Same Sex Marriage

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

I know we've probably had this topic before, but I'm curious as to what people's stances are here. For the most part we are all pretty liberal, with a few exceptions on a few topics here and there. I'd imagine most of us would be for gay marriage, or at least not against it, but it can be a pretty detailed debate when you get into it and I think it has potential to be a good one.

For the record, I am completely in favour of it. Not only am I in favour, I'm apalled that it is legal for legislature to be passed preventing it. I think it is blantant discrimination and it makes me sick to my stomach that it is allowed to go on in this day and age. I think a big part of the problem lies in the fact that people think of this solely (or at least primarily) from a religious stand point (which...well, I guess I'll get into that later because that in of itself is bullshit).

So okay yeah, according to the bible or something, marriage is a union between a man and woman. That's great. I'm not religious in the slightest, and honestly I don't have that much of a problem with certain churches or parishes or religions wanting to exclude same-sex partners from the sacred bond of matrimony. Like I said, I'm not religious. I think its a bigoted backwards view point that because a person is homosexual they are somehow less Christian (or whatever) than someone who is heterosexual and should therefore be excluded from a particular religious right, but that's between God, the Church and the gay couple, and is the perogative of the Church to include or exclude whomever they feel like. That's why its a religion, not a form of government. I'll skip any long winded argument and pretty much just say "Seperation of Church and State" to cover the whole argument as to why its absolute BULLSHIT that ANY legislature would out-law gay marriage due to religious/biblical reasons.

So to bring me to my real point - discrimination. By allowing state goverments to out-law gay marriage, we are violating the rights of a very large group of people. I can honestly that as a straight person, there are dozens of obstacles a gay couple has to overcome to live a normal life and raise a family. From something just so simple as a spouse taking their partner's last name. Yeah! You never thought about that did you! Oh sure, when a straight couple gets married, the woman changes her name if she wants and the legal reason is simple - marriage. But if a gay couple wants to get married, and one of them particularly likes that tradition, they have to go a whole other legal route to accomplish the same thing. And even then its only legally a name change. It doesn't mean anything in the eyes of the state. That partner will never be eligible for something like health insurance from their partner (which is particularly important if one them wants to be a stay-at-home-wife/husband), or will ever legally be recognized as that person's next-of-kin. Not to mention if the couple wants to have children! Nevermind how much more difficult it is for a gay couple who is not legally married to adopt, but what if a lesbian couple wants to have children? Oh okay so artificial insemination! No need to adopt, right? Yeah but then that child is only LEGALLY recognozied as belonging to ONE partner. And again, issues like health insurance and next-of-kin come into play. Not to mention the tax benefits married couples receive from filing jointly and claiming dependents.

How it is even remotely okay for states to deny honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens these simple rights is beyond me. If anyone can explain it to me, please do. Because I'm lost and ill.

[Larry Flyntz]

If you don't feel like reading my constitutional law infused diatribe, here's a brief version: I agree.

Here's the longer version:

CON LAW WOO!  Let's start with the First Amendment.  It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."  "Marriage" is an inherently religious term.  By making laws about "marriage" that clearly favor the Christian understanding of the term, Congress (or state legislatures - the First applies to them too) is making a law that establishes a religion.  Unconstitutional.  The only constitutional way to deal with marriage is to not deal with it.  Congress can deal with Civil Unions or whatever you want to call them, but it needs to stay away from marriage.  Who can marry whom needs to be left up to the individual churches.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WOO!  It states that "[No State shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws."  Okay, so if we've ruled out "marriage," we're left with civil unions, or some equivalent.  Depriving someone of the right to form such a union may well violate his or her life and liberty.  And creating arbitrary separations is certainly not giving people "equal protection of the laws."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state (that state was Virginia - my current residence, woohoo) to ban interracial marriage (see Loving v. Virginia).  The logic of that decision lends itself perfectly to overturning anti-gay-marriage statutes.  There is no practical difference that I can think of that separates interracial marriage from gay marriage.  Furthermore, the Court has also stated that banning homosexual sodomy is unconstitutional (see Lawrence v. Texas).  So, the precedent is there; we just need to elect Obama and have one or two of the conservatives die off.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

I'm for it. I might write more on this later, but most of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage is either "gay marriage makes me uncomfortable" or "gay marriage is outlawed by God." So, all bullshit.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Isn't it hilarious when someone tells you that they're not homophobic and they think you should be allowed to do what you want but then quickly add "just so long as those faggots don't try any of their queer shit with me."

[GREGORIAN CHANT!!!]

My favorite argument against it is, "If we let the faggots marry each other what's stopping people from marrying horses and donkeys and shit."

Honestly as somebody who has been raised around a very strong committed, gay couple my entire life I have nothing but support for gay marriage. They have been together for the entirety of my life and I look upon them as a model couple for a functional, strong relationship.

[Larry Flyntz]

While I think the bestiality argument is pretty offensive, legally speaking, it makes sense.  Anti-gay-marriage folks will admit that the only thing that motivates their belief is either religion or this inherent revulsion toward homosexuality.  If Courts say "that's not enough," then it makes sense that other laws that are legitimized by revulsions would be out.  After all, they're not saying "you shouldn't be revolted by this."  They're saying, "revulsion, in and of itself, is not a legitimate basis for law."  So, if (and this is a rather large if) polygamy, bestiality, etc laws are based primarily on revulsion, they would be brought into question.  So, we need to see if they have any other basis.

[Rhino......................]

So, we need to see if they have any other basis.

Horses, donkeys and shit aren't people with rights, so they shouldn"t be able to marry anything.

[GREGORIAN CHANT!!!]

So, we need to see if they have any other basis.

Horses, donkeys and shit aren't people with rights, so they shouldn"t be able to marry anything.

Exactly. There is no basis for an animal or inanimate object to have "human rights" or standing in a court of law, therefore they have no right to be married.

[Larry Flyntz]

Sure, the animal doesn't have rights, but can't we still argue that the human has a right to marry whomever he wants?  Why is his right to marry dependent on the existence of the rights of his "bride?"  I guess the argument is that marriage (insofar as government is concerned) requires that both parties be human.  Governmental benefits (tax breaks, inheritance, visitation, etc.) simply cannot apply to animals.  I don't really think this "slippery slope" exists (at least as far as marriage goes*), I'm just trying to see what the argument for it would be.

*I qualify this because I think the slippery slope does exist at least in theory regarding sex.  If we allow homosexual sodomy on the basis that revulsion is not a legitimate basis for law, it seems we might have to allow bestiality and consensual incest.  Again, this is just in theory.  In practicality, the slippery slope doesn't exist, because our government is A-okay with being philosophically inconsistent (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Yeah, the whole "if two men marry then why not a dog and a man?" argument always seemed to me to be more about discomfort with homosexuality than logic.

[Rhino......................]

Sure, the animal doesn't have rights, but can't we still argue that the human has a right to marry whomever he wants?  Why is his right to marry dependent on the existence of the rights of his "bride?"  I guess the argument is that marriage (insofar as government is concerned) requires that both parties be human.  Governmental benefits (tax breaks, inheritance, visitation, etc.) simply cannot apply to animals.

I'm sure I've said this before, but I don't think the Government should be rewarding people for getting married. If who could marry whom was left up to individual churches and religions, and there were no Government-sanctioned financial benefits involved, marriage would be strictly a religious matter, and the Government would have no place making laws about it. Granting benefits to married couples discriminates against those who can't or choose not to get married and suggests that married couples are somehow more American.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

Aaaah oh god there are so many things I need to say here I don't even know where to start!! First off, Dave:

I'm sure I've said this before, but I don't think the Government should be rewarding people for getting married. If who could marry whom was left up to individual churches and religions, and there were no Government-sanctioned financial benefits involved, marriage would be strictly a religious matter, and the Government would have no place making laws about it. Granting benefits to married couples discriminates against those who can't or choose not to get married and suggests that married couples are somehow more American.

It is only discriminatory to provide these benefits to married couples if the government prohibits whom they allow to get married. It's not discrimination if it's a person's personal choice to not participate in a particular institution or practice that would make the eligible for certain tax benefits. If eligibility is dependent upon that participation, and everyone is eligible to participate, there is no discrimination.

While I think the bestiality argument is pretty offensive, legally speaking, it makes sense.  Anti-gay-marriage folks will admit that the only thing that motivates their belief is either religion or this inherent revulsion toward homosexuality.  If Courts say "that's not enough," then it makes sense that other laws that are legitimized by revulsions would be out.  After all, they're not saying "you shouldn't be revolted by this."  They're saying, "revulsion, in and of itself, is not a legitimate basis for law."  So, if (and this is a rather large if) polygamy, bestiality, etc laws are based primarily on revulsion, they would be brought into question.  So, we need to see if they have any other basis.

