.
Nobody’s trying to take the right of marriage from straight people. But people get married for a whole host of reasons and love is only one of them. Or they may marry without being in love at all. The state doesn’t require love to get married.
I see you are now trying a diversionary tactic. Let’s see:
1. You ran out on the miscegenation argument. You lost that.
2. You ran out on the polygamist argument. You lost that.
3. You ran out on the Constitutional argument because you don’t have any cases to argue that. You lost that.
Looks to me like you’ve run out of arguments, Jeromy. The ones you’ve used so far don’t work.
So, let me ask you this, Jeromy. If you think gay marriage should be legal everywhere, why not try the amendment process?
“Yes, the state could bar sterile heterosexual couples from marrying tomorrow if they so desired.”
And Sharon officially oversteps. Slippery slopes, appeals to tradition, straw men, gross misinterpretation of other fallacies aside, since the average person doesn’t really care about fallacies…
We’ve gotten it down to the underlying bedrock of your argument, Sharon. This is you in the corner, following your logic to its inescapable end: banning sterile marriages is Constitutional. Nowhere left to go, you fessed up to it.
And it’s pure, unadulterated fiction. Which is why you’re sitting on a house of sand, Sharon. Team that up with your admission that opposition to polygamy is rational, what do you have left? More long windy “Here’s what you’re saying, Jeromy…” straw men? More assertions that I’ve dropped arguments that I still wholeheartedly avow?
I say you’d be defeated in every court in the land, Sharon, and you know it. Every constitutional argument I made about denying people marriage over some claim that marriage has ONE purpose would be validated.
Jeromy, you truly are desperate to get out of this argument, aren’t you? You haven’t been able to win on any point no matter what your argument, so now you’ve changed the topic entirely and think that supports your arguments for gay marriage. This is what is known as a red herring. There’s your latest logical fallacy.
Now, why don’t you answer my question about why your side won’t try the amendment process to legalize gay rights?
Sharon: Try this, Sharon: you haven’t been able to win on any point no matter what your argument, and now that you’re pinned you’re desperate to walk out of the situation holding your head high. Calling my examination of the fundamental building block of your position a “red herring” should do, no?
No need to back it up with specifics. Brass and noise works for Sharon.
Or accuse me of wanting out of the argument. Please, Sharon, I went six months with a libertarian over whether or not taxes were “theft.” I’m a marathon runner. But you were complaining about the length of my posts, so I thought I’d try to focus.
I think this is an excellent point to focus on. For you, gays have no more a right to marriage than sterile heterosexuals do. All of your logic applies, and you agreed, yep, that’s what you think.
So as far as the slippery slope goes, Sharon, it already began. As soon as sterile couples were allowed to marry, and married couples were allowed to remain childless, gays got it in their head they’d be allowed to marry. If you don’t like where things are heading, you’d better get started on banning sterile marriages tomorrow.
I think the issue has crystallized, Sharon. You say marriage has one purpose. Quit talking the talk and start walking the walk.
Jeromy said seriously?…
Thats what gave them the idea? Sure!
Of course, PG.
What are you laughing about?
I can marry the girl I love even if she’s barren. In fact, I believe I have the right to marry her. That’s what makes me think marriage has more than one single exclusive purpose, and that a gay woman should have the right to marry the girl she loves. The gay woman will, in turn, see me and feel the same. When I speak to her about it, we agree she has the right too. This isn’t about the idea of gay marriage itself, but the legality of it. The idea goes far, far back.
But we’ve opened Pandora’s box. We gave marriage to those who didn’t have the right, we diluted the one true purpose of marriage.
There’s nothing farcical about Sharon’s theories at all, PG. Sterile people do not have the right to marriage, and if you give them the right, then gays get the right to marriage too.
And if she’s bisexual, then she should have the right to marry a woman AND a man. I’m sure you can’t argue with that.
That was answered years ago, Eric. The bisexual’s right to marriage is recognized by giving him/her the choice of either man or woman to settle down with.
If you’re familiar with the bisexual point of view, it’s not automatically polygamous at all. The bisexual typically views their quest for the right person as unlimited by gender. Even if a girl works it out with her husband that she can have a little girlfriend action without it impacting their marriage, the average bisexual is unlikely to need two spouses more than a heterosexual or homosexual.
The bisexual is not denied marriage, he/she is asked to keep it to one at a time.
Exclusion is the issue, Eric.
Sharon: Try this, Sharon: you haven’t been able to win on any point no matter what your argument, and now that you’re pinned you’re desperate to walk out of the situation holding your head high. Calling my examination of the fundamental building block of your position a “red herring†should do, no?
Actually, you’re wrong yet again. I’ve consistently beaten back every individual argument you have tried to make about gay marriage with facts, history and case law. And, in fact, I already addressed your argument about sterile heterosexual couples when I discussed the “legal fiction” of law, which allows for the marriage of infertile couples.
Why does the law allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry? Because the percentage of such couples is so low as to be insignificant in comparison with the greater number of fertile heterosexual couples. That’s the way the law works, jeromy, believe it or not. We make rules that apply to the vast majority of people, then adjust those rules where needed.
How many homosexual couples can reproduce naturally without aid of science? The answer is: exactly zero. This is a major difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals with respect to having children.
The reason I call your argument a “red herring” (go look up the term, why don’t you?) is that it is a diversionary tactic. Just like all the other arguments you’ve made. As each argument gets shot down, you scramble for a new one. First it was miscegenation. Then it was the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Then it was the 9th Amendment in conjunction with the 14th Amendment. Then it was the Massachusetts state constitution. Then it was fairness. Now you are stuck on this.
