Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[DMerle]

Why is it a human right to be allowed to get married? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gays getting married (neither do I get why some of them desperately fight for a piece of paper, but if they want it let them have it). I mean, human rights is a big thing, it contains the most essential things which no human should be denied: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the right to a fair trial, the right to live. I don't really see why it is a human right to be allowed to have a piece of paper which says you will stay with one person forever and when you no longer want to stay with that person, he or she gets half your stuff. Oh yeah, there are also some tax-breaks you can get from that piece of paper but that doesn't appear to be the what they want because in countries where they can get a different piece of paper giving them the same tax-breaks as the marriage paper gives them. Marriage is far from a human right, cause it doesn't grant you freedom, it takes it away (ask any married man). The only thing it can grant you is a tax-break and the right to lose half your stuff.

Like I said, I'm not against gay marriage. I don't see any reason not to grant someone the paper. Why deny something because it is a different love when you can get it when there is no love? I just think that by claiming human rights they are overstating there case.

There are financial benefits to marriage, for instance a guy who gets health insurance with his job would be able to get his wife covered on it. As callous as it sounds but things like this alone can spur people to get married, not out of greed or anything just because the man would want to make sure his wife was covered in things like that. It's also links you to together in the eyes of the law, say your girlfriend of 10 years crashes in a car and ends up on a life support machine. If you were seen as just "boyfriend," then you're going to have less say. Not get to visit her at all and have no say in decisions like whether or not the machine should be turned off, it would all be up to that persons family.

Of course there are other more obvious reasons, we are all very social creatures and a marriage is obviously a big declaration of love, you can obviously see that some people just want to show the world how much they love there partner. It's not just "a piece of paper," it links you together in the eyes of the community, families, and of course the law.

 

[ALordZynix]

I know that there are financial benefits, though I forgot about the difference in health insurance policy in america and Holland. That is a bit bigger then just a tax-break. As for the crash-scenario, the family knows you and even though the hospital can't except you as a family member for legal reasons, her family will surely listen to your opinions. If her other family doesn't listen to you because they don't like you or if she doesn't have any family, you can write a living will instead of marry. Sure marriage is an much easier solution but all the benefits gained from marriage can be gained from other legal agreements. The pragmatic reasons just takeaway from the power of marriage as just a declaration of love. Of course, I get that some people and some communities still view marriage as the ultimate declaration of love like you say but not all communities and more importantly, not the family. I will agree that lets say being together for 5 years says less then when you have been married for 3 of those years but do you really think that a family sees any difference between 2 people who have been together for 30 years and people who have been together for 30 years while married for 20 of them. It's a momentary high point, deciding to marry. But the longer you are together the smaller the difference between a couple who is married and a couple who isn't.

You are there the moment you decide to get married, those two guys who know they want to marry each other are not less in love then the guy and the girl who have the paper.

At the risk of sounding very cynical, the reason why to many people marriage truly feels like a link is a bit because of the tradition but mostly because of the possible forfeit.

What I'm trying to convey is that the value of marriage is not a given, some people find a marriage more important then others. I know loads of people who have never married and probably never will but have been far longer together then some married couples of the same age. Personally I would love to reach the 60 years of marriage with someone I love, but most people consider me old-fashioned. Let them get married, they will probably cherish the right more them some others and there is no good reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be allowed to. But surely you agree that to call "marriage" a concept of which the value is personal a human right is an overstatement.

 

[dewey911p]

But surely you agree that to call "marriage" a concept of which the value is personal a human right is an overstatement.

Something that has always perplexed me about this debate is this very fact. It is not about the marriage. If two people are in love there is no state or religious institution that can do anything about that. I would also argue that the "right to marriage" is not an argument that humans have a right to get married, nor is it that this right is as innate as the right to life, but more so that the right to marry is about equality. As a male I can go marry any female I want as long as she does not share a certain chromosomal similarity to myself. At the same time, I cannot go out and marry any other man, based solely on the fact that he is a man. This is my main point: The ban on homosexual marriage is gender based discrimination and has become the crux of the crusade for homosexual equality. I find it amazing that this has never played out in a legal argument as gender based discrimination would pave the way to a suspect class well established by law and would thus engender strict scrutiny of all laws affecting the class. Of course that is a huge legal step to take and the field of law may not be ripe enough for such bold action, but I still find it surprising that the idea has never even been put forth, but I digress. During the 60s blacks used desegregation as their rallying point for equality. Court battles and political battles were waged based on this simple concept. Strom Thurmond even ran a presidential campaign on a segregationist platform. Eventually the issue was put to rest by a unanimous Supreme Court in Brown v. Board. However this was not the end of the civil rights movement. The movement continued out into the 60s and intensified. However, with the win in Brown, the black communtiy had a starting point for equality. No one said the black communtiy wanted to go to the same schools as whites, eat at the same resturants, ride the same buses or anything of the sort. No, the black community wanted to be able to do those things. I think it is the same with the homosexual community. Maybe homosexual couples do not care about marriage per se, but it would not be enough to grant all of the benefits of marriage while forbidding marriage at the same time. The issue is about equality and being treated fair.

 

[ALordZynix]

It is indeed discrimination, but it is not gender based discrimination. For something to be legally gender based discrimination it has to be specifically one set of rules for man, and one for woman. If you define marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman (which, I believe, is what the people who are against gays marrying are doing) instead of the legal union between two people who are in love, it is legally no longer discrimination. The fact that most of the time you want to marry is because of love becomes irrelevant because it is legally not necessary. The difference between the struggle of the black community and this becomes then that black people where not allowed to go the same schools as white people but gays are still allowed to marry, just not the kind of person they love.

To try and put it simply for the law a black man was not equal to a white man because he was not allowed to go to the same school but a gay men is equal to a straight man because they are both allowed to marry a woman (who can be either straight or gay).

