Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? (Page 6)

Yes...exactly! Faith is faith is faith. It's not logic-based. It's not rule-based. It's in your heart. You can't prove it, nor can you disprove it. So arguing it pointless.

And I think that's why, in Possum's original post she asked for a non-religious-based argument.

I also think that was kind of her point.

But yes, there is one: to rile up the base to get them to the polls.

I'm calling you out  for violating the new sarcasm text guidelines. 

True dat!

It also helps if you realize that it is ok for other people to hold beliefs that don't agree with yours and at some point you just have to accept that.  You can tear down their arguments and THINK that you have made a convincing argument for your opinion but it won't amount to a hill of beans to them.  At that point there is no point in getting mad about it (as long as we're only talking about beliefs here and that person is not doing things like actively burning crosses in your front yard!) and you should just move on.

Sarcasm font intentionally not used. Getting neocons to the polls is the *only* reason this legislation was introduced. There's not a senator on record (AFAIK) on either side of the aisle that has said that it had a chance of passing, so why else would it have been introduced?

 There are federal anti-discrimination laws on the books that make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, yet here that precise discrimination is trying to be written into the constitution. Isn't that fundamentally wrong?

Gay couples should not be denied the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples; to do so is blatantly discriminatory. They should enjoy the same "fringe" benefits as do their heterosexual counterparts, and their love-based union should be similarly recognized.

Yes, "societal benefits" are being denied gay couples. The US General Accounting Office prepared a report listing 1,049 laws affecting married couples. You might peruse the 75 page report to learn more about how the denial of married status affects the homosexuals who want to be married. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

I'll use the example of one of my (gay) friends who died a few years ago. He was 39 and had been in a living with a man for about 3 years; they were most definitely a "couple." B was admitted to Moffitt Cancer Center with leukemia here in Tampa (he lived on the other Florida Coast). After some very aggressive chemo treatment, it was decided that the best course of action would be to induce a coma. His parents, sister and brother (my best friend) all agreed to make a decision after a week in the coma; he asked that they not keep him in a coma longer than 1 week (his parents ignored this request once he was in the coma). His partner, M, had no say in the matter; legally, he had no right to be by his bedside, much less make healthcare decisions for him. B implored his brother to stand up for M's right to be there every minute, knowing that his born-again Christian parents and sister believed that his leukemia was a punishment from their god for B's homosexuality. Had M and B been legally married, M would have been making the decisions, not B's homo-hating parents. M would not have been at risk of being ejected from his bedside. M would have made the funeral arrangements in accordance with B's wishes (which B's parents ignored). These are but a few heart-wrenching decisions that M was not legally entitled to make because the law will not recognize civil union or marriage between homosexual couples.

ASA22 - 2006-06-09 10:41 AM

Renee - 2006-06-09 9:50 AM Is there a non-religious argument in favor of defiling our Constitution? I haven't seen one.

Sigh... This is exactly what I was trying to get across in talking about rules of debate. So anyone that can come up with a non-religious based arguement is argueing for "defiling our Constitution"? I can actually come up with several non-religious based arguements, some I find at least semi-persuasive, some I don't buy but have been made and are at least cogent. But in truth why would I even bother why the debate has been framed as one that, according to you, I would simply be argueing for defiling our Constitution. Why would I even bother. It's a waste of time with you.

I hardly doubt you'd be making the case for my benefit, John. But if that's your excuse, I say run with it.

I'm not going to apologize for stating that conferring rights to some but not all is a defilement of the Constitution. It's called the Bill of Rights - not the Bill of Exclusionary Rights.

Can't disagree, but you'll never get any of them to admit it.   Maybe we need a cynical font also...

The spirit of the amendment is to treat gay couples as second class citizens.  Much the same way that segregation treated African Americans as second class citizens. 

One argument is that since gay couples can form civil unions, why should it matter whether they can be "married"?

As a corrolary:

If African Americans are allowed to ride the bus, why should it matter where on the bus they are allowed sit?  I think we clearly agree that that separation is discrimination and is an anathema to our nation.  Why is the former being considered at all for writing into law?  How is it any less discrimination than segration was?

As another corollary, it used to be illegal for a white man to marry a black woman. How well did that work out?

Minor point, but can't attorneys presuppose an argument the opposing counsel is about to make (as in "the prosecutor will try to tell you..." ), or is that just in TV law?

Jim...I would be interested in seeing some verbage of the federal "laws" on the books you mention.  I'm not an expert (at all) in this area, but was not aware that sexual orientation was protected like say: race, gender, and religion is protected from discrimination in the civil rights act.  There's probably some case law out there, but I wasn't aware of any legislative law.  Thanks.

edited for spelling and figuring out the stupid quote thingies

ASA22, okay, we understand your point.  I don't debate as part of my job.  If my debate methods are gruff, I don't have a formal education in how to debate.  See my recent posts for an attempt at a civil discussion on this topic.  Let's move past debating how to debate, as I'm genuinely curious to hear any of your arguments for supporting the amendment.

You've stated that you can come up with compelling reasons.  If you care to share them, I'm willing to listen.