Okay Flyntz (and everybody else) here is why the "slippery slope" argument is bullshit. So the big thing that I think everyone here is getting wrong is WHY bestiality is illegal, or at least the logical reason for it being so. Bestiality is illegal because there is no way to prove that an animal is consenting to any sex act performed upon it. It has nothing to do with an animal's lack or not of "rights." If we can all agree this is the most logical reason for bestiality being illegal, its easy to see how there is absolutely no correalation between bestiality and same-sex marriage. It is very easy to determine if a grown adult is consenting to anything, much less a sex act or a marriage, so there's no similiarity whatsoever. People who say that there is only say so because they ARE disgusted by homosexuality and think everyone else should live their lives by their sad small standards. That being said, I don't know what the legal basis for polygamy being illegal is, and personally I don't think there is one, other than traditional "Christian" morals and people thinking its "just wrong." Which ya know, is a terrible basis for a law.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Well, I think it's pretty fair to say that an animal has no rights under the constitution and thus cannot be a party in a legal contract.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Also I'm 99% sure that bestiality is illegal because it is cruelty to the animal.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

Also I'm 99% sure that bestiality is illegal because it is cruelty to the animal.

Unless the animal enjoys it.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

Also I'm 99% sure that bestiality is illegal because it is cruelty to the animal.

Unless the animal enjoys it.

Yeah that's what I meant by the animal cannot consent. That and you can't prove consent with an animal, Seth, because they're, ya know, an animal.

[Larry Flyntz]

Also I'm 99% sure that bestiality is illegal because it is cruelty to the animal.

Maybe that's one argument for it, but I think the real reason is that Americans think it's fucking disgusting.  If it were proven that animals either enjoyed sex with humans or could consent to it in some way, it would still be illegal.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Well thats a pretty big if. According to wikipedia (yes I wikipedia'd "bestiality"  ) its because of the cruelty aspect. Here's the bit -

In many jurisdictions, all forms of zoosexual acts are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. Because it is legally unresolved whether sexual relations with animals are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment", the legal status of zoosexual activity remains unclear in some jurisdictions.

Laws on zoosexuality in modern times are often triggered by specific incidents or by peer pressure.[12] Whilst some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "sodomy" or "bestiality" which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. Other factors affecting the operation of law include enforced assumptions as to abuse, creative use of alternative laws, and the impact of uncodified cultural norms, prohibitions, and social taboos. In the past, bestiality laws were mainly put in place for religious reasons and the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, and were primarily concerned with the offense to community standards.[13]

Currently, the legal status of bestiality varies across the world. In some countries, such as Sweden, and Denmark bestiality remains legal. In Canada, the Netherlands, much of the United States, Australia and New Zealand, it is completely outlawed. In Great Britain, only penetrative acts are illegal. Countries such as Belgium, Germany and Russia are somewhere in between; they permit sexual activity with animals, but strictly prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.[14]

Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents. The Swedish Animal Welfare Agency believed current animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient in protecting animals from abuse and needed updating, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban.[15] In New Zealand, the 1989 Crimes Bill abolished bestiality as a criminal offense, instead viewing it a mental health issue.[16] Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals. For example, an old Peruvian law allegedly prohibited single males from owning a female alpaca.[17]

Philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, but this view is not widely shared, with the majority opinion supporting the view that animals, like children, are not capable of informed consent.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

Also I'm 99% sure that bestiality is illegal because it is cruelty to the animal.

Maybe that's one argument for it, but I think the real reason is that Americans think it's fucking disgusting.  If it were proven that animals either enjoyed sex with humans or could consent to it in some way, it would still be illegal.

Well sure most people think it is disgusting (except for the ones that do it, obviously) and while that is probably why its ACTUALLY illegal, that doesn't negate the fact that there is still a good legal, logical basis for it being illegal.

My point is just that the "slippery slope" argument is bullshit because there is no good logical reason for same sex marriage being illegal, while there is a perfectly legitimate one for bestaility being so.

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

Just wanted to post this to sort of put in perspective how fucked up this country is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg