Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[Monkey1976]

I agree 111%.

Awhile back, a friend of mine suggested an interesting possible solution: Whether straight or gay, the County Gov’t would issue Civil Union licenses for all citizens who desire to be legally united. (These would include all rights available to those married legally today). Then, a marriage in a Church is up to the individual. If a couple ware married in the eyes of the church, they of course would receive a certificate of civil union from their given county or state.

I find it intriguing. What do you guys think?

I think that there is no reason to incentivise homosexual activity, as it provides no benefit to society.

 

[SeannyM]

But how ironic they would speak against your cause. In these cases there references throughout indicating the REASON marriage s so essential is that marriages result in children and perpetuating society through subsequent generations.

Marriage is NOT important to society because it provides structure for sexual pleasure or government benefits. Do you not understand that your relationship no matter how close will NEVER benefit society by bearing and raising children?

Do you think society is greatly benefitted because you can get more government bennies? Gay relationships are never going to be equivalent but you demand that we ignore biology history tradition theology sociology and pretend.?

Lisa

They don’t establish procreation as the reason it’s so important… They establish the right to procreate as a desperate right. No one here is arguing that it isn’t a right. But none of those cases say marriage exists to foster procreation. Just because they mention it does not mean that they’re intertwined. Furthermore, I don’t demand you do anything. I demand that my government treat me equally as it is constitutionally bound to do. You can do whatever you want.

 

[Dawnia]

I am still curious how those cases don’t pertain to marriage though. They all establish marriage as a civil right and apply 14th amendment protections to it. As a paralegal, do you think that I’m incorrect?

Sorry, I had to run and didn’t get a chance to fully reply. My dogs apparently decided you deserved a reply anyway. Hence the

I think you misunderstand (or I could be not making myself clear.) The list you presented was relevant to the points the Judge was making in his decision. However, some of those cases themselves were not about marriage. Meyer v Nebraska was a case about foreign language instruction in schools. PP v Casey was on abortion, etc. They are about other general law principals that are being used to build the reasoning for his opinion. I was stating no opinion about said cases, only that there are other marriage cases as well. That is nothing more than a fact. How they would or would not apply to this case would require an argument, for or against. But, since as you correctly pointed out, we are getting off topic.

I do want to apologize if you feel you are being attacked, that is not my intention. I sometimes forget that others don’t enjoy arguing/debating nearly as much as I do. It is not meant to be personal. It’s also not meant to be won or lost, but rather as a way to evaluate arguments to learn and grow.

So, back to the topic at hand. En garde

 

[Dawnia]

As far as I can tell, you seem to be awfully selective as to what cases you like (and therefore claim to be applicable, especially when presented with the decision we’re discussing.)

Wow. 3 responses to the same post. I feel special.

 

[LisaA]

They don’t establish procreation as the reason it’s so important… They establish the right to procreate as a desperate right. No one here is arguing that it isn’t a right. But none of those cases say marriage exists to foster procreation. Just because they mention it does not mean that they’re intertwined. Furthermore, I don’t demand you do anything. I demand that my government treat me equally as it is constitutionally bound to do. You can do whatever you want.

You must not have read your own references then. The only reason society should elevate any relationship is that it benefits society. This is the inverse of the silly argument that two guys marrying doesn’t damage their marriage. Such a self absorbed perspective. It’s not about the individual benefit of a specific person but the benefit to society. As Monkey noted gay “marriage” may benefit an individual,…you point to getting government benefits. But that doesn’t benefit greater society at all. The cases referred to do not claim marriage is an essential right so the parties can have government endorsed sex but because marital sex has the capacity to result in society’s continuation through the raising of children.

Basically what you want is more government goodies and despite the reality that most employers allow domestic partners as well as married couples to receive benefits, you demand that we all pretend and call this arrangement a marriage. It’s not.

Oh and you DO demand we do something and that is to give up our freedom to accommodate your sex preferences.

Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

You must not have read your own references then. The only reason society should elevate any relationship is that it benefits society. This is the inverse of the silly argument that two guys marrying doesn’t damage their marriage. Such a self absorbed perspective. It’s not about the individual benefit of a specific person but the benefit to society. As Monkey noted gay “marriage” may benefit an individual,…you point to getting government benefits. But that doesn’t benefit greater society at all. The cases referred to do not claim marriage is an essential right so the parties can have government endorsed sex but because marital sex has the capacity to result in society’s continuation through the raising of children.

Basically what you want is more government goodies and despite the reality that most employers allow domestic partners as well as married couples to receive benefits, you demand that we all pretend and call this arrangement a marriage. It’s not.

Oh and you DO demand we do something and that is to give up our freedom to accommodate your sex preferences.

Lisa

You aren’t giving up any freedom whatsoever. My marriage has no effect on you. Also, there is a government interest in marriage, and it’s not just about children. Even if it was, there are plenty of gay couples raising them. There are plenty of adopted children in both gay and straight families whose parents are not biologically related to them, do they not deserved the “government goodies” aka the legal protections associated with marriage.

Lastly, even if there isn’t a specific government interest in gay marriage, which there is, but pretending there’s not. There is still a government interest in enforcing the Constitution. It says “equal protection under the law.” Not “equal protection as long as there is a government interest.”

 

[LisaA]

You aren’t giving up any freedom whatsoever. My marriage has no effect on you. Also, there is a government interest in marriage, and it’s not just about children. Even if it was, there are plenty of gay couples raising them. There are plenty of adopted children in both gay and straight families whose parents are not biologically related to them, do they not deserved the “government goodies” aka the legal protections associated with marriage.

Lastly, even if there isn’t a specific government interest in gay marriage, which there is, but pretending there’s not. There is still a government interest in enforcing the Constitution. It says “equal protection under the law.” Not “equal protection as long as there is a government interest.”

Absolutely I am giving up freedom because of gay “marriage.” We can no longer run a private business or decide what products or services we want to provide. Tell two Lesbians you don’t make wedding cakes for gay ceremonies and get sued until you go out of business. Don’t think I am stupid enough to believe you aren’t going to sue the Church next. It’s not a matter of live and let live. It’s war and your side fired the first shot.

Further you completely ignored the reality that the cases cited supported marriage as furthering society not giving a government blessing to sex. Your case is based completely on selfish desires to get state sanction for your sexual activity as if it were equivalent to normal marital relations. Gay sex is death and dead. No life comes from it. Society benefits in no way from gay sex.

Tell me again how society benefits if you get more government bennies?

 

[ReConverted]

Absolutely I am giving up freedom because of gay “marriage.” We can no longer run a private business or decide what products or services we want to provide. Tell two Lesbians you don’t make wedding cakes for gay ceremonies and get sued until you go out of business. Don’t think I am stupid enough to believe you aren’t going to sue the Church next. It’s not a matter of live and let live. It’s war and your side fired the first shot.

Further you completely ignored the reality that the cases cited supported marriage as furthering society not giving a government blessing to sex. Your case is based completely on selfish desires to get state sanction for your sexual activity as if it were equivalent to normal marital relations. Gay sex is death and dead. No life comes from it. Society benefits in no way from gay sex.

Tell me again how society benefits if you get more government bennies?

Now that was surreal…

 

[Monkey1976]

Lastly, even if there isn’t a specific government interest in gay marriage, which there is, but pretending there’s not. There is still a government interest in enforcing the Constitution. It says “equal protection under the law.” Not “equal protection as long as there is a government interest.”

If equal benefits without equal responsibility is how that clause is being interpreted, then when can we expect to receive salary and benefits equivalent to the President? After all, his salary is set by law just like any other government employee. Therefore, giving one employee salary and benefits that exceed those of another employee is an unequal application of the law. In fact, why should I have to work for the government to receive a salary and benefits from them? That’s discrimination based on employment, which we have a right to choose. Therefore, my rights are being violated by not giving me an annual salary and associated benefits identical to those granted to the President.

See how silly that sounds? What we’ve lost sight of as a culture is the fact that while we do have certain inalienable rights, those rights come with associated responsibilities. Responsibility and self control are now seen as offensive to suggest. Free speech doesn’t mean we can shout “FIRE” for no reason. A free press doesn’t allow slander. Bearing arms doesn’t mean we should give everybody a nuclear bomb. If marriage was about nothing more than inheritance and federal benefits, there is no reason why marriages between close relatives should be illegal. The fact that they are is a clear sign that the responsibility tied to marriage is that other right mentioned in Skinner - procreation.

 

[SeannyM]

If equal benefits without equal responsibility is how that clause is being interpreted, then when can we expect to receive salary and benefits equivalent to the President? After all, his salary is set by law just like any other government employee. Therefore, giving one employee salary and benefits that exceed those of another employee is an unequal application of the law. In fact, why should I have to work for the government to receive a salary and benefits from them? That’s discrimination based on employment, which we have a right to choose. Therefore, my rights are being violated by not giving me an annual salary and associated benefits identical to those granted to the President.

See how silly that sounds? What we’ve lost sight of as a culture is the fact that while we do have certain inalienable rights, those rights come with associated responsibilities. Responsibility and self control are now seen as offensive to suggest. Free speech doesn’t mean we can shout “FIRE” for no reason. A free press doesn’t allow slander. Bearing arms doesn’t mean we should give everybody a nuclear bomb. If marriage was about nothing more than inheritance and federal benefits, there is no reason why marriages between close relatives should be illegal. The fact that they are is a clear sign that the responsibility tied to marriage is that other right mentioned in Skinner - procreation.

Salary is not considered a fundamental liberty… marriage is. There are obviously limits on liberties that you mention. Any time you limit a fundamental liberty, you are required to do so to further a legitimate state interest. Courts have ruled that avoiding paying benefits is not a legitimate state interest, so that argument is gone. If you grant the rights to one group, you must grant it to all, unless denying it furthers a legitimate state interest… Why is this so difficult to understand? No one is saying that you have to change your beliefs at all. You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not, however, have the right to deny others their fundamental liberties because of your beliefs. That is the common sense limit on the freedom of religion. Contrary to what you may believe, even that liberty has limits, those limits begin where other’s fundamental liberties are infringed upon.

 

[Silvio_Dante]

I think that there is no reason to incentivise homosexual activity, as it provides no benefit to society.

Neither does McDonalds but it doesn’t stop them opening on every corner of our streets…

 

[rossum]

I think that there is no reason to incentivise homosexual activity, as it provides no benefit to society.

1. Less requirement for social security as one partner can help the other partner financially.
2. More children adopted.
3. More scope for the “pursuit of happiness”.
4. Simplified paperwork, and hence administrative savings, for many different things, like insurance and visiting rights in hospitals.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Neither does McDonalds but it doesn’t stop them opening on every corner of our streets…

Every corner? Surely not. Some corners have Starbucks instead…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

rossum

 

[Silvio_Dante]

Every corner? Surely not. Some corners have Starbucks instead…

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Kh65y1Gmg...AAJk/KIXli4BfLOw/s1600/simpsons_starbucks.jpg

rossum

Oh joy…

 

[ReConverted]

Salary is not considered a fundamental liberty… marriage is. There are obviously limits on liberties that you mention. Any time you limit a fundamental liberty, you are required to do so to further a legitimate state interest. Courts have ruled that avoiding paying benefits is not a legitimate state interest, so that argument is gone. If you grant the rights to one group, you must grant it to all, unless denying it furthers a legitimate state interest… Why is this so difficult to understand? No one is saying that you have to change your beliefs at all. You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not, however, have the right to deny others their fundamental liberties because of your beliefs. That is the common sense limit on the freedom of religion. Contrary to what you may believe, even that liberty has limits, those limits begin where other’s fundamental liberties are infringed upon.

 

[_Abyssinia]

“If…”

I am not Christian. Why should you impose your religious ideas about marriage onto others who do not follow your religion? The law we are discussing in Utah is not a religious law, but a civil law. Civil laws in Utah are subject to the Constitution of the state of Utah and to the Constitution of the USA. Both are civil legal documents. Neither are religious documents.

rossum

Marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm for societies for thousands of years, through differing cultures and countries. Polygamy is still practised in some parts of the world, but is associated with social problems as has been noted, that are not associated with monogamy. There is a reason why in many parts of the world, in countries that may widely differ in terms of religious practice or culture, hold up marriage between one man and one woman in high esteem.

There are secular arguments for defending marriage.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

What is Marriage?

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization

Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?

77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)

Transcript of Dr. Gregory Popcak commenting on the historical examination of marriage from the Code of Hammerurabi

Ancient Babylon, a fairly sexually progressive society and you can tell from their art and their literature that largely anything went and it was largely acceptable. On the scene comes Hammurabi, the Code of Hammurabi … There are about 270 laws in the Code of Hammurabi. 65 of them have to do with marriage law. He is the first person who really defined marriage in the law as a legal institution, as a cultural institution. Why, why would he do that? … Everyone’s happy, they have their emotional bonds, they are doing their thing and they’re happy about. Why did some guy have to come along and muck it all up? Well becaue he is noting the benefits that Bill was talking about, from one of those types of relationship. That commited relationship between a man and a woman, a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman that unites them with their children and he sees… this was a guy who was interested in creating order in his society, right, and he sees five ben… I’m gonna say five benefits, I didn’t interview him lately, but he saw benefitrs right, that we can see today in marriage, that doesn’t exist in any other relationship form. He sees what we call marriage increasesd the likelihood of children being raised by their own mother and father, that is a good thing for society. He sees that children raised in traiditonal marriage fare better than children from other types of relationships, they become better citizens, he wants that. He sees that women in these relationships have better socio-economic status and it protects them in some way than other relationships do. He sees that marriage socialises men, here’s something we don’t appreciate … marriage increases likelihood that husbands will provide for their children … the National crime victimisation survey of the justice department over 9 years, reported that violent crimes, only 9% of married men commit violent men; 65% of violent crime against women is commited by unmarried men. And the fifth benefit is that it increases the likelihood that society will maintain replacement ferility levels … because people who are married have more children than those who don’t. The gap is narrowing a bit but it still is the case that married people have more children than unmarried people and we need that for civilisation to continue. We hear an awful lot about the population bomb and the explosion and all of that, well in Western society population is contracting and it a huge problem in Western Europe where now France and Italy are looking at paying parents to have more children, Russia now too. California is now looking at that too because they are now having a top down society. So we are now seeing as marriage erodes, we are seeing a decrease in the benefits there.

youtube.com/watch?v=p6d89jnsdFE

Dr Greg goes through these points in a little more depth here

patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2013/02/gay-marriage-getting-the-conversation-right

I do not see how homosexual marriage brings the same benefits to society that marriage between a man and a woman brings, and in fact, legalising homosexual marriage may be contributing negatively to the culture. There is evidence from polls that there is less value on the importance of getting married before children and generally in countries which have legalised homosexual marriage compared to countries which have not legalised homosexual marriage, and a lower marriage rate has negative knock on effects for society. Then there are religious liberty concerns.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11520458&postcount=9

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11520494&postcount=10

 

[Monkey1976]

1. Less requirement for social security as one partner can help the other partner financially.

More requirement for Social Security, as the “spouse” would receive death benefits, meant for financial help to raise any children remaining at home.

1. More children adopted.

Into unnatual structures where they are denied either a mother or father.

1. More scope for the “pursuit of happiness”.

A man sitting in a prison cell for the rest of his life has just as much right to “pursue happiness” as anyone else. The government allows us to pursue, it doesn’t guarantee that we’ll catch it.

1. Simplified paperwork, and hence administrative savings, for many different things, like insurance and visiting rights in hospitals.

The last time the government tried to reduce paperwork, the number of forms and the amount of paperwork multiplied. As far as visiting rights in hospitals, any patient can designate whomever they want as visitors. Hospitals don’t look up family trees.

Finally, I said homosexual activity. What benefit to society is there from two men engaging in sexual activity? The benefit to society from sexual intercourse is clear: Given functional reproductive organs, children normally result.

 

[gracepoole]

The appeal to traditional man-woman marriage is not necessarily fallacious. It is not actually being used as an exclusive argument in this long standing debate.

It’s fallacious if it’s being used as the sole reason to accept an anti-gay marriage argument, as I’ve stated twice.

gracepoole, I don’t expect you could be persuaded since you appear to serve without fail as an advocate for SS"M" in your record of posts, regardless that such a position is not consistent with your stated faith. This posting is more for the readers of this thread.
,

Nice personal attack even while claiming that your comments aren’t for me.

 

[rossum]

More requirement for Social Security, as the “spouse” would receive death benefits, meant for financial help to raise any children remaining at home.

And you do not think that extra money to help raising (adopted) children is of benefit to society?

Into unnatual structures where they are denied either a mother or father.

As opposed to the unnatural structure of an orphanage, where they have neither mother nor father. Half a loaf…

A man sitting in a prison cell for the rest of his life has just as much right to “pursue happiness” as anyone else. The government allows us to pursue, it doesn’t guarantee that we’ll catch it.

Agreed. There are unhappy single people and there are unhappily married couples, of the same and opposite sexes. That is why it was “pursuit” and not “guarantee” of happiness.

As far as visiting rights in hospitals, any patient can designate whomever they want as visitors.

It is estimated that marriage confers about 1,000 benefits. That is 999 other pieces of paper per couple that do not have to be administered any longer.

Finally, I said homosexual activity. What benefit to society is there from two men engaging in sexual activity?

Then we are not simply discussing marriage any more. Sexual activity, both heterosexual and homosexual, does take place outside marriage.

The benefit to society from sexual intercourse is clear: Given functional reproductive organs, children normally result.

So, we make it illegal for all women past their menopause to have intercourse with anyone, because there is no reproductive benefit to society? That is where your logic leads. All those cancer survivors who are sterile because of intensive radiotherapy – no sex for them.

You are making a very weak argument here; there is a lot of sex where reproduction is either impossible or highly unlikely. There are many other reasons for people to have sex.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm for societies for thousands of years, through differing cultures and countries.

Slavery has been the norm for societies for thousands of years, through differing cultures and countries. This is not a good argument, merely a statement of the historical situation.

There are secular arguments for defending marriage.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

You defend marriage by attacking marriage? You are assuming your answer in your argument, so the argument fails.

Kolasinski uses the fertility argument, yet he fails to argue for the automatic divorce of all women past their menopause. That shows that he is not sincere in his argument.

What is Marriage?

They start by assuming that marriage is heterosexual marriage only, and come to the conclusion that same sex marriage isn’t proper marriage. Assuming their conclusion again. Why did you pick such a weak paper to quote?

How many heterosexual couples do you know who got divorced because homosexual couples are allowed to marry in some places?

rossum