• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is why the Constitution Might be Amended to ban Gay Marriage

gdnp said:
Just try following him in one of the Israeli-Palestinian threads. :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

:D I admit I only read the threads Skeptic starts for the train wrecks they are right from the OP. It seems he leaves his critical thinking at the wardrobe in the Politics section.
 
Marriage is supposed to be, from the civil standpoint, a contract between (originally) two individuals to pool their resources in order to perhaps raise children, as I see it (other definitions I've seen are so ambiguous as to be useless). If we treat it on that basis, as if in contract law, then analogies to business relationships might be useful in seeing where this is going.

Looked at this way, there is little difference between a hetero marriage and a homo marriage. One can generate its own offspring, but other methods for that are possible now (including the traditional adoptions and sex with others outside of the marriage, which has known but fairly well understood complications).

What would a business do when three entities want to contract together as a consortium? No problem - they conclude a contract which spells out the interactions, remunerations and privileges of the members, and an arbitration method for the unforeseen. Quite often the contract is simple and almost default. Business life goes on.

The problem that I think Skeptic is alluding to is when there is a two party marriage to which one of the parties wishes to add a third. If this happens, would there be two two-party marriages, or one three-party marriage? Skeptic sees it as the former, and that could be devastating to the first marriage. If the person in the middle has more power than the other (ie, male and female respectively in common 19th century context, for example), it could be coerced. But, if they are truly equal parties to the contract, then a provision in the original marriage to outlaw this happening would lead to breach of contract and damages, the obvious deterrent. Viewed in this manner, perhaps it would be useful to make the state cognizant side of marriage more like business contract law, the state simply enforcing the contract, and allowing the church to do what it will with its end.

I think doing this would make it a lot more well-understood what the virtues and pitfalls in a marriage might entail. Does this make any sense?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Click to expand...
Not a problem for me. The Constitution is not there to support the majority, it is there to protect minorities.
 
Upchurch said:
For that matter, where is straight marriage magically found in the Constitution? If straight marriage is magically found there, so is gay marriage.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking too. While I'm no constitutional scholar, I don't recall any mention of any kind of marriage in the whole eight pages. ;) I don't think there were many restrictions, or advantages either, in the 1770s. Marriages were performed by your religious leader, and not hardly ever dissolved. State legalities were only invented to raise the possibility of taxation. Hmm, I suspect looking up early divorces might be the way to investigate the legalities of early marriages?
 
WildCat said:
Because it boils down to equal protection under the laws. And since there are no groups currently allowed to be polygamists or incestuaous in the US this is not a factor.
Click to expand...

There were no groups which were allowed to marry people of their own sex before, either. This didn't stop gay activists from claiming not allowing gay marriage violated equal protection. Polygamists will just claim that the fact that they are not allowed to marry more than two people IS violation of equal protection. In fact the "will" is superflous -- some already do.
 
(Sigh)

Sorry, folks. But calling people "bigots" and "hate-filled" and "Drivel-spewing" for pointing out something you don't like is no argument. It's simply ad hominem.

Which, apparently, is not allowed according to the enlightened propgressives -- UNLESS you're one of those awful, awful people who, for example, voted for Bush or oppose gay marriage.

Attacking them by shouting "Islamophobe!" or "Racist!" is all one needs to do, you know.
 
Skeptic said:
There were no groups which were allowed to marry people of their own sex before, either. This didn't stop gay activists from claiming not allowing gay marriage violated equal protection.
Click to expand...
Next thing you know the races will be miscegenating!
 
Skeptic said:
My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with polygamy? If everyone is consenting?

We should get rid of religious cult dogma out of dictating what people can and cannot do. People should be able to get married what ever their sexuality and however many partners they want.

Anything else is prejudiced and nonsense.
 
Skeptic said:
(Sigh)

Sorry, folks. But calling people "bigots" and "hate-filled" and "Drivel-spewing" for pointing out something you don't like is no argument. It's simply ad hominem.
...
Click to expand...

No. Ad Hominem would be claiming that one's argument is incorrect because he is a hate-filled, drivel-spewing bigot. Claiming that one is a hate-filled, drivel-spewing bigot because he advances an argument typical of hate-filled, drivel-spewing bigots is just called 'logic'.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
 
This OP is just plain silly. What makes anyone think that if, when the socially conservative GOP controlled both the Congress and White House, a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution failed to gather even 50 votes in the Senate, that such a move would have a chance in hell nowadays? This talk of amending the U.S. Constitution is just a bunch of chest-beating by the religious right, nothing more.

The shift in demographics is clear - more and more young people (up to the late 30s) are not squeamish at all about things like gay marriage & civil unions. The most resistance comes from the over 60 crowd, most of whom will be dead in the next 20-30 years.

Gay marriage/civil unions or whatever you call it is an impending reality. In the next 20 years, most states will allow it if it isn't written into federal law by then. In another generation this entire discussion will be moot...

... but I'm sure that won't stop folks like Skeptic from decrying the inevitable end of civilization as we know it just because consenting adults who love each other can get married :rolleyes:
 
Brainster said:
There is a push on to amend the Iowa constitution:
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Iowa isn't California, and the state legislature must approve (twice) the amendment before it even has a chance of going through. The Democrats control the Iowa state government, and they're not going to let this amendment push get anywhere close to being off the ground because they don't want a wedge issue to be used against them in 2012.

This thing is DOA.

It is of course a gift to Mike Huckabee, in terms of how it affects the 2012 race (assuming Huck runs). It virtually assures that Iowa religious conservatives will be galvanized.
Click to expand...

Likely true, but unfortunately there is now an ever increasing population of progressives and Democrats in Iowa. I think you're going to find the power of religious conservatives, who typically align themselves with the GOP, to not be what it once was.

I do think that the decision to push this through the court system is a mistake, rather than letting it be handled by state legislatures. As the article notes, Vermont has passed gay marriage legislation in both the house and the senate, and although the Republican governor has said he will veto it, at some point either the legislature will come up with sufficient votes to override the veto, or a new governor will be elected.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with your assertion that it is best handled by legislatures, but that doesn't mean the Iowa court didn't do the right thing. The question now is will opponents of the court's decision be able to do anything about it, and - for reasons I mentioned above - I think their efforts will be for naught.

In the end, the only thing the social conservatives will be able to accomplish with this is that they'll raise a whole lot of money for their coffers.
 
Skeptic said:
(Sigh)

Sorry, folks. But calling people "bigots" and "hate-filled" and "Drivel-spewing" for pointing out something you don't like is no argument. It's simply ad hominem.

Which, apparently, is not allowed according to the enlightened propgressives -- UNLESS you're one of those awful, awful people who, for example, voted for Bush or oppose gay marriage.

Attacking them by shouting "Islamophobe!" or "Racist!" is all one needs to do, you know.
Click to expand...

Some post ad hominems. Some post straw men. I see you prefer the latter.

It is not an ad hominem to point out that a homophobe is a homophobe. Nor is it out of line to point out the fallacy of slippery slope arguments, such as that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy, the repeal of women's rights, and bestiality. Allowing gays to marry in no way restricts the rights of heterosexuals to marry, divorce, and/or fornicate as they so choose. So spare us the fallacies. Make an argument about why gay marriage is bad. The bible says so doesn't cut it. It creeps you out doesn't cut it. It will eventually lead to the legalization of necrophilia doesn't cut it. Tell us why gay marriage, by itself, is bad.

To quote Dr. A, don't you ever get tired of being wrong? You do it on so many levels, and then you sigh and play the poor abused and persecuted martyr. Give it a rest.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Prop 8 in California was just such a reaction to an earlier law banning gay marriage.
But, you better hurry, because the only people who support banning gay marraige in significant numbers are old people. Every year more of them will die and more young people will come of voting age and the balance of power will shift a bit more. I suspect that it's already too late for an amendment to the US Constitution because it doesn't require anthing so simple as a simple majority in a referendum like the California Constitution. Gay marriage is coming, it's just a matter of time.

Dr Adequate said:
Relax. The courts are not going to "force" gay marriage on anyone.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah?
Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry
:duck:
Happy Birthday Doc!
 
MattusMaximus said:
The shift in demographics is clear - more and more young people (up to the late 30s) are not squeamish at all about things like gay marriage & civil unions. The most resistance comes from the over 60 crowd, most of whom will be dead in the next 20-30 years.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the "it's inevitable, the future belongs to us" argument.

By the way, Islam will rule the world. Just look at the demographics! It's inevitable. The future belongs to Islam. Er, I mean the future belongs to communism (just look at the state the corrupt plutocracies are in!), I mean to fascism (all those young people support it!). I mean to the religious right (they have far more children than the left-wingers), I mean to the republican party (look how they controlled all branches of government in 1994! Look how strong neo-conservatism is! The young are quitting the democrats in droves!) I mean to ...

Perhaps there will be no gay marriage amendment. Perhaps there will. But there's nothing INEVITABLE about it, either way. And, in any case, whether it is inevitable or not has nothing to do with whether it is just and correct or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom