now for something completely different

[y0ssarian87]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I can understand your beliefs are different, and I think you should have have equal rights. But toeing a hardline the same way that your opposites is just going to get a deadlock.

Hardline stances that my beliefs trumps others is what leads to killing over religions, philosophy, wars. Rational behavior is to come to a workable framework.

I think you're partly right, but in particular, killing over religion, philosophy, etc. happens when people value their beliefs over someone else's life. Luckily we have a legal framework that prosecutes when someone infringes on a person's right to life. This enforces our societal view that an individual has the freedom to any belief as long as it doesn't infringe on another's right to life. In fact, we have a series of laws that protect one person from another or from a group. I view this case as a prime example of this. I think these hardline views are critical to shaping our culture and the acceptable social mores. Ultimately our societal views, however extreme they may be, will define our culture. I would like to live in a society that accepts and treats same-sex marriage is equal. I will fight for this politically, and I believe this will create a society that is better.

 

[owlegrad]

I can understand your beliefs are different, and I think you should have have equal rights. But toeing a hardline the same way that your opposites is just going to get a deadlock.

Hardline stances that my beliefs trumps others is what leads to killing over religions, philosophy, wars. Rational behavior is to come to a workable framework.

That logic would leave us to believe that segregation is a reasonable middle ground. You are basically making the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy (thanks Wikipedia!). Issues of equality really do not have a reasonable middle ground.

 

[npage148]

I'm glad the leaders of the civil rights movement took a hard line stance and I'm glad the leaders if this movement are also going hard line. A compromise on civil rights is worse than ignoring the issue beacuse not the remaining descrimination in thr compromise is codified and legal

 

[y0ssarian87]

I don't really care what he meant by "your generation", it's meaningless when talking about political stance anyway.

Politics do change, but not always to what you expect. Liberalism and conservatism comes into fashion at one time or another. If rather wait for years and hope for things to change your way down the road, then that's an option. But how does the price of having nothing for now compare to have a middle ground solution now and then waiting to see if more change comes along the way you want down the road? That would appear to be the more rational move. But I don't have hardline beliefs as either end of the political spectrum.

The thing is, we don't have "nothing for now". Here in CA, where Prop 8 was passed, a domestic partnership has many (but not all) rights that opposite-sex marriage has. That is not too far off from your proposal. It's workable, but it still sucks, from an economic and a dignity perspective.

The other main reason people don't want to settle for middle ground is that it could seriously slow the progression of gay rights. We don't want to put ourselves in a position where, by accepting terms that we still find discriminatory, we end up living longer in a society that institutionalizes our second-class citizenship. This can happen if a middle ground solution is implemented because the status quo is always difficult to change. The further progress that's made early, the easier it is to retain.

 

[xiphoid2010]

That logic would leave us to believe that segregation is a reasonable middle ground. You are basically making the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy (thanks Wikipedia!). Issues of equality really do not have a reasonable middle ground.

So men and women are equal, but because they are defined differently it is "segregation"?

I don't think it is unreasonable for conservatives to argue that same sex union is different than the current marriage. At the same time I think their argument that same sex union is illegal and should be banned is unreasonable.

Both are compatible, I don't have to agree with all or none. Is it better to deal in extremes and absolutes on this issue, I don't personally think so. But since the whole nation is debating it, and that tend to polarize opinions, it shouldn't be surprising that the moderates gets no love.

 

[JohnFe]

Just let them be. I don't care if my child is gay or lesbian as long as he/she is happy. Let others have the same rights as you. What if gay people rule the country and heterosexual marriage is forbidden? 😛

 

[y0ssarian87]

So men and women are equal, but because they are defined differently it is "segregation"?

I don't think it is unreasonable for conservatives to argue that same sex union is different than the current marriage. At the same time I think their argument that same sex union is illegal and should be banned is unreasonable.

Both are compatible, I don't have to agree with all or none. Is it better to deal in extremes and absolutes on this issue, I don't personally think so. But since the whole nation is debating it, and that tend to polarize opinions, it shouldn't be surprising that the moderates gets no love.

That's the thing: legally, if it's not different, they have to show a reason for discriminating against gays from having it. It has to meet scrutiny. There has to be a functional reason, a benefit, to doing so.

 

[xiphoid2010]

The thing is, we don't have "nothing for now". Here in CA, where Prop 8 was passed, a domestic partnership has many (but not all) rights that opposite-sex marriage has. That is not too far off from your proposal. It's workable, but it still sucks, from an economic and a dignity perspective.

But think of the 41 states where SSM is banned. Think of the vast majority of the world where it is illegal. That's having nothing for now.

The other main reason people don't want to settle for middle ground is that it could seriously slow the progression of gay rights. We don't want to put ourselves in a position where, by accepting terms that we still find discriminatory, we end up living longer in a society that institutionalizes our second-class citizenship. This can happen if a middle ground solution is implemented because the status quo is always difficult to change. The further progress that's made early, the easier it is to retain.

What you say is a possibility, but there is also the opposite possibility that each progressive step hasten the next step as it is easier to accept (hence the slippery slope figure of speech). How can you be sure it isn't faster with my proposal?

 

[y0ssarian87]

But think of the 41 states where SSM is banned. Think of the vast majority of the world where it is illegal. That's having nothing for now.

CA counts among those states where SSM is banned in many other states, like CA, civil unions are performed. Cohabitation agreements are allowed in all but 3 states. These are all examples of a middle-of-the-road solution. They marginalize gay relationships.

What you say is a possibility, but there is also the opposite possibility that each progressive step hasten the next step as it is easier to accept (hence the slippery slope figure of speech). How can you be sure it isn't faster with my proposal?

Because everything takes so much time and money. Also, the longer something takes, the more fatigue the population feels about an issue. I can't be sure, however, and neither can you. Unfortunately we cannot run simultaneous controlled experiments on which process is more effective. But I also just don't believe in settling on something that I view is a fundamental issue of equality. I'm hardly unbiased.

 

[owlegrad]

So men and women are equal, but because they are defined differently it is "segregation"?

No. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. 😕

 

[owlegrad]

How are men and woman "defined differently" anyway? What does that even mean? They are both 'human' for example.

 

[xiphoid2010]

How are men and woman "defined differently" anyway? What does that even mean? They are both 'human' for example.

Perhaps the websters dictionary can help. Nobody is refuting that men and women are both human, and are mammals, and are vertebrates, of the animal kingdom... If 1 and 2 are both integers, and both are numerical values, then 1=2? This line of argument doesn't work.

Anyway. Thanks for an stimulating and energetic debate. I'm going to bed now. With the end do the Supreme Court hearing today, there is probably lots of behind the curtain debate among the justices. Too bad we have to wait till summer to hear about their ruling.

 

[ucrx]

I still want to know what makes comparing same sex marriage to "traditional marriage" like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I still want to know what makes comparing same sex marriage to "traditional marriage" like comparing apples to oranges.

Something to do with genitals and the fact that xiphoid doesn't want people to think he is married to a man.

 

[y0ssarian87]

Perhaps the websters dictionary can help. Nobody is refuting that men and women are both human, and are mammals, and are vertebrates, of the animal kingdom... If 1 and 2 are both integers, and both are numerical values, then 1=2? This line of argument doesn't work.

Anyway. Thanks for an stimulating and energetic debate. I'm going to bed now. With the end do the Supreme Court hearing today, there is probably lots of behind the curtain debate among the justices. Too bad we have to wait till summer to hear about their ruling.

Actually I don't think there is a true legal definition for "man" and "woman". If anyone can point me to one, that'd be great. From what I understand, due to the fact that there are populations of intersex and also transgender individuals that aren't inconsequential in number, there isn't a legal definition. Basically the fact that there isn't a dichotomy really makes definitions messy for these terms and thus defining these terms has been purposely avoided. I know we often think strictly as XX and XY and male and female and man and woman, but sex and gender aren't really clear cut. And there is a biological basis for many of the discrepancies..

 

[npage148]

So, since xiphoid has been harping on this man and women definition. Should a transgendered man be able to marry a cis-woman or vis-a-versa?

 

[BrayTint]

I just skimmed through most of this thread, but I kept thinking back to this video whenever I read xiphoid's posts.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjk5IyjfHkE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Momus]

If people want to marry a dog, I let them marry a dog. Heck, I will marry them myself! Who cares?

I just hope there is no more gay pride parade, I don't run around parading I like pus5y and create massive traffic jam barricading 5 blocks of the city.

I am hoping this get legalized soon tho. I stand to gain certain benefit (illegal) from it.

 

[zelman]

LOL, I'm not catholic. And my generation die off? I'm probably within 10 years of you. Being a moderate doesn't make one old.

I know you aren't catholic. I actually read your posts. You just must have gotten your logic-free values from somewhere and that person got them from somewhere and that somewhere can be traced back to a bunch of Catholics eventually.

I know we're probably the same age (give or take). It doesn't make my point any less valid.

You still haven't filled in the blank as I requested earlier. Your "arguments" are smoke and mirrors.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Actually I don't think there is a true legal definition for "man" and "woman". If anyone can point me to one, that'd be great. From what I understand, due to the fact that there are populations of intersex and also transgender individuals that aren't inconsequential in number, there isn't a legal definition. Basically the fact that there isn't a dichotomy really makes definitions messy for these terms and thus defining these terms has been purposely avoided. I know we often think strictly as XX and XY and male and female and man and woman, but sex and gender aren't really clear cut. And there is a biological basis for many of the discrepancies..

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions
Here is something that can help answer or muddy up the question. Pursuant to 10th amendment which protect states rights, definition of gender/sex is state dependent. So depending where you live, you have to look it up there. The good thing is, since it is a state law issue, changes may be easier than federal law.

On the federal level, marriage appears to be defined as between opposite sex.
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title1/html/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.htm

So despite the prevailing liberal stance in this forum, you can probably see why many centrists find conservatives'argument is sound on the issue of marriage being the opposite gender. Just as I find the liberals argument that sexual orientation does not prevent same sex couples from getting equal protection under law.

It's not a catholic thing since this has been around way before catholics were around. It's not homophobia either, just moderates can usually see both sides of the arguments, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Actually I don't think there is a true legal definition for "man" and "woman". If anyone can point me to one, that'd be great. From what I understand, due to the fact that there are populations of intersex and also transgender individuals that aren't inconsequential in number, there isn't a legal definition. Basically the fact that there isn't a dichotomy really makes definitions messy for these terms and thus defining these terms has been purposely avoided. I know we often think strictly as XX and XY and male and female and man and woman, but sex and gender aren't really clear cut. And there is a biological basis for many of the discrepancies..

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions
Here is something that can help answer or muddy up the question. Pursuant to 10th amendment which protect states rights, definition of gender/sex is state dependent. So depending where you live, you have to look it up there. For example some states use the sex on the birth certificate. The good thing is, since it is a state law issue, changes may be easier than federal law.

On the federal level, marriage appears to be defined as between opposite sex.
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title1/html/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.htm

So despite the prevailing liberal stance in this forum, you can probably see why many centrists find conservatives'argument that marriage being the opposite gender to be sound. Just as I find the liberals argument that sexual orientation does not prevent same sex couples from getting equal protection under law to be convincing.

It's not a catholic thing since this has been around way before catholics were around. It's not homophobia either, just moderates can usually see both sides of the arguments, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

 

[eagles22]

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions
Here is something that can help answer or muddy up the question. Pursuant to 10th amendment which protect states rights, definition of gender/sex is state dependent. So depending where you live, you have to look it up there. The good thing is, since it is a state law issue, changes may be easier than federal law.

