Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/12/04 5:47 pm:
Chou,

See Elgin Republicans' answer.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/17/04 4:19 pm:
Excon,

>>>It only offends you because of your religious affectations. <<<

Actually, the religious issues are the least of my concerns. The fact is that the institution of marriage has a huge impact on economics, and that is one of my major concerns.

For instance, let's look at the number of children in the USA who live below the poverty line. Something like 75% of those children are in families that are 'non-traditional' in some way or other... that is, single-parent families, divorced parent families, same-sex parent families, etc. Also, there is a higher percentage of non-taditional families that are living at or below the poverty level than traditional families. Clearly, the argument could be (and is) made that there is a connection between marital status and economic stability. What the connection is is up for debate, but there is clearly some connection.

Next, I am a believer in the Robert Heinlein theory of marriage. That is: the purpose of marriage is to create and take care of children in a stable environment. From a sociological perspective, that is the ONLY purpose of marriage. There is no other. (No, not even love. People who are in love don't need marriage.) Marriage is simply an agreement between parents to feed, nurture and care for children, and for each to do their part. This, of course, leads to the division of labor (the father is the taditional hunter/gatherer, while the mother is the nurturer/teacher). Heinlein argues that the most efficien way to take care of children is through a polygamic marriage rather than a traditional 2 parent system. That way, if one or more parents become incapacitated, there is still a stable environment of other parents to care for the children. I'm not sure I agree with Heinlein about the last part of his argument, but I certainly agree with the first part; that marriage in an institution created to create, raise and nurture the children in a stable environment.

If we take that argument to the next step, then any environment which cannot do what marriage is supposed to do is unhealthy for children. No gay couple can create children. Therefore, a 'marriage' between two such people is exactly the opposite of what marriage is supposed to accomplish, and is, in fact, detrimental to the creation, nurturing and raising of children.

I don't doubt that there are very loving gay couple out there who would make very good parents. They are good nurturers, and good teachers. They would care for children very well. But they cannot create children, which is one of the points of marriage. Creation of children is one of the main points, no less important and no more important than nurturing and raising children. And since no gay couple can accomplish this, they cannot be married. Or to be more specific, they CAN marry, but such a marriage misses the point of marriage to begin with.

You will note that I am not speaking of specific individuals. It is entirely legitimate for couples who have trouble having children to remain together even though they are not accomplishing the 'creation' part of marriage. But when an entire POPULATION can't create children, their practices MUST be changed, or else the entire population will die out within a generation. And the fact is that it is impossible for gay people to marry each other and have children. Which means that their idea of 'marriage' is really a death sentence for gays who marry. In fact, I would argue that gay marriage will do more harm to the gay community in the long-run than banning gay marriage ever could.

>>>Discrimination is illegal. Really - read the Constitution. <<<

I have. Descrimination based on race, creed, color, sex and ethnicity is illegal. I have not read anything in the Constitution about descrimination based on sexual orientation. That is not to say that I think it is alright to descriminate against gays. But the protection you seek for them is NOT in the Constitution. (It has actually been accomplished via litigation, not legislation.) And being the strict Contitutionalist that you are, you should not be reinterpreting the Constitution that way.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/17/04 8:42 pm:

Hello again, Elliot:

Actually, in many jurisdictions, sexual orientation is a protected class. Additionally, I interpret the Constitution literally. Consequently, embodied in that document is the inference, that ALL men are created equal. The problem with listing certain groups entitled to protection under the Constitution, is that those groups not listed, somehow lose their rights. In my view, the word "all" is inclusive. The writing of laws which list groups, rather than being inclusive, is indeed, exclusive.

Now, interestingly enough, I don't disagree with ANY of your arguments. The problem is, your arguments are irrelevant. It's a red herring, and the wrong argument to have.

However, the argument is legal - not moral. And that is because, as long as there are legal rights that accompany state sanctioned marriage, the state must not discriminate. The church may; you may; the right wing may; Robert Heinlin may, but the state may not. The issue is equal rights - nothing more.

The fact that you raise only moral issues makes my point, entirely. The government, when handing out rights, may not stand in moral judgment of its people as grounds to deny those rights. The First Amendment to the Constitution is intended to separate church from state. Sin, from a Constitutional point of view, cannot be a reason to deny rights. When a state license is applied for, the state should see a taxpayer at the window, nothing else. State sanctioned marriage is a legal contract. It is distinct from a religious marriage.

In the America I believe in, the government has no business depriving someone of their rights because of sin.

excon

P.S. I recommend you read “It aint nobody’s business”, by Peter McWilliams. It’s online at www.mcwilliams.com/.

P.P.S. I grok Robert Heinlin

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/18/04 8:18 am:
>>>Actually, in many jurisdictions, sexual orientation is a protected class. <<<

Yes it is, but not by Constitutional process.

>>>Consequently, embodied in that document is the inference, that ALL men are created equal.

That is true. And because of that, every man has the implicit right to marry any woman he wishes. But there is no protection in the Constitution for rights that are DIFFERENT than those of other people. That is not equal rights, that is superior rights.

>>>The problem with listing certain groups entitled to protection under the Constitution, is that those groups not listed, somehow lose their rights. <<<

True. Which is why I believe that the Constitution should have stopped with "...all men (and women) are created equal", and left it at that. Unfortunately, we are left with a situation in wich interpretation and re-interpretation and mis-interpretation are prevalent. And frankly, I have no problem with re-interpretation as it is needed. But it is YOU who claim to be a strict Constitutional literalist, and such re-interpretation should bother you. You certainly should not be arguing in favor of such re-interpretation, which is what you have done.

>>>The fact that you raise only moral issues makes my point, entirely. <<<

Actually, I have not raised ANY moral questions at all. My questions are purely SOCIOLOGICAL, not moral. And it is based on sociology that most liberals have argued in favor of such ideas as 'social promotion', 'affirmative action', and other bits of stupidity that our country is stuck with. If sociological arguments are good enough to argue in favor of the liberal agenda, they ought to be good enough to argue against it as well. But I have been very careful to steer clear of 'morality' in this argument.

Based on pure sociology --- that is the study of how society interacts to survive--- the concept of gay marriage is dead on arrival. Gay marriage does not promote survivability of society, and is therefore a bad practice.

>>>The government, when handing out rights, may not stand in moral judgment of its people as grounds to deny those rights. <<<

Here is another statement that shows a misunderstanding of the concept of 'rights' and 'government'. The government does not hand out rights. Rights are there to begin with. The government either protects those rights or it does not. Societies in which the government does protect those rights are said to be "free". Societies in which those rights are not protected or are actively suppressed are said to be in 'tyranny'.

Nevertheless, I agree that the government cannot stand in judgement of individuals when protecting those rights. But you have you to prove to me that gay marriage is a right. Being gay is. Everyone has the right to sleep with whoever they want. But gay marriage is NOT a right. Marriage is defined in law (in most states) as the union between man and woman. Any man, gay or straight, has the right to marry any woman he wishes to marry. And any woman, gay or straight, has the right to marry any man they wish. Nobody is stopping gays from getting married. That right is indeed guaranteed by the government. But there is no evidence that there is any right to marry someone of the same sex. Not in the Constitution, not in any state, and until the Massachusets decision, not in any court decision.

So what you are advocating is not the same rights as anyone else, but rather a NEW set of rights specifically designed for the gay community. So much for equality of rights. This isn't equality, its superiority... a form of elitism, if you will. And you have always struck me as an anti-elitist.

So basically, in order to advocate gay marriage, you need to go against your own stated positions vis-a-vis Constitutionalism and possibly Elitism as well. Does that make sense to you? And in order to do it, you need to give the government the power to enforce such protections... which just coincidentally gives the government additional powers. And you have stated that you don't want the government to have any more powers than it had at the time of the founding fathers. Another position that contradicts your stated positions.

>>>The First Amendment to the Constitution is intended to separate church from state. Sin, from a Constitutional point of view, cannot be a reason to deny rights. When a state license is applied for, the state should see a taxpayer at the window, nothing else.<<<

Which again is why I stayed away from moral arguments. It is the job of the government to protect society. I have shown why gay marriage is detrimantal to society. Therefore, based on my arguments, the government should be against gay marriage because it is bad for society. I say nothing about sin or morality or the Bible in my arguments.

>>>When a state license is applied for, the state should see a taxpayer at the window, nothing else. State sanctioned marriage is a legal contract. It is distinct from a religious marriage. <<<

Yes. And the state has the right and ability to determine the legal definitions that apply to any contract. It therefore has the ability to define the legal term "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.

And it also has the right to invalidate any contract that breaks the law. For instance, any promissory note (loan document) that charges an interest rate that is so high as to be defined by the State as usury is invalid, even if every other part of the contract is valid. Therefore, by the same token, if a marriage contract between two people is determined to be invalid, it is annulled. And any contract that defines marriage as a union between people of the same sex is de-facto invalid.

So if you are arguing about the legality of the contract, then those who make such a contract must abide by the government's legal definitions that apply to the contract. And if the government decides that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman, then everyone must abide by that. And that is what I am advocating.

>>>In the America I believe in, the government has no business depriving someone of their rights because of sin.

Yes, but it does have the responsibility to protect society, and to deny someone his ability to act in a manner that is detrimental to society.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/18/04 1:18 pm:
Excon,

I see that you have read Stranger in a Strange Land, one of the great classics of sf. But if you want to get a handle on Heinlein's political and social beliefs, read Starship Troopers (the book not the movie; the movie bears little resemblence to the book) for politics, and Time Enough for Love (my personal favorite of his books) for social beliefs. Time is where he puts forward the theory I described above.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/18/04 3:58 pm:

Hello again Elliot,

>>>Which again is why I stayed away from moral arguments. It is the job of the government to protect society. I have shown why gay marriage is detrimental to society.<<<

No you haven’t!

You’ve cited some mumbo jumbo about children living in 'non-traditional' families who tend to live below the poverty line. And then you, somehow, try to connect that to gay marriage. It just doesn’t wash. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that, without exception, every ‘non-traditional’ family living in poverty that you refer to, are single-parent families - not same-sex parent families.

I don’t know how easy it is for a gay family to adopt in your neck of the woods. But I can tell you, in my part of town, only a relatively wealthy gay couple can adopt. And that would only be after a rigorous look at every other aspect of their lives.

>>>I have shown why gay marriage is detrimental to society.<<<

Again, no you haven’t!

All you’ve shown is that gay marriage cannot produce offspring. Duh. Many couples don’t produce offspring. That’s not a detriment.

>>>But they cannot create children, which is one of the points of marriage.<<<

According to whom? Your religious teachings? I didn’t get married to have children. I got married because I loved my wife. And, all of a sudden, I had more rights than I did before I got married. That's all gays want - those rights that everybody else has when they get married.

And, in the context of this argument, that is the only point of getting married. THis isn't about children, it’s about the rights that inure when people get married.

>>>Here is another statement that shows a misunderstanding of the concept of 'rights' and 'government'. The government does not hand out rights. Rights are there to begin with.<<<

And if it were still that way, we wouldn’t be having this argument. But as soon as the government decided to list (see above) who has marriage rights (a man and a woman), those couples who aren’t men and women got their rights taken away - if they had them in the first place like you said.

>>>But there is no evidence that there is any right to marry someone of the same sex.<<<

Why do you need further evidence for the existence of rights if, as you say, they’re there to begin with?

Say, I think you’re on to something with your concept of rights being there to begin with. So, that would mean that before somebody wrote a law spelling out what marriage means, (and by that I mean listing those who are eligible – and, ipso facto, de-listing those who aren’t), gay people did, indeed, have the right to marry.

Or did the framers make a mistake when they said “all”. Are these recent spates of laws defining marriage being between a man and a woman just correcting a mistake that our founders made? I don’t think so.

>>>But when an entire POPULATION can't create children, their practices MUST be changed, or else the entire population will die out within a generation.<<<

So, I guess you’re one of those who think homosexuality is catching. And not only is it catching, you appear to think it’s an epidemic, that if left untreated, will wipe out heterosexuality. Wow! I’m floored. I have no response for such outlandishness.

>>>So basically, in order to advocate gay marriage, you need to go against your own stated positions vis-à-vis Constitutionalism and possibly Elitism as well. Does that make sense to you? And in order to do it, you need to give the government the power to enforce such protections<<<

Nope! Wrong again. Before somebody wrote that law telling gays they can’t marry, there wasn’t anybody protecting their rights then. And the only people they need protection from are people like you. That’s a shame, too. Because I think you’re entitled to your opinion. You should encourage your children not to marry gay people (or don’t even go around them because they might catch it). You can stand up and yell your opinion from the highest mountaintop. But, you cannot use the power of government to enforce your religiously based opinion.

>>>government should be against gay marriage because it is bad for society.<<<

You continue to rant and rave about gay marriage being “bad” and a “detriment”. But, the only proof you offer is they can’t have kids, or even that they might be poor. Ok. So what? They’re not going to have kids whether you let them marry or not. And if it’s the population you’re worried about, allowing gays to marry won’t reduce the population by even one person. As noted above, they’re not going to have kids in any case.

Unless, of course, you believe that a law preventing homosexuals from marring, would force them to go through the “cure” so that they could marry the opposite sex, fulfill their desire to procreate and live happily ever after.

>>>And the state has the right and ability to determine the legal definitions that apply to any contract. It therefore has the ability to define the legal term "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.<<<

No it doesn’t. If gays are part of “all”, then they had the right to marry long before someone decided they didn’t. The rights embodied in the term “all” cannot be taken away. Period – even by a majority. That’s what inalienable means.

What I don’t understand, is why you, yourself, don’t see the moral implications of your position. You are a pretty rational guy under most circumstances. I guess when you’re under the spell of religion, all clearheaded thinking goes out the window.

What you have done here Elliot, is expose your argument for what it really is – morality cloaked in sociology. Well, I’m not fooled.

excon

P.S.

Ok, I’ll read Startroopers….. if you’ll read Peter McWilliams. Who knows, maybe I’ll grow paiz and support Bush.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/18/04 4:51 pm:
>>>According to whom? Your religious teachings? <<<

No. According to common sense and basic sociological concepts. What other purpose is there for marriage? People who are simply in love don't need marriage. They can have sex as often as they want without marriage. Marriage, as you pointed out is a contract. Contracts are there to set structure for some sort of arrangement. What purpose is there for this arrangement? Sex? You don't need marriage for sex. No, the arrangement is there for the purpose of making babies and then caring for them. Without babies, what other need is there for marriage?

>>>I didn’t get married to have children. I got married because I loved my wife. <<<

As did I. But did you really need the institution of marriage in order to be with her? And tell me truthfully, did you have sex with her before you were maried? If you did, you were already accomplishing what both of you wanted before marriage... co-habitation. You didn't need marriage for that. Marriage as an institution serves only one purpose: to create a stable structure in which to bear and raise children. If the two of you were the only reason for the marriage, you really don't need to be married. You may WANT to be married, but it really isn't neccessary. The only time marriage becomes neccessary is if babies enter the equation.

>>>Why do you need further evidence for the existence of rights if, as you say, they’re there to begin with?<<<

Simply put, because no such right exists. And if it doesn't exist, then there is no reason for the government to "protect" such a false right. Especially one that is detrimental to an entire segment of society as to kill out a majority of them within 1 generation.

>>>So, that would mean that before somebody wrote a law spelling out what marriage means, (and by that I mean listing those who are eligible – and, ipso facto, de-listing those who aren’t), gay people did, indeed, have the right to marry. <<<

Actually, it means the exact opposite. Until someone came along and determined that the government had to artificially create such a right for gay people, no such right existed. Our real rights were always there. False rights are ones that are artificially created. Gay marriage is a false right that is in the process of being revealed for what it is... false.

>>>Or did the framers make a mistake when they said “all”. <<<

Nope. They were correct when they said it. And all men have the right to marry any WOMAN they wish.

>>>Wrong again. Before somebody wrote that law telling gays they can’t marry, there wasn’t anybody protecting their rights then. <<<

You have it backward. Before someone came along and said "gay marriage is a right that must be protected under the Constitution", there was no such right. The Constitution does not protect this 'right'. It never has.

>>>So, I guess you’re one of those who think homosexuality is catching. <<<

No. I don't think it's catching at all. But I do believe that gay 'families' by their nature do not last past 1 generation... because THEY CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN. There is no continuity of their line. Their bloodline dies out after the first generation. That is basic physiology. That is why gay marriage can't work.

>>>And not only is it catching, you appear to think it’s an epidemic, that if left untreated, will wipe out heterosexuality<<<

I believe no such thing. What gave you that idea? What I believe is that they are KILLING THEMSELVES with the concept of gay marriage. And anyone with enough long-range vission to see past one generation can see why. Gay men cannot have children on their own. Therefore, their families are doomed to extinction as soon as they die. This does not effect heterosexuals in any way shape or form. But it DOES threaten to wipe out gays.

>>>You should encourage your children not to marry gay people (or don’t even go around them because they might catch it). <<<

Again, where did you get the idea that I believe that. I'm not worried about anyone 'catching' homosexuality. But I am concerned when an entire group of people, the homosexual community, embarks on a road that will lead to their own possible extinction.

>>>Unless, of course, you believe that a law preventing homosexuals from marring, would force them to go through the “cure” so that they could marry the opposite sex, fulfill their desire to procreate and live happily ever after. <<<

Go through the cure? No. Silly idea. But if gay marriage becomes a 'protected right', what will happen is that no gay marriages will ever have children of their own... That is, they would have to break the marriage contract in order for a gay-married man to have sex with a woman and have a baby. The result would be that 'gay marriage' will be a contract honored more in the breaking than in the making, rendering the entire 'contract' a sham. Either that, or they simply won't have kids, but will remain faithful to their partners... which results in no procreation, and the loss of the bloodline after one generation. Either way, the sociological implications are enormous.

>>>What I don’t understand, is why you, yourself, don’t see the moral implications of your position. <<<

That is because my position isn't a moral one. It is a sociological one that is concerned with the survival of an entire group within our society... the gay community.

>>>What you have done here Elliot, is expose your argument for what it really is – morality cloaked in sociology. <<<

No, what you have done is show that for you, the issue of homosexuality in America can only be discussed on a morality level. As far as you are concerned, there are no sociological implications to gay marriage, and so you ignore the fact that the concept of gay marriage will lead to the destruction of the gay community. Either that, or it will lead to the destruction of the concept of gay marriage. The two cannot co-exist. Gay couples who have children have broken their marriage vows. Those who don't break their marriage vows cannot have children of their own, resulting in their own demise. Thus, the concept of gay marriage is detrimental to the gay community. Which was my point to begin with.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/18/04 7:05 pm:

I like arguing with you.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/19/04 7:59 am:
Thank you. I enjoy the intellectual excercise you give me. Check out my new question to you.