gay marriage ban (Page 6)

DOH!!!!!!!!!!!

And SO GLAD I DON'T resemble that.

Yes, posts were deleted.

The Guidelines for a Healthy Discussion are there for a reason.

The rule is civil discourse.

Period.

Yes it was me (holding up hand), I comitted the party foul and am now banned to the corner....

If I upset someone I am sorry, especially you Renee. You are my FL homey after all.

ASA:

The Loving v. Virginia case as previously stated in  this thread.  As well as Meyer V. Nebraska.

This portion of Meyer is quite compelling (emphasis mine):

"The problem for our determination is whether the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment:

'No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

The quite clearly establishes the right to marry as being granted specifically by the 14th Amendment.

I didn't cite them as specific cases regarding gay marriage, as none of the state supreme court rulings which have held same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional have been challenged to the US Supreme Court.  Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont all have had similar statutes struck down.

I cited those cases, as they outlay the foundation that the right to marry,is among the "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

That we fail to have learned from our past is a sad example.  The same arguments being promulgated today in support of banning gay marriage are the same ones put forth to deny the right of women to vote, to maintain segregation, etc.  The arguments are old, and tired.

I think those that oppose gay marriage also realize this, and thus the spector of a constitutional amendment has been raised.  The mere idea that an amendment to the constitution meant to *restrict* the rights has been proposed sickens me.  To turn such a document on it's head would be a travesty.

I'm not a laywer, I just play one on BT. 

-C 

Denney Crain Denney Crain

Hollis, I thought long and hard before jumping into this topic. I think it's interesting to note the difference between the coming out thread of a while ago and this one. You'll find very little, if any, opposing posts in the coming out thread, but clearly many in this one.

Why is that?

Well, homophobia is tossed around as a reason. That accusation ties in with the notion that heterosexuals are afraid of losing something by having the definition of marriage changed.

Also, there is the point that gay marriage will not hurt the institution of marriage and that heterosexuals have done a much better job, through divorce and such, of doing that. Well, I do agree the the main blame for eroding the institution of marriage lies with heterosexuals.

But why does it all matter?

There is so much here to go into. It's more than I can do, for sure. And certainly more than anyone can do on an internet forum. But essential it is this, it is one more step toward the materialization and objectification of the human person.

Huh? What does that mean?

Over the past century, and clearly over the past forty years, along with the movements in areas like economics to reduce the human person to a mere product or means of production (this is true both in communism and in extreme forms of capitalism) there has been a movement to reduce sex from an integrated part of the human person to a mere instrument of that person to be used as they will.

Sometimes the instrumentalized use has good ends such as pleasure, emotional bonding and so on. But the emphasis on the instumentalization of sex, mostly by heterosexuals, leads to the reinforcement of the idea of a human person possesing a dual nature, such as mind/body. What is lost is the true nature of the human person, which is an integrated nature.

Yada, yada, yada, what does that mean?

It means that as we begin to see ourselves as merely possessing bodies that we can do what we want with, we begin to see others as merely objects. This has real world ramifications.

And it all ties together. The debate on abortion is central to this. The reluctance to see the human embryo as a person, and instead see it as a "product of conception" or , in the case of embyonic stem cell research, as property that can be bought and sold, is a result of the objectification and materialization of the human person.

I'm going to post Robert George's definintion of marriage again. It is significant, and proponents of gay marriage would do well to fully understand his argument. What is most important in his argument, and what therefore creates a class of people who the government can set aside without violating the 14th ammendment, is the notion that the "marital act" is of a different class that any other form of sexual expression.

It is the only sexual act human persons do that fully integrates who human persons are. And, importantly, sometimes the gift of a child may supervene. Any other form of sexual expression does not contain this fully integrating element. And, as well, any other form of procreation is a step away from this full integration.

It would take many more posts to go through all of this. I just want to end it on this note. I think all of us really want the same thing, an expansion of liberty for all people. My concern is that what is being called for with gay marriage is a false sense of liberty, and my concern is that it may continue the trend toward the opposite, a place of tyrany where the truth of the human person is lost.

Denise2003 - 2006-03-24 8:50 AM Hi Hollis, I heard that posting on this thread will get inspires from you.

Depends on your take... 

<but here's hint: don't say "sexual orientation"> 

Don,

I don't find in that definition of marriage anything that a non-herterosexual union couldn't fulfil and live up to as well as a heterosexual union.

Replace "a class of people" with "Hollis", and "the government" with "Don Tracy".  Do you find that sentence still as palatable?  This is not a theoretical exercise, this is Don Tracy telling Hollis that she is not as capable or as worthy as he is, and does not deserve the same recognition in our society.  Is that really what you intend?

What is "the marital act"?  That's a kinda fuzzy term.  I'd like you to elaborate on what "the marital act" actually entails.

You are anti-abortion, so my assumption is that you would be pro-adoption.  If adoption and the subsequent child raising are a reproductive act by heterosexual unions why are they not also a reproductive act by non-heterosexual unions?

-Chris

Chris, this to to respond just to the first of your questions.

As with all of us who are citizens, I am part of the body called "The People". This body has the right to form the government. The government has the right, with restrictions, to pass laws that limit what another person may or may not do.

I put these ideas forward because I am still at a stage of deciding what to do should I be presented with a vote like a protection of marriage ammendment.

The more I look at the issue from all sides and up and down, the more I find the argument for gay marriage to be weaker than the argument against it. I figure that BT is as good a place as any (actually, better than most) to have the arguments against gay marriage challenged.

Yes, I do recognize that if I came to the decision that I ought to vote for a marriage ammendment that it would impact someone like Hollis. This is not just an abstract concept to me. I have many gay and lesbian friends, family, and neighbors. I have a reasonably good understanding of what they go through as they live their lives, raise their families and so forth.

I have no particular need to be right about something. I will turn on a dime if I discover that my notions about a particular issue are wrong.

What I'm interested in is the truth. What is the truth of a matter. I don't know any better way than philosophical language for people of various beliefs to come together in the public square and share ideas that will help discover the truth.