On the federal level, marriage appears to be defined as between opposite sex.
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title1/html/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.htm

So despite the prevailing liberal stance in this forum, you can probably see why many centrists find conservatives'argument is sound on the issue of marriage being the opposite gender. Just as I find the liberals argument that sexual orientation does not prevent same sex couples from getting equal protection under law.

It's not a catholic thing since this has been around way before catholics were around. It's not homophobia either, just moderates can usually see both sides of the arguments, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

Do you realize you're quoting the actual law that is before the court to be determined as to whether or not it's constitutional? Using DOMA to justify DOMA isn't compelling evidence.

The thing is that there is no middle ground with civil rights. Either you have them or you don't.

If we want to quote case law the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is protected by the Due Process Clause (Meyer v Nebraska, 1923). I don't see it saying only for heterosexual couples.

 

[ucrx]

On the federal level, marriage appe...title1/html/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.htm

So despite the prevailing liberal stance in this forum, you can probably see why many centrists find conservatives'argument is sound on the issue of marriage being the opposite gender. Just as I find the liberals argument that sexual orientation does not prevent same sex couples from getting equal protection under law.

Just because the federal government's legal definition (currently) is between a man and a woman, doesn't mean that is how it needs to be. Laws get changed all the time. That legal definition hasn't always existed. Also, that federal definition is part of the law being debated by the supreme court right now (as someone already pointed out). So I don't understand how that definition is sound proof of marriage having to be between opposite genders. With that, we're back to the same question. Other than the controversial legal definition and people in "traditional marriages" having "earned" their marriage, what makes same sex marriage any different?

 

[BenJammin]

What exactly does a homosexual couple have to gain from marriage that they couldn't gain from a civil union?

 

[FlavyFlav]

What exactly does a homosexual couple have to gain from marriage that they couldn't gain from a civil union?

equality

 

[xiphoid2010]

equality

When does equality require the use of one legal term? Are men and women not equal? Are white and blacks not equal? Yet using different terms for them is constitutional. Here is where I find the liberal side's argument hasn't be as convincing as the conservatives.

I wish more people on both ends of the extremes would consider the possibility that there is some sound arguments on both sides. It's not just black and white but there is grey. I know we hated hearing professors say something "is gray" during pharmacy school, but that really is life.

 

[bacillus1]

What exactly does a homosexual couple have to gain from marriage that they couldn't gain from a civil union?

federal benefits, such as survivors' benefits from social security (that is, if DOMA is repealed).

 

[y0ssarian87]

What exactly does a homosexual couple have to gain from marriage that they couldn't gain from a civil union?

This has already been addressed in this thread and by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in this case.

"[Prop 8] serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

 

[BenJammin]

equality

There's nothing unequal about that scenario.

federal benefits, such as survivors' benefits from social security (that is, if DOMA is repealed).

Civil unions are the answer then.

 

[y0ssarian87]

When does equality require the use of one legal term? Are men and women not equal? Are white and blacks not equal? Yet using different terms for them is constitutional. Here is where I find the liberal side's argument hasn't be as convincing as the conservatives.

I wish more people on both ends of the extremes would consider the possibility that there is some sound arguments on both sides. It's not just black and white but there is grey. I know we hated hearing professors say something "is gray" during pharmacy school, but that really is life.

Equality requires the use of one term (or one water fountain, or one school) for the same concept. That's where "separate, but equal" is evident that it fails. If you don't use the same term, you created two different entities that are subject to different laws. How is that better than having marriage include opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage, but allowing individuals to call it whatever they like? Why do we have to preserve your naming convention when it's the same thing legally? It serves no functional purpose other than to create two types of marriage that are unequal in dignity.

 

[y0ssarian87]

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions
Here is something that can help answer or muddy up the question. Pursuant to 10th amendment which protect states rights, definition of gender/sex is state dependent. So depending where you live, you have to look it up there. For example some states use the sex on the birth certificate. The good thing is, since it is a state law issue, changes may be easier than federal law.

On the federal level, marriage appears to be defined as between opposite sex.
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title1/html/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.htm

So despite the prevailing liberal stance in this forum, you can probably see why many centrists find conservatives'argument that marriage being the opposite gender to be sound. Just as I find the liberals argument that sexual orientation does not prevent same sex couples from getting equal protection under law to be convincing.

It's not a catholic thing since this has been around way before catholics were around. It's not homophobia either, just moderates can usually see both sides of the arguments, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

Sorry if it appears that I'm not responding to this right now. I'm replying on my phone, and this comment requires a lengthier reply that I can't do right now. Tonight, I hope!

 

[FlavyFlav]

When does equality require the use of one legal term? Are men and women not equal? Are white and blacks not equal? Yet using different terms for them is constitutional. Here is where I find the liberal side's argument hasn't be as convincing as the conservatives.

I wish more people on both ends of the extremes would consider the possibility that there is some sound arguments on both sides. It's not just black and white but there is grey. I know we hated hearing professors say something "is gray" during pharmacy school, but that really is life.

Man, woman, white, gay, straight. These are all descriptive terms we use to describe a person. These terms, as far as I can tell, are afforded the same privileges when buying a house, applying for a job, acquiring a driver's license and many other things. We don't use separate terms for a gay person applying for a job, or a woman getting a driver's license. Why must we use different terms for a legal marriage? Why would you be ok with a gay person having access to the same jobs, driving privileges and housing that you have, yet you don't want them to have your term for a legal marriage? We aren't talking about 'holy matrimony' here, just legally recognized marriage.

 

[eagles22]

What do heterosexual couples lose by allowing homosexual couples to use the term marriage?

 

[owlegrad]

When does equality require the use of one legal term? Are men and women not equal? Are white and blacks not equal? Yet using different terms for them is constitutional. Here is where I find the liberal side's argument hasn't be as convincing as the conservatives.

I wish more people on both ends of the extremes would consider the possibility that there is some sound arguments on both sides. It's not just black and white but there is grey. I know we hated hearing professors say something "is gray" during pharmacy school, but that really is life.

"Men" and "women" are like the terms homosexuals and heterosexuals. We don't say that men can get married and woman can enter civil unions. Why then should heterosexuals get married and homosexuals get civil unions?

Frankly your argument lacks substance. It would be an inherently unequal situation. I find it hard to believe you don't see that.

We have made an argument for why heterosexuals should be allowed to marry. You have not made an argument for why they shouldn't be. Your only argument is that you shouldn't call apples oranges. We don't want to do that. We want to call a "marriage" a "marriage".

There really is nothing grey about civil rights. What is this grey? The fact that some straight people don't want to share "their" term for marriage? That's not grey.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Man, woman, white, gay, straight. These are all descriptive terms we use to describe a person. These terms, as far as I can tell, are afforded the same privileges when buying a house, applying for a job, acquiring a driver's license and many other things. We don't use separate terms for a gay person applying for a job, or a woman getting a driver's license. Why must we use different terms for a legal marriage? Why would you be ok with a gay person having access to the same jobs, driving privileges and housing that you have, yet you don't want them to have your term for a legal marriage? We aren't talking about 'holy matrimony' here, just legally recognized marriage.

hmm, I beg to differ. Man vs woman is used to describe gender, white vs black are used to describe race. Gay vs straight is used to describe sexual orientation. Just as marriage vs civil union could be used to describe relationship. They are equal, but they do not need to be the same. The constitutionality of a law is based on whether it offers equal protection. Different descriptions are allowed under that condition.

 

[FlavyFlav]

hmm, I beg to differ. Man vs woman is used to describe gender, white vs black are used to describe race. Gay vs straight is used to describe sexual orientation. Just as marriage vs civil union could be used to describe relationship. They are equal, but they do not need to be the same. The constitutionality of a law is based on whether it offers equal protection. Different descriptions are allowed under that condition.

One describes an attribute of a person, the other describes a legal act like buying a house or enlisting in the military. They are completely different things and you can't use an attribute of a person to justify segregation.

 

[eagles22]

hmm, I beg to differ. Man vs woman is used to describe gender, white vs black are used to describe race. Gay vs straight is used to describe sexual orientation. Just as marriage vs civil union could be used to describe relationship. They are equal, but they do not need to be the same. The constitutionality of a law is based on whether it offers equal protection. Different descriptions are allowed under that condition.

A man doesn't get to vote while a woman gets to "legally cast a ballot". A white isn't a citizen while a black is a "legally enabled member of the country". Why should gays have civil unions?

You keep posing this "men and women" are different, but that argument doesn't hold any water. Men and women have different parts but have the same rights which are called the same rights. Men and women vote, own land, serve in politics, etc. There is not a separate terminology for every previously discriminated against group when they are finally given their due rights.

 

[BenJammin]

A man doesn't get to vote while a woman gets to "legally cast a ballot". A white isn't a citizen while a black is a "legally enabled member of the country". Why should gays have civil unions?

Because marriage is federally defined as being a union between one man and one woman.

 

[FlavyFlav]

Because marriage is federally defined as being a union between one man and one woman.

Aren't we arguing that it shouldn't be that way? That saying that is unconstitutional as it denies a group of people the same rights?

 

[eagles22]

Because marriage is federally defined as being a union between one man and one woman.

And voting used to be federally defined as something only a man can do. That didn't make it right now, did it?

 

[ucrx]

Because marriage is federally defined as being a union between one man and one woman.

Outside of the current legal definition (which is up for debate), do you think it should be that way?

 

[ucrx]

What exactly does a homosexual couple have to gain from marriage that they couldn't gain from a civil union?

Equality. Calling it anything else, even with the same rights, is saying gays etc are second class citizens who don't deserve the same as straight people

 

[ucrx]

hmm, I beg to differ. Man vs woman is used to describe gender, white vs black are used to describe race. Gay vs straight is used to describe sexual orientation. Just as marriage vs civil union could be used to describe relationship. They are equal, but they do not need to be the same. The constitutionality of a law is based on whether it offers equal protection. Different descriptions are allowed under that condition.

I've asked several times and I'm still waiting for a straight answer. What makes it different?

 

[xiphoid2010]

I've asked several times and I'm still waiting for a straight answer. What makes it different?

I don't understand why both liberals and conservatives fail to see the difference where moderates can.

Let's try a logic proof:

A is not B (man is not woman). I hope everyone can agree on this.

If above statement is true. Then A+B is not same as B+B or A+A. Ok, I can agree with that.

Many moderates find this argument to be logical and sound. This is why I find liberal insistance that they are the same not very convincing.

The conservatives then next try to argue that only A+B is valid and that B+B or A+A is invalid. No, I can't agree with that.

Logical conclusion is: answers are different, but they can be all be valid.

I understand that liberals want one thing and conservatives want another. But those of us in the middle sees that both side are trying to stretch logic and has weaknesses in their arguments. The logic, as seen by us, points to the truth is really something in the middle in this case.

 

[littleowl]

I don't understand why both liberals and conservatives fail to see the difference where moderates can.

Let's try a logic proof:

A is not B (man is not woman). I hope everyone can agree on this.

If above statement is true. Then A+B is not same as B+B or A+A. Ok, I can agree with that.

Many moderates find this argument to be logical and sound. This is why I find liberal insistance that they are the same not very convincing.

The conservatives then next try to argue that only A+B is valid and that B+B or A+A is invalid. No, I can't agree with that.

Logical conclusion is: answers are different, but they can be all be valid.

I understand that liberals want one thing and conservatives want another. But those of us in the middle sees that both side are trying to stretch logic and has weaknesses in their arguments. The logic, as seen by us, points to the truth is really something in the middle in this case.

In this case, why can't "A" and "B" just be classified as letters? Are they not equal members of the alphabet? Both are used to spell different words but our entire linguistic pattern would be destroyed in the absence of either. I fail to see the purpose of redefining something just because an alternate situation meets the same classification requirements as the existing situation.

 

[eagles22]

I don't understand why both liberals and conservatives fail to see the difference where moderates can.

Let's try a logic proof:

A is not B (man is not woman). I hope everyone can agree on this.

If above statement is true. Then A+B is not same as B+B or A+A. Ok, I can agree with that.

Many moderates find this argument to be logical and sound. This is why I find liberal insistance that they are the same not very convincing.

The conservatives then next try to argue that only A+B is valid and that B+B or A+A is invalid. No, I can't agree with that.

Logical conclusion is: answers are different, but they can be all be valid.

I understand that liberals want one thing and conservatives want another. But those of us in the middle sees that both side are trying to stretch logic and has weaknesses in their arguments. The logic, as seen by us, points to the truth is really something in the middle in this case.

No one is arguing that a marriage between a man and man is identical to man and woman. Obviously the can't procreate. They have different parts. But these differences are no so vast that gay marriage requires a different term. A gay marriage is as different from a straight marriage as an interracial from a non-interracial marriage. Yes, they're slightly different, but we can still use the term marriage. Granny Smith and Red Delicious apples are both apples even though they have slight differences. You need to realize things don't have to be identical down to the very last detail to be legally the same thing.

And again, there is no middle ground with civil rights. Either you have them or you don't. Trying to argue a middle ground is either an admission of defeat for the side arguing the right or a veiled attempt to continue discrimination on the side trying to deny the rights.

 

[y0ssarian87]

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions
Here is something that can help answer or muddy up the question. Pursuant to 10th amendment which protect states rights, definition of gender/sex is state dependent. So depending where you live, you have to look it up there. For example some states use the sex on the birth certificate. The good thing is, since it is a state law issue, changes may be easier than federal law.

On the federal level, marriage appears to be defined as between opposite sex.
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title1/html/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.htm

So despite the prevailing liberal stance in this forum, you can probably see why many centrists find conservatives'argument that marriage being the opposite gender to be sound. Just as I find the liberals argument that sexual orientation does not prevent same sex couples from getting equal protection under law to be convincing.

It's not a catholic thing since this has been around way before catholics were around. It's not homophobia either, just moderates can usually see both sides of the arguments, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

Despite using the terms "man", "woman", "sex", and "gender", many states don't define the terms legally. Please note, there is a very strong, important, and distinct difference between sex and gender. As such the terms "male" and "female" and "man" and "woman" don't mean the same thing, respectively. Please look up these distinctions if it is new to you. What is on a birth certificate is not necessarily what the individual's gender is. Legally, in some states a person's birth certificate cannot be changed, while in others, if one has sex reassignment surgery, the birth certificate can be changed. In some states, despite a change in the sex status on a birth certificate, they consider gender status to be immutable as it is "fixed by the Creator at birth". The laws you mention are riddled with inconsistencies due to their ambiguous wording. In fact, some transgendered individuals have been able to take advantage of the inconsistencies. For example in some states a MTF transgender woman can marry a man while in others she cannot. Sometimes, there are discrepancies even in the same state. This shows that, despite the efforts of individuals who try to preserve "traditional" marriage, state law is muddled, ineffective, and inconsistent when it comes to addressing sex and gender rights of those who are not straight and cis-gendered individuals. And even if you think that there is some unnatural aspect to this, it fails to acknowledge individuals who are intersex at birth who are unable to identify their sex and gender until later in life. These individuals often fall in the cracks when it comes to legal matters. Until 2010, getting a passport was difficult for some of these individuals.

Leaving definitions of sex and gender up to the state sounds nice and pretty when it comes to states rights, but it means that your solution of equality through different terms for marriage can never exist. You cannot create equality when the states are individually creating unequal, inconsistent solutions oftentimes through unequal judicial precedent. What is your solution? Do you think sexual orientation should fall under the 14th amendment under sex protection? If so, the 10th amendment can't apply anymore to this issue because the 10th amendment gives states power over everything that isn't in the constitution (i.e., the 14th amendment in this case).

http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions
Here is something that can help answer or muddy up the question. Pursuant to 10th amendment which protect states rights, definition of gender/sex is state dependent. So depending where you live, you have to look it up there. For example some states use the sex on the birth certificate. The good thing is, since it is a state law issue, changes may be easier than federal law.

On the federal level, marriage appears to be defined as between opposite sex.
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title1/html/USCODE-2011-title1-chap1-sec7.htm

So despite the prevailing liberal stance in this forum, you can probably see why many centrists find conservatives'argument that marriage being the opposite gender to be sound. Just as I find the liberals argument that sexual orientation does not prevent same sex couples from getting equal protection under law to be convincing.

It's not a catholic thing since this has been around way before catholics were around. It's not homophobia either, just moderates can usually see both sides of the arguments, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

While I get that marriage has in many instances been defined as between a man and a woman, I don't see why centrists can see that as an argument for marriage to stay between a man and a woman. To me that's saying, once it's been created into law, it must be correct and must stay as law. Can you explain this a bit more to me?

I'm curious: Do you think that Prop 8 should be struck down? California was a state where licenses were already issued to same-sex couples. Then Prop 8 came along and thus the only effect was to take away rights away from a group of people -- statistically a minority group. If we subject this case to the lowest level of scrutiny which is rational basis, can Prop 8 hold? What if we subject it to intermediate or strict scrutiny? Do you think the LGBTQI population falls under a suspect or quasi-suspect class? Why or why not?

 

[y0ssarian87]

I don't understand why both liberals and conservatives fail to see the difference where moderates can.

Let's try a logic proof:

A is not B (man is not woman). I hope everyone can agree on this.

If above statement is true. Then A+B is not same as B+B or A+A. Ok, I can agree with that.

Many moderates find this argument to be logical and sound. This is why I find liberal insistance that they are the same not very convincing.

The conservatives then next try to argue that only A+B is valid and that B+B or A+A is invalid. No, I can't agree with that.

Logical conclusion is: answers are different, but they can be all be valid.

I understand that liberals want one thing and conservatives want another. But those of us in the middle sees that both side are trying to stretch logic and has weaknesses in their arguments. The logic, as seen by us, points to the truth is really something in the middle in this case.

This argument can be used with white and black for marriage.

Let's try a logic proof:

A is not B (white is not black). I hope everyone can agree on this.

If above statement is true. Then A+B is not same as B+B or A+A.

Can you still agree with that when it comes to marriage? Is an interracial marriage different than a marriage between two individuals of the same race? The fact that the individuals are different doesn't change what a marriage functionally is. What is it about an interracial marriage that differentiates it from a same-sex marriage? The only difference that I see is sex v. race. These are protected under the 14th amendment. Does race get stronger protections than sex? If so, why, and can it be backed up by any precedent?

 

[xiphoid2010]

This argument can be used with white and black for marriage.

Let's try a logic proof:

A is not B (white is not black). I hope everyone can agree on this.

If above statement is true. Then A+B is not same as B+B or A+A.

Can you still agree with that when it comes to marriage? Is an interracial marriage different than a marriage between two individuals of the same race? The fact that the individuals are different doesn't change what a marriage functionally is. What is it about an interracial marriage that differentiates it from a same-sex marriage? The only difference that I see is sex v. race. These are protected under the 14th amendment. Does race get stronger protections than sex? If so, why, and can it be backed up by any precedent?

While the process of your proof is correct. The error occurred when the criteria was changed to something that's not used for marriage.

Say we are trying to prove size of A and B are the different. One can prove that by measure the area/volume which are the criteria of size. But conclusively proving that A and B have different color, doesn't do anything for the proof since color is not a measure of size.

I know what you are trying to say though. But bear in mind it's not just the liberals asking to make the leap that benefits their cause, the conservatives are asking for similar leaps. One can't jump both ways.

 

[homeslice]

Anyone want to bet the divorce rate among same sex couples will be significantly lower than that of heterosexual couples?

Not that it's necessarily pertinent to the debate, just something I was pondering.