Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Alcon]

Slavery is much different. It's human abuse. Banning gay marriage doesn't physically hurt anybody.

So, more akin to allowing a vote on segregated busing or schooling?

[Alcon]

The people of California have spoken, and did not want gay marriage.

Should we have let the people vote on interracial marriage? Slavery? Segregation?

After all, as long as the people say it, it's perfectly okay, right?

Ah, the inherent flaw in the logic of many liberals.

What inherent logical flaw is there?  It may be an inapt analogy in some people's opinions, but they do share enough in common to constitute a consistent analogy.  Yea, there are differences -- I don't find them convincingly strong enough to justify the distinction -- but there have to be.  Otherwise it's a tautology not an analogy.

[Alcon]

I am going to say this again, in case anyone still does not understand

Opposition to gay marriage does not equate to issues of race!

So quit insulting people's intelligence by trying to brainwash them into believing that the issue of gay marriage equates to issues to race.

An analogy does not imply complete equity

An analogy requires that two objects be similar in a way of some profundity

If everything is identical in an analogy, it is comparing something to itself, and is a tautology

grahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

On the other hand, I think the idea that gay people want to "debase and demean" marriage is pretty bigoted, myself -- or, at minimum, incredibly ignorant.

[Alcon]

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

So, you see no moral issue with segregated schooling or busing?

Or, if homosexuality isn't actively chosen, you might as well say that blacks had the same rights -- to not be enslaved if they had white skin.  The only difference in the analogy is that one might be able to suppress their sexuality, but not skin color.  Otherwise, the moral parallel is pretty pure.

[Alcon]

Oh please.  Are you seriously comparing gays to slaves?  Are gays being treated as property?  Is it illegal to educate them?  Is it routine for them to be whipped and beaten?  Gays can keep on claiming that they are a 'persecuted minority', nobody cares because they aren't being discriminated against.

What about "analogies do not have to be completely identical to be analogies, otherwise they wouldn't be analogies" is unclear?

Yes or no -- Is "separate but equal" a moral offense to you, or not?  Is it morally acceptable to exclude someone from equivalency, even if you can't prove that giving them equivalency would cause harm?

That was the extent of the analogy.  That is how analogies work.

Most gays do not even care about marriage.  Gays have an enormous rate of sexual partners outside of marriage compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  Gays cannot have children, so there is no need for them to be bound to each other.  I could understand if it was illegal to have sex outside of marriage, but that just isn't the case.  Hilariously, I hear of gays getting married 'because of the benefits'.  So basically, they're getting married for purely political reasons.  This is why I call them selfish and hedonistic, because they are willing to destroy the bedrock of Western civilization - all civilization - for their own selfish needs.  Selfish, hedonistic, overly dramatic, worthless individuals who crucify themselves on a political cross.  I think this point has been exhausted.

I'm curious to see what studies have shown that a supermajority of gays have "an enormous rate [sic] of sexual partners."  Or does the different just have to be disproportionate?  'Cause you know how likely blacks are to commit crimes, etc. etc.  Or men, for that matter.  You clearly should be denied rights on the basis of your demographics' disproportionate tendency toward given behaviors.  Exhausted no, certainly exhausting. 

[Alcon]

There is one BIG difference.  I firmly believe that being gay is a choice, not genetic.  I don't think I'm wrong, either.

On what grounds do you believe this?  I doubt it's purely genetic, either, any more than any other behavior.  Depression isn't purely genetic.  Does that mean that people actively choose to have clinical depression?  You probably see where I'm going with this.  It makes very little sense.

I'm open to hearing why you think someone would actively choose to be gay, though.  And unless sexuality is an active choice (did you choose to like women?  I didn't) then the point still stands.

