NarutoActor
The rocks cry out to me
- 1,974
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Brooklyn/Marlboro
- Seen Apr 2, 2016
Since the topic of gay marriage has come up, and some people then to think that gay marriage is only a religious problem, I thought I would make some arguments that have nothing to do with religion!
Preface:
First of all, I have nothing against homosexuals, and I feel that they have been bullied because of their choice, which is wrong. I believe there is a right and wrong way to life, however I do feel that bulling is absolutely wrong. And as such I would not liked to be bullied myself because of my opposing views. So please try to be mature when replying to any of my arguments, do not take the personal, and try to be nice. If you feel that I am wrong, yelling at me, and calling me names will not help your cause.
Tradition:
"Tradition enables us to isolate the new against a background of permanence, and to transfer its merit to originality, to genius, to the decisions proper to individuals" (FOUCAULT, The archaeology of knowledge)
It is tradition that enables people to view their current situation and evaluate it against the past. If the past made a mistake, lets not make the same one, if the past succeeded lets continue with that action. It is documented that any ancient civilization fell right at the time, that they started to accept homosexuality. (Romans, and Greek) The most successful society have all started with the concept of traditional marriage, one between a man, and a women.
Marriage is a right:
This statement is not true, people assume that marriage is a right, and that if marriage is a right then gay marriage becomes a civil rights problem. However marriage is limited to hetersexuals as well. Roughly half of all states do not allow first cousins from marrying, and all do not allow marriage of closer blood relatives, even if said individuals are sterile. In all states, it is ileagal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more then one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphillis, or other veneral deieses. Therefore, homosexuality is not the only group to be excluded form marriage.
Constitutionality:
The 14th amendment and the "Privileges and emmunity clause", along with the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, states that any right given in one state, must be carried over to an other, one said person moves or leaves. As such it is in direct contract with the federal government law, DOMA. Doma (Defense of marriage act) States that no state or authority can be forced to recognize a same sex marriage. But if a person obtains a marriage from one state, he or she can more to another state, and that state would be forced to recognize said marriage because of the 14th amendment, and the privileges and emunitys clause of the amendment. As such Doma is still in effect, and to keep the purity, and purpose of the law, states should not be able to determine marriage. It should be a federal issue. Doma was passed the senate on September 10th, (1996) by a vote of 85 to 14. A overwhelming majority. Going against this law would be going against democracy, and American values.
Legality (US)
For reference, the 14th says:
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.
So, that means that a state is forbidden from doing three things:
1) Reducing the rights or privileges granted to people by the federal government.
2) Take away a person's life, liberty or property without due process
3) Exclude people from the protections offered by state laws
Marriage is not a right or privilege granted by the federal government, so #1 is out.
#2 The state needs to prove that they are giving due process under the law, with that process being usable while treating homosexuals differently. becuase of court classification which I will better explain in point #3
#3 is a bit tougher to make. It sounds very clear cut- states can't deny any person equal protection of the laws. But in practice that super clear cut interpretation doesn't really work. For example, a felon can't vote, a young person can't claim benefits designed for the elderly and a person who isn't handicapped can't get a handicapped license plate. States realistically have to be able to control what laws apply to which people to some extent or you just end up with an absurd situation. So, the courts have devised a three tiered system for the characteristics that states could potentially use and different burdens of proof for them:
Strict scrutiny- states can only discriminate if they have a "compelling state interest" and the way they are discriminating is "narrowly tailored" to that state interest. What that means is basically that they need a really, really, important goal and there basically isn't any other way they could accomplish that goal. Virtually no law ever survives strict scrutiny in the 14th amendment context.
Intermediate scrutiny- states can only discriminate if they have an "important state interest" and the way they are discriminating is "substantially related" to that interest. This is basically just a weaker version of strict scrutiny. The state needs to be doing it to further an important goal and the discrimination needs to have something that ties it pretty closely to that goal. Laws often survive intermediate scrutiny.
Rational basis- this means that states can discriminate so long as they have some kind of a rational explanation for why they're doing it. The court doesn't need to agree with that reasoning, they just need to find that the state is acting rationally. Virtually any law will survive rational basis analysis (although not always).
Different characteristics of a person fall into different ones of these categories. Race, religion and national origin are in the strict scrutiny category. The only characteristic in the intermediate scrutiny category is sex. It makes sense to have that there because there are some things that states just need to do to treat men and women differently- for example, separate bathrooms or accommodations for pregnancy, etc. But, the courts also want to be able to prevent flat out sex discrimination. So they keep it in the middle tier and pretty much decide case by case. Everything else is in the rational basis category.
The economic problem:
When the state recognizes marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Producing Children:
Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
You compared homosexuality to what?
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Race is also something that a person is
(A) born into, and (B) can not change
While homosexuality is something that you chose. Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses. Being born with something does not excuse it. Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.
Gay marriage is not necessary:
there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
The slippery slope argument:
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Ending:
As you can see I took a lot of time and effort into this so again, please make mature thought provoking response not simple disillusioned ones.
Preface:
First of all, I have nothing against homosexuals, and I feel that they have been bullied because of their choice, which is wrong. I believe there is a right and wrong way to life, however I do feel that bulling is absolutely wrong. And as such I would not liked to be bullied myself because of my opposing views. So please try to be mature when replying to any of my arguments, do not take the personal, and try to be nice. If you feel that I am wrong, yelling at me, and calling me names will not help your cause.
Tradition:
"Tradition enables us to isolate the new against a background of permanence, and to transfer its merit to originality, to genius, to the decisions proper to individuals" (FOUCAULT, The archaeology of knowledge)
It is tradition that enables people to view their current situation and evaluate it against the past. If the past made a mistake, lets not make the same one, if the past succeeded lets continue with that action. It is documented that any ancient civilization fell right at the time, that they started to accept homosexuality. (Romans, and Greek) The most successful society have all started with the concept of traditional marriage, one between a man, and a women.
Marriage is a right:
This statement is not true, people assume that marriage is a right, and that if marriage is a right then gay marriage becomes a civil rights problem. However marriage is limited to hetersexuals as well. Roughly half of all states do not allow first cousins from marrying, and all do not allow marriage of closer blood relatives, even if said individuals are sterile. In all states, it is ileagal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more then one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphillis, or other veneral deieses. Therefore, homosexuality is not the only group to be excluded form marriage.
Constitutionality:
The 14th amendment and the "Privileges and emmunity clause", along with the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, states that any right given in one state, must be carried over to an other, one said person moves or leaves. As such it is in direct contract with the federal government law, DOMA. Doma (Defense of marriage act) States that no state or authority can be forced to recognize a same sex marriage. But if a person obtains a marriage from one state, he or she can more to another state, and that state would be forced to recognize said marriage because of the 14th amendment, and the privileges and emunitys clause of the amendment. As such Doma is still in effect, and to keep the purity, and purpose of the law, states should not be able to determine marriage. It should be a federal issue. Doma was passed the senate on September 10th, (1996) by a vote of 85 to 14. A overwhelming majority. Going against this law would be going against democracy, and American values.
Legality (US)
For reference, the 14th says:
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.
So, that means that a state is forbidden from doing three things:
1) Reducing the rights or privileges granted to people by the federal government.
2) Take away a person's life, liberty or property without due process
3) Exclude people from the protections offered by state laws
Marriage is not a right or privilege granted by the federal government, so #1 is out.
#2 The state needs to prove that they are giving due process under the law, with that process being usable while treating homosexuals differently. becuase of court classification which I will better explain in point #3
#3 is a bit tougher to make. It sounds very clear cut- states can't deny any person equal protection of the laws. But in practice that super clear cut interpretation doesn't really work. For example, a felon can't vote, a young person can't claim benefits designed for the elderly and a person who isn't handicapped can't get a handicapped license plate. States realistically have to be able to control what laws apply to which people to some extent or you just end up with an absurd situation. So, the courts have devised a three tiered system for the characteristics that states could potentially use and different burdens of proof for them:
Strict scrutiny- states can only discriminate if they have a "compelling state interest" and the way they are discriminating is "narrowly tailored" to that state interest. What that means is basically that they need a really, really, important goal and there basically isn't any other way they could accomplish that goal. Virtually no law ever survives strict scrutiny in the 14th amendment context.
Intermediate scrutiny- states can only discriminate if they have an "important state interest" and the way they are discriminating is "substantially related" to that interest. This is basically just a weaker version of strict scrutiny. The state needs to be doing it to further an important goal and the discrimination needs to have something that ties it pretty closely to that goal. Laws often survive intermediate scrutiny.
Rational basis- this means that states can discriminate so long as they have some kind of a rational explanation for why they're doing it. The court doesn't need to agree with that reasoning, they just need to find that the state is acting rationally. Virtually any law will survive rational basis analysis (although not always).
Different characteristics of a person fall into different ones of these categories. Race, religion and national origin are in the strict scrutiny category. The only characteristic in the intermediate scrutiny category is sex. It makes sense to have that there because there are some things that states just need to do to treat men and women differently- for example, separate bathrooms or accommodations for pregnancy, etc. But, the courts also want to be able to prevent flat out sex discrimination. So they keep it in the middle tier and pretty much decide case by case. Everything else is in the rational basis category.
The economic problem:
When the state recognizes marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Producing Children:
Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
You compared homosexuality to what?
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Race is also something that a person is
(A) born into, and (B) can not change
While homosexuality is something that you chose. Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses. Being born with something does not excuse it. Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.
Gay marriage is not necessary:
there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
The slippery slope argument:
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Ending:
As you can see I took a lot of time and effort into this so again, please make mature thought provoking response not simple disillusioned ones.
Last edited:
