Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, July 19, 2010 21:02
VIEWED: 5559
PAGE 6 of 7

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.

---

What's to stop heterosexuals doing this currently? A heterosexual male and heterosexual female can get married purely for insurance and tax benefits. Whether or not we throw out government endorsed marriage has nothing to do with whether homosexuals are allowed to enter into it, it seems to me.

---

I think we are in agreement here. What you say is obviously true, I was just trying to support Anthony's idea that it's time to get the government out of the marriage business. Even though homos think they are being discriminated against now, as long as the government is involved someone is going to get left out. Single folk have been getting screwed right along with the Gays. Government marriage benefits have always been about encouraging people to breed and make new workers to grow the economy. If you throw non-breeders into the mix it really doesn't make sense any more. With 8-14 million Americans unemployed there's no need to subsidize breeding at this time. If marriage becomes a private contract between who ever chooses to enter into it, they'll be free to call it anything they please.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Kirkules: sounds like it. :) I'm good with that.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,

You seem to think I have some kind of burden of proof.

---

YOU and I both KNOW what claims you're making, and I'm kind of curious why it is that those claims are the only ones that don't appear in your list?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What, exactly, are you contending is false?

---

Well, there's this:

Quote:

---

the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage.

---

One that doesn't appear in your list at all, interestingly. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, you claim that business regulations are good enough for marriage, I reject that and say marriage laws exist, and should exist, because marriage is not a business relationship; that trying to apply business rules to a marriage would be hammering a square peg into a very round hole. You keep stating that business rules are perfect for marriage, but you've not yet even begun to try and explain, let alone support that position.

Lets go a bit further. You're also claiming (albeit tacitly) that Marriage laws must reward marriage, that you can't have legally recognised marriage without social engineering. Frankly that's nonsense, and I've already touched on that, a point you've wholesale ignored. Lets move that logic to another circumstance: I suppose you can't have legally recognised business relationships, without forcing people to start businesses, and punishing those that don't, right?

ETA:
Or should we apply different logic to business relationships over marital ones? If that's the case though, I can't see how you could possibly claim that a business framework is suitable for marriage. Since if we have to apply different logic to their differing circumstances, I can't see any basis for a claim that we should apply the same legal framework to their differing circumstances.

I also reject that the government has no place whatsoever in regulating romantic commitments, especially since you have already admitted it does have a role to play there, even if you do conveniently forget that a second later.

What I'm contending is false is your idea that a legal marriage framework isn't necessary, and that things designed for completely different purposes can be applied to marriage's unique circumstances. The burden of proof is very much on your shoulders on that claim.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hello,

"You keep stating that business rules are perfect for marriage, but you've not yet even begun to try and explain, let alone support that position. "

Is there some function to marriage laws other than deciding the disposition of resources and assets?

"You're also claiming (albeit tacitly) that Marriage laws must reward marriage"

I'm claiming that's what they do. And I'm right. They do that.

"I also reject that the government has no place whatsoever in regulating romantic commitments, especially since you have already admitted it does have a role to play there"

You have oddly shoehorned rape into 'romantic commitments' in order to make this point. I can't say I agree with that particular lumping.

"I suppose you can't have legally recognised business relationships, without forcing people to start businesses, and punishing those that don't, right?"

An interesting point of view. Although, since any individual or group of individuals of any size or composition can start a business or reach an agreement about property and assets, one might say it's much more dynamic, inclusive, and non discriminatory.

"What I'm contending is false is your idea that a legal marriage framework isn't necessary, and that things designed for completely different purposes can be applied to marriage's unique circumstances."

What circumstances are unique about marriage, again? I missed it.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,

You seem to think I have some kind of burden of proof.

---

YOU and I both KNOW what claims you're making, and I'm kind of curious why it is that those claims are the only ones that don't appear in your list?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What, exactly, are you contending is false?

---

Well, there's this:

Quote:

---

the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage.

---

One that doesn't appear in your list at all, interestingly. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, you claim that business regulations are good enough for marriage, I reject that and say marriage laws exist, and should exist, because marriage is not a business relationship; that trying to apply business rules to a marriage would be hammering a square peg into a very round hole. You keep stating that business rules are perfect for marriage, but you've not yet even begun to try and explain, let alone support that position.

Lets go a bit further. You're also claiming (albeit tacitly) that Marriage laws must reward marriage, that you can't have legally recognised marriage without social engineering. Frankly that's nonsense, and I've already touched on that, a point you've wholesale ignored. Lets move that logic to another circumstance: I suppose you can't have legally recognised business relationships, without forcing people to start businesses, and punishing those that don't, right?

ETA:
Or should we apply different logic to business relationships over marital ones? If that's the case though, I can't see how you could possibly claim that a business framework is suitable for marriage. Since if we have to apply different logic to their differing circumstances, I can't see any basis for a claim that we should apply the same legal framework to their differing circumstances.

I also reject that the government has no place whatsoever in regulating romantic commitments, especially since you have already admitted it does have a role to play there, even if you do conveniently forget that a second later.

What I'm contending is false is your idea that a legal marriage framework isn't necessary, and that things designed for completely different purposes can be applied to marriage's unique circumstances. The burden of proof is very much on your shoulders on that claim.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

---

PSST....Hey Citizen, you are British. Why debate American law? Your views are irrelevant. Why Anthony would even respond to you is a mystery. Stay across the pond....and fix your big teeth.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thank you, Byte. I was going to point that out, as well as the fact that one can become a permanent resident or have dual citizenship. Staying here does not require citizenship.

I don’t believe marriage laws, financially, restrict or reward. There are perfectly good reasons for the differences; for example in taxes, married people generally buy homes, have children, etc., so I have nothing wrong with them getting tax credits. Just one example...and often it is better tax-wise to file as “single” anyway, depending on your situation. And tax and other financial breaks married couples get are not exclusive so they will “breed”, I find that ridiculous.

KPO, you’re right. As I said above, both Paula and I married our partners because of insurance reasons (in my case) and State Park rules (in hers). Otherwise we wouldn’t have bothered. So there is no argument on that one.

I agree that

Quote:

---

trying to apply business rules to a marriage would be hammering a square peg into a very round hole

---

and I, too, would like to understand how business rules could be seen as equaling ALL the financial and property aspects of marriage. There are many functions of marriage laws other than assets and property. Aside from which, one would have to go through a lot of different individual agreements that apply to business In order to cover all the marriage laws, whereas marriage covers almost everything in one fell swoop. It simplifies, if nothing else.

Marriage laws don’t just “reward” marriage, they also punish it in some ways. Such as financial liability, for just one example. I don’t see it as “reward” and “punishment”, I see it as society trying to find ways to codify relationships and achieve unity of families legally. What about a child born out of marriage, for example? What is their situation, barring the legal acceptance of a marriage between two people?

I certainly don’t see where that sentence shoehorns “rape” into “romantic commitments”. Commitments doesn’t mean agreeing to sex whenever one partner wants it despite the other’s choice, it means much more than that and under law, in America, rape is illegal whether married or not.

You’re also failing to recognize that just about any business agreement can be challenged much more easily than a marriage; yes, both can be challenged and of course pre-nups come into it, but realistically speaking, it’s more complicated to challenge a marriage than a business, in my opinion.

You’re also not taking into account that business laws in states differ, while there is far less difference in marriage laws, which complicates things further.

Of course marriage is different from business. To view it the same is a fallacy. People choose to marry for far more reasons than JUST business reasons...if you take finances out of it entirely, many would still marry for the commitment to one another. You are trying to compare feelings to laws and saying feelings don’t matter, and they do. As far as someone having suggested if people want a ceremony they should have some kind of ceremony, I say why shouldn’t they have the right to have the same ceremony as anyone else AND have the same rights under law? It offends some; so does interracial marriage, so does common-law marriage, so does cohabitation; is there a valid reason for denying any one segment of the population the same rights as any other?

I'm sure I've failed to make my case in some ways; I'm sleepy today and brain isn't functioning well. Nonetheless, I firmly believe marriage differs from a business agreement in many ways, far from only financial, and if I were awake I would be able to debate it better.

Citizen, remember: It doesn't really exist.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME