News Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[DanP]

First of all, I said nothing of psychiatric wards. Please don't attribute things to me which I did not say. Secondly, I've already pointed out how human beings are manifestly different than objects. Objects cannot agree to ANY contract, neither can animals. Stop using the same tired old straw man.

So what ? Law recognizes unilateral contracts. Maybe Miss X will be allowed in future to marry her sex toy robot with a unilateral contract as long as the robot is her property. A contract is only required today for marriage. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. You cling to current definitions and principles, hoping they won't offend your sensibilities.

This is the same thing anti gay marriage ppl do as well. They cling to definitions indicating that marriage is a union between man and women, to "morals" and so on. Most of us believed that marriage is between a women and a man. We are willing to change our beleives today for the sake of the happiness of gay ppl. We do change the basic customs on which the legal concept of marriage stood in the western world for you. We throw away thousand of years of traditions to make you happy. We change the laws for you.

So we expect the generic gay to be more open minded regarding other minorities, and help them change the laws to achieve their happiness.

 

[DanP]

My point is that there is no way to construct a coherent definition of marriage that encompasses what is now recognized as marriage as well as a man entering into a permanent state-sanctioned union with an inanimate object.

...

The reason is as much logistical as it is moral.

Unilateral contracts, and the requirement that the thing (dog, robot, whatever) is in your property would be enough. Its really not so hard. Clinging to the "consent" here in the case of an object is the bad thing to do. It;s like clinging on the fact that marriage is a union between a man and a women.

Morales change as well. Slowly but they do. I think USA had laws to criminally incriminate homosexuality in past. If you recognize homosexuality as a moral variance , why would you for example think Zoophilia is any different ?

 

[vertices]

So what ? Law recognizes unilateral contracts. Maybe Miss X will be allowed in future to marry her sex toy robot with a unilateral contract as long as the robot is her property. A contract is only required today for marriage. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. You cling to current definitions and principles, hoping they won't offend your sensibilities.

You may wish to look up the definition of a contract...

This is the same thing anti gay marriage ppl do as well. They cling to definitions indicating that marriage is a union between man and women, to "morals" and so on.

Most of us believed that marriage is between a women and a man.

We are willing to change our beleives today for the sake of the happiness of gay ppl.

Do you think gay people have the same rights as the rest of us? (I'm somehow doubtful you can rise to this level) If you miraculously do, you will realize this has nothing to do with what people believe or believed; it's about discrimination, which we all believe is wrong.

We do change the basic customs on which the legal concept of marriage stood in the western world for you.

If they discriminated against 10% of the population, this was absolutely the right thing to do.

We throw away thousand of years of traditions to make you happy. We change the laws for you.

Slavery was also a tradition, was this institution scrapped to make black people 'happy'?

BTW I was half expecting you to say "I've done everything to make you happy what about what makes me happy "

Seriously though, you're making out that you've personally sacrificed so much to give gays special favours, when you've (or the law) have done nothing of the sort...

 

[DanP]

You may wish to look up the definition of a contract...

Ok, the term was not lost in translation, but the institution is surely known in American law as well. Testaments. Declaration of acceptance or rejection of a succession are the classic example of unilateral juridical acts. Yes, they are technically not a unilateral contract you are right.

 

[DanP]

Do you think gay people have the same rights as the rest of us? (I'm somehow doubtful you can rise to this level) If you miraculously do, you will realize this has nothing to do with what people believe or believed; it's about discrimination, which we all believe is wrong.

Do you believe that persons engaging in the zoophilia have the same rights as the rest of us ? If not, maybe miraculously you will raise at the level one day :P

 

[DanP]

Seriously though, you're making out that you've personally sacrificed so much to give gays special favours, when you've (or the law) have done nothing of the sort...

Yes we did. We as society slowly grown up to accept them and offer them more and more support.

Is not really about a discrimination. Since the dawn of law, marriage was understand as a union between male and female. Its still the staus quo in most of the civilized world. But it changes slowly. The society do not really discriminate the gays saying they can't marry. They just observe tradition and the laws flowing from this tradition.

It;s not that small thing to bend tradition and law to allow them marriage. Discrimination can be purely avoided giving civil unions the same rights as to the married ppl. But no, they want "marriage". Well, this required the greater part of society a serious effort to be accepted. So yeah, Id say we (the society, which includes me) did something for them.

 

[Al68]

No, I don't. Now you explain to me why it is substantial. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

I didn't intend my "incredulity" as an argument. Just an expression of incredulity at your pretense to not know the difference between two issues that are different on their face.

Biological sex has no bearing on a person's civil rights. "Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex" is the exact same argument as "Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the same race."

Now, you explain to me why you think those are two completely different arguments.

No, I will not. I never made any claims about either of those arguments.

If you consider the arguments against gay marriage to be substantially the same as those made against interracial marriage, the burden is on you to explain that one, since the arguments are very different on their face.

 

[Jack21222]

I didn't intend my "incredulity" as an argument. Just an expression of incredulity at your pretense to not know the difference between two issues that are different on their face. No, I will not. I never made any claims about either of those arguments.

If you consider the arguments against gay marriage to be substantially the same as those made against interracial marriage, the burden is on you to explain that one, since the arguments are very different on their face.

I already have explained it. In both cases, a marriage between two human beings with equal protection under the law is denied based on a personal trait that should not effect the ability to contract.

Neither a person's race nor their sex is a valid reason for the law to discriminate. The arguments are exactly the same on their face, and I already posted an example in the post THAT YOU QUOTED.

Beyond "argument from dictionary," and "argument from Jesus," I know of no other arguments against gay marriage. Both of those two arguments were also used against interracial marriage.

Now, as I have been asking you for the past couple days, please post a valid argument which applies to gay marriage but not to interracial marriage. This would prove to me that the arguments are fundamentally different.

 

[DanP]

Now, as I have been asking you for the past couple days, please post a valid argument which applies to gay marriage but not to interracial marriage. This would prove to me that the arguments are fundamentally different.

The fact that both parts have male sexual organs ? :P Marriage as understood today by the vast majority of the world is a consensual union between a male and female.

To allow gays to marry we have to change the customs and the laws flowing from those customs.

 

[Al68]

I already have explained it. In both cases, a marriage between two human beings with equal protection under the law is denied based on a personal trait that should not effect the ability to contract.

Neither a person's race nor their sex is a valid reason for the law to discriminate. The arguments are exactly the same on their face, and I already posted an example in the post THAT YOU QUOTED.

Beyond "argument from dictionary," and "argument from Jesus," I know of no other arguments against gay marriage. Both of those two arguments were also used against interracial marriage.

Neither of the arguments you cite (as I understand them) would apply to interracial marriage as far as I can tell.

The dictionary argument as I understand it is that a marriage by definition is between man and woman.

The Jesus argument as I understand it is that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

Now, as I have been asking you for the past couple days, please post a valid argument which applies to gay marriage but not to interracial marriage.

And you can keep asking. I have never claimed to have a valid argument against either. The only argument I have made against gay marriage in this thread is that gay people have suffered enough already. Since that argument would apply equally to interracial marriage, I agree that my argument is the same for both.

Of course the fact that my argument is the same for both in no way implies that the issues are the same, since the issues are composed of more than my arguments on them.

This would prove to me that the arguments are fundamentally different.

The issues are different because there are arguments against gay marriage that don't apply to interracial marriage, not because I think they're valid.

 

[turbo]

The Jesus argument as I understand it is that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

Really? Then a woman would have to prove she is fertile before being issued a marriage license? If my 84 year old father wanted to marry that hot 75 year old lady down the street, he shouldn't be allowed?

The arguments against gay marriage are specious at best, and seemingly ever-changing. If you lived in Maine during the last referendum cycle you'd know exactly what I mean.

 

[vela]

The arguments against gay marriage are specious at best, and seemingly ever-changing. If you lived in Maine during the last referendum cycle you'd know exactly what I mean.

Reminds me of another "argument" the Prop. 8 opponents used: If we let gay people get married, they'll turn our kids gay! What about the children?!

 

[loseyourname]

Unilateral contracts, and the requirement that the thing (dog, robot, whatever) is in your property would be enough. Its really not so hard.

No, the idea of marrying an inanimate object is actually fairly hard to conceive of. Again, what exactly would this entail? Whether unilateral or not, a contract has to make enforceable stipulations regarding the rights or obligations of both parties to the contract. Even if we take that away so that only one party is bound by the contract, what then does marriage to a sex doll stipulate? That you must never have sex with any doll other than the one you marry? What is the state interest in sanctioning and enforcing a contract in which neither party can be harmed by its violation?

You are beautifully illustrating the rather absurd lengths to which people will go to defend an idea.

It's like you're just saying that, linguistically, we can define the word marriage in any way we want. We can pass a law that says "marriage" now means "a property of a pebble such that it never leaves a ten foot radius." If the rock ever leaves that radius, we call that "divorce." Okay, great. What is the policy significance of this? What light does it shed upon the discussion?

It seems that you're advancing this notion simply to be able to paint the defender of gay marriage to be equally close-minded and bigoted as those opposed to gay marriage. Okay, great. How about we stipulate, right now, that, for the sake of discussion, both parties in this debate are equally close-minded and bigoted. So what? What is the policy significance of this fact? How should it guide our decision-making? What if you are about to cross a street and vampire Hitler, risen from the dead, warns you that a car is coming. Does the moral status of vampire Hitler have any bearing on the truth of his claim? Should it have an impact on whether you decide to cross the street or not?

 

[mgb_phys]

Reminds me of another "argument" the Prop. 8 opponents used: If we let gay people get married, they'll turn our kids gay! What about the children?!

They have a point, it's what happened when we let blacks or catholics or Jews marry, it's a slippery slope.
Suppose we allowed people to marry Belgians - would you want your children growing up Belgian!

 

[vela]

Suppose we allowed people to marry Belgians - would you want your children growing up Belgian!

Why not? Damn fine waffles!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From what I understand, this may be a done deal - Prop 8 is null and void. Those supporting Prop 8 may not have a right to appeal the case.

With the state now refusing to defend the same-sex marriage ban, plaintiffs lawyers insist that the Proposition 8 campaign no longer has a legal right to appeal the case and defend the state law on its own. The 9th Circuit has been asked to address that issue as well.

Proposition 8 lawyers argue they have a legal right to defend the law on appeal.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15789312?nclick_check=1

 

[vertices]

Do you believe that persons engaging in the zoophilia have the same rights as the rest of us ? If not, maybe miraculously you will raise at the level one day :P

zoophilia is animal abuse, a crime in many countries. Convicted 'zoophiles' may therefore lose some of their rights. If you are talking about the right to marry, this has been discussed at length in previous posts - the argument is that any marriage requires the consent of both parties (animals are unable to consent).

Yes we did. We as society slowly grown up to accept them and offer them more and more support.

what tangible 'support' have you personally given to gay people, other than being generous enough to 'accept' them?

Is not really about a discrimination.

Discrimination is treating people differently. Denying a right, granted to 90% of the population, to the remaining 10% is quintessentially discriminatory.

Since the dawn of law, marriage was understand as a union between male and female. Its still the staus quo in most of the civilized world. But it changes slowly. The society do not really discriminate the gays saying they can't marry. They just observe tradition and the laws flowing from this tradition.

Where did that definition of marriage come from and can you explain to me why people should blindly accept this seemingly arbitrary definition?

It;s not that small thing to bend tradition and law to allow them marriage. Discrimination can be purely avoided giving civil unions the same rights as to the married ppl. But no, they want "marriage". Well, this required the greater part of society a serious effort to be accepted. So yeah, Id say we (the society, which includes me) did something for them.

you are in a minority if you think that affording gay people the same rights as straight people requires "serious effort".

 

[Al68]

The Jesus argument as I understand it is that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

Really?

That's what I thought it was. Is there a different Jesus argument that Jack21222 could be referring to? Could be the "gay sex is a sin" argument, but my point would be the same either way.

Then a woman would have to prove she is fertile before being issued a marriage license? If my 84 year old father wanted to marry that hot 75 year old lady down the street, he shouldn't be allowed?

I don't know if the "Jesus argument" advocates want an age limit for women or not, but I've never heard of it. Are you under the impression that I thought it was a good argument? I said it was different from arguments against interracial marriage, not that it was a valid argument. I think it's both incorrect and counter-productive to claim that there is no difference between those issues.

The arguments against gay marriage are specious at best, and seemingly ever-changing.

I still think my (only) argument against gay marriage is the best one: Gay people have suffered enough already.

At least it seems like the most valid argument to me.

 

[Jack21222]

The dictionary argument as I understand it is that a marriage by definition is between man and woman.

People defined marriage as between a "man and woman of the same race."

The Jesus argument as I understand it is that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

People were using the Tower of Babel and the placement of different races in different areas as Biblical proof that God didn't want interracial marriage.

The issues are different because there are arguments against gay marriage that don't apply to interracial marriage

I have demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Al68]

People defined marriage as between a "man and woman of the same race."

People were using the Tower of Babel and the placement of different races in different areas as Biblical proof that God didn't want interracial marriage.

I have demonstrated otherwise.

No, you haven't. You just demonstrated substantial differences between the issues. "Man and woman of the same race" is substantially different than "man and woman". The reason you just gave for God supposedly not wanting interracial marriage is very different from the supposed reason God doesn't want gay marriage. It's not like the entire argument for both consists of just "God doesn't want it".

And the most obvious difference is simply that gender isn't race. Gender discrimination is different from racial discrimination. What possible purpose does it serve to pretend there is no difference?

Are you aware that gender discrimination is not only perfectly legal, but that government, as well as private companies and individuals, do it routinely and openly? Can we stop pretending there is no difference between gender and skin color in favor of honest debate?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Are you aware that gender discrimination is not only perfectly legal, but that government, as well as private companies and individuals, do it routinely and openly? Can we stop pretending there is no difference between gender and skin color in favor of honest debate?

I may be slightly thick, but I don't understand your point of view here. Could you spell it out more clearly?

Internet communication is difficult without vocal cues and nonverbal nuances.

 

[mgb_phys]

The Jesus argument

Is that like the chewbacca defense?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)

 

[Al68]

Are you aware that gender discrimination is not only perfectly legal, but that government, as well as private companies and individuals, do it routinely and openly? Can we stop pretending there is no difference between gender and skin color in favor of honest debate?

I may be slightly thick, but I don't understand your point of view here. Could you spell it out more clearly?

I'm not sure specifically what you want clarified. The only point of view I expressed here was that gender is different than skin color. If you want examples of legal gender discrimination, a small sampling would be insurance rates, laws against being topless in public, different standards in military, different dress codes in schools and workplaces, "ladies nights", segregated restrooms, etc.

 

[Al68]

The Jesus argument

Is that like the chewbacca defense?

mgb_phys, that does not make sense!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Jesus argument as I understand it is that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

That would be ironic [actually, "inappropriate"] given that, IIRC, no statements about this are attributed to Jesus.

I see a reference in Corinthians [Paul], in the new testament, but that's it. The context would not be suggestive of the justification offered, as it includes idolaters. The real fire and brimstone stuff is in the old testament.

 

[mgb_phys]

That would be ironic given that, IIRC, no statements about this are attributed to Jesus.

I think they are on the dead sea post-it notes.
Along with the bit about killing Jews and that everybody should follow Peter for 1600 years but then god wants them to all start their own churches.

 

[mgb_phys]

mgb_phys, that does not make sense!

Then you must acquit - if Jesus had hired Johnnie Cochran he would have got off.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think they are on the dead sea post-it notes.

That has nothing to do with Christian beliefs.

 

[mgb_phys]

That has nothing to do with Christian beliefs.

Unless there is a Gospel I'm missing (actually there are quite a few but that's another story) there isn't an awfull lot of correlation between what Jesus said and christian beliefs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Unless there is a Gospel I'm missing (actually there are quite a few but that's another story) there isn't an awfull lot of correlation between what Jesus said and christian beliefs.

Well, there are, but your point is about the same as mine - i.e. theory vs practice.