jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (102 posts)

Marriage Equality Arguments Before the Supreme Court

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    The anti-equality side is arguing against marriage equality by claiming (1) homosexuals can't procreation (2) kids with homosexual parents turn out badly.

    (1) Procreation

    This is technically true.  A homosexual couple cannot, on their own, reproduce.  Fortunately, this doesn't get those against marriage equality where they want to go and produces very disastrous consequences that show the absurdity of the position.  It's not even difficult to argue against this.

    Here are some people who can get married and cannot reproduce:

    -Disabled
    -Old women, and maybe a few old men
    -Felons (no sex in prison)
    -Infertile

    So, if this argument is accepted, and those who cannot procreate are banned from marriage, it will not just affect homosexuals.  It will affect all of these other groups as well!

    For example, a 60 year old woman would not be allowed to marry anyone.  She can no longer reproduce.  However, a 60 year old man can marry a woman, but she must be of child-bearing age.  Furthermore, the government would also have to test for infertility, and if an individual was so on account of surgery (vasectomy or tying tubes), or just a bad luck of the draw, they could not be married.  Accepting this position leads to an increase in state power, something conservatives (not libertarians, who are more consistent) constantly decry while also advocating.

    So, for the sake of simplicity and limited government, support marriage equality while you still have a chance to redeem the judgment history will cast if you oppose equal rights for all.

    (2) Kids

    This is ad hominem and has no research to back it up.  It's a pathetically weak point.  For those still buying into this twaddle, I'll link this article that cites empirical data to show kids of homosexual parents are no worse than those with heterosexual parents, even though the claim is prima facie absurd on its own.  http://www.salon.com/2012/09/04/gay_cou … pier_kids/

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      We are on the verge of a new era on marriage equality, the tide has shifted, not just in the US but all through the developed world and even large parts of the developing world. I am so glad. It's important we keep the work up and not get complacent on the issue, keep showing the arguments for what they are, not worthy of that title.

      1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
        Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        It is a regular Tsunami.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Hopefully!

      2. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I like seeing something like this change in my lifetime.  It gives me hope for the future.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Could not agree more.

  2. Ralph Deeds profile image76
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    It would be a mistake for the Supreme Court out of timidity and fear of a backlash to duck the Constitutional issue of marriage equality. I remember seeing "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards on highways across the Midwest as a result of his courageous but controversial desegregation, First Amendment and voting rights decisions.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I doubt Alito, Thomas, or Scalia will rule in favor of equality, and they will pay through history.

      What I don't know is if Kennedy and Roberts will support gay rights.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I hope they rule in favor of equality. Most people can't believe I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I am.

        In truth, the best option would to be to get government out of the marriage business. Have the government issue civil union licenses to any consenting adults(minus the obvious exceptions), and let marriage be a private matter people do on their own or through a church.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Well you are more of a libertarian right?  So I'm glad to have you as an ally on this, and it does not surprise me you favor equality or getting government out of the marriage business completely.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I am more of a libertarian(not Libertarian). People just assume since I liked Romney over Obama that I'm a toe-the-line Republican Bush-lover.

            My two favorite arguments against gay marriage:

            1 - "It's contrary to traditional American values!"
            Response = Treating blacks as property used to be a traditional American value. That doesn't mean it was right.

            2 - "It's an assault on the family, traditional marriage is the cornerstone of society."
            Response = You should be campaigning to make adultery, divorce, and porn all illegal, because they do far more to attack the 'traditional' family that has a >50% divorce rate.

            1. innersmiff profile image70
              innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I heard somebody today say "I don't want to make gay marriage legal, or any marriage for that matter. Get the government out of it". Somes up the issue for me.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                IMO, it's easier just to legalize gay marriage. I don't want a complete lack of marriage/civil unions. If we get rid of marriage then we should have civil unions.

                It's much easier to get married or unionized than to spend thousands with lawyers working on wills, power of attorney, etc etc etc...

                1. innersmiff profile image70
                  innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Personally, "it's just easier" has never been a particularly convincing argument, especially from a libertarian point of view. Then there is the moral hazard of essentially discriminating against single people.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    One of government's legitimate roles, in my opinion, is to assist in the enforcement of contracts. I really don't have a problem with that.

                    I'm not sure what the discrimination against single people would be.

                  2. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I will admit though, it's not a subject that I've spent a ton of time thinking about, so implications like that I simply haven't considered. I do appreciate the input, I'm sure my views will continue to change until the day I die.

            2. Zelkiiro profile image87
              Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              #3. "It's an assault on the Biblical tradition of marriage!"

              And so is monogamy. And so is treating your wives like people instead of property. And so is any marriage that isn't arranged. And so is marrying a woman who isn't a virgin.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Well for normal anti-equality folk, they say this.

                But they weren't allowed to try that balderdash in court.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image76
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          At last, something we agree on!

  3. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    The future should be like this forum.  No debate over the legitimacy of gays being allowed to marry.  It will be settled because it's an obvious violation of equal rights to do otherwise.

  4. tirelesstraveler profile image85
    tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago

    This case has nothing to do with marriage.  Talk all they want , what this amounts to is whether or not the vote of the people is valid or not. I don't think the court will rule on it. They will send it back down,because it is a states rights issue. 
    Now tomorrows case may be more of what you are looking for.  If they redefine marriage I believe polygamy has a stronger case historically than gay marriage. Justice Sodamyor  pointed that out today.

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know if it is really a states rights issues though. If a man marries a woman, that marriage is recognized in all 50 states.

      Therefore, if a man marries a man in New York, shouldn't that marriage also be recognized automatically in all 50 states. A legal marriage in one state should be recognized in all 50 states regardless of the makeup of the couple.

      Additionally, I don't really care if a man has 5 wives or a woman has 4 husbands. As long as they all agree to be in the relationship and can take care of any kids produced.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yup I am fine with polygamy too so long as all are adults and consenting. I don't see why all these supposedly freedom loving conservatives want to tell people who they can marry, it's increasingly ridiculous.

      Marriage equality is no more a state issue than racial equality all citizens deserve and will receive equal rights under the law and should not be forced to leave their homes and jobs to find it.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Of course.  Maximize freedom.
        As long as there is no abuse and everyone is consenting, I see no problems from a legal standpoint.

        1. tirelesstraveler profile image85
          tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          What happens when they aren't consenting? Who decides what consenting means?  What about Sharia law.  How will  this go over with that?

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Sharia law is abusive.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image76
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, but it doesn't apply in this country.

              1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                It sure applied to this woman!

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            No consent nothing happens. Consent has a legal definition that includes age, mental acuity etc.
            What about Sharia law? It's irrelevant to this conversation and we do not live under it.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              One could consent to live under sharia law and it would be binding.  Until it required something illegal, like stoning someone.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Sure.

            2. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I don't know why that is so hard to grasp. If someone wants to live under a certain system, they can. If they don't want to live under a certain social order, they have the right to seek out a different situation. Seems easy enough.

              1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
                Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Unless you are forced to stay against your will, but that could never happen. Right?

          3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You can also say that about "straight" marriages can't you? I didn't know the US had adopted Sharia law?

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    No one is thinking about the effect that condoning homosexuality in our society will have on children. If it is abomination to God, it is an abomination to them. Lets just keep it the way it was meant to be. Men loving women, women loving men. Are four balls really better? Are four breasts really better? Thats what the kids will be wondering!

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What about homosexuality is immoral?

    2. Zelkiiro profile image87
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      ITT: Kathryn believes marriage is purely about reproductive sex and that marriage based on love is irrelevant. Also, Kathryn openly hates old people and infertile people, as well as hermaphrodites and eunuchs.

    3. Zelkiiro profile image87
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And if your argument contains the word "Bible," then your argument is meaningless, as the commandment against homosexuality comes from the same book that says:

      - Disobedient children should be bludgeoned to death
      - Men who rape little girls can pay the girl's father $50 to not only be absolved of the crime, but to also make the girl his wife, no matter how young she is
      - Wearing two different kinds of fabrics is punishable by death
      - Do you eat pork? You're dead, too.
      - Women who question their husbands? Out you go, and have a couple hundred rocks to the face until you die.

    4. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      As it is not an abomination to God, there is no reason to think it is an abomination to children, either.

      But wait.  You refer to your god, don't you?  But that is irrelevant - that their god does not find it an abomination is what matters to them.  What your god thinks, or what you think either, matters not one iota.

    5. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How about you worry about your children and I'll worry about mine?

      Children starving to death is an abomination.  War is an abomination.  Armed shooters in schools is an abomination.

      Two guys making out?  That doesn't even make an appearance on my "bad sh*t that happens" list.

      So I'll go ahead and teach my kids that in a world where there is so much pain and hatred, any love is, indeed, good love.

    6. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You refer to "condoning" homosexuality like it is akin to murder, or child abuse, or rape. Same sex relationships take place between two consenting adults. There's no abuse of power, it is not evil.

      Kathryn, do you consider same sex relationships like you would murder, rape or child abuse? And if so, why?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        It is a bad example.  Life should be about sex for the sake of reproducing life. It is deviated from what is natural. Maybe they should just stay in the closet.  That's what they get.  Don't get me wrong, I like the gay people I know. I just wish they weren't gay.
        Can't help it... I am very honest.   And I can't get around my own honesty with myself. I would tell them to their face... what I am saying here.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I guess those of us without children are second class citizens then. People are born how they are... I don't remember choosing to be heterosexual...

          You don't like it... don't be gay. People should never have to hide who they are to appease someone else...

          Not too many humans are living up to the old "mating for life" thing now are they?

    7. Ralph Deeds profile image76
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      By your theory, God created homosexuals. So, how can they be immoral?

      1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
        Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Simple, they are committing abominable acts against the laws of nature.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Lol.  Yeah because every other species practices homosexuality, and that is UNNATURAL?  Your ignorance of biology is amusing.

        2. Dale Hyde profile image87
          Dale Hydeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          If the Christian God is perfect, he can or could only create perfect beings....gay or straight.... Any other way, that God is not perfect and is flawed.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image87
            Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Clearly you have yet to run into any of the infamous Two-Word Christian Cop-Out Answers for these kinds of questions.

            Why does evil exist? Free will.
            Why do innocent people die? God's judgement.
            Why does God make imperfect people? Original sin.

            1. Dale Hyde profile image87
              Dale Hydeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Lol, I know them all.  I "was" Christian, and still love the Christ and his teachings...those that have not been manipulated.  As a Wiccan High Priest now, I face life with the Christian knowledge and arguments, haha. smile

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image76
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That's apparently what your church tells you. My church (Episcopal) until he retired recently had an openly gay bishop living in a long term committed gay relationship.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I do not think God created homosexuals. I really do not.

        1. Dale Hyde profile image87
          Dale Hydeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I presume they are aliens then, perhaps?

          1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
            Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            God created humans to mate for life with a member of the opposite sex. Humans are free to choose how to behave.

            "God's Wrath" is not a human emotion. It is intrinsically built into the system, so, there is a natural consequence to defying the laws of nature, our opinions notwithstanding.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image76
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              "there is a natural consequence"

              Yes there is a natural consequence of same sex marriage--a long lasting, loving relationship, in some cases providing a good home for natural or adopted children.

              1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
                Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                That's sick.

                1. rebekahELLE profile image90
                  rebekahELLEposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  It's amazing to me what people think.  How would anyone argue against children being raised in a loving home environment by two people who love each other?  Look at how many are raised in homes with a man and woman who yell and argue and hate each other, but stay together for the 'sake of the children'. To me, that is sick and sad for the children.

                  1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
                    Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    That's warped. Do you understand what is good for children to know? It is not natural or right.

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              You're kidding, right?  Most thinking people now realize that the god(s) of the ancient peoples were but a myth, not real.  To declare that god created anything is nothing more than a statement that your personal beliefs are factual - something that you have no idea is true or not.

              God's wrath is not a human emotion, true.  It is instead little but a phrase used to scare people enough to control them better. 

              As far as anyone - anyone at all - "defying the laws of nature", well, it has never been done.  No one floats in the air, no one walks on water, etc.  No one will ever "defy the laws of nature", your opinion notwithstanding.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image76
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Excellent points.

            3. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Why is homosexuality found in every species?  God deserves to be fired.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Is an amoeba hetero?  Homosexual?  BI?

                Or just monosexual, maybe?

                1. profile image0
                  Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  All species that reproduce bisexually.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Some interesting facts about marriage in the US.

    http://www.mckinleyirvin.com/blog/divor … tatistics/

    And what a shock. Those who protest too much about "defending" the institution might do well not be throwing stones out of their glass  bedrooms. We can see you in there!

    What God has joined, let no man put asunder, eh?
    lol lol

    2008 voter data shows that “red” states (states that tend to vote Republican), have higher divorce rates than “blue” states (states that tend to vote Democrat).

    The Barna Research Group measured divorce statistics by religion. They found that 29 percent of Baptists are divorced (the highest for a US religious group), while only 21 percent of atheists/agnostics were divorced (the lowest).

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Lol.  Figures.  Just like christians say we need God to be moral, but secular states have the lowest levels of violence.

  7. Dale Hyde profile image87
    Dale Hydeposted 4 years ago

    I feel no need to elaborate. I have remained quiet on the subject, but those who know me well simply KNOW that I support marriage equality and have for years. smile

    And... you know what?  You can not change my stance on that.  I have been that way for a minimum of three decades, lol.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are ahead of the curve!

      1. Dale Hyde profile image87
        Dale Hydeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I do agree. smile

  8. Marquis profile image80
    Marquisposted 4 years ago

    Josak, the one who supports all things perverted.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image87
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Marquis, the one who believes in antiquated, outdated nonsense.

      1. Marquis profile image80
        Marquisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Only to a pervert with no moral compass.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope, perversion is telling others what they can do with those they love.

      1. Soul Man Dancing profile image60
        Soul Man Dancingposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Next, people will want to marry their dog.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image87
          Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Dogs are not consenting adults, so nope.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Precisely.

          2. gmwilliams profile image81
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Zelkiiro, you are discussing the subject at hand intelligently; however, someone else decided to take the thread and respond to it on an entirely other level.   What is he "thinking"?   What?
            http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7838490.jpg

            By the way, everyone knows where I stand regarding the gay marriage issue-  + a multillion percent!
            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7838500_f248.jpg

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I have a photo of someone holding the same message on a sign in protest against interracial marriage.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    My, my.This thread has gotten really threadbare since I last visited.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Partially because most of the comments were supportive of marriage equality.  If we all agree, there isn't much to argue about tongue.

  10. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    People have actually married their dogs and no one made a big deal about it. People hold weddings for dogs, cats, everything under the sun and no one complains about it destroying marriage... A woman in the US has married a number of inanimate objects yet no one is screaming...

    But, of course, marriage equity is allowing two consenting adults who are in love get married.


    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7838607_f248.jpg

  11. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    Funny when it came to marriage I thought the Bible in this country read:

    The King James Bible
    "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


    Meaning that marriage was God's domain

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, it means that Christians as a group claim it to be God's domain; that they want control over it.  Nothing unusual there, religions typically want control over nearly every aspect of a person's life, but nothing of real value, either.

      Followers of Allah say the same thing, as do most religions (although, of course, with a different god in mind).

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Who does not want control over everything and everybody?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The vast majority of people.

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            The vast majority of the people are not in control.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Correct and neither do they want to be.

              1. SpanStar profile image60
                SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Therefore the lives of people is dictated by those who want to be in power controlling everything and everybody.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Certainly not I. 

          With control comes responsibility and duty, and the more control the more of each.  While I understand that many people will declare that their responsibility ends by hand the controlled one a bible or repeatedly quoting from it, I cannot agree.  Neither the responsibility nor duty is something I want or accept.

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You are certainly free to think and believe as you choose unfortunately however the greed of mankind has been legendary throughout history.

            The question has been presented before "How Much Is Enough?"

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, greed has been legendary, including greed for control of others. 

              Doesn't make it right, though, just sad that such control is still exerted just for the sake of control.  Governments often do it for money - politicians get rich from being in office - but religions do it simply for control.  To force others to live the lifestyle considered "proper".

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Not only that but in many civilizations marriage was entirely secular, one might call for good fortune on the couple from a god but it was not his authority that made a marriage but that of the individuals or families involved.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image76
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Some, but not all Christians. Some support marriage equality. The
        Bible is full of anachronistic, contradictory, uncivilized things that have nothing to do with basic Christian beliefs.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      For Christians. We have a separation between church and state so that is irrelevant to the law.

  12. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Without the Bible to back up the nonsensical opposition to marriage equality, the Supreme Court hearings on gay marriage have revealed the feebleness of their arguments. 

    Procreation?  LOL.  Just goes to show religion has been masking an absurd position for a really long time.

 
working