When you bring love in to the equation it becomes unfair and discriminating that a gay couple can not get the same symbol of love as a straight couple, but because love is a concept you can not put in a legal definition (you could end up being denied a marriage license because a civil servant does not believe you are truly in love) it is technically not discriminating.

 

[dewey911p]

It is indeed discrimination, but it is not gender based discrimination. For something to be legally gender based discrimination it has to be specifically one set of rules for man, and one for woman.

To right you are! That is the standard legal definition of gender based discrimination. Title VII of the civil rights act specifically states discrimination is prohibited based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." However, it is undeniable that the reason homosexuals cannot get married the same as heterosexuals is based solely on their sex (which means gender of course, but just for the sake of clarity ...) As i stated before, 1 man cannot marry another man and 1 woman cannot marry another, and the only reason is because of the gender the two have. As it currently stands, there is no legal precedent for discrimination against homosexuals to be considered gender-based. Ergo, the courts have used rational basis, and on occasion heightened scrutiny, to judge laws adversely affecting homosexuals. However, since it is obvious that the discrimination is gender based, I still find it weird that the argument has not even been tested out yet in federal court. But as you pointed out, that is not the legal definition, and creating an entirely new area of jurisprudence is a huge step to say the least, and the courts may not be ready to go so far yet...

 

[ALordZynix]

I don't think there will ever be a legal way to get it, they only way is for the lawmakers to redefine marriage as "a legal union between two consenting adults" like we did in Holland. I really don't see what is against that, sadly the only thing that I can see in this debate is that the ones who don't want it hold almost all the cards.

 

[dewey911p]

I don't think there will ever be a legal way to get it, they only way is for the lawmakers to redefine marriage as "a legal union between two consenting adults" like we did in Holland. I really don't see what is against that, sadly the only thing that I can see in this debate is that the ones who don't want it hold almost all the cards.

Holland eh? I'm not sure how the legal system in Holland works in conjunction with the legislature, but a redefinition of marriage is not the only way to go about this. The current definition of marriage is laid out in DOMA, which is on its last leg and on its way to the Supreme Court. If they Supreme Court strikes down DOMA as unconstitutional then there will be no legal basis for claiming that marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman. If DOMA is not struck down this time, there are infinite arguments to be advanced for the cause of homosexuality and the demise of DOMA. In reality, Congress has done all it needs to with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and DOMA. There alone I can see enough legal ground to challenge the ban on homosexual marriage and De Jure acceptance of homosexuals as equals.

Of course Congress could make the whole process similar by repealing DOMA, but that is unlikely as it stands now.

 

[ALordZynix]

I must say I find it interesting to learn that it was only defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman in 1996. I might be drawing the wrong conclusions here and please correct me when I'm wrong but after doing a very quick read I see the purpose of DOMA to allow other states no not accept same-sex marriages performed in other states and also allows the federal government to not accept the marriage for federal purposes.

But even if DOMA gets repelled that doesn't mean that states that didn't allow same-sex marriage before DOMA will have to allow them now right? So if one state doesn't want same-sex marriage they don't have to allow them once DOMA is repelled, they just have to recognize ones that did happen. Or does the destruction of DOMA mean that every gay couple who wants to get married just go on vacation to a state that allows it and return as a married couple?

 

[dewey911p]

I must say I find it interesting to learn that it was only defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman in 1996. I might be drawing the wrong conclusions here and please correct me when I'm wrong but after doing a very quick read I see the purpose of DOMA to allow other states no not accept same-sex marriages performed in other states and also allows the federal government to not accept the marriage for federal purposes.

But even if DOMA gets repelled that doesn't mean that states that didn't allow same-sex marriage before DOMA will have to allow them now right? So if one state doesn't want same-sex marriage they don't have to allow them once DOMA is repelled, they just have to recognize ones that did happen. Or does the destruction of DOMA mean that every gay couple who wants to get married just go on vacation to a state that allows it and return as a married couple?

DOMA is a huge affront to the Full-Faith-and-Credit Clause of the Constitution. Here, Congress used a federal law to override a section of the Constitution, something it has no power to do. However, they can do it all they want, and it will stand, until someone challenges it, which has not happened until recently. If DOMA is ruled unconstitutional there are still many things that could happen. It could simply be voided under the Supremacy Clause (for violating the Full-Faith-and-Credit Clause) and the definition of marriage would remain undefined. In this situation, states would be free to define marriage as they please since it falls under the police powers and thus outside the purview of the federal government. However if this is the outcome, the Full-Faith-and-Credit Clause would come back into play and, as you said, couples could simply get married in another state and it would have to be recognized (although this would spawn many more lawsuits as states would fight this tooth and nail). Another path the Supreme Court could take would be to rule the definition itself unconstitutional. This would firmly establish the fact that defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman is unconstitutional, and implying that homosexual marriage is thus deserving of constitutional protection. They could also hold that DOMA is constitutional (which it is not) but was unconstitutionally applied. This would mean the law would stand, but the people currently affected by it would be exempt. This would be a narrow ruling only affecting those involved, but it could be a first step towards a more sweeping decision. There are still more legal avenues open to the Supreme Court, such as denying review, summary reversal, granting the dismissing, and many others. Striking down DOMA may not be the end to the issue of homosexual marriage, it all depends on how, if at all, DOMA is struck down, but it would be a bug First step.

 

[ALordZynix]

I understand how DOMA violates the Full-Faith-and-Credit Clause, but I do not see how the definition of "1 man 1 woman" violates the United States Constitution. Especially since some of the states (someone told me about half) have Civil Unions/Domestic Partnership granting very similar rights, you could argue that it is similar to still also having all-girls and/or all-boys schools: You as a boy can get just as good education, just not at the all-girls school.

 

[dewey911p]

I understand how DOMA violates the Full-Faith-and-Credit Clause, but I do not see how the definition of "1 man 1 woman" violates the United States Constitution. Especially since some of the states (someone told me about half) have Civil Unions/Domestic Partnership granting very similar rights, you could argue that it is similar to still also having all-girls and/or all-boys schools: You as a boy can get just as good education, just not at the all-girls school.

We have tried that before, we termed it "separate but equal." This was a legal principle laid out in Plessy V. Ferguson, and later rejected in Brown V. Board of Education because of the realization that "separate is inherently unequal." Just because civil unions "are almost the same" does not mean they are the same. However, if they are similar in everything but the name, what purpose is there to have a separate institution at all?

As for a constitutional violation from the "1 man 1 woman" definition, I would put forth the argument that this violates the 14th Amendments Equal Protection and Due Process clause. First, Homosexuals have been denied equal treatment, that is undeniable, and fortunately for them, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to all U.S. citizens under the law:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Nowhere is equal protection limited to heterosexuals and denied to homosexuals. The situation we face here is this: Heterosexuals enjoy legal recognition and protection that homosexuals do not. That is a text book example of a 14th Amendment violation. If we take away the sexual orientations involved we would see that 4 U.S. citizens would be treated differently under the same law. If our group of 4 contains 3 females and 1 male, and they paired off, the law would allow the male-female couple to marry, but not the female-female couple. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant as it is never even questioned, but the issue here would be that 4 U.S. citizens were treated differently under the law. Bring sexual orientations back into the fold and marriage can be regulated by the states as a matter of morals and the equal treatment of the individul under the law becomes harder to see for what it is.

I would posit that the 14th Amendment is the most likely avenue for homosexual couples to use in a legal battle for equal protection. The current legal battles are far more specific though and limited, but when the nation is ripe for a sweeping decision, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause and Due Process clause will no doubt be used to spear-head the issue.

 

[Dark God Heart]

Why is it a human right to be allowed to get married? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gays getting married (neither do I get why some of them desperately fight for a piece of paper, but if they want it let them have it). I mean, human rights is a big thing, it contains the most essential things which no human should be denied: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the right to a fair trial, the right to live. I don't really see why it is a human right to be allowed to have a piece of paper which says you will stay with one person forever and when you no longer want to stay with that person, he or she gets half your stuff. Oh yeah, there are also some tax-breaks you can get from that piece of paper but that doesn't appear to be the what they want because in countries where they can get a different piece of paper giving them the same tax-breaks as the marriage paper gives them. Marriage is far from a human right, cause it doesn't grant you freedom, it takes it away (ask any married man). The only thing it can grant you is a tax-break and the right to lose half your stuff.

Like I said, I'm not against gay marriage. I don't see any reason not to grant someone the paper. Why deny something because it is a different love when you can get it when there is no love? I just think that by claiming human rights they are overstating there case.

Um, I think you might be a little out of touch dude. But I'll go easy on you, because hey, you're from Holland. Things are different.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm

If you don't read anything, just read this exerpt.

In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage

Ho-hum.

Having such a linear view as to call marriage "just a piece of paper" is callously indifferent at worst and ignorant at best. Perhaps marriage has become increasingly irrelevant if not pointless in your culture, it hasn't yet in ours. Simply because something has traditional value doesn't mean its worth less than any other reason you would value something. Let's say the government of India made all traditional and cultural garb illegal for all people with green eyes to wear. Would you say "I don't see what they're whining about, they're just clothes. It's just tradition." I should hope not. You're looking at a bunch of trees, not the forest.

The statue of liberty isn't a symbol of freedom, it's really just a giant mound of copper.

The sun isn't something that inspires poets, authors, and entire cultures/civilizations it's just a big ball of fire.

Ancient Egyptian artifacts and weapons on display in museums aren't a testimony to the ingenuity and evolution of mankind, they're just really old pieces of rusted junk.

None of the aforementioned are necessarily the wrong way of looking at things, because value is subjective period, but I would imagine life would be pretty damned bland and dull if you did.

There is no value that's "a given" No value is universal. All value assigned to anything is in the end, completely arbitrary and nothing more than a mental construct. There are crazy religious people that give away their houses and all their possessions because they believe all material possessions are worthless. Have you ever walked into a store and said "Christ, that isn't worth that much?" Probably, but it was worth that much to someone and that's what matters. Tradition and culture matter, and you're more affected by it than you probably care to know. If you don't value marriage, and the value of marriage being three fold, social, cultural, financial, what do you value?

Not having the right to marry is a violation of human rights, because of its indirect way of infringing on them. Freedom is a human right. When the laws of governments are designed to specifically target, oppress, or hinder any particular demographic you are infringing upon that right.

Married parents have equal access to their child's school and medical records. In a separation, married parents have child visitation and custody rights.

http://www.soyouwanna.com/rights-associated-marriage-36108.html

Now, when the government stands between you and your child, because of what you are, I can't imagine that would make anyone feel very free. Or human.

 

[ALordZynix]

1,138 benefits are quite a few more then in Holland, though I did mention tax benefits and I mentioned that I forgot the differences between your medical insurance and ours. Though when you can get them through a different piece of paper for the same situation, like a civil partnership I do not see the problem (neither do I see the problem as not to just give them the same piece of paper.

Having such a linear view as to call marriage "just a piece of paper" is callously indifferent at worst and ignorant at best. Perhaps marriage has become increasingly irrelevant if not pointless in your culture, it hasn't yet in ours.

Then it is a piece of paper with way more benefits then necessarily, I mean I do not see why you have to be married to get days off for the birth of a child, if it is your child you should be allowed to be there, married or not.

Simply because something has traditional value doesn't mean its worth less than any other reason you would value something. Let's say the government of India made all traditional and cultural garb illegal for all people with green eyes to wear. Would you say "I don't see what they're whining about, they're just clothes. It's just tradition." I should hope not. You're looking at a bunch of trees, not the forest.

Banning something specifically because of a visual difference is legal discrimination. If they had a sound reason to ban it, for example an (islamic) country bans the burqa because a lot of crime is being committed by people wearing a burqa. Those people wear a burqa because it protects there identity and once they have committed the crime they can blend in perfectly to get away. If such a situation was forming a real threat then the reason that wearing it is tradition or the reason that your religion says you must does not trump saftey. Traditional reasons do not trump pragmatic reasons.

Also traditionally marriage is between a man and a woman and in america, it is a christian thing. In america you can still legally be married by a priest whereas, for example, here in Holland you can only get married in your religious way after you have legally been married. A marriage between two homosexuals is not the same as the true traditional marriage, the one Christians are trying to protect. Why would the marriage gays have in mind trump the long christian tradition? Governmental decisions should not be made on tradition, and if you did the gays would never win the fight.

The statue of liberty isn't a symbol of freedom, it's really just a giant mound of copper.

Not just, it also provides a lot of revenue from tourism.

The sun isn't something that inspires poets, authors, and entire cultures/civilizations it's just a big ball of fire.

The existence of the sun is vital for life on this planet and if there had never been a sun there wouldn't even have been a planet. To mention the sun as inspiration for poets is either ignorant or just HUGELY offensive to the sun. No inspiration drawn from the sun could beat what it has done for us.

Ancient Egyptian artifacts and weapons on display in museums aren't a testimony to the ingenuity and evolution of mankind, they're just really old pieces of rusted junk.

It teaches us something, teaching beats just "meh, it's tradition".

There is no value that's "a given" No value is universal. All value assigned to anything is in the end, completely arbitrary and nothing more than a mental construct. There are crazy religious people that give away their houses and all their possessions because they believe all material possessions are worthless. Have you ever walked into a store and said "Christ, that isn't worth that much?" Probably, but it was worth that much to someone and that's what matters. Tradition and culture matter, and you're more affected by it than you probably care to know. If you don't value marriage, and the value of marriage being three fold, social, cultural, financial, what do you value?

Indeed value is objective, and when a price is asked that you don't want to pay because you don't value it as much as someone else that is your choice. But what if you do value an item as much as the store owner is asking for it, you might even value it more. If you had the money to pay it you would pay it immidiatly, but sadley you don't. Does that mean you are still allowed to have it? No. Just because you value something does not grant you the right to have it. The earlier mentioned Egyptian artifacts are valued way more by Egypt then all the countries who actually have them, yet we do not give them back. Wanting alone doesn't give the you the right of having.

And you ask what I value? The relationship. Marriage is an institution and a legal document giving you financial benefits but it does not provide any extra value to a relationship. A good relationship gains value every year it exists not just every year of which you are married. That's something you seem to have forgotten or even deny. You do not seem to value a relationship between people unless they are married, why is that?
It is not about the fact you are married, it's about the care and love you provide your partner. A government can provide a relationship with the same financial benefits that marriage provides but it can never provide social acceptance, the people who do not want gays to marry will still not accept a marriage between two gay people as a real marriage.

Not having the right to marry is a violation of human rights, because of its indirect way of infringing on them. Freedom is a human right. When the laws of governments are designed to specifically target, oppress, or hinder any particular demographic you are infringing upon that right.

Oh come on, the human right of freedom comes with limitations. It's stupid to claim everything you can't do as "infringing the right of freedom".
We do not allow brothers and sisters to marry. It's a limitation put on the same institute. Of course almost all brothers and sisters do not want to get married, it's a repulsive idea to breed with your own family but none the less we deny the possibility.
The only non-objective benefits which a gay relationship is denied by a government which does not allow you to marry are financial benefits. Financial Benefits are for specific people anyway, you do not have a right to benefits, it's a gift. For example, a government which does not give benefits to the handicapped is not denying them anything. A result of this treatment it may very well be then handicapped people cannot perform equally but they are not infringed on their right of freedom. Being denied the same benefits as someone with the same handicap just because you have green eyes is discrimination. Being denied benefits for people with one leg because you feel that having one arm is pretty much the same is not discrimination.
And even if you feel that the financial benefits should be given, they are denied the relationship between 2 people of the same gender, it is not technically denied to a specific group of people for being different.

Not allowing gays to marry is stupid, it is not infringing human rights.

 

[Dark God Heart]

1,138 benefits are quite a few more then in Holland, though I did mention tax benefits and I mentioned that I forgot the differences between your medical insurance and ours. Though when you can get them through a different piece of paper for the same situation, like a civil partnership I do not see the problem (neither do I see the problem as not to just give them the same piece of paper.

Except you can't. Civil partnerships do not exist in a lot of states, and several states have provisions in their constitution specifically barring them. In the states that do have civil partnerships, they do not grant the same rights and protections that marriage does. I'm sure we would all love to adhere to the idea that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, but that's only if you live in a world of theoretical logic, could be's, and should have's. This is the real world though.

Then it is a piece of paper with way more benefits then necessarily, I mean I do not see why you have to be married to get days off for the birth of a child, if it is your child you should be allowed to be there, married or not.

Irrelevant. What matters is that this piece of paper has them, they aren't going away, and if they aren't they should be given to everyone otherwise its discrimination.

Banning something specifically because of a visual difference is legal discrimination. If they had a sound reason to ban it, for example an (islamic) country bans the burqa because a lot of crime is being committed by people wearing a burqa. Those people wear a burqa because it protects there identity and once they have committed the crime they can blend in perfectly to get away. If such a situation was forming a real threat then the reason that wearing it is tradition or the reason that your religion says you must does not trump saftey. Traditional reasons do not trump pragmatic reasons.

*Raises eyebrow* Not only are you missing the point, you're defending yourself by drawing a false extreme parallel with the burqa. Not to mention using conjecture of "if they had sound reason to ban it" when I had already laid out the logical framework. But okay, I'll revise for the sake of discussion and make a more applicable analogy. Let's say the government of India bans all people that eat beef from wearing traditional Hindu garb. If the government of India claims to be secular, they cannot ban people that eat beef from wearing Hindu garb, as its a specific law enacted by a government fueled by religious motives. "You can't wear this because you aren't Hindu." Traditional Hindu garb, is well, a Hindu thing, no? The point is, just because its a particular religions tradition or "thang" if you will, it doesn't give them the right to legally bar others from taking part in it. Otherwise it would be against the law for atheists to celebrate Christmas. Gay people aren't demanding for the government to force churches to formally wed them, we're just asking for the title. Why does the title matter so much? You should know already by what I've already explained.

Also traditionally marriage is between a man and a woman and in america, it is a christian thing. In america you can still legally be married by a priest whereas, for example, here in Holland you can only get married in your religious way after you have legally been married. A marriage between two homosexuals is not the same as the true traditional marriage, the one Christians are trying to protect. Why would the marriage gays have in mind trump the long christian tradition? Governmental decisions should not be made on tradition, and if you did the gays would never win the fight.

So, you defend tradition as an excuse to deny the title of marriage to homosexuals, and yet you say tradition isn't a reason to place any value on marriage in the first place? It doesn't matter whether marriage in America is a Christian thing or not, which it isn't considering Muslims, atheists, Jews, Hindus, etc can all still get married. The reason it doesn't matter is because if it was a "Christian thing" the government shouldn't have gotten itself involved in the business of marriage in the first place. However, it has. If government is to remain secular, there's two options. A) The government removes itself from the institution of marriage completely or B) They give the rights and benefits associated with it to everyone.

Either your creating false dilemmas here, or you just genuinely and seriously misunderstand the intentions of the gay rights movement in the U.S. Furthermore, I don't even accept your premise that Christians are attempting to "protect" marriage. You and I both know that if the government were to recognize marriages between homosexual couples, the religious community wouldn't. It's not about protecting marriage, please. That's a smokescreen. The reality is they fight to keep marriage from homosexuals because their religion says they are sinful. Maybe you would have a case if it were only marriage and marriage alone that homosexuals ever fought or were to fight for, but the gay rights movement dates much further back than fighting for marriage. Who were the very same people fighting homosexuals tooth and nail back then as they are now? You guessed it. The religious Christian right. Why do you think civil unions don't give homosexuals the same rights in the U.S.? Why do you think some states ban even the possibility of civil unions in their statutes? Because protecting marriage doesn't have jack to do with it. It has everything to do with gay people are icky and my religion say they are sinful. To assume such noble intentions given the pattern of history is a bit naive. Or I'm a misanthropic fuck. Good possibility of the latter actually.

Further more, you can't deny marriage because it is a "Christian thing" when Christians are not even entirely united on the issue.

Words

*raises eyebrow* Okay, you're definitely being overly technical and splitting hairs at this point. Either your willfully missing the point, or you truly can't read in between the lines to sift out what message is being conveyed. :/

Indeed value is objective, and when a price is asked that you don't want to pay because you don't value it as much as someone else that is your choice. But what if you do value an item as much as the store owner is asking for it, you might even value it more. If you had the money to pay it you would pay it immidiatly, but sadley you don't. Does that mean you are still allowed to have it? No. Just because you value something does not grant you the right to have it. The earlier mentioned Egyptian artifacts are valued way more by Egypt then all the countries who actually have them, yet we do not give them back. Wanting alone doesn't give the you the right of having.

*sigh* We don't give them back because their value is obviously greater to us than what they are offering in return. We don't refuse to give them back just because they're Egyptians and they aren't entitled or meant to have them because our religion says so.

And you ask what I value? The relationship. Marriage is an institution and a legal document giving you financial benefits but it does not provide any extra value to a relationship. A good relationship gains value every year it exists not just every year of which you are married. That's something you seem to have forgotten or even deny. You do not seem to value a relationship between people unless they are married, why is that?
It is not about the fact you are married, it's about the care and love you provide your partner. A government can provide a relationship with the same financial benefits that marriage provides but it can never provide social acceptance, the people who do not want gays to marry will still not accept a marriage between two gay people as a real marriage.

Okay, you need to make up your mind though here. Is marriage a traditional "Christian thing" or is it a piece of paper that just gives you financial benefits? You're making me come to one of two conclusions here. Either you're using the word marriage for both definitions for simplification of discussion purposes, or your massively contradicting yourself. Hoping its the former. I believe I've already gone over why marriage has value, and I believe I've already explained that crusading for social acceptance is not mine or anyones intention. Ofcourse someones relationship whether they aren't married matters just as much someones married relationship. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying for the millions of people out there that think marriage would strengthen, give more meaning, or value to their already loving relationship, that's their own perogative. Live and let live. It's the whole pursuit of happiness thing man. I don't think climbing mount of Everest will give me any spiritual awakening nor do I think it will make me happier, because in my eyes, it's just a big ****ing mountain. And yet strangely, I don't try to keep people from climbing big ****ing mountains. Lol. It's because I know I'm my own person and they are likewise. What will make me happy might not make him or her happy.

