Homosexual Judge Refuses To Officiate Straight Marriages

[4588686]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1330112730' post='2392367']
Unless it hurts others. The government is a social institution meant to protect society.

...we don't let Mormons and Muslims have multiple wives, do we?
....we don't let brothers and sisters marry, do we?
....drugs aren't legal, are they?
....we have to wear a seatbelt, don't we?

Oftentimes, the state even protects us from ourselves, to protect society as a whole by extension. That's a slippery slope, but there you have it. When individuals aren't protected as individuals, society can't be protected, either. The family is the building block of society--if it isn't preserved, then there goes society.

Edited: for clarity
[/quote]

I'm inclined to say that we should bite the bullet and allow polygamy and incest. Unless some compelling evidence can be presented that we have strong reason to discriminate against these practices (like if polygamy can be shown to be damaging to the participating women). Drugs are much easier. It is rediculious that pot is illegal. But the state very clearly has reason to fight against really hard drugs like Meth and Crack. These drugs are immensely harmful to individuals and society at large.

[Jesus_lol]

wait for it, someone is gonna say that homosexual marriage is not only worse than torture, but also worse for society and the individual than crystal meth.

[4588686]

[color=#ff0000][i]Why you talking about abortion? I was talking about integration as in integrating the different races into society.[/i][/color]

Because you used abortion in a flawed analogy.


[color=#ff0000]Two gay people living together does not affect me.[/color]

Correct.

[color=#ff0000]y opposition to gay marriage is about defending the building block of society. If two people of the same sex want to live together.......go for it. Nothing is stopping them. They want hospital visits or whatnot......go get a lawyer. No one is stopping them.[/color]

Yes. They are. Gay couples do not have the same rights as married couples. Stable, long term relationships do not have the same legal rights and protections as Kim Kardashian's 72 hour marriage. That's rediculious and the fact that this discrimination exists because of one verse inciting murder for sexual relations between two men and a few throw away comments by a Roman Rabbi wandering around Asian Minor a few decades after another Rabbi was executed by the Roman Empire, who the first Rabbi believed to have actually been God, is absurd.

[color=#ff0000]What is going on in this country is about legal recognition.[/color]

Correct

[color=#ff0000]Why should we recognize two adults with benefits?[/color]

Honestly, I'm really pissed off by this comment and this attitude. Comparing long term, stable gay relationships to a detached hook up arrangement is pretty shiitake mushroom of you.

[color=#ff0000]What do they add to society? They can't have kids. It doesn't work.[/color]

The United States has no requirement that couples getting married must have either the desire or the ability to have children. Therefore, you cannot oppose gay marriage on those grounds, from a Constitutional standpoint.

[color=#ff0000]If we are going to recognize two consenting adults, why not three? All the arguments for same-sex marriage can by used for polygamy and nuanced into bestiality.[/color]

Not necessarily. It does not apply to animals since animals at all. It may apply to polygamy. That depends on if the government can come up with a Constitutionally sufficient reason for discrimination.

[color=#ff0000]It's not hard since the arguments for same-sex marriage are based on feelings with the hoopla-lie of "rights" added to the feeling argument.[/color]

No, it is based on Constitutional grounds. Your argument, however, is based on feelings. You have faith. Unfounded, unmerited faith, that your Church is the Bride of Christ. You have a right to hold that faith. That painfully, embarrassingly unwarranted faith. But you don't have a right to take that feeling. That faith. That yearning that the ideology in which you have so invested in your identity and use it to run roughshod over the rights of another citizen.

[color=#ff0000]So why do we want to artificially recognize two people doing stuff together? Are we not discriminating against the rights of singles who don't get the benefits of being "married?" We infringed on the Mormon's rights to polygamy! [b]We are infringing on the right of someone to marry a tree and be ONE with nature! [/b][/color]


It is becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously. What you 'want' matters exactly jack poo. YOU do not have any say in the state honoring the rights of other citizens. YOUR opinion matters not at all. Just like my opinion about your belief that you inject the the body and blood of Christ every Sunday is comically erroneous has no bearing on your RIGHT as an American citizen to hold that belief. See how that works? Isn't it lovely when we don't act like little fascists and try to piss all over other people's rights?

[color=#ff0000]The government's purpose in protecting marriage is to protect what is biologically the building block of society. Children grow up best in a home with a mom and a dad. Society continues by heterosexual couples reproducing......not gay people doing it.[/color]

Do you have some scientific studies demonstrating that heterosexual marriages are better for raising children in that homosexual relationships?

[color=#ff0000]The gay movement is not about their ability to live their lives with their partner, but for the [b]public worship [/b]of their actions and the financial benefit of marriage......of which that benefit is NOT meant as an arbitrary reason to give people money but rather to promote the building block of the next generation.[/color]

My best friend really doesn't have any desire for you, or anyone else, to worship his actions with his boyfriend of two and a half years, you silly billy. Nor is he after a government payckeck. Nor is his relationship similar to that of an individual who wants to floopy a tree or a dog. He does want to have kids and raise them in a loving, stable home. This isn't about him. I was opposed to the religious right's bullying of gays before we were friends. But since you decided to attack his character and motives, along with every other gay person who wants to get married, I thought I'd offer some defense. And that's all I'm going to say at this moment because what I had originally typed out would probably get my suspended.

Have a fantastic day.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1330107157' post='2392314']They can't have kids. It doesn't work.

[/quote]
To point out the flaw in this particular logic, we would then need to forbid the following people from legal marriage as well:
-people who have been rendered sterile, either by nature or some other reason
-people who have lost (or never had) the use of the lower half of their bodies
-people (women) over the age of about 50

et cetera. Are you in favor of this?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330329672' post='2393520']
[i]Why you talking about abortion? I was talking about integration as in integrating the different races into society.[/i]

Because you used abortion in a flawed analogy.[/quote]

Analogies are flawed by definition. They are meant to get a certain characteristic across, but an analogy does break down at some point. The point is not to look at where it breaks down, but to where it works to understand a point.


[quote] [i]y opposition to gay marriage is about defending the building block of society. If two people of the same sex want to live together.......go for it. Nothing is stopping them. They want hospital visits or whatnot......go get a lawyer. No one is stopping them.[/i]

Yes. They are. Gay couples do not have the same rights as married couples. Stable, long term relationships do not have the same legal rights and protections as Kim Kardashian's 72 hour marriage. That's rediculious and the fact that this discrimination exists because of one verse inciting murder for sexual relations between two men and a few throw away comments by a Roman Rabbi wandering around Asian Minor a few decades after another Rabbi was executed by the Roman Empire, who the first Rabbi believed to have actually been God, is absurd. [/quote]

So what rights can a gay couple not get via a lawyer?

[quote]
[i]Why should we recognize two adults with benefits?[/i]

Honestly, I'm really pissed off by this comment and this attitude. Comparing long term, stable gay relationships to a detached hook up arrangement is pretty shiitake mushroom of you. [/quote]

A detached hook-up is not the norm of marriage, and nor the intent but the exception. Your comparing a best case scenario to a worst-case scenario. This violates your point and your mushroom comment is not winning any respect.
[quote]
What do they add to society? They can't have kids. It doesn't work.

The United States has no requirement that couples getting married must have either the desire or the ability to have children. Therefore, you cannot oppose gay marriage on those grounds, from a Constitutional standpoint. [/quote]

Marriage isn't a constitutional right to begin with. I would argue It's in the government's favor and best interest to promote heterosexual marriage, but it's not an inherent right.

[quote]
[i]If we are going to recognize two consenting adults, why not three? All the arguments for same-sex marriage can by used for polygamy and nuanced into bestiality.[/i]

Not necessarily. It does not apply to animals since animals at all. It may apply to polygamy. That depends on if the government can come up with a Constitutionally sufficient reason for discrimination.[/quote]

Why does it not apply to animals? Is that in the Constitution? We make laws protecting certain animals....we could recognize an animal and a person if we wanted too.

Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex after a certain age. That is not discrimination. A law saying one can marry someone of the same-sex would apply equally to heterosexual people as well as those with same-sex attraction.

[quote]
[i]It's not hard since the arguments for same-sex marriage are based on feelings with the hoopla-lie of "rights" added to the feeling argument.[/i]

No, it is based on Constitutional grounds. Your argument, however, is based on feelings. You have faith. Unfounded, unmerited faith, that your Church is the Bride of Christ. You have a right to hold that faith. That painfully, embarrassingly unwarranted faith. But you don't have a right to take that feeling. That faith. That yearning that the ideology in which you have so invested in your identity and use it to run roughshod over the rights of another citizen. [/quote]

Where in this thread have I invoked the Constitution or my faith? Cite the post where I do so before making more straw-men. Again, gay marriage is not in the Constitution, so it's not a "right." If this country decided to recognize gay marriage it would be a new right, not an old one.

[quote]
[i]So why do we want to artificially recognize two people doing stuff together? Are we not discriminating against the rights of singles who don't get the benefits of being "married?" We infringed on the Mormon's rights to polygamy! [b]We are infringing on the right of someone to marry a tree and be ONE with nature! [/b][/i]


It is becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously. What you 'want' matters exactly jack poo. YOU do not have any say in the state honoring the rights of other citizens. YOUR opinion matters not at all. Just like my opinion about your belief that you inject the the body and blood of Christ every Sunday is comically erroneous has no bearing on your RIGHT as an American citizen to hold that belief. See how that works? Isn't it lovely when we don't act like little fascists and try to piss all over other people's rights? [/quote]


If you want to discuss the matter, then discuss the matter. Attacking my character and using fun potty words does not add to the discussion and does not add to your argument. What I say is my opinion, true. That doesn't logically make it irrelevant though.


[quote]
[i]The government's purpose in protecting marriage is to protect what is biologically the building block of society. Children grow up best in a home with a mom and a dad. Society continues by heterosexual couples reproducing......not gay people doing it.[/i]

Do you have some scientific studies demonstrating that heterosexual marriages are better for raising children in that homosexual relationships? [/quote]

[url="http://www.cpaulsmith.com/2007/09/26/traditional-marriage-is-best-for-rearing-children/"]http://www.cpaulsmit...aring-children/[/url]

[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php"]http://www.orthodoxy...leyGayAdopt.php[/url]

[url="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02"]http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02[/url]

These three links have extensive information on the data on child-raising, and the health of relationships. They also deal with some studies that claim same-sex parents are as equal as a heterosexual couple.

[quote]
[i]The gay movement is not about their ability to live their lives with their partner, but for the [b]public worship [/b]of their actions and the financial benefit of marriage......of which that benefit is NOT meant as an arbitrary reason to give people money but rather to promote the building block of the next generation.[/i]

My best friend really doesn't have any desire for you, or anyone else, to worship his actions with his boyfriend of two and a half years, you silly billy. Nor is he after a government payckeck. Nor is his relationship similar to that of an individual who wants to floopy a tree or a dog. He does want to have kids and raise them in a loving, stable home. This isn't about him. I was opposed to the religious right's bullying of gays before we were friends. But since you decided to attack his character and motives, along with every other gay person who wants to get married, I thought I'd offer some defense. And that's all I'm going to say at this moment because what I had originally typed out would probably get my suspended.

Have a fantastic day.
[/quote]

If you can't civilly discuss the matter, then don't discuss it. It's not my fault two people of the same-sex can't have children. Also this thread is about gay marriage, not about raising children, which are technically two different issues.

Opposition to gay marriage is not bullying.


[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][b] [i]bullying[/i][color=#666666]present participle of[i] bul·ly[/i][/color][/b]

Verb: Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

It would be successfully argued that the gay movement is bullying the religious right by forcing citizens to recognize certain new rights.

Since the argument for gay marriage is based on intimidation and influence (after all same-sex attraction was removed as a disorder not on scientific grounds but politic pressure), and there is no Constitution "right" to appeal to, I have yet to hear a comprehensive logical argument for why gay marriage should be recognized. Saying something is a "right" doesn't make it a right. It has to be explained.[/font][/size]


Where do I attack your friend's character? For the record, I don't hate people who experience same-sex attraction. However it is wrong to encourage behavior that is overall detrimental to one's well being, and society's structure.

If someone is pre-disposed to alcoholism, and we recognize alcoholism to be negative to one's health and to society's health, then one should not just say "do whatever you want." We should treat the person with dignity and respect while charitably not promoting destructive behavior.

If you would like to discuss the matter, respond to my arguments. If the discussion does not continue, but rather a shouting match continues where arguments are ignored in favor of straw-men, then consider this my last post on this thread.

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1330345330' post='2393543']
To point out the flaw in this particular logic, we would then need to forbid the following people from legal marriage as well:
-people who have been rendered sterile, either by nature or some other reason
-people who have lost (or never had) the use of the lower half of their bodies
-people (women) over the age of about 50

et cetera. Are you in favor of this?
[/quote]

There have been some miracle babies, so one can't put a magic age on limiting marriage. In a natural setting, a baby occurs from a man and a woman. Now sometimes exceptions occur that prohibit a baby, but the norm is a baby. Since the norm is a baby, there is no reason to start mandatory testing for the weird exceptions of nature.

Infertile couples have an increased ability to adopt children, so it makes sense to still allow infertile people to marry as they provide the same social structure for raising the orphans of society. Society has an interest in keeping this up as this social structure is a tried-and true method.

Edited February 27, 2012 by eagle_eye222001

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330315850' post='2393485']


That is true. But if the government wants to deny a civil right to a citizen or class of citizens the government's reasoning must pass constitutional muster. You have no such reasons. "Well, the same book that thinks that the Sun revolves around the Earth thinks that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, QED" doesn't cut it.
[/quote]

If one wishes to change a law which has stood for 200 years, then I would say that the burden of proof is on them. If you wish to implement an idea, you give reasons as to why it should be implemented. You do not go around asking everyone why they don't support your idea. For instance, if you wanted to build a giant fuzyy bunny statue in front of the school, you would have to give the school board reasons as to why the statue should be built. You do not simply shout at the board, "You have no reason why we *shouldn't* build it!"

I never said we should not allow SSM "because the Bible says so," and I would thank you not to put words in my mouth.

[4588686]

[color=#ff0000]Analogies are flawed by definition. They are meant to get a certain characteristic across, but an analogy does break down at some point. The point is not to look at where it breaks down, but to where it works to understand a point. [/color]

No, they are not. Refutation by logical analogy is a valid technique of argument. Some analogies are flawed, but there are not definitionally so.
[url="http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Refutation%20by%20Logical%20Analogy.pdf"]http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Refutation%20by%20Logical%20Analogy.pdf[/url]





[color=#ff0000]So what rights can a gay couple not get via a lawyer? [/color]

The right to marry.



A detached hook-up is not the norm of marriage, and nor the intent but the exception. Your comparing a best case scenario to a worst-case scenario. This violates your point and your mushroom comment is not winning any respect.


[color=#ff0000]Marriage isn't a constitutional right to begin with. I would argue It's in the government's favor and best interest to promote heterosexual marriage, but it's not an inherent right. [/color]

The Constitution is intended to enumerate the rights of the government, not the people. Hence the 9th Amendment. That alone, would make your argument difficult. But the USSC has explicitly stated that marriage is in fact a right. Loving v. Virginia comes to mind here. If the states are going to be in the business of recognizing marriage and conferring benefits on married couples then they have to pass a fairly strict standard in order to introduce discrimination into who can and cannot be married.



[color=#ff0000] Why does it not apply to animals? Is that in the Constitution? We make laws protecting certain animals....we could recognize an animal and a person if we wanted too. [/color]

It doesn't apply to animals because nothing constitutionally applies to animals. Animals have no rights under the Constitution. We can make laws protecting animals if we want to. We can say that we wish to introduce legal protections for them. But they don't have any constitutional rights. Animals are incapable of participating willfully in marital activity.

[color=#ff0000]Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex after a certain age. That is not discrimination. A law saying one can marry someone of the same-sex would apply equally to heterosexual people as well as those with same-sex attraction. [/color]

This is the exact, and I do mean exact, same logic that was used to justify bans on interracial marriage. If this logic is apt then the state can ban interracial marriage.