[Alcon]

Vander,

I'm impressed that you've read diligently into these peer-reviewed studies of marriage rates, etc.  Which ones did you find most convincing?  And what do you feel is the best way of establishing a causation and controlling for incidental correlation?  You seem very passionate about an objective, statistical analysis.  I look forward to engaging you on those terms, since it's something I've looked into in pretty great detail.  We have vastly different conclusions but I look forward to reading your interpretations of the raw data

Sidebar: What does promiscuity have to do with this?  Gays should be punished for having a lot of sex by being disallowed to settle down?  Err...

[Alcon]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

By your interpretation of that verse, everyone would have to choose all of their behaviors, personality characteristics and physical appearance.  You don't believe that, do you?

[Alcon]

Alcon, there are many studies on the topic.  A simple Google search will bring up a number of results.

Feel free to look them up.

I'm aware that gay men are more promiscuous.  It's not exactly a surprise, considering the low emphasis on long-term commitment...something which you're effectively championing in this topic.

However, I find the evidence extremely unconvincing that there is an effect on marriages.  I have done more than Google the topic.  I have looked at peer-reviewed papers, rebuttals, criticisms, checked author histories and affiliations, etc.  If you're encouraging me to Google to find papers that support your opinion, and ignores those that don't...why is that not a complete and total waste of my time, and why wasn't it a waste of yours?

My argument, however, is ultimately not that gays should be denied marriage because they have numerous partners, my argument is that they are not interested in marriage to begin with.  My argument is that gays should be denied marriage because it would lead to a further erosion in the state of that institution.  Ideally, government would not involve itself in marriage so there would not be so many political entanglements.  I do not think gays are interested in getting married; I think they are interested in political recognition, and I don't think that's a good motive.  If marriage was left to the people, I very much doubt that gays would be marrying in any significant numbers.

And I suppose you have evidence from countries with gay marriage to back this up?  Because I've read plenty to the contrary, but maybe you have different statistics than me or something

Besides, it's a curious argument.  "Gays don't want marriage anyway"?  Maybe 80% of them don't.  Does that make the 20% moral violation acceptable?  No.  The burden is still on you to prove that there is sufficient harm to marriage to justify denying gays inclusion in the institution.  Still waiting.

[Alcon]

Defense of real marriage is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

What gay marriage does in fact do is debase, demean and trivialize real marriage.  Therefore, if gay marriage becomes law, what the gay community has accomplished is in fact to debase, demean, and trivialize real marriage.

Do you have ideas, or do you limit yourself to just opinions?

I find it patently offensive that you think gays entering the same unions "demeans" or "trivializes" the institution.  You may not agree with their relationships, but the idea that they "pollute" our real marriage goes beyond simple knee-jerk theological disagreement.  It's intentionally demeaning and being spiteful against them.  It is bigoted.

I have known many gay marriage opponents who address the issue respectfully -- you are not one of them.

[Alcon]

One problem I have with the whole "homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it must be good" argument

That's not an argument I've ever seen here, this thread included.  The argument is that "it's not race, it's sexual orientation" is a poor argument if it's established that homosexuality is A) not inherently undesirable, B) is not elective -- because then the distinctions usually made to defend a "separate but equal" situation are removed.

[Alcon]

Did the people actually go out and vote on those particular issues? Are you aware that segregation was reviled by many localities in the south? Mainly because it hurt businesses and was a pain in the rear involving enforcement. And yes, I believe slavery should have been ended at a MUCH slower pace then what happened in the actual timeline.

People voted on segregation in a lot of places, slavery too.  I have precinct results from Multnomah County, Oregon -- voted for both slavery and segregation (85%+ against both) the same year.  What's yar point?

[Alcon]

Given that the fuss in California is strictly over a word, and nothing else, I fail to see how the desire of one group of people to define that word takes precedence at the level of being an inalienable natural right over the desire of another group of people to define that word another way.

The fuss in California is strictly over a word in the same way that the issue with segregated water fountains was about "location of drinking facility."  I find your framing to be uncharacteristically disingenuous.  There is an implicit assumption that something (tradition, degradation to an institution) has greater value than the inclusion of gays in the institution.  It is like refusing to invite a relative to a Thanksgiving dinner because they have never been invited before.  Is that a rational, fair denial of rights?  Is it simply semantic?

[Alcon]

Let me be clear.

Pro gay marriage advocates have been anything but respectful.  They have trodden upon the symbol of Christianity and they have demeaned and physically attacked anti gay marriage advocates.

I will not launch into a personal attack on you and make unwarranted accusations against you as you have on me.

"I find your statement bigoted" is not a personal attack.  A personal attack is, "your tie is ugly and we shouldn't listen to you."  I find your accusations that gays want to damage traditional marriage offensive.  Those are not "unwarranted accusations"?  I doubt that the pro-gay marriage forces are any more apt to be demeaning, or cause physical damage, than any other group that feels suppressed. 

Every ideology has its hateful jerks.  The anti-slavery movement did (as did the pro-slavery movement) -- and admittedly, the less status quo the movement, the likelier it attracts overzealous followers.  What does that have to do with the substance of the debate?  What does that have to do with the quality of the moral argument?  Nothing.

As far as defending your broad, offensive claim -- you are being anything but clear.

[Alcon]

You are making the assumption that a same-gender relationship and an opposite-gender relationship are equivalent and therefore a distinction in terminology violates unenumerated rights of equality so basic that it is a profound denial of rights to have such a distinction.  There are some obvious differences between the two and while I personally do not find the differences significant enough to require a distinction, neither do I see any violation of natural rights significant enough for one group to impose its preferred definition over the other on that basis.  That makes it a political question, which should be handled via the ballot box unless there is language in a State Constitution that can reasonably interpreted to settle the matter.

1. What part of my argument entails the assumption that a same-sex/opposite-sex relationship must be equivalent?

2. Where did I mention state constitutions?  I know that's your primary area of interest on the subject, but my objection to your argument was moral not legal.  If your argument was exclusively legal, then I withdraw the comment, but that wasn't clear.

[Alcon]

The argument is widely used among pro gay marriage advocates that marriage is a right that should be available to all, at least that should be available to all adults.

Suppose a bisexual man dearly loves a woman and also dearly loves another man, and that the three of them want to be married to one another. 

We will assume that same sex marriage is recognized.

Therefore, this bisexual man and the woman and the other man feel they are being discriminated against because they want to marry one another, so the three of them would be legally married to one another, and marriage to two other people is not recognized. 

The three of them launch a court action arguing their equal rights are being violated because gay couples are now allowed to marry, but the three of them are not permitted to marry each other.

Since gay marriage has been granted, we will suppose, should these three be allowed to marry one another, since marriage is a right that should be available to all adults? 

Changing the definition of marriage to include gays does not do anything to erode the definition of marriage as a union of two people, something which Gallup indicates is agreed to by over 90% of Americans.

I happen to be one of those few Americans who wouldn't care if polygamy were legalized in a way that didn't open the potential of rampant legal abuse.  But your argument is a slippery slope argument.  And if the majority of gay marriage supporters buy the argument you're alleging they do, why do fewer than 10% of Americans see polygamy as moral?

For better or worse, there is no slippery slope here -- realistic or ideological.

[Alcon]

I guess since Winfield and MK cannot effectively counter the points that we've just made here, they know that their position is on fragile ground.

Does it help to picture Winfield as a press release with arms for typing?

[Alcon]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Tradition is not more important than what's right for the child.  If they happen to be the same thing, so be it.  But tradition should not interfere into the quality of life for an innocent child.  Period.

And if you want to prove that the traditional (man-woman) relationship is so superior to the nontraditional (gay) relationship in child-raising that we should disallow them to do so, then you have to prove it.  You can't just repeat it over and over.  As you say -- "we've heard it all before, so don't bother."*

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

"I've heard a claim before, therefore it's not true"?  What?

On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I don't dispute this, but we don't restrict marriage based on ability to create children.  We never have.  It's never even been cultural "taboo" to marry when infertile.  You're arguing tradition with something that isn't even traditional!

Your second thought is basically saying "sure, gay marriage can raise children productively, but they shouldn't, so whatever."  I call it a "thought" because I have no idea what it would mean as an argument.

* - Except, in this case, I'm asking you to prove burden of proof when you make a positive assertion, instead of simply repeating the assertion.  In your case, you're rejecting an assertion because it has been repeated.  The former makes sense; the latter does not.

[Alcon]

It's nice to see someone actually inject some humor into this discussion.

And that is funny, someone saying that a gay couple could actually conceive a baby together.

That's hilarious.

You're attacking a joke instead of the many substantiative arguments made against your claims?

[Alcon]

Why do you take the unfortunate and sad circumstance of infertile couples and exploit it as a basis to refute the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world?  I have stated before that, obviously, there are many circumstances in which married heterosexual couples cannot or do not have children.  I have also stated that these marriages are no less valid than heterosexual couples who do have children. 

So, in some cases you arbitrarily decide to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Calling his argument "exploitative" isn't a personal attack, while calling yours "cowardly" is.  You still won't address the argument that desired equality should be granted unless it has a detrimental effect on a pre-existing institution (remember the Thanksgiving Analogy?), instead electing to object that it isn't an absolute right.  There's no "right to ride in the good area of the bus" either; does that mean that bus segregation was morally acceptable to you?

And, yea, I'm aware that race and sexual orientation are different,and you believe that sexual orientation is chosen, but -- like the detrimental effect on marriage -- you seem extremely disinterested in proving it.

[Alcon]

Going beyond the acquisition of equal rights to demanding that a specific word be defined for legal purposes in a particular way most certainly affects people or same-gender marriage advocates wouldn't be insisting that a civil union with the exact same legal rights is insufficient.  It is the height of illogic to hold that defining civil marriage in one way (i.e. as between a man and a woman) demeans the values of those who favor the broader definition (as between any two consenting adults) but that the converse does not demean the values of those who favor the narrower definition.  Given all the contention over the definition of a word, it is obvious that both sides feel that having the other side's definition be the legal definition of "marriage" is demeaning.  So long as the same rights are available, which way the word is defined legally is not something that should be decided judicially, but instead legislatively.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that having gay marriage won't offend gay marriage opponents, and offend their definition of "marriage."  Otherwise, there would be...no debate here.  The argument of gay marriage proponents is that, short of an empirically indicated harm, the implicit exclusion from an institution constitutes an immoral failure of service.

The analogy that I keep using (too much ignoring) is the separation of buses, or schools, into black or white groups.  Both groups felt that this was detrimental, analogous to your complaint.  Like in that situation, one group claims an empirically unproven detriment on an institution or on society in greater.  Like in that situation, that group was the strong majority.  I don't know your judicial philosophy enough to know whether you'd defend that brand of segregation in the same way as this inequality.  If not, where do you see the meaningful distinction in offense?

In any case, you keep arguing judicial policy, with both Joe and I, two people who (I'm pretty sure) have never framed their arguments in a judicial context.  It's a little like presenting an argument about why lying is immoral and then having it followed up with "yes, but it's protected free speech!" every single time.  Perhaps so, but not really what we're talking about.  Your arguments are interesting and insightful, by all means, I'm just confused by your intent.

[Alcon]

The distinction here is that unlike the cases you use for analogy, there is nothing to keep a couple in California that have a "domestic partnership" from describing their relationship as a "marriage" when talking with their friends, family, etc.  Unlike buses or schools, the occasions where they need to use the official definition will be rare.

And how is that distinction so much more compelling than "it's the same service anyway, just in a different location"?  Keep in mind that your burden is to prove that it's not only more compelling, but so clearly compelling that the courts should have none of it.

Besides, you're arguing that the government service should be allowed to segregate, as long as there is no meaningful effect on services, and people can privately exercise what they want.  That dilutes your distinction even further.  The only difference in the two situations is the frequency of tangible instances in which the inequity necessarily manifests itself, which is the soggiest absolute litmus test I've read in a long time.

This thread is titled "Gay marriage ban upheld in California".  The only thing that was at stake in the case this thread is ostensibly about is whether or not the Supreme Court of California could overrule the legislative process concerning the name that for legal purposes a same-gender relationship would be referred to in that State.  So my intent here is to stay on topic for this thread.  If you'd rather talk about the legal status of same-gender relationships in general, then I respectfully suggest doing do in a different thread such as the Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years thread.

The thread has clearly moved on to be more than that, which threads and conversations tend to do.  Even if not, re-framing any moral argument in a judicial context is useless since it drains the original argument of all meaning.  I've been on the Internet long enough to know how message board conversations work, and so have you. 

[Alcon]

zShow me any two schools that are exactly the same and I might buy your argument.  Brown v. Board of Education did not overturn the doctrine of "separate but equal" as is commonly thought.  Rather, it found that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."  Hence, the burden is on those who demand that their preferred definition be judicially imposed to show that "separate but equal" is impossible.  With the sole difference being the choice of wording on a few forms, I don't see how that burden can possibly be met.

Well, I can sure show you two identical sections of a bus.

Say, theoretically, that such a law were up for review and there existed established precedent.  Would you be defending that (the judicial components only, of course) with comparable zeal?  Would you be just as critical of any court that considered overturning the precedent, or any activist fighting that battle on a legislative front?

And, moreover, does such a situation morally offend you?  Because based on the wording following "sole difference," I don't gather that you have much personal empathy for complaints of exclusion-with-implication.

[Alcon]

I do not arbitrarily decide in any case to allow couples who are known to be unable to produce children to marry.  Any heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability to produce children, is, obviously, allowed to marry.  And, as I have stated before, their marriages are no less valid than any heterosexual marriage which does produce children.  The reason their marriages are just as valid is because they are heterosexual couples. 

So, your argument that lack of procreation is a justification for disallowing gay marriage is bunk.  You give infertile heterosexuals a free pass just because they are heterosexual, or you refuse to give homosexuals the same pass just because they are homosexuals.  Either way, your claimed litmus test (can they produce children?) has nothing to do with your opinion.

Either way, how is this not arbitrary?

Your quetioning me about "the right to ride in the good area of the bus" is ridiculous and really not worthy of an answer.  I will, however, state that, OBVIOUSLY, bus segregation is NOT, under ANY circumstances, in any way, shape, or form, acceptable to me.  Besides, the bus segregation issue has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage, except in the minds of persistent advocates of gay marriage, in the minds of the radical left, and in the minds of the radical gay community.     

I'm not a radical leftist, a radical gay, or even a plain-vanilla leftist or a plain-vanilla gay.

And you did not refute the parallel, besides to say it does not exist.  My argument is that the same quality that made bus segregation offensive ("having them in the institution of x affects society in way y, and we want to make policy without providing empirical evidence.")

Your complaint about my argument is that race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing.  But that isn't part of my argument.  So either you're repeatedly failing to understand my argument on accident, or intentionally.  If it's the former, I'm happy to explain it better if you tell me how I'm doing it poorly; if it's the latter, dude, stop.

[Alcon]

The mere separation via the stricture of law is an insulting construct, which demeans and depreciates those deemed as across a bridge too far to rub shoulders with.  As the court held, separation in this context is inherently unequal, but more than that, it affixes a scarlet letter on those of the "other."

It is just wrong, on a  very fundamental level.

^^ This, Winfield -- not the equality of race and sexual orientation -- is what I'm arguing (said much more pleasantly ).  There are further moral arguments, about whether such a depreciation is immoral.  However, since you have already established you find it wrong in one case, continuity seems lacking.