Oh come on, the human right of freedom comes with limitations. It's stupid to claim everything you can't do as "infringing the right of freedom".
We do not allow brothers and sisters to marry. It's a limitation put on the same institute. Of course almost all brothers and sisters do not want to get married, it's a repulsive idea to breed with your own family but none the less we deny the possibility.
The only non-objective benefits which a gay relationship is denied by a government which does not allow you to marry are financial benefits. Financial Benefits are for specific people anyway, you do not have a right to benefits, it's a gift. For example, a government which does not give benefits to the handicapped is not denying them anything. A result of this treatment it may very well be then handicapped people cannot perform equally but they are not infringed on their right of freedom. Being denied the same benefits as someone with the same handicap just because you have green eyes is discrimination. Being denied benefits for people with one leg because you feel that having one arm is pretty much the same is not discrimination.
And even if you feel that the financial benefits should be given, they are denied the relationship between 2 people of the same gender, it is not technically denied to a specific group of people for being different.

Not allowing gays to marry is stupid, it is not infringing human rights.

Oh don't patronize now. Clearly I know you don't have the freedom to do whatever you wish, and I believe I plainly laid out my reasoning, but you seem to have ignored it and simply reasserted "financial reasons." In addition, incest is a pretty poor example though, because while theoretically its possible to have a loving, consensual incestual couple that won't ever reproduce, that's not what legalization of it would foster. It's illegal because of the genetic diseases you can pass down onto offspring, hence why it's only legal in the U.S. to marry third cousins and onward. Or is it fourth? I can't remember. Incest is legal, you just can't be too closely related. It's also illegal because psychological studies show that the majority of incestual relationships are not consensual and very closely linked with child sexual abuse. You can't draw a parallel on an example which is an abnormality.

 

[ALordZynix]

You definetly seemed to have missed the points of many arguments, luckly we do seem to share a certain opinions.

Except you can't. Civil partnerships do not exist in a lot of states, and several states have provisions in their constitution specifically barring them. In the states that do have civil partnerships, they do not grant the same rights and protections that marriage does. I'm sure we would all love to adhere to the idea that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, but that's only if you live in a world of theoretical logic, could be's, and should have's. This is the real world though.

I do adhere to the idea that a rose by any other name smells the same, there is nothing wrong with that view and you may think it is only from the world of theoretical logic, but it isn't. As I have been part of creating things I have realized that a good names make a design look cooler or sell better but ultimately doesn't matter much. You notice this especially with something that has a function, like a game or a rose, it works the same without a name. You may not share my view but it is not theoretical nor unrealistic.

Irrelevant. What matters is that this piece of paper has them, they aren't going away, and if they aren't they should be given to everyone otherwise its discrimination.

That wasn't an argument, just a comment to the absurdness of not being allowed a day off for the birth of your own child.

*Raises eyebrow* Not only are you missing the point, you're defending yourself by drawing a false extreme parallel with the burqa. Not to mention using conjecture of "if they had sound reason to ban it" when I had already laid out the logical framework. But okay, I'll revise for the sake of discussion and make a more applicable analogy. Let's say the government of India bans all people that eat beef from wearing traditional Hindu garb. If the government of India claims to be secular, they cannot ban people that eat beef from wearing Hindu garb, as its a specific law enacted by a government fueled by religious motives. "You can't wear this because you aren't Hindu." Traditional Hindu garb, is well, a Hindu thing, no? The point is, just because its a particular religions tradition or "thang" if you will, it doesn't give them the right to legally bar others from taking part in it. Otherwise it would be against the law for atheists to celebrate Christmas. Gay people aren't demanding for the government to force churches to formally wed them, we're just asking for the title. Why does the title matter so much? You should know already by what I've already explained.

You can't really blame me for missing the point of a oversimplified analogy. There is also a difference between banning something which was allowed and not allowing something. The States that go back to denying gays the right to marry are banning something for religious reasons which a secular government shouldn't do. The DOMA which was mentioned earlier does the same and is therefor also wrong. HOWEVER the states which never gave the right to marry to people with the same sex, whose idea of marriage "one man one woman" where implanted way back when it wasn't just religious but just normal, nobody wanted (or at least never publicly asked for the right to) marry someone of the same gender. Then it is not a law made to ban a specific option but a law made to describe the procedure. Changing the existing law which was not ment to exclude an option which no-one has thought of (or at least expressed interest) is different. It is not religious of a secular government to not want to change the law, it will appear so and probably unofficially is but they only need to be officially right. Of course if they do not have any reason not to change it other then that people who don't want it changed for a religious reason have the majority it is infuriating that they do not change it. But from a legal point of view they are not discriminating by NOT changing a law that was in no way discriminating when implemented.

So, you defend tradition as an excuse to deny the title of marriage to homosexuals, and yet you say tradition isn't a reason to place any value on marriage in the first place? It doesn't matter whether marriage in America is a Christian thing or not, which it isn't considering Muslims, atheists, Jews, Hindus, etc can all still get married. The reason it doesn't matter is because if it was a "Christian thing" the government shouldn't have gotten itself involved in the business of marriage in the first place. However, it has. If government is to remain secular, there's two options. A) The government removes itself from the institution of marriage completely or B) They give the rights and benefits associated with it to everyone.

Either your creating false dilemmas here, or you just genuinely and seriously misunderstand the intentions of the gay rights movement in the U.S. Furthermore, I don't even accept your premise that Christians are attempting to "protect" marriage. You and I both know that if the government were to recognize marriages between homosexual couples, the religious community wouldn't. It's not about protecting marriage, please. That's a smokescreen. The reality is they fight to keep marriage from homosexuals because their religion says they are sinful. Maybe you would have a case if it were only marriage and marriage alone that homosexuals ever fought or were to fight for, but the gay rights movement dates much further back than fighting for marriage. Who were the very same people fighting homosexuals tooth and nail back then as they are now? You guessed it. The religious Christian right. Why do you think civil unions don't give homosexuals the same rights in the U.S.? Why do you think some states ban even the possibility of civil unions in their statutes? Because protecting marriage doesn't have jack to do with it. It has everything to do with gay people are icky and my religion say they are sinful. To assume such noble intentions given the pattern of history is a bit naive. Or I'm a misanthropic fuck. Good possibility of the latter actually.

No what I was doing was saying that if the argument for gay marriage is using tradition the Christians will do the same. I'm saying that if tradition is a factor there tradition trumps yours for it being much older and bigger. (and we know it is bigger because sadly it still holds a majority). That is not a false dilemma. Of course they don't do it for tradition (well we cannot deny the possibility that maybe some do, but not the majority which is in control) but politics and the law isn't about "real" reasons, it's about given reasons and whether or not they hold up. That is one of the reasons we do not allow Tradition as a reason to do something, you can too easily hide behind it. And about the options you gave:
A) I do think that there would be some problems if we did not somehow support established families. However
B) Exactly my idea. Give the rights and benefits, the objective rights and benefits to everyone. Like I said to be the smell a roses is the smell of roses even if not call them roses and I realize and accept that not everyone feels the same. Unlike what you seem to think I do know of the fact that the idea of marriage to some people mean a lot because of the traditions they grew up with. But my point is tradition and the subjective values that come with that tradition are not part of the laws that are being made. If create options with the same objective benefits some homosexuals may not like it and still want marriage but you cannot legally claim discrimination. I know for a fact that not all homosexual people will like the idea because I know that in the united kingdom they still fight for the right to marry even though they have civil partnerships.

*raises eyebrow* Okay, you're definitely being overly technical and splitting hairs at this point. Either your willfully missing the point, or you truly can't read in between the lines to sift out what message is being conveyed. :/

This comment I do not understand, I tried looking it up in my original post but did not find the word "words" so I cannot command on whether or not I was being overly technical or not. What I can say however that in general I try to not read between the lines in an argument. If an argument is a good argument it should be typed out, not guessed at, and when it is a **** argument but the real reason why you are trying something (perfect example right now the christian right's true motive) it overshadows the debate and may make it difficult to come up with good counter-arguments.

*sigh* We don't give them back because their value is obviously greater to us than what they are offering in return. We don't refuse to give them back just because they're Egyptians and they aren't entitled or meant to have them because our religion says so.

They do not offer anything in return, they say it was stolen and should be returned. But my point like you got was, our museums gain objective value (money) which trumps subject value (tradition)

Okay, you need to make up your mind though here. Is marriage a traditional "Christian thing" or is it a piece of paper that just gives you financial benefits? You're making me come to one of two conclusions here. Either you're using the word marriage for both definitions for simplification of discussion purposes, or your massively contradicting yourself. Hoping its the former.

To me a piece of paper, the christian thing like I mentioned was just a counter-argument to tradition. I should have been clearer about that in my original post, sorry for that.

I believe I've already gone over why marriage has value, and I believe I've already explained that crusading for social acceptance is not mine or anyones intention. Ofcourse someones relationship whether they aren't married matters just as much someones married relationship. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying for the millions of people out there that think marriage would strengthen, give more meaning, or value to their already loving relationship, that's their own perogative. Live and let live. It's the whole pursuit of happiness thing man. I don't think climbing mount of Everest will give me any spiritual awakening nor do I think it will make me happier, because in my eyes, it's just a big ****ing mountain. And yet strangely, I don't try to keep people from climbing big ****ing mountains. Lol. It's because I know I'm my own person and they are likewise. What will make me happy might not make him or her happy.

I think we can and we do (but if not for this discussion we should) agree on the fact that the value of marriage is different per person. Sometimes a lot of people from 1 community (talking about a town or city, not an state or country) all see the same value but a lot of the time it will be mixed in a community. And your entire mountain climbing analogy is PRECISELY how I feel about the marriage debate. Though I don't see any emotional value to marriage I neither feel like denying it to others. Though it becomes more complicated to me when next to the mountain I don't feel like climbing is the exact same mountain except that it is called Mons Janus and nobody wants to climb that.

Oh don't patronize now. Clearly I know you don't have the freedom to do whatever you wish, and I believe I plainly laid out my reasoning, but you seem to have ignored it and simply reasserted "financial reasons." In addition, incest is a pretty poor example though, because while theoretically its possible to have a loving, consensual incestual couple that won't ever reproduce, that's not what legalization of it would foster. It's illegal because of the genetic diseases you can pass down onto offspring, hence why it's only legal in the U.S. to marry third cousins and onward. Or is it fourth? I can't remember. Incest is legal, you just can't be too closely related. It's also illegal because psychological studies show that the majority of incestual relationships are not consensual and very closely linked with child sexual abuse. You can't draw a parallel on an example which is an abnormality.

Actually I don't believe incest is illegal. This is if we are just talking about the intercourse part and not the marriage. I may be wrong about this but if I am I feel sorry for the police department who has to make sure it doesn't happen. But that is just a side-note.

My true point is that for something to be a human right you need to be able to apply it to all people, who did not themself violate the human rights of others (if you kill someone (right to live) you cannot claim that putting you in a prison violates your human rights). To put it less technically human rights need to apply to all people equally except criminals (and even they still get a lot of human rights, just not the entire package).
But when you make a human right anymore limited it becomes useless as a human right. When you limit the right to free speech in such a way that certain things can no longer be said, it is no longer the right to free speech. And when we already put the limit of right to marriage to exclude brothers and sisters, it can no longer be a human right.



So to summarize:
1) I do not see any reason to deny the right to marriage to same-sex couples
2) I personally do not see the point to specifically want marriage and not be satisfied with a similar institute (yet I know that for some people it is an issue)
3) Looking at it from a legal point of view it is their human right to be treated equally and should therefor at the very least get a similar institute granting them the same objective rights and benefits. But beyond that it is no longer a human right to gain the same institute, even though this no-longer-a-rose smells funny. (To put it more precise it now has the extreme stench of discrimination.)

 

[Eterna]

I do adhere to the idea that a rose by any other name smells the same, there is nothing wrong with that view and you may think it is only from the world of theoretical logic, but it isn't. As I have been part of creating things I have realized that a good names make a design look cooler or sell better but ultimately doesn't matter much. You notice this especially with something that has a function, like a game or a rose, it works the same without a name. You may not share my view but it is not theoretical nor unrealistic.

Civil unions don't even provide all the benefits that marriage does. It's not the same. And by your logic, if civil unions and marriage are exactly the same what's the point of giving the different names?

You can't really blame me for missing the point of a oversimplified analogy. There is also a difference between banning something which was allowed and not allowing something. The States that go back to denying gays the right to marry are banning something for religious reasons which a secular government shouldn't do. The DOMA which was mentioned earlier does the same and is therefor also wrong. HOWEVER the states which never gave the right to marry to people with the same sex, whose idea of marriage "one man one woman" where implanted way back when it wasn't just religious but just normal, nobody wanted (or at least never publicly asked for the right to) marry someone of the same gender. Then it is not a law made to ban a specific option but a law made to describe the procedure. Changing the existing law which was not ment to exclude an option which no-one has thought of (or at least expressed interest) is different. It is not religious of a secular government to not want to change the law, it will appear so and probably unofficially is but they only need to be officially right. Of course if they do not have any reason not to change it other then that people who don't want it changed for a religious reason have the majority it is infuriating that they do not change it. But from a legal point of view they are not discriminating by NOT changing a law that was in no way discriminating when implemented.

.......... Except it is discrimination. Are you trying to say that if there was a law made a long time ago saying that "Black people cannot attend public schools" it's not discrimination because at the time no black people lived there? Also Gay people didn't bring forth their complaints for equality in that time because they were oppressed, someone asking for two people of the same gender to be married at that time was liable to be beaten. They were ashamed.

 

[ALordZynix]

Civil unions don't even provide all the benefits that marriage does. It's not the same. And by your logic, if civil unions and marriage are exactly the same what's the point of giving the different names?

I don't believe there is a good point of giving them different names but that doesn't change the fact that I think that when the institutions eventually start giving the same rights and benefits (like they do in the UK for example) I don't see the point in fighting further. Personally I think it would be much easier to just redefine marriage as "Legal union of 2 people", there is no good reason not too. Yet I don't see the point to fight further when the institution reach the same level.

Basically, I don't see either side of the debate when it becomes only about the name.

.......... Except it is discrimination. Are you trying to say that if there was a law made a long time ago saying that "Black people cannot attend public schools" it's not discrimination because at the time no black people lived there? Also Gay people didn't bring forth their complaints for equality in that time because they were oppressed, someone asking for two people of the same gender to be married at that time was liable to be beaten. They were ashamed.

If you say no black guys can enter public school you are denying 1 group of people the same institution, if you say the institution is "1 man, 1 woman" then all people can enter it as long as they are 1 man 1 woman, gay people can enter it. You're not denying them entry into the institution, you just don't change the institution. Legally there is a big difference. Why does nobody see that TECHNICALLY it is not discrimination, gays can marry, they just can't marry somebody of the same gender. Your law specifically bans black people, even if you they weren't there, you knew they existed because you made a law.
And the marriage law does not speak about your sexuality, the thing that they believed was a given, it speaks to the number of people and the gender ratio of the people who want to get married.
And I'm sure you know it, just want to mention it for those who don't it was worse then just oppression. Since they where a child they were thought and learned that it was a sin, so when someone eventually found out he was gay, he had been brought up to think he was evil, a sinner, possessed by Satan. Nobody had to beat them, they did it to them self. Not only did everyone hate you if you told them you where gay, you hated yourself for being gay.

 

[CSolarstorm]

What exactly says that only individual people have rights, but not groups of them? A society gives rights to individual factions and unities as well as individuals, so why would specific couples be excluded from having the same manner of rights as individuals have? Even if it isn't observed as a right currently, rights have always been established as the need arises according to right and wrong. It's not something that would necessarily violate someone else's rights to property or freedom of expression. And there is no one society unit that you can claim isn't obligated to allow gay people to marry, because there is a huge consensus within that society that gay people have the right to marry.

Even then, there is a pretty widespread perspective that recognizes the right to resources and labor, like the right to handicap modifications, the right to healthcare, the right to schooling, even the right to college. I don't completely agree with that perspective, but between these two ideas of 'rights', the idea of rights for specific couples is not unusual at all.

 

[mattj]

Actually, I think you guys may be missing his point. He isn't saying that homosexual people shouldn't be allowed to form a union with whoever they want. He's saying that defining marriage as between one man and one woman isn't discriminatory because a homosexual could still marry someone of the opposite sex. They aren't prohibited from forming a union with all of the same rights as a married couple. They just wouldn't be "quote-unquote-by-legal-definition-married" unless they marry someone of the opposite sex.

Personally I don't think the definition of marriage is worth quibbling over. I don't mind if they call their union between two people of the same sex "marriage". It doesn't change what the Bible says about homosexuality. It won't change my marriage with my wife. They're not hurting anyone. Let them do what they want and call it whatever they want..

 

[Old Soul]

Yet I don't see the point to fight further when the institution reach the same level.

and neither would we. i wouldn't care what gay marriage was called as long as it had the same rights and benefits anyway. but, the u.s. at least, if its not under the same title as marriage there isn't any as much benefits included. so, until civil unions are actually comparable to marriages, we're going to fight for marriage. because screw settling for second best.