[color=#ff0000]Where in this thread have I invoked the Constitution or my faith? Cite the post where I do so before making more straw-men. Again, gay marriage is not in the Constitution, so it's not a "right." If this country decided to recognize gay marriage it would be a new right, not an old one.[/color]

You are telling me that your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with your religion?




[color=#ff0000]If you want to discuss the matter, then discuss the matter. Attacking my character and using fun potty words does not add to the discussion and does not add to your argument. What I say is my opinion, true. That doesn't logically make it irrelevant though.[/color]

I did not attack your character. What I did point out, however, is that what you 'want' does not matter. Nobody needs to convince you that you should *want* gay people to get married. Just like nobody needs to convince me that I should *want* you to be able to participate in a ritual whereby you believe that bread and wine suddenly becomes the real, true flesh and blood of Christ. You right to hold that belief is wholly and totally independent of whether or not I want you to exercise it.




[url="http://www.cpaulsmith.com/2007/09/26/traditional-marriage-is-best-for-rearing-children/"][color=#ff0000]http://www.cpaulsmit...aring-children/[/color][/url]

[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php"][color=#ff0000]http://www.orthodoxy...leyGayAdopt.php[/color][/url]

[url="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02"][color=#ff0000]http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02[/color][/url][color=#ff0000]

These three links have extensive information on the data on child-raising, and the health of relationships. They also deal with some studies that claim same-sex parents are as equal as a heterosexual couple. [/color]

Those sources do not qualify as a scientific study. I'm talking about peer reviewed literature from serious scholars.

Moreover your argument is still deeply flawed. The government doesn't use statistic to determine which heterosexual couples are more or less fit for marriage and limit the avaliability of marriage liscences based on those results. Inter-racial marriage tend to be less stable
[url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/interracial-instability.pdf"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/interracial-instability.pdf[/url]

There are also different rates of child abuse and neglect depending on demographic and socioeconomic factors of households.

[color=#ff0000]If you can't civilly discuss the matter, then don't discuss it. It's not my fault two people of the same-sex can't have children. Also this thread is about gay marriage, not about raising children, which are technically two different issues. [/color]

Then stop introducing procreation. You're the one who keeps trying to sneak that in as a disqualifying standard. And I think I was civil to you until this post where you were decidedly uncivil to gay people in relationships.

[color=#ff0000]Opposition to gay marriage is not bullying.


[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][b] [i]bullying[/i]present participle of[i] bul·ly[/i][/b]

Verb: Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

It would be successfully argued that the gay movement is bullying the religious right by forcing citizens to recognize certain new rights. [/font][/color]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]No, that would be asinine. Nobody is trying to force the religious right to abandon their personal faith that gay sexual relationships are wrong. You are, however, and have historically, tried to use the force of law and numbers to curb homosexual rights.

[color=#ff0000]Since the argument for gay marriage is based on intimidation and influence (after all same-sex attraction was removed as a disorder not on scientific grounds but politic pressure), and there is no Constitution "right" to appeal to, I have yet to hear a comprehensive logical argument for why gay marriage should be recognized. Saying something is a "right" doesn't make it a right. It has to be explained.[/color][/font]

[left][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I have. Marriage is a right (Loving v. Virginia, [color=#000000]Zablocki V. Redhail, Turner v. Safley)[/color][/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]. If states are going to discriminate between who can and cannot be married then you need compelling reasons. [/font][/left]

[left] [color=#FF0000]Where do I attack your friend's character? For the record, I don't hate people who experience same-sex attraction. However it is wrong to encourage behavior that is overall detrimental to one's well being, and society's structure.[/color][/left]

[i][color=#000000]The gay movement is not about their ability to live their lives with their partner, but for the [b]public worship [/b]of their actions and the financial benefit of marriage......of which that benefit is NOT meant as an arbitrary reason to give people money but rather to promote the building block of the next generation.[/color][/i]

[color=#ff0000]If someone is pre-disposed to alcoholism, and we recognize alcoholism to be negative to one's health and to society's health, then one should not just say "do whatever you want." We should treat the person with dignity and respect while charitably not promoting destructive behavior. [/color]

And who says homosexual behavior is destructive? Could it be your religion?

[Luigi]

An important weakness in this argument and many similar arguments is the idea that the topic can/should be reduced to a question of legality only. Another important weakness is that Constitution is seen as covering anything and everything. The law is only one element of life in a given country at a given time. Culture is an equally important element. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, the law is an expression of the culture rather than the law dictating what the culture should be. In these instances, the law can be seen as expressing the will of the people, which is lived in the culture.

Culture can be defined lots of different ways, but one workable definition is, "Shared experience, the value placed on that experience, and methods (derived from that experience) that help people deal with the environment they live in."

American culture, since its foundation, and as expressed in the Constitution but not solely there, has stood against homosexuality, abortion, incest, and all sorts of other things. Some of these stands were expressed in specific laws - written into either the Constitution or laws at the national-state-county-or-local levels. But not every stand was necessarily expressed in laws at every or any level of government, in part because the will of the people - as expressed in the culture they all shared - was clear on the topic. For instance, alcohol has been part of our culture since the country was founded. The Constitution doesn't mention alcohol at all, but various states - even counties and municipalities - have laws regulating alcohol, its production, sale, consumption, permissible age of consumption, taxation, drunkeness, etc. There was no need to include alcohol in the Constitution because it was already 'regulated' by cultural norms and local laws. The only relationship of alcohol to the Constitution involved interstate trade. Later on, as the will of the people changed, amendments regarding alcohol were added to the Constitution. The prohibition of alcohol was mandated rather too soon - it was all passed legally and so forth, but the majority of the people obviously didn't actually approve of it because later on and again through legl channels, the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.

So clearly, just because something is written into law doesn't mean it has to stay in the law for all eternity - at least not political law. Slavery used to be legal in all the colonies (and the states after the revolution). But times change, situations change, and culture changes to deal with new problems or because old problems have disappeared. The conflicts arise when the law gets ahead of or lags behind the will of the people - prohibition of alcohol, legalization of marijuana, forcing believers to remove expressions of their faith from public places, or the legalization of same-sex marriage.

From a purely legalistic perspective, there is never any reason NOT to change a law. Except that in a democracy, the law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, as expressed to their duly elected representatives, who then propose laws to address changes in the environment (social, political, natural, whatever), and then debate the proposed laws, and then pass or reject them.

It's an imperfect system - laws can be introduced too soon or too late, the proposed laws can be badly written, the debate not be very productive, the enforcement may not be even-handed - all kinds of things can go wrong.

But when a very small minority of the people begin dictating to the vast majority of the people what the law will/should be, then we no longer live in a democracy.

It may be more convenient for those who want to change laws to disregard the will of the majority, but that's not how the game is supposed to be played.


PS: "And who says homosexual behavior is destructive? Could it be your religion?" No, it's Mother Nature - even people who don't believe in God realize that actions have consequences in the natural world.

My grandmother was a receptionist for a proctologist. Many of his patients were homosexuals whose rectums no longer functioned properly because they had engaged in a good deal of anal sex. And that was well before the AIDS epidemic hit.

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1330390212' post='2393809']
An important weakness in this argument and many similar arguments is the idea that the topic can/should be reduced to a question of legality only. Another important weakness is that Constitution is seen as covering anything and everything. The law is only one element of life in a given country at a given time. Culture is an equally important element. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, the law is an expression of the culture rather than the law dictating what the culture should be. In these instances, the law can be seen as expressing the will of the people, which is lived in the culture.

Culture can be defined lots of different ways, but one workable definition is, "Shared experience, the value placed on that experience, and methods (derived from that experience) that help people deal with the environment they live in."

American culture, since its foundation, and as expressed in the Constitution but not solely there, has stood against homosexuality, abortion, incest, and all sorts of other things. Some of these stands were expressed in specific laws - written into either the Constitution or laws at the national-state-county-or-local levels. But not every stand was necessarily expressed in laws at every or any level of government, in part because the will of the people - as expressed in the culture they all shared - was clear on the topic. For instance, alcohol has been part of our culture since the country was founded. The Constitution doesn't mention alcohol at all, but various states - even counties and municipalities - have laws regulating alcohol, its production, sale, consumption, permissible age of consumption, taxation, drunkeness, etc. There was no need to include alcohol in the Constitution because it was already 'regulated' by cultural norms and local laws. The only relationship of alcohol to the Constitution involved interstate trade. Later on, as the will of the people changed, amendments regarding alcohol were added to the Constitution. The prohibition of alcohol was mandated rather too soon - it was all passed legally and so forth, but the majority of the people obviously didn't actually approve of it because later on and again through legl channels, the prohibition on alcohol was repealed.

So clearly, just because something is written into law doesn't mean it has to stay in the law for all eternity - at least not political law. Slavery used to be legal in all the colonies (and the states after the revolution). But times change, situations change, and culture changes to deal with new problems or because old problems have disappeared. The conflicts arise when the law gets ahead of or lags behind the will of the people - prohibition of alcohol, legalization of marijuana, forcing believers to remove expressions of their faith from public places, or the legalization of same-sex marriage.

From a purely legalistic perspective, there is never any reason NOT to change a law. Except that in a democracy, the law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, as expressed to their duly elected representatives, who then propose laws to address changes in the environment (social, political, natural, whatever), and then debate the proposed laws, and then pass or reject them.

It's an imperfect system - laws can be introduced too soon or too late, the proposed laws can be badly written, the debate not be very productive, the enforcement may not be even-handed - all kinds of things can go wrong.

But when a very small minority of the people begin dictating to the vast majority of the people what the law will/should be, then we no longer live in a democracy.

It may be more convenient for those who want to change laws to disregard the will of the majority, but that's not how the game is supposed to be played.


PS: "And who says homosexual behavior is destructive? Could it be your religion?" No, it's Mother Nature - even people who don't believe in God realize that actions have consequences in the natural world.

My grandmother was a receptionist for a proctologist. Many of his patients were homosexuals whose rectums no longer functioned properly because they had engaged in a good deal of anal sex. And that was well before the AIDS epidemic hit.
[/quote]

The primary error of your argument would be that gay rights enjoy popular support.

[url="http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx"]http://www.gallup.co...y-marriage.aspx[/url]

Well, the primary error of your argument is that we do not and never have lived in a democracy and the structure of our government is specifically designed to protect the rights of minorities (yes, including the affluent) from the tyranny of the mobs. But even taking your argument on it's own terms it is still flawed as the culture has accepted homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice and gay rights as deserving of protection. This is only an issue because the reactionaries realize that the last bastions of support for official homophobia are dying off and they hope to get in gay marriage amendments and laws so it will take a little longer for the majority will to be expressed. The elderly vote.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Hasan

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330377910' post='2393724']

The right to marry.

[/quote]

What is marriage?

[4588686]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1330403445' post='2393933']
What is marriage?
[/quote]

Depends on the state.

[url="http://www.answers.com/topic/marriage"]http://www.answers.com/topic/marriage[/url]
[i]n.[/i][list]
[*]
[list=1]
[*]The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
[*]A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
[*]A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
[*]A common-law marriage.
[*]The state or relationship of two adults who are married: [i]Their marriage has been a happy one.[/i]
[/list]
[/list]
[list]
[*]A wedding.
[*]A close union: [i]"the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics"[/i] (Lloyd Rose).
[*][i]Games[/i]. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
[/list]

Marriage is different things to different people. Definitions, even legal definitions, are fairly vacuous. I think it is accurate to say that the states recognize that marriage entails certain rights and responsibilities but leaves substantive content, what marriage *is*, up to the individuals. You definition of marriage is very different from a Protestant who does not see it as a Sacrament. The state does not weigh in on this. It merely recognizes the legal joining of lives.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Hasan

[Winchester]

Nothing like interventionism to turn personal sins into issues that change an entire society through the blessing of authorities.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1330468805' post='2394223']
Nothing like interventionism to turn personal sins into issues that change an entire society through the blessing of authorities.
[/quote]

I thought you were a libertarian?

[arfink]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330482738' post='2394326']
I thought you were a libertarian?
[/quote]

Last time I checked he's actually a troll.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330482738' post='2394326']
I thought you were a libertarian?
[/quote]
How does that contradict my alleged libertarianism?