And yes, you’ve displayed repeatedly how desperately you want out of the argument, Jeromy. You’ve bloviated and blustered for days about how you’ll “win” and I’ll run. Yet I’ve shown absolutely no interest in doing either. So now, you’re grasping at individual arguments in an attempt to change the subject. It’s a desperate move, Jeromy, designed to get the last word in, so you can convince yourself you “won.” It’s also nonsense.
I told you to combine your arguments because you had at least 3 bullet points concerning ponies and another 2 on your ridiculous meaning of the 9th Amendment. In other words, it wasn’t the format that was problematic, it was your argumentation (no surprise there!). And, frankly, deciding that infertile heterosexual couples is the argument you want to hang your hat on is no more logical than wasting the effort to write on the same issue 5 different ways.
BTW, you seem to have a difficulty distinguishing between the terms “one” and “primary.” You do know the difference, right? I’ve never said marriage has only one purpose, yet you constantly argue that I have. You do know what the phrase “the primary purpose of marriage” means, right?
And why are you so afraid to talk about the amendment process for legalizing gay rights?
I can marry the girl I love even if she’s barren. In fact, I believe I have the right to marry her. That’s what makes me think marriage has more than one single exclusive purpose, and that a gay woman should have the right to marry the girl she loves. The gay woman will, in turn, see me and feel the same. When I speak to her about it, we agree she has the right too. This isn’t about the idea of gay marriage itself, but the legality of it. The idea goes far, far back.
Yes, because it is statistically insignificant that one heterosexual couple is infertile when the vast majority of couples are fertile. But no homosexual couples can reproduce naturally, which is why their relationship does not fit the primary reason for marriage: having and raising children.
The truth is, Jeromy, the state has all sorts of requirements for marriage, and most of them relate, in some form or manner, to having children and what is best for them. The state does this because it is beneficial to society for healthy children to be produced and continue our society. That’s why first cousins can’t marry. Or brothers and sisters. It’s why people with some diseases like syphillis are barred from marriage in certain states. And–guess what?–it’s a major reason polygamy is banned in the U.S.
It doesn’t matter whether the couple is sterile or not. These rules apply to them regardless. We don’t allow first cousins to marry in general because such couplings offend western sensibilities concerning who should marry and why. And such couplings can produce less than perfect children. That’s why even a sterilized brother and sister cannot marry each other.
Want to explain why you’ve dodged the idea of amendment ratification for gay rights? You’re really trying desperately to ignore that question.
1. Miscegenation was still a violation of “the purpose of marriage,” changing it was “altering the purpose of marriage,” Sharon. Regarding marriage’s “primary purpose,” Sharon, the comparisons is sound.
2. The 9th Amendment still demands a bias towards liberty and individual rights, not your view of the Constitution as a series of loopholes where any unenumerated right is worthless.
3. The 14th Amendment still demands the states not violate the rights of citizens, and demands equal treatment.
4. Your harping of the word “fair” is really bleeding stupid.
Fair:
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
NOT
3. A word used by wimpy liberals to whine about anything they don’t like.
5. Gay marriage proponents think the Constitution already says enough. It’s you folks that think you need an amendment to make irrational discrimination against homosexuals Constitutional.
Now, bullet points aside, let’s focus again on the underlying bedrock of your argument. You’ve explained yet again why it is that sterile or non-reproducing heterosexuals are “allowed” into marriage. I understood it the first time, but you thought repeating a legal term again had some value, because that’s how you work. But your position is clear: those heterosexuals have no right to marriage, and it could be yanked away tomorrow.
Now you’ve shifted your position a little bit. Apparently, despite your talk of exclusivity, marriage no longer has one sole purpose, it has a primary purpose. But if non-reproductive heterosexuals don’t have the right to marriage, these secondary purposes are effectively worth squat to you. So the primary purpose is still the only effective factor, Constitutionally speaking to you. You’re fudging your language because you’ve painted yourself into a bit of a corner, but you’re essentially in the same place.
Unless you feel like changing your position a little more, Sharon.
Otherwise you still think the Supreme Court would ideally rule on the side of the state if it felt like doing away with the legal fictions and waving in heterosexual couples who aren’t going to be having “oopsies.”
And I think you’d lose so badly that the case would be laughed at for generations to come. Why? For the same reasons I’ve defended the right of gays to not be excluded from marriage, the same reasons many others besides myself, no matter how isolated I appear on your blog, to believe the Constitution expressly speaks out against this kind of exclusion, the same reasoning that won in Massachusetts, and which is still due its day in the Supreme Court.
So, is your position unchanged? Or did you want to weasel around some more?
Jeromy said:
1. Miscegenation was still a violation of “the purpose of marriage,” changing it was “altering the purpose of marriage,” Sharon. Regarding marriage’s “primary purpose,” Sharon, the comparisons is sound.
You do know that when black people and white people have sex, they can have babies, right? Just, right from the start. Anti-miscegenation laws violated the Constitution because it interfered with the fundamental right to heterosexual marriage enjoyed by all people, Jeromy. That’s what you learn if you look at Loving, anyway. Did you actually read the case?
2. The 9th Amendment still demands a bias towards liberty and individual rights, not your view of the Constitution as a series of loopholes where any unenumerated right is worthless.
The 9th Amendment stands against government intrusion into unenumerated rights. It does not allow you to demand that the government perform some affirmative action. This is your “give me a pony because it’s my right!” argument. If you want to go marry your homosexual lover, there are any number of ministers ready to do it. But the government (federal or state) do not have to recognize it as legal.
<