Is same-sex marriage a church/state issue?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So inother words we need to accept the collateral dammage of some laws?

Aside from the ill-chosen words, yes.

Quote:

How about accepting a certain rate of incarceration of innocents becuase you are getting mostly guilty individuals as well?

We do. That's one of the reasons that the appeals process exists; if someone has been wrongly convicted, they can request a review of the original trial, or even a new trial or direct release if/when new evidence comes up (look at what the Innocence Project is doing now that DNA testing is feasible).

Welcome to Real Life. Please enjoy your stay.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

What a sad, weak slippery slope argument. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, legalized polygamy will lead to legalized incest which then of course, you'll be able to marry your pet goat Joe!

The Marquis d C may have a word to say on that.

Quote:

Show some evidence that ANY of this nonsense has occured in European countries which have had legalized gay marriage for years.

That's an excellent line of inquiry for both pro and con to take, to do the research. Do you know of a good summary (data) of such an investigation, doubtless taken by the pro side? (That would be a good piece of due diligence in building the case, I would think)

DR

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

That's an excellent line of inquiry for both pro and con to take, to do the research. Do you know of a good summary (data) of such an investigation, doubtless taken by the pro side? (That would be a good piece of due diligence in building the case, I would think)

Well let's take Denmark for example, since it's had gay marriage the longest, since 1989. Since 1989, neither polygamy, incest or beastialty has been legalized.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

What a sad, weak slippery slope argument. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, legalized polygamy will lead to legalized incest which then of course, you'll be able to marry your pet goat Joe!

I should point out that polygamy is legal, just not recognized by the state, similar to gay weddings(also legal but unrecognized)

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Aside from the ill-chosen words, yes.

Ok. I can't agree with that in any way. I do not accept the idea of group punishment in any form.

Quote:

We do. That's one of the reasons that the appeals process exists; if someone has been wrongly convicted, they can request a review of the original trial, or even a new trial or direct release if/when new evidence comes up (look at what the Innocence Project is doing now that DNA testing is feasible).

Irrelevant. The individuals here did what the crime was, they just did not indulge in the reason why it was made a crime.

The problem is that you have made something that correlates to the real issue a crime, but no the issue itself. It would be like makeing clothing styles that flashers favor illegal, but not actualy making public exposer a crime.

They are innocent of the intent of the law, but not the language.

Quote:

Welcome to Real Life. Please enjoy your stay.

I guess we just should accept the punishment of the innocent, as it is unavoidable and general a positive, as long as they are in the right grouping.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I should point out that polygamy is legal, just not recognized by the state, similar to gay weddings(also legal but unrecognized)

By "legal" do you mean you won't get fined, nor thrown in jail, nor cited, for marrying as a homosexual couple? Having no legal standing, as I understand it, is not the same as illegal.

Am I on the same page with you?

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

By "legal" do you mean you won't get fined, nor thrown in jail, nor cited, for marrying as a homosexual couple? Having no legal standing, as I understand it, is not the same as illegal.

Am I on the same page with you?

DR

Officiating a gay wedding is not a crime, giving a homosexual couple a marriage license might be, but the ceremony is legal. Just unrecognized.

So I am for the recognition of polygamous, but understand that this would require a significant reworking of many laws to make it possible.

And the decriminalization of incest and bestiality, this is just removing laws that exist and make these actions discrete crimes from say rape or cruelty to animals.

[ceo_esq]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why doesn't it? It is not commonly recognized, but why is defining marriage as between two individuals of the same race/religion unacceptable?

The government doesn't have the power to do it, so it seems like something of an academic inquiry.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So while there is nothing discriminatory about limiting marriage by race as a definition, it is not legal because of the thirteenth amendment?

Please read more carefully. Slavery is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. And I don't recall suggesting that there was nothing discriminatory about limiting marriage by race as a definition.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So why is locking up individuals who are not guilty of the reason we are supposed to really care about so different than locking up the innocent in a moral sense?

I think we should discard this notion of "innocent in a moral sense" for purposes of this discussion, because this isn't really a question of guilt or innocence. And among other things, people have a fundamental right not to be locked up for laws they did not break. People who are prevented from doing something (to which they had no entitlement in the first place), simply because the government opted for a less-than-surgically-precise legislative strategy for advancing a state interest, are not at all in the same position as people who are convicted of criminal offenses they did not commit.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No it is that we care about one thing, but don't make it illegal but make something that has some correlation with it illegal. That means that the thing that you want to ban is legal, and not everyone committing the illegal action does what you want to ban.

There's no inherent legal (or moral) problem there. There are a host of valid reasons for which the state might opt not to prohibit something directly, but instead choose to indirectly discourage it (or encourage its opposite) by prohibiting something else. (Or, it could do both at once.) Countless laws have come into being in this way.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It is saying Group X has a high correlation with committing bad thing Y. So we lock up all of Group X. Now you might say that group X can not be racial and so on, but that is because of other laws not any fundamental discrepancy in the legal process.

I think you need to refine that in order to convey your real point, because once more, I see nothing intrinsically wrong - legally or morally - with that formulation. Let "Group X" = "persons who pilot an aircraft within 8 hours after consuming any amount of alcohol." Let "bad thing Y" = "crashing a plane". The correlation between X and Y might not even be exceedingly strong (I can readily believe that the vast majority of Group X will never commit bad thing Y). Yet I am aware of no compelling legal or moral objection to promulgating a law to have Group X locked up. I hesitate to follow you any farther afield from the subject at hand, however.

[Ben Tilly]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And how detailed is our knowledge of the sociological aspects of anchient egypt? It has been found to be more common ammoung those not in power as well.

I admit that I don't know how detailed our knowledge of ancient Egypt is. Certainly mine is not detailed enough to draw conclusions about what incestuous relationships were like in that culture.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Personly I perfer to use henry the 8 as a perfect example of why marriage is immoral.

And what relevance does that have to anything that I've said? (It has relevance to what you thought I was trying to lead up to. But that notion of yours was mistaken.)

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And I don't care what a person thinks, I take issue with what I see as bad reasoning.

The flaw was in the reasoning that you used to decide what my line of reasoning was. You criticized me for how I drew a conclusion that I was not, in fact, drawing.

Regards,
Ben

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by cgallaga

Civil union contracts are expensive crap and are not even durable state to state let alone nationally or internationally. Marriage is.

And being tax-free is better than paying taxes. But that still doesn't mean one can make business contract with someone stipulating that you will both be tax-free.

Quote:

But the fundamental difference between us seems to be the position of government. My understanding is that government is not an equal party to contracts but a subservient party, a party who's only mission is to A. get out of the way of the pursuit of happiness

I will be happy if the government gives me $10,000. Therefore, in order for the government not to get in the way of happiness, as you put it, it must give me $10,000 if I want.

Right?

Quote:

You seem to believe that it is and should be a superior party to the contract.

Sure--if you want it to give you tax breaks and grant you a certain legal status. You want government money and legal benefits, you show the government why it should give it to you.

Hint: not everything you want that you do not get is a violation of your rights and/or abuse of government power. And it doesn't become any more of a violation of your rights or abuse of power just because you really want it.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I guess we just should accept the punishment of the innocent, as it is unavoidable and general a positive, as long as they are in the right grouping.

Fallacy of equivocation. If they have committed the act that is against the law, they are by definition not innocent, and therefore, there is no punishment of the innocent.

You're not thinking at all clearly. Let me give you a simple example; traffic laws.

The speed limit exists for a reason. It's clearly established that, in a statistical sense, driving fast is dangerous. Drivers have less time to react, the car is less responsive, and the higher energies involved make any collision far more harmful. In an effort to prevent those harmful collisions, the state has seen fit to impose speed limits. Driving faster than the speed limit is a crime, because it's dangerous.

Now, I, of course, am an expert driver with superior reflexes, and my car is a finely tuned, well-maintained, and perfectly responsivel piece of machinery. I claim that I can drive faster than the speed limit without any harm to society or to any person in it. On the other hand, I will still get a ticket if I drive too fast. I am, I claim, being punished not for driving dangerously, but merely for driving fast. I'm violating the letter of the law, but not the spirit -- and my freedomes are being abridged by forcing me to obey the same rules that have been created for the protection of everyone.

And the judge will not buy a word of that argument.

And rightly so.

As ceo said, this notion of "innocent in a moral sense" isn't really relevant or appropriate. People who violate the law are guilty. Just because you personally may be an expert driver doesn't mean you personally can ignore speed limits and red lights.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

The government doesn't have the power to do it, so it seems like something of an academic inquiry.




Please read more carefully. Slavery is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. And I don't recall suggesting that there was nothing discriminatory about limiting marriage by race as a definition.

I don't see how these go together. Why doesn't the government have the power to define marriage that way when it is not blocked by the thirteenth amendment? What prevents the government from enacting such a definition of marriage?

If government can not define marriage, how can the antigay marriage defining marriage as between a man and a woman be legal?

Quote:

I think we should discard this notion of "innocent in a moral sense" for purposes of this discussion, because this isn't really a question of guilt or innocence. And among other things, people have a fundamental right not to be locked up for laws they did not break. People who are prevented from doing something (to which they had no entitlement in the first place), simply because the government opted for a less-than-surgically-precise legislative strategy for advancing a state interest, are not at all in the same position as people who are convicted of criminal offenses they did not commit.

So the intent of the law is not to be considered in the result? If people who where not committing the offense that was intended to be targeted get lock up because they fall into the group as it was defined, how is that not a failure of the legal system?

Quote:

There's no inherent legal (or moral) problem there. There are a host of valid reasons for which the state might opt not to prohibit something directly, but instead choose to indirectly discourage it (or encourage its opposite) by prohibiting something else. (Or, it could do both at once.) Countless laws have come into being in this way.

Yes, and it is legal for the state to endorse slavery in an abstract sense. Just because it can be done does not mean it is right. For example states could lock up all homosexuals as deviants. This would have been perfectly legal, but was decided to be unacceptable. But the act of locking up homosexuals was legal, and so it is not something anyone should take issue with? Nothing immoral about that I guess.

Quote:

I think you need to refine that in order to convey your real point, because once more, I see nothing intrinsically wrong - legally or morally - with that formulation. Let "Group X" = "persons who pilot an aircraft within 8 hours after consuming any amount of alcohol." Let "bad thing Y" = "crashing a plane". The correlation between X and Y might not even be exceedingly strong (I can readily believe that the vast majority of Group X will never commit bad thing Y). Yet I am aware of no compelling legal or moral objection to promulgating a law to have Group X locked up. I hesitate to follow you any farther afield from the subject at hand, however.

So controlling who can fly is fundamentally no different that controlling who you can have sex with? Do you need permits and such for sexual relations now?

That is putting a restriction on a license, that is not at all the same as making something illegal.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ben Tilly

I admit that I don't know how detailed our knowledge of ancient Egypt is. Certainly mine is not detailed enough to draw conclusions about what incestuous relationships were like in that culture.



And what relevance does that have to anything that I've said? (It has relevance to what you thought I was trying to lead up to. But that notion of yours was mistaken.)



The flaw was in the reasoning that you used to decide what my line of reasoning was. You criticