Gay Marriage

[SonomaCat]

Your paragraph about polygamy is exactly what I had feared. When you decide to cross that line of what marriage is and isn't, just where are we as society to draw the new line? Once the boundary is set to please one group, another will cry for "equal rights" to marry...pets, relatives, or anything else that is judged to be "suitable" to marry. You may scoff, but using your arguement, where does the "societal more" get set?

Dahlia doesn't go as far I do on the justification of polygamy (and I don't really hold that one close to my heart, but if you read "The Moral Animal," it does show and interesting anthropological progression on the subject that explains how it became taboo in the first place), but she does a lot better job answering the "slippery slope" theory right now than I could with as little sleep as I've had.

http://slate.com/id/2100824

By the way, you are really interesting to chat with -- please post often!

[Bleedinbluengold]

Sorry to come to the party late, but I wasn't paying attention to the Hangout too closely.

I am against the Amendment more on the basis of my own belief that more laws mean less freedoms of choice, which I probably value beyond any inalienable right.

My next thought is this: Our Constitution is based entirely on, and most certainly legislates morality. The argument that the government can't, or shouldn't legislate morality is incorrect on the most fundamental basis. Every Article in the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional Amendments thereof, are based on the moral judgements and beliefs of The People, and those who serve The People.

People think the Founders were some enlightened group who "got it right." My opinion is that although the Founders said they wanted freedom of religion, and so forth, the simple truth is that they were like-minded individuals who wanted a country built around their beliefs. The Founders would no more have tolerated muslims on the basis of religion, than they did slaves on the basis of race.

I guess I'm just basically skeptical. My reality is that the arguments for any Constitutional Amendment, not just the one of which this thread is the subject, are all based on moral judgements - and such Amendments invariably take freedoms away from a specific population.

['93HonoluluCat]

Our Constitution is based entirely on, and most certainly legislates morality. The argument that the government can't, or shouldn't legislate morality is incorrect on the most fundamental basis. Every Article in the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional Amendments thereof, are based on the moral judgements and beliefs of The People, and those who serve The People.

Yep.

although the Founders said they wanted freedom of religion, and so forth, the simple truth is that they were like-minded individuals who wanted a country built around their beliefs.

2 for 2.

The Founders would no more have tolerated muslims on the basis of religion...

Probably.

...than they did slaves on the basis of race.

Unfortunately, they did hold slaves--I am truly saddened by this, because they set a great foundation for this greatest of countries.

Reading between the lines, Bleedinblue, I see in your post support for homosexuality as a "minority." The assertion that homosexuals are a true minority group is false. Minority status has been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States based on three criteria:
1. Economic Deprivation – Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals, and higher household incomes. (W.S. Journal, 2/10/89; N.Y. Times, 8/22/90).
2. Political Powerlessness – Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The Human Rights Campaign Fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs. (The Economist, 4/24/93) Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.
3. Immutable Characteristics – Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior.

None of the above supports homosexuality as a minority.

['93HonoluluCat]

Dahlia's article points out some interesting...umm...points.

opening the door to incest with children and pedophilia are inapposite. These things are illegal because they cause irreversible harms. Similarly, adultery, to the extent it's illegal anymore, produces a tangible victim.

Adultery was a serious social stigma until just before the "free love" movement, when the theory of "if it feels good it must be right" became a nome d'guerre.

rest of us can intuitively understand that there are sound policy and health reasons to ban sex with animals.

But that doesn't prevent people from practicing bestiality.

fornication (intercourse between unmarried adults) which, while horrifying to Justice Scalia, are not only legal but also great fun as far as most Americans are concerned.

There are studies that point to the negative social impact of premarital sex--but that's a discussion for a different thread, I'm afraid.

One of the most persistent complaints of conservative commentators is that liberal activist judges refuse to decide the case before them and instead use the law to reshape the entire legal landscape for years to come. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in finding that the ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution, did exactly what good judges ought to do: It confined its reasoning to the case before it, rather than addressing the myriad hypothetical future cases that may be affected by the decision.

The point that Dahlia seems to miss is all court cases are used to set future precedent. Sure, the highest court in MA may have idealized the thought they were only talking about a court "in front of them," but the case there will be used in similar cases around the country.

Opponents of gay marriage should consider doing the same.

That's exactly what the pro-homosexual marriage caucus wants us to do--ignore what consequences and precedents are being set by these "small" decisions in courts across the land. It's analogous to a frog in hot water. If you put the frog straight in hot water, it will jump right out. But put it in cold water and slowly bring it to a boil, and it will die. American society is the frog--and Dahlia supports putting us in cold water and turning up the heat.

P.S. No actual frogs were harmed or killed in the authoring of this post. Any similarity with an actual frog is purely coincedental.

[SonomaCat]

People may still engage in bestiality, but there is no slippery slope argument between legal gay marriage and LEGAL bestiality.

Her whole point is that something should only be illegal if it causes harm to someone else. With gay marriage, there is clearly no victim (just two people who love each other and happen to be programmed by nature, genetics, God, whatever, to be gay). In these other sexual crimes, they are illegal precisely because there is a victim. That's where the slippery slope argument becomes invalid.

It is kind of funny that Scalia included masturbation as some sort of sexual perversion, right up there with bestiality, etc. That guy must be one tightly wound guy.

As for the premarital sex thing... please don't try to tell me that me having sex as an unmarried 32 year old is a bad thing , but that it's okay if a couple 18 year olds get married and do it. I'm sure someone can find a study somewhere to suggest that it's bad, but at the heart of it, that's just old religious law (you must procreate to we can populate faster than our rival religions to bring more power and wealth to the church, therefore we don't want you have recreational sex where that precious seed is spilled) talking. Sure, if premarital sex was somehow outlawed or not allowed, I'd probably be married right now solely to satisfy that primal urge of all animals to have sex (I'm just that dumb). And, if I had married any of my ex-girlfriends, either she or I (but probably both) would be miserable right now (which is why they are ex's). Clearly, in this case, premarital sex was the right answer.

Well, I'm off to the bar, perhaps to score me some premarital sex (but most likely not). Wish me luck!

[Bleedinbluengold]

Honolulu-

Actually, I'm against any Amendment or other law that would grant minority status to homosexuals. I'm also against an Amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Writing either type of Amendment in a clear and lawful way would be impossible, in my opinion.

Two examples of Amendments that went arry were 16 and 18. Luckily, 18 was corrected. This would be an example of what would happen if either such Amendment were written in regards to homosexuality. In other words, the Amendment would be written in one way first, and later, it would probably be repealed.