The defense of marriage act already happened and Clinton signed it into law in 1996. It is, of course, un-Constitutional, but since when does that stop anything?
The thing with gay marriage is that those against it have no real rational argument against it. But fear is a very powerful motivator, so you see strong opposition that doesn't even know its own reasoning.
It will take time, and in the interim you can belittle those who choose to be angry in their ignorance and laugh your ass off when, in the future, they are rightly exposed by history as imbeciles. Like Wallace standing in the doorway of the schools to stop the black kids, those voting for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage will either throw themselves into a state of denial or feel shame at their intolerance.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Can infertile men & women be married?
I think you get a bit ahead of yourself. There is also no rational argument against many things dealing with marriage. There is no reason to stop at two people. There is no logical way to prove love. There is nothing with regard to age and commitment or sex that we have based on something rational. I mean we choose 18 because it is sort of the the middle ground for ending your biological growth with regard to puberty. However some people still haven't ended it yet, and others far before that.
So why don't you show me how all the other aspects of how we legislate marriage are rational and then I will buy your argument that the arguments against gay marriage have to be rational as well.
i think that a family is build upon the union of two differents genders : male and female who are equal but differents and more important who are complementary.
So why don't you show me how all the other aspects of how we legislate marriage are rational and then I will buy your argument that the arguments against gay marriage have to be rational as well.
You're completely ignoring the fact that legislation against SSMs are discriminatory. The government can legislate any way they or we choose, rational or not, as long as the laws don't fall outside the bounds of the Constitution.
You're completely ignoring the fact that legislation against SSMs are discriminatory. The government can legislate any way they or we choose, rational or not, as long as the laws don't fall outside the bounds of the Constitution.
We discriminate all the time. We only decry certain types of discrimination. Women don't have to register for the draft. That is discrimination. 15 year olds can't get married. That is discrimination. A man or woman can't have multiple spouses or often marry family members even as adults, that is discrimination.
When you prefer to eat fish instead of chicken, you are discriminating.
You should do more than applying words as absolutes when offering a reason. Everyone discriminates multiple times per day. I discriminate when I choose to live in California as opposed to Arizona or drive a Jeep instead of a Ford.
When you prefer to eat fish instead of chicken, you are discriminating.
Christ, let's not be so childish. What you eat for dinner is not and can not be governed by the Constitution, and how you as an individual discriminates has nothing to do with LAW.
Christ, let's not be so childish. What you eat for dinner is not and can not be governed by the Constitution, and how you as an individual discriminates has nothing to do with LAW.
Tell that to advocacy groups suing fast food companies. And again since we have government agencies that dictate who can create the food I eat by regulating meat producers for example, they do govern what I eat since they govern who can produce it.
Likewise I gave plenty of examples (draft, polygamy, incest, age) that had nothing to do with my "childish" food analogy.
But again, plenty of people suggest junk food taxes. Bans on certain types of sales of food by schools, where you can smoke, how old you have to be to smoke, kids and bike helmets, etc.
I see no provision in the Constitution declaring children should have to wear bike helmets, can't eat cheetos or that allows for sin taxes among adults. Yet those are legal forms of discrimination.
Tell that to advocacy groups suing fast food companies. And again since we have government agencies that dictate who can create the food I eat by regulating meat producers for example, they do govern what I eat since they govern who can produce it.
Likewise I gave plenty of examples (draft, polygamy, incest, age) that had nothing to do with my "childish" food analogy.
But again, plenty of people suggest junk food taxes. Bans on certain types of sales of food by schools, where you can smoke, how old you have to be to smoke, kids and bike helmets, etc.
I see no provision in the Constitution declaring children should have to wear bike helmets, can't eat cheetos or that allows for sin taxes among adults. Yet those are legal forms of discrimination.
Nick
Are you ever going to address the point, or are you going to continue to avoid it?
Are you ever going to address the point, or are you going to continue to avoid it?
I addressed it head on. The government discriminates daily. They do so on an individual basis when telling you that you cannot have sex with a 14 year old. They do this to the whole, and it would not matter that the 14 year old individually has a certain physical or mental maturity.
They discriminate with marriage and incest. It would not matter if genetic testing proved that a particular individual couple would not pass on genetic mutations. They pass the law on everyone as a whole.
They force all 18-25 year old males to register for the draft. It doesn't matter if some 18 year old male won't finish physically growing and developing until they are 20. It doesn't matter that women are just as mature and in specific instances, just as strong. It is sanctioned discrimination.
The government sanctions discrimination all the time. They do so in a number of ways. I could not turn down a woman from renting one of my apartments because she is black. However I could because she is a smoker.
Yet there are genetic studies that show that certain people are much more likely to become deeply addicted to nicotine than others. The studies are actually much stronger than the ones I have read on genetics and homosexuality. Yet the government allows discrimination there.
So show me why, against the will of the people, and against true evidence for genetic causality, the government should not be allowed to do so here. Make sure your reasoning also still manages to keep out the other types of marriages society wishes to discriminate against, like polygamy, incest, age for marriage, etc. Heck you could even include the genetic argument because I know no one would argue that even if genetics made you want to have sex with 8 year old boys, that it should be legal to do so.
There is nothing with regard to age and commitment or sex that we have based on something rational. I mean we choose 18 because it is sort of the the middle ground for ending your biological growth with regard to puberty. However some people still haven't ended it yet, and others far before that.[/b]
This is very true, but then again you can be married before you are 18. Since you are legally unable to enter a contract before 18, they require parental and/or court approval (under 16). In some states teens can be married if they have a child or are pregnant.
The rational argument against early teen marriage without parental approval is that humans at that stage of development are emotionally, intellectually and financially unprepared to face such a responsibility. And past that, it's not as if pre-18 citizens enjoy full civil rights anyway, they are restricted in many ways.
This is very true, but then again you can be married before you are 18. Since you are legally unable to enter a contract before 18, they require parental and/or court approval (under 16). In some states teens can be married if they have a child or are pregnant.
The rational argument against early teen marriage without parental approval is that humans at that stage of development are emotionally, intellectually and financially unprepared to face such a responsibility. And past that, it's not as if pre-18 citizens enjoy full civil rights anyway, they are restricted in many ways.
True but there are those who argue that children should have the right to vote, and many more adult rights as well. The first part is just showing how one form of sactioned discrimination encourages another form. The reason you cannot enter into contracts when you are 18 is? Because society says so. Yet there are 45 year old men who cannot pay their bills on time, and never have, and there are 13 year olds who have never and will never be late for anything in their entire lives. The reasoning for it is entirely arbitrary.
True but there are those who argue that children should have the right to vote, and many more adult rights as well.
What are "children"?
What are the other rights and who is arguing for them?
Quote:
The first part is just showing how one form of sactioned discrimination encourages another form. The reason you cannot enter into contracts when you are 18 is? Because society says so. Yet there are 45 year old men who cannot pay their bills on time, and never have, and there are 13 year olds who have never and will never be late for anything in their entire lives. The reasoning for it is entirely arbitrary.
It is not entirely arbitrary, it's just not 100% perfect.
True but there are those who argue that children should have the right to vote, and many more adult rights as well. The first part is just showing how one form of sactioned discrimination encourages another form. The reason you cannot enter into contracts when you are 18 is? Because society says so. Yet there are 45 year old men who cannot pay their bills on time, and never have, and there are 13 year olds who have never and will never be late for anything in their entire lives. The reasoning for it is entirely arbitrary.
Nick
If you take into consideration the likelyhood of things to happen, then it is very likely that a child would be unable to handle, for instance, complicated financial decisions, while it is very likely that an adult would. There are extremes that go outside of these categorizations, but they are few and can be ignored.
What are the other rights and who is arguing for them?
It is not entirely arbitrary, it's just not 100% perfect.
You are welcome to do your own research if you don't wish to believe the assertion. I'll give you this one. You are welcome to find others. You could also look up when Nelson Mandela advocated lowering the voting age to 14.
As for being entirely arbitrary, yes it is. It is as arbitrary as anything else regarding rights and marriage. The voting age use to be 21. Now is it 18 because... well we decided to change it. The same is true with many matters. Likewise the same ideas that often kept women from being given the vote are often applied to children as well.
If you take into consideration the likelyhood of things to happen, then it is very likely that a child would be unable to handle, for instance, complicated financial decisions, while it is very likely that an adult would. There are extremes that go outside of these categorizations, but they are few and can be ignored.
What honestly makes you think most adults handle complicated financial decisions well? How many adults really look at more than the monthly payment? Most don't even understand how interest on a loan in calculated. Plenty balance their bank accounts by looking at the total available at the bottom of the ATM machine receipt.
Look through a few hundred credit reports. The words "adult" and "responsibility" will take on whole new meanings to you.
I addressed it head on. The government discriminates daily.
When they do it's because of a discernible benefit for society or the health of individuals and the law that is created is not based in an unconstitutional foundation like religion.
So we're back to my previous point, is there any reason our government should let this religious distinction become law? Obviously even if we discriminate, we can't discriminate religiously.
So what next? What clear benefit is there if we can't base the decision in religion? No benefit whatsoever.
You are welcome to do your own research if you don't wish to believe the assertion. I'll give you this one. You are welcome to find others. You could also look up when Nelson Mandela advocated lowering the voting age to 14.
Don't wish to believe? Did I say you were lying or did I ask a question?
Are you so averse to logical discussion that you get defensive when asked to back up your arguments?
And thanks for providing the very first google hit on "children should vote".
From your link:
We need to consider giving children the right to vote at age 16 (or even 14 after they have developed the required formal thought processes) or the right to assign their proxy.
"Formal thought processes"? Wait, I thought this was arbitrary!
Quote:
As for being entirely arbitrary, yes it is. It is as arbitrary as anything else regarding rights and marriage. The voting age use to be 21. Now is it 18 because... well we decided to change it. The same is true with many matters. Likewise the same ideas that often kept women from being given the vote are often applied to children as well.
And they should all be constantly challenged and re-thought.
When they do it's because of a discernible benefit for society or the health of individuals and the law that is created is not based in an unconstitutional foundation like religion.
So we're back to my previous point, is there any reason our government should let this religious distinction become law? Obviously even if we discriminate, we can't discriminate religiously.
So what next? What clear benefit is there if we can't base the decision in religion? No benefit whatsoever.
Civil unions versus marriage would give society no discernible benefit. Likewise with given financial means, how do any of the other forms of discrimination I have mentioned harm society?
Does it harm society to have women register for the draft? Does it harm society to have men or women who have multiple wives or husbands?
How are these protections any less archaic or less religious based in the second instance?
Does it harm society to have homosexuals unmarried? How so? Please explain.
Likewise divorce does great harm to society yet I know you would never argue against no fault divorce. You are getting tangled in your own reasoning and political agenda.
I'm confused, are there people here who are actually arguing that the actions of NAMBLA members is, in fact, Love?
Also, with respect to trumptman's argument about the need for rationality-
This is a truly fascinating position. Your arguing that since we make irrational judgements on some things we should be free to make them on others.
First, I don't accept that the restrictions on marriage that you cite are irrational. Age requirements are designed with the intent that participants in marriage are of sufficient psychological and biological maturity to enter into such a relationship. As with almost any law, there are those who stand outside the averages, but what is the effect of the law? We are balancing the potential harm of allowing the immature to marry against the inconvenience to the outliers who might have to wait a couple years. Seems rational to me.
With regards to polygamy, I believe there is sufficient evidence that such a dynamic is unequal to the parties involved in our current society. In the case of mormon polygamist holdouts it would appear that wives are often coerced into such marriages.
Finally, while love is quite subjective and contextual, it does manifest some behaviors which are largely applicable to the majority of the public. We have certainly defined a lot of behaviors as "non-loving" and apply them in divorce hearings when deciding which party has not satisfied the contract of marriage (i.e. not been a loving participant).
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
The defense of marriage act already happened and Clinton signed it into law in 1996. It is, of course, un-Constitutional, but since when does that stop anything?
The thing with gay marriage is that those against it have no real rational argument against it. But fear is a very powerful motivator, so you see strong opposition that doesn't even know its own reasoning.
It will take time, and in the interim you can belittle those who choose to be angry in their ignorance and laugh your ass off when, in the future, they are rightly exposed by history as imbeciles. Like Wallace standing in the doorway of the schools to stop the black kids, those voting for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage will either throw themselves into a state of denial or feel shame at their intolerance.
Originally posted by groverat
Can infertile men & women be married?
I think you get a bit ahead of yourself. There is also no rational argument against many things dealing with marriage. There is no reason to stop at two people. There is no logical way to prove love. There is nothing with regard to age and commitment or sex that we have based on something rational. I mean we choose 18 because it is sort of the the middle ground for ending your biological growth with regard to puberty. However some people still haven't ended it yet, and others far before that.
So why don't you show me how all the other aspects of how we legislate marriage are rational and then I will buy your argument that the arguments against gay marriage have to be rational as well.
Nick
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes.
i think that a family is build upon the union of two differents genders : male and female who are equal but differents and more important who are complementary.
What if she used to be a he!
Originally posted by trumptman
So why don't you show me how all the other aspects of how we legislate marriage are rational and then I will buy your argument that the arguments against gay marriage have to be rational as well.
You're completely ignoring the fact that legislation against SSMs are discriminatory. The government can legislate any way they or we choose, rational or not, as long as the laws don't fall outside the bounds of the Constitution.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
For me marriage is not specialy a religious thing, but is the first stage of the family cell.
But what about adoption?
Originally posted by bunge
You're completely ignoring the fact that legislation against SSMs are discriminatory. The government can legislate any way they or we choose, rational or not, as long as the laws don't fall outside the bounds of the Constitution.
We discriminate all the time. We only decry certain types of discrimination. Women don't have to register for the draft. That is discrimination. 15 year olds can't get married. That is discrimination. A man or woman can't have multiple spouses or often marry family members even as adults, that is discrimination.
When you prefer to eat fish instead of chicken, you are discriminating.
You should do more than applying words as absolutes when offering a reason. Everyone discriminates multiple times per day. I discriminate when I choose to live in California as opposed to Arizona or drive a Jeep instead of a Ford.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
When you prefer to eat fish instead of chicken, you are discriminating.
Christ, let's not be so childish. What you eat for dinner is not and can not be governed by the Constitution, and how you as an individual discriminates has nothing to do with LAW.
Originally posted by bunge
Christ, let's not be so childish. What you eat for dinner is not and can not be governed by the Constitution, and how you as an individual discriminates has nothing to do with LAW.
Tell that to advocacy groups suing fast food companies. And again since we have government agencies that dictate who can create the food I eat by regulating meat producers for example, they do govern what I eat since they govern who can produce it.
Likewise I gave plenty of examples (draft, polygamy, incest, age) that had nothing to do with my "childish" food analogy.
But again, plenty of people suggest junk food taxes. Bans on certain types of sales of food by schools, where you can smoke, how old you have to be to smoke, kids and bike helmets, etc.
I see no provision in the Constitution declaring children should have to wear bike helmets, can't eat cheetos or that allows for sin taxes among adults. Yet those are legal forms of discrimination.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Tell that to advocacy groups suing fast food companies. And again since we have government agencies that dictate who can create the food I eat by regulating meat producers for example, they do govern what I eat since they govern who can produce it.
Likewise I gave plenty of examples (draft, polygamy, incest, age) that had nothing to do with my "childish" food analogy.
But again, plenty of people suggest junk food taxes. Bans on certain types of sales of food by schools, where you can smoke, how old you have to be to smoke, kids and bike helmets, etc.
I see no provision in the Constitution declaring children should have to wear bike helmets, can't eat cheetos or that allows for sin taxes among adults. Yet those are legal forms of discrimination.
Nick
Are you ever going to address the point, or are you going to continue to avoid it?
Originally posted by Giaguara
Love is never wrong.
http://www.nambla1.de/
Originally posted by bunge
Are you ever going to address the point, or are you going to continue to avoid it?
I addressed it head on. The government discriminates daily. They do so on an individual basis when telling you that you cannot have sex with a 14 year old. They do this to the whole, and it would not matter that the 14 year old individually has a certain physical or mental maturity.
They discriminate with marriage and incest. It would not matter if genetic testing proved that a particular individual couple would not pass on genetic mutations. They pass the law on everyone as a whole.
They force all 18-25 year old males to register for the draft. It doesn't matter if some 18 year old male won't finish physically growing and developing until they are 20. It doesn't matter that women are just as mature and in specific instances, just as strong. It is sanctioned discrimination.
The government sanctions discrimination all the time. They do so in a number of ways. I could not turn down a woman from renting one of my apartments because she is black. However I could because she is a smoker.
Yet there are genetic studies that show that certain people are much more likely to become deeply addicted to nicotine than others. The studies are actually much stronger than the ones I have read on genetics and homosexuality. Yet the government allows discrimination there.
So show me why, against the will of the people, and against true evidence for genetic causality, the government should not be allowed to do so here. Make sure your reasoning also still manages to keep out the other types of marriages society wishes to discriminate against, like polygamy, incest, age for marriage, etc. Heck you could even include the genetic argument because I know no one would argue that even if genetics made you want to have sex with 8 year old boys, that it should be legal to do so.
Nick
There is nothing with regard to age and commitment or sex that we have based on something rational. I mean we choose 18 because it is sort of the the middle ground for ending your biological growth with regard to puberty. However some people still haven't ended it yet, and others far before that.[/b]
This is very true, but then again you can be married before you are 18. Since you are legally unable to enter a contract before 18, they require parental and/or court approval (under 16). In some states teens can be married if they have a child or are pregnant.
The rational argument against early teen marriage without parental approval is that humans at that stage of development are emotionally, intellectually and financially unprepared to face such a responsibility. And past that, it's not as if pre-18 citizens enjoy full civil rights anyway, they are restricted in many ways.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
This is very true, but then again you can be married before you are 18. Since you are legally unable to enter a contract before 18, they require parental and/or court approval (under 16). In some states teens can be married if they have a child or are pregnant.
The rational argument against early teen marriage without parental approval is that humans at that stage of development are emotionally, intellectually and financially unprepared to face such a responsibility. And past that, it's not as if pre-18 citizens enjoy full civil rights anyway, they are restricted in many ways.
True but there are those who argue that children should have the right to vote, and many more adult rights as well. The first part is just showing how one form of sactioned discrimination encourages another form. The reason you cannot enter into contracts when you are 18 is? Because society says so. Yet there are 45 year old men who cannot pay their bills on time, and never have, and there are 13 year olds who have never and will never be late for anything in their entire lives. The reasoning for it is entirely arbitrary.
Nick
True but there are those who argue that children should have the right to vote, and many more adult rights as well.
What are "children"?
What are the other rights and who is arguing for them?
The first part is just showing how one form of sactioned discrimination encourages another form. The reason you cannot enter into contracts when you are 18 is? Because society says so. Yet there are 45 year old men who cannot pay their bills on time, and never have, and there are 13 year olds who have never and will never be late for anything in their entire lives. The reasoning for it is entirely arbitrary.
It is not entirely arbitrary, it's just not 100% perfect.
Originally posted by trumptman
True but there are those who argue that children should have the right to vote, and many more adult rights as well. The first part is just showing how one form of sactioned discrimination encourages another form. The reason you cannot enter into contracts when you are 18 is? Because society says so. Yet there are 45 year old men who cannot pay their bills on time, and never have, and there are 13 year olds who have never and will never be late for anything in their entire lives. The reasoning for it is entirely arbitrary.
Nick
If you take into consideration the likelyhood of things to happen, then it is very likely that a child would be unable to handle, for instance, complicated financial decisions, while it is very likely that an adult would. There are extremes that go outside of these categorizations, but they are few and can be ignored.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
What are "children"?
What are the other rights and who is arguing for them?
It is not entirely arbitrary, it's just not 100% perfect.
You are welcome to do your own research if you don't wish to believe the assertion. I'll give you this one. You are welcome to find others. You could also look up when Nelson Mandela advocated lowering the voting age to 14.
Children vote
As for being entirely arbitrary, yes it is. It is as arbitrary as anything else regarding rights and marriage. The voting age use to be 21. Now is it 18 because... well we decided to change it. The same is true with many matters. Likewise the same ideas that often kept women from being given the vote are often applied to children as well.
Nick
Originally posted by KANE
If you take into consideration the likelyhood of things to happen, then it is very likely that a child would be unable to handle, for instance, complicated financial decisions, while it is very likely that an adult would. There are extremes that go outside of these categorizations, but they are few and can be ignored.
What honestly makes you think most adults handle complicated financial decisions well? How many adults really look at more than the monthly payment? Most don't even understand how interest on a loan in calculated. Plenty balance their bank accounts by looking at the total available at the bottom of the ATM machine receipt.
Look through a few hundred credit reports. The words "adult" and "responsibility" will take on whole new meanings to you.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I addressed it head on. The government discriminates daily.
When they do it's because of a discernible benefit for society or the health of individuals and the law that is created is not based in an unconstitutional foundation like religion.
So we're back to my previous point, is there any reason our government should let this religious distinction become law? Obviously even if we discriminate, we can't discriminate religiously.
So what next? What clear benefit is there if we can't base the decision in religion? No benefit whatsoever.
You are welcome to do your own research if you don't wish to believe the assertion. I'll give you this one. You are welcome to find others. You could also look up when Nelson Mandela advocated lowering the voting age to 14.
Don't wish to believe? Did I say you were lying or did I ask a question?
Are you so averse to logical discussion that you get defensive when asked to back up your arguments?
And thanks for providing the very first google hit on "children should vote".
From your link:
We need to consider giving children the right to vote at age 16 (or even 14 after they have developed the required formal thought processes) or the right to assign their proxy.
"Formal thought processes"? Wait, I thought this was arbitrary!
As for being entirely arbitrary, yes it is. It is as arbitrary as anything else regarding rights and marriage. The voting age use to be 21. Now is it 18 because... well we decided to change it. The same is true with many matters. Likewise the same ideas that often kept women from being given the vote are often applied to children as well.
And they should all be constantly challenged and re-thought.
Originally posted by bunge
When they do it's because of a discernible benefit for society or the health of individuals and the law that is created is not based in an unconstitutional foundation like religion.
So we're back to my previous point, is there any reason our government should let this religious distinction become law? Obviously even if we discriminate, we can't discriminate religiously.
So what next? What clear benefit is there if we can't base the decision in religion? No benefit whatsoever.
Civil unions versus marriage would give society no discernible benefit. Likewise with given financial means, how do any of the other forms of discrimination I have mentioned harm society?
Does it harm society to have women register for the draft? Does it harm society to have men or women who have multiple wives or husbands?
How are these protections any less archaic or less religious based in the second instance?
Does it harm society to have homosexuals unmarried? How so? Please explain.
Likewise divorce does great harm to society yet I know you would never argue against no fault divorce. You are getting tangled in your own reasoning and political agenda.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You've obviously never heard of NAMBLA.
I'm confused, are there people here who are actually arguing that the actions of NAMBLA members is, in fact, Love?
Also, with respect to trumptman's argument about the need for rationality-
This is a truly fascinating position. Your arguing that since we make irrational judgements on some things we should be free to make them on others.
First, I don't accept that the restrictions on marriage that you cite are irrational. Age requirements are designed with the intent that participants in marriage are of sufficient psychological and biological maturity to enter into such a relationship. As with almost any law, there are those who stand outside the averages, but what is the effect of the law? We are balancing the potential harm of allowing the immature to marry against the inconvenience to the outliers who might have to wait a couple years. Seems rational to me.
With regards to polygamy, I believe there is sufficient evidence that such a dynamic is unequal to the parties involved in our current society. In the case of mormon polygamist holdouts it would appear that wives are often coerced into such marriages.
Finally, while love is quite subjective and contextual, it does manifest some behaviors which are largely applicable to the majority of the public. We have certainly defined a lot of behaviors as "non-loving" and apply them in divorce hearings when deciding which party has not satisfied the contract of marriage (i.e. not been a loving participant).