WP: California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

[BlueTalon]

...and which BT claims has never been studied.

Careful. Don't interpret something I say to mean something I didn't say. For your benefit, I will say it again -- there has been no long term study done on the effects of gay parents/parenting on children. End of sentence. What that means is that any affirmative statement saying that a gay parent family is just as good as the standard variety is based solely on your desire to believe it, and NOT on any objective study which might support your views.

I brought up a different point earlier that no proponents of gay marriage have yet addressed. Historically, marriage was between a man and a woman. It is what it is, and it is what it has been. If you want to arbitrarily change it from its historical definition to something that suits your beliefs, then what grounds do you have for resisting anyone else's desire to expand the definition even farther? In other words, if you want to change the definition of marriage to include gays, would you prohibit someone else from changing the definition who wants to marry his goat? or his daughter? or everyone on his street? If so, why? What legitimate grounds would you have? And if not, why not? Could you not be rightfully accused of simply trying to break down the institution of marriage beyond recognition, to utter meaninglessness?

[Larry]

I brought up a different point earlier that no proponents of gay marriage have yet addressed. Historically, marriage was between a man and a woman. It is what it is, and it is what it has been.

At last, a new talking point, "It's traditional".

Rebuttal #1: For 100 years, it was also "traditional", in our country, for different laws to apply to blacks. And women. And Indians.

Those traditions changed because society decided that keeping second-class citizens was no longer fasionable, at which point they suddenlt discovered that those funny words, "equal protection under the law", had been in that pesky Constitution thing, all along.

And when every single one of those "traditions" fell, there were dire predictions of the emminant collapse of all Life As We Know it. All sorts of people claiming that there were logical, or scientific, or religous reasons why this tradition was an essential foundation of all that is good.

I'm certain it's a coincidence that the reasons given in support of all of those "traditions" just happen to be identical to the reasons being given for this one.

Rebuttal #2: For the entire history of our nation, "life" (at least, in the sense of life that has legal recognition and rights) began at birth. Is this a tradition that must be upheld, or is tradition only a valid argument wien it's a tradition that you agree with?

(In case you're curious, I've given you my opinion on that question. Tradition is a nice thing. But it's not more important than Right.)

If you want to arbitrarily change it from its historical definition to something that suits your beliefs, then what grounds do you have for resisting anyone else's desire to expand the definition even farther? In other words, if you want to change the definition of marriage to include gays, would you prohibit someone else from changing the definition who wants to marry his goat? or his daughter? or everyone on his street? If so, why? What legitimate grounds would you have? And if not, why not? Could you not be rightfully accused of simply trying to break down the institution of marriage beyond recognition, to utter meaninglessness?

And now, talking point #3: "Gay=goat"

Since you've raised three scenarios, I'll give you three answers.

The Goat: Goats are not people. They cannot sign a contract. They cannot give informed consent to sex. (They cannot say "I do". They cannot sign a license.) (Do they live to be age 18? Or are they minors? )

The same rule applies to children. Any person who's considered incompetant to sign a contract, is incompetant to make a (supposedly) lifetime committment.

The daughter: (I'm assuming the daughter is an adult, otherwise see above).

Society does have a valid public interest in reducing birth defects. I have no problems with reasonable (and I consider present rules to be reasonable) screening for things that are likely to lead to birth defects before issuing a marriage license, and incest is one of those things. (No cousins.)

Yes, I realise that it may be a presumption for the court (or whoever) to be jumping to the conclusion that sex may be involved. But it does seem like a reasonable assumption barring evidence to the contrary.

(If it can be shown, say, that one of the partners is sterile (or if they're the same sex), then I could see a case for, say, allowing a 70-year-old to mary his sister. But I have not problem with requiring the applicants to prove that they deserve an exception.)

Everybody on the street: To me, one of the fundamental aspects of the institution of marriage is that it's an exclusive contract. (My example is: If 5 guys want to mary 7 women, then they're not having a marriage, they're forming a corporation.)

In addition, there are some aspects of marriage that're already too complicated, and society is within their rights to prevent things from complicating furthar. (Imagine a child custody fight when someone decides to leave a group marriage for another group marriage. These things are too complicated already.)

Although, I do think that it's at least concievable to make a valid argument that bigamy should be allowed (as long as all parties agree).

(I wouldn't agree with such an argument, but I'd stand up for folks right to make it.)

[Prosperity]

As previously implied, I should not have to present basic facts to you. Again, the post immediately after mine is a good reference.

Yeah, typical left-wing bigotry and nastiness: conservatives are terrible people. Your handle is a huge misnomer, btw.

I know why should you have to provide evidence for your claims. silly me.

:laugh: condescension from below, how do you manage it with a straight face?

BTW

My handle is not a misnomer. Would you actually like to prove this personal attack to be anything more than the rantings of a lunatic?. Oh you don't have to provide evidence for that either? Should I look at the post immediately after yours for that one too? Show me one area in which I don't defend liberty. I dare you.

[BlueTalon]

Larry, will you quit with the condescending "talking point" nonsense? As I said before, every point you make is just as much a "talking point" as the points I make. Do me the respect of crediting me with my own thoughts, will ya?

Re: Rebuttal #2. Incorrect. Prior to when SCOTUS decided that privacy = abortion, birth was NOT considered the legal beginning of life. And it isn't today, either. The Scott Peterson case is a good example of a person not yet born receiving legal protection (or retribution, as the case may be.) So your statement that "For the entire history of our nation, "life" (at least, in the sense of life that has legal recognition and rights) began at birth" is wrong, and you'd have to pick a different example in order to accuse me of picking and choosing my traditions. But I'll save you some trouble -- I'm all for abolishing bad traditions and saving good ones. But as long as it's just traditions we're talking about, your choices are every bit as legitimate as mine.

Man/woman marriage is tradition, but it's far more than just tradition. It's legal precedent, it's the basic societal unit, and has been throughout history. While there have always been homosexuals, here has never been a time (that I'm aware of) when the institution of marriage was bent to include homosexuals. There have been multiple marriages, of course, but even those were all in the context of man/woman unions. A man could have several wives, but he never had a husband, and those wives were all his wives, not each others' wives.

Re: rebuttal #1. I'm not sure if you're treating slavery and marriage as traditional equivalents. It kinda sounds like you are, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

There are things people simply are not eligible to be or do. A woman can't be Pope. Someone under the age of 35 and not born in this country can't be President. If you've passed your 35th birthday, you can't join the military. Gay people can get married -- just not to people of the same sex. (Yes, I know that sounds trite.) But gay couples can also get the same legal rights as married people with the exception of tax code benefits via legal parnerships, power of attorney, etc. Plus, civil unions can cover any ground missed including the tax codes. Why, given the historical precedent, is that not enough? Why do you insist on marriage for gays? And why is your advocacy for gay marriage any more valid or legitimate than the majority of citizens who oppose gay marriage?

This really reminds me of a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Stan wants to become Loretta because he wants to have babies. His friends point out that he can't have babies, at which point he accuses them of oppressing him. Someone eventually suggests that they fight for Stan's right to have babies, even though he can't have them (which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans'), as a symbol of their stuggle against Roman oppression. One of them concludes it's symbolic of [stan's] struggle against reality.

[Larry]

BTW, I need to start with an apology. (I was hoping to get to work this morning and post before you did, but I didn't.)

My "talking points" label is not directed at you, personally. I assume you're not aware that the whole "gay marriage" thing seems to get kicked to death in this forum about every two months, for what seems like two years. And every single one of these "discussions" seems to follow the same pattern. "The Right" seem to have a list they follow: "I'm not really a bigot who wants gays to be second-class citizens, I have a reason for leglislating bigotry, and it's [insert reason]."

If necessary, I could list every single argument used to justify this practice. (I even considered doing so, when I observed that rockster seemed to be about to try to debate these issues yet again. I decided not to, because it seemed that he was actually getting people to respond politely and logiclly to his points, and I didn't want my post to be the one that triggered the avalanche.)

The problem is, not one of "the right"s excuses to justify this can hold any water.

So instead, what happens is, some Red Knight will sally forth under the banner of "It's a choice", or "they can't have kids", or "It's a tradition". And some Blue Knight will point out why his reason doesn't make any sense. The Red Knight will squirm. He'll fight. He'll call names. He'll say he's being mis-interpreted (while still repeating the same thing, again).

And then, after 50 back-and-forth posts, when he doesn't have any wiggle room to defend the illogical point he raised in the first place, . . . the next banner will appear for the Red Knights. (And, under cover of the new banner, the old banner will be taken back by the Red squire, so that it can be used next time.)

Typiclly, after a day or two of this, nobody's interested in watching the Knights nay more, and the only people left in the arena are the Knights themselves. But the pattern will continue: Trot out the next item on the list. Spend two days pinning the Knight down to reveal that yes, he really was trying to use that same reason that was dealt with two months ago yet again. At which time, they will not abandon the reason, but will simply trot out the next one, and act like the first one hasn't lost. Repeat.

As a sterling example of this, I'll point to the "they can't have children" posts, above. The "reason" trots out. People point out that it doesn't make sense to use that as a justification. After about 20 posts on the subject, the Knight has "changed" his position from "they can't have children" to "they can't procreate" to "it's the public's interest (to procreate)". He hasn't changed his position, he's simply denying that it is his position. While continuing to repeat it. And after 20 posts, he still will not admit that there's a hole in his "reason". (70-year-olds can marry. But he inststs that gays cannot, because gays can't have children.) After 20 posts, he not only will not respond to the hole in his position, he won't admit that it is his position.

And he will not admit that his "reason" doesn't make sense. He'll simply retire the banner, and use it again in a couple of months.

-----

[/rant]

All that aside, though, I need to re-state: My "talking points" label is not directed at you. (Only at your points. )

I'm assuming that you, for example, aren't aware of how many times this dance has been performed. (Since, as a general rule, the only people who seem to get in to these threads after the first page or so are people who haven't seen it before, or masochists/crusaders like myself.)

[Larry]

Now, as to your points:

Prior to when SCOTUS decided that privacy = abortion, birth was NOT considered the legal beginning of life. And it isn't today, either. The Scott Peterson case is a good example of a person not yet born receiving legal protection (or retribution, as the case may be.)

The US Constitution states that persons born in the US are citizens. It doesn't say "concieved".

It says that a person, to be President, must be 35 years of age. That age is measured from birth? or conception?

Are you trying to say that, before Roe v. Wade, people could get a Social Security Number for a fetus? Could they take a deduction on their taxes for one? Could someone claim that he was entitled to vote, because he was concieved 21 years ago? (The age was 21 back then).

50 years ago, how many people named their fetus?

And Scott Peterson was prosecuted under a law that was passed less than 5 years ago. A law that was passed, in fact, specificly because the folks who want to ban abortions wanted to change the definition of when life begins.

(Now, for me, I can see that there may well be a legitimate reason for changing that definition. Once upon a time, a person was dead when he stopped breathing. Science advanced, and then death occurred when the heart stopped. Science changed again, and now the moment of "He's dead, Jim" occurs when brain activity ceases. Unless an anti-abortion crusader needs a fundraiser for his Presidential campaign. So there's certainly precident for advancing science "moving the down markers" on the (admittedly arbitrary) events of life. I have no problem with people claiming that the definition of the begining of life should now be at conception. Just don't try to claim that it's always been there.)

But gay couples can also get the same legal rights as married people with the exception of tax code benefits via legal parnerships, power of attorney, etc. Plus, civil unions can cover any ground missed including the tax codes. Why, given the historical precedent, is that not enough?

I would have no problem with "civil unions" if they were equal to marriage. (FWIW, I have this argument labled as the "seperate but equal" talking point).

(I'll just skip over the whole fact that "seperate" is inherantly NOT "equal", because that's more of a philosophical distinction than a practical one).

The problem with "seperate but equal" is that the same folks who're saying "gays don't need marriage, they have civil unions" are also saying "we need to ammend the Constitution in every state in the nation, to make shure that civil unions won't be "equal". (For example, we've passed federal law for the specific purpose of making shure that civil unions will not be treated as a marriage by any federal law or regulation.)

Sorry, but to me, the current situation is similar to a "whites only" sign on a drinking fountain. Except, in this case, it's a "straights only" sign on an entire book full of laws. And just like the drinking fountain, they could, in theory, achieve the same goal by successfully picketing every single restaurant in the world unitll that restaurant installs a new "colored" drinking fountain that's as nice as the "whites" drinking fountain thay've already got.

(Let's also ignore, for now, the way "the right" is also crusading against businesses, like Disney, who agree to give gays the same benefits as marrieds, because "Disney is giving special privleges to gays".)

(To me, there are few things that look more hypocritical than someone who's protesting in favor of "seperate but equal", while simultaneously protesting against "equal".)

This really reminds me of a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Stan wants to become Loretta because he wants to have babies. His friends point out that he can't have babies, at which point he accuses them of oppressing him. Someone eventually suggests that they fight for Stan's right to have babies, even though he can't have them (which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans'), as a symbol of their stuggle against Roman oppression. One of them concludes it's symbolic of [stan's] struggle against reality.

I'm going to assume that this is not a resurection of the "gays can't have kids" argument, but is simply a reference to a funny skit I haven't seen. It sounds like a funny scene.