Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[CEHollier]

As I said... I prefer the American Quarter horse to the Tennessee Walker.

Cat, That one went completely over my head until you explained it to me.

 

[Cat]

Heh.

 

[D-DAY]

Originally Posted by D-DAY View Post
You cannot discriminate against them based on the assumption that there will be offspring. Not to bring race back into this, but I believe a local elected official was just forced to resign for statements made to this effect, although they were about interracial offspring.



"There is a difference between social pressures and physical disorders. Heterosexual same race couples often have children which have certain physical characteristics and get picked on for it. Atheist and Muslim couples that have children which grow up with their parents beliefs will probably meet social pressures among their peers, should we not allow them to marry? Again, social pressures are much different from almost guaranteed physical disorders."



Again, you are willing to discriminate against people who freely choose to have an incestuous relationship based on the possibility that they "may" pro-create, and that offspring may be physically or mentally handicapped???

Some married couples with known genetic defects have children knowing that their offspring will inherit the faulty genes and even be physically or mentally challenged. Do we need to force these people to divorce so they don't do anymore damage to the gene pool?

 

[Ockham]

Again, you are willing to discriminate against people who freely choose to have an incestuous relationship based on the possibility that they "may" pro-create, and that offspring may be physically or mentally handicapped???

I don't believe it can be called discrimation when actual harm is befalling someone. Can you make the connection between the legal term "discrimination" and not allowing incestual relationships between two people?

Some married couples with known genetic defects have children knowing that their offspring will inherit the faulty genes and even be physically or mentally challenged. Do we need to force these people to divorce so they don't do anymore damage to the gene pool?

Systematically giving every couple genetic tests before they have sex is outlandish. Incestual relationships need no testing, though.

 

[D-DAY]

I don't believe it can be called discrimation when actual harm is befalling someone. Can you make the connection between the legal term "discrimination" and not allowing incestual relationships between two people?



Systematically giving every couple genetic tests before they have sex is outlandish. Incestual relationships need no testing, though.

What harm? You are speculating that there are going to be children. I am talking about marriage, remember.

If the argument that "marriage is for procreation" is an invalid one, since technically a homosexual couple cannot have children, then it is an invalid argument for this case too. Children are not a given because marriage is involved, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for discrimination for incestuous couples.

 

[Ockham]

What harm? You are speculating that there are going to be children. I am talking about marriage, remember.

Are you suggesting that if we allowed incestuous marriages that not one of them would ever produce even a single child?

You do bring up a good point, though. Before we can move on we need to define marriage. It's useless if we are both discussing two different ideals.

If the argument that marriage is for procreation is an invalid one, since technically a homosexual couple cannot have children, then it is an invalid one for this case too.

No, the argument against homosexuals is based on the fact that homosexual sex cannot produce a child. That is something totally different from my argument against incestuous couples having sex, because they *can* produce a child - a child with defects.

Both deal with procreation, or lack thereof, but that doesn't mean that they represent the same thing. One argument says "You cannot get married because you cannot have children", while the other says "You cannot get married (or even have sex for that matter) because you can produce a child with serious defects. That's not fair for the child."

If you use the argument that a couple that cannot have children shouldn't get married, then it actually backfires on many heterosexual couples and would force them to get a divorce because they cannot have a child.

Children are not a given because marriage is involved, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for discrimination for incestuous couples.

Marriage or no marriage, incestuous people should not be allowed to reproduce because they can produce children with serious defects. That is not discrimination, that's preventing harm from befalling an innocent child.

 

[CloudStrife]

Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of truth to that. Morality is ultimately subjective. Still, I do think that even subjectivity can be argued. Just look at Olympic sports that require judges to score performances based on certain criteria. I think that even though morality is subjective, you can still select goals you'd like a society to accomplish and see which rules give you the best shot at reaching those goals.

"You cannot get an ought from an is"

- David Hume

Morality isn't subjective. There is a right, and there is a wrong. However, no human being is the absolute authority.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Morality isn't subjective. There is a right, and there is a wrong. However, no human being is the absolute authority.

So then how do you know what is right and wrong?

 

[CloudStrife]

So then how do you know what is right and wrong?

I'm a Christian, so I start with the Bible. However, it isn't a nice and neat list of rights and wrongs for every situation. That's where each person has to search for truth themselves. In general I believe that if 2 people have a genuine desire for truth, they will come to many of the same conclusions. Of course, there will be differences because none of us will ever have it all right.

 

[Ockham]

Morality isn't subjective. There is a right, and there is a wrong. However, no human being is the absolute authority.

You seem to be saying that morality is objective, if that is so, objectively proving what is moral and what isn't would be as simple as ojectively proving that 3 is greater than 2.

Have you ever heard of the "ought-is problem"?

Given knowledge of the way the world is, how can one know the way the world ought to be? David Hume posed that question, and I've yet to hear an answer to it.

 

[D-DAY]

Are you suggesting that if we allowed incestuous marriages that not one of them would ever produce even a single child?

You do bring up a good point, though. Before we can move on we need to define marriage. It's useless if we are both discussing two different ideals.



No, the argument against homosexuals is based on the fact that homosexual sex cannot produce a child. That is something totally different from my argument against incestuous couples having sex, because they *can* produce a child - a child with defects.

Both deal with procreation, or lack thereof, but that doesn't mean that they represent the same thing. One argument says "You cannot get married because you cannot have children", while the other says "You cannot get married (or even have sex for that matter) because you can produce a child with serious defects. That's not fair for the child."

If you use the argument that a couple that cannot have children shouldn't get married, then it actually backfires on many heterosexual couples and would force them to get a divorce because they cannot have a child.



Marriage or no marriage, incestuous people should not be allowed to reproduce because they can produce children with serious defects. That is not discrimination, that's preventing harm from befalling an innocent child.

I see I have found your tipping point, and it lies with the incestuous relationships.

You seem to be hung up on the "children" issue. The fact of the matter is you cannot have double standards when considering this an issue about civil rights. Children should not even come into the discussion of marriage rights, that is unless you plan on using it as a definition of marriage (ie. procreation purposes). In that case, the homosexuals and the incestors are out. But, we don't really want that to be the case here. So children should not be counted as a negative or a positive when considering marriage rights. That way everyone gets a level playing field, ie. no civil rights being violated.



Again, normal married couples with bad genes "knowingly" have children that will have physical and/or mental deformities. Who is there to protect these innocent children??? These people are allowed to re-produce at will, but its ok since the marriage is of the traditional variety?

 

[Ockham]

You seem to be hung up on the "children" issue. The fact of the matter is you cannot have double standards when considering this an issue about civil rights. Children should not even come into the discussion of marriage rights, that is unless you plan on using it as a definition of marriage (ie. procreation purposes). In that case, the homosexuals and the incestors are out.

I don't see the double standard as we are talking about two different ideas.

#1 Homosexuals getting married, having sex, and never producing any children

does not equal:

#2 Incestuous lovers getting married, having sex, and sometimes producing children with deformaties.

Unless you can show me how these two ideas are one in the same I do not believe you've shown a connection, and thus no double standard.

The only way you can connect these two ideas would be to replace the #2 above with...

#3 Incestuous lovers getting married, having sex, and never producing any children.

If there is a way to guarantee, 100%, that all incestuous couples could never have a child... Well then, you've found your connection.

Again, normal married couples with bad genes "knowingly" have children that will have physical and/or mental deformities. Who is there to protect these innocent children??? These people are allowed to re-produce at will, but its ok since the marriage is of the traditional variety?

You argue that some heterosexual couples can also produce children with physical or mental disorders, but you’ve just changed the subject. That argument targets a different topic, that topic being "should sexual relationships which have a good chance of producing children be allowed?" Since homosexual relationships cannot produce children period, nun-the-less children that have a good chance of having disorders, then homosexual marriage is not on the table any more. If you make that argument, you take the spotlight off of gay marriage and pose a very different question “Should people be allowed to get married (have sexual relationships) if they have a very high risk of having deformed children?” It’s a good question, but whatever the answer is, it doesn’t pertain to gay marriage.

 

[CloudStrife]

You seem to be saying that morality is objective, if that is so, objectively proving what is moral and what isn't would be as simple as ojectively proving that 3 is greater than 2.

Have you ever heard of the "ought-is problem"?

Given knowledge of the way the world is, how can one know the way the world ought to be? David Hume posed that question, and I've yet to hear an answer to it.

Morality is objective. Just because we are incapable of providing definitive answers doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Ockham]

Morality is objective. Just because we are incapable of providing definitive answers doesn't mean they don't exist.

And just because we are incapable of proving definitive answers doesn't mean that they do exist.

I could claim that certain colors are objectively prettier than others, and say that just because I cannot objectively prove it doesn't mean that there isn't objective proof for it.

 

[CloudStrife]

And just because we are incapable of proving definitive answers doesn't mean that they do exist.

I could claim that certain colors are objectively prettier than others, and say that just because I cannot objectively prove it doesn't mean that there isn't objective proof for it.

My concept of right and wrong comes from the idea that there is a God, and he has laws. Since I don't have "God's Manual to Right and Wrong" on hand, my views are my beliefs. I can't offer you evidence, only my reasoning. You can agree or disagree. I can help you see differently, or maybe you can help me see differently. Ultimately one of us is right and one is wrong, which we'll find out one day. That's what I believe.

Also, when I say something IS such a way, like murder IS wrong, that is still a belief. Sometimes I interchange IS and BELIEVE because I believe something so strongly that I feel I know it to be true.

 

[CEHollier]

The gay marriage debate boils down to this. A person's moral beliefs according to the Bible. Either you believe there is a Christian God and homosexuality is a sin or you don't. Many who do believe it is a sin also believe the lifestyle has a negative impact on society. They also believe if left unchecked homosexuality, along with other sins, lead to the moral decay of a society and can bring the wrath of god upon that country. If you don't believe the Bible the Christian mindset makes no sense and appears intollerant. This post is not to debate the subject. Only to demonstrate why it's debate can be so passionate and unwinable. Below are several passages giving Gods word on the subject.

Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[Ockham]

The gay marriage debate boils down to this. A person's moral beliefs according to the Bible. Either you believe there is a Christian God and homosexuality is a sin or you don't. Many who do believe it is a sin also believe the lifestyle has a negative impact on society. They also believe if left unchecked homosexuality, along with other sins, lead to the moral decay of a society and can bring the wrath of god upon that country. If you don't believe the Bible the Christian mindset makes no sense and appears intollerant. This post is not to debate the subject. Only to demonstrate why it's debate can be so passionate and unwinable. Below are several passages giving Gods word on the subject.

Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Homosexuality leading to the moral decay of a society and bring God's wrath upon that country? You sound like Pat Robertson...

Religious beliefs are irrelevant, they do not influence law here in America. This is a civil rights issue and I've already explained to you how the Supreme Court views marriage. You've only justified your own distaste for homosexuality, you have not demonstrate why it should be banned. Disliking it is one thing, outright banning it is another. I'm not here to play mind police and try and influence people's personal feelings, this is America and you're free to feel however you want. You cannot, however, allow your personal feelings to interfere with someone elses civil rights.

 

[CEHollier]

Religious beliefs are irrelevant, they do not influence law here in America. This is a civil rights issue and I've already explained how the Supreme Court views marriage.

When you can't win the argument attack the messenger calling them names. I was wondering when you would stoop to ad hominem attacks. Many of the legislators creating our laws are Christian and other religions. Even the judges on the Supreme Court have their religious beliefs. To say their religious beliefs are irrelevant is to live in a vaccum.

 

[Cat]

It's a Christian nation. Our laws are going to reflect our deep seated beliefs. That's human nature.

 

[Ockham]

When you can't win the argument attack the messenger calling them names. I was wondering when you would stoop to ad hominem attacks.

A quick logic lesson:

Name calling =/= ad hominem

An ad hominem attack occurs when I say that your views are wrong because of ________ (insert certain character quality here).

I just poked fun at you by sound like Pat Robertson with all this "doom and gloom God's gonna strike us down" talk. That's not an ad hominem attack. Now if I said that you're a Christian and therefore wrong, then that would be an ad hominem attack.

Many of the legislators creating our laws are Christian and other religions. Even the judges on the Supreme Court have their religious beliefs. To say their religious beliefs are irrelevant is to live in a vaccum.

Unless we are a Theocracy, then religion has no place in our law. Sorry. Sure it finds itself there on many occasions but that doesn't make it consistent with how America should be.

It's a Christian nation. Our laws are going to reflect our deep seated beliefs. That's human nature.

This is a nation mostly made up of Christians, that is much different and not to be confused with a Christian nation (AKA: A Christian Theocracy.) Our early founding fathers actually mentioned that this is not a Christian nation, article 10 or 11 on the Treaty of Tripoli outright says that America is not a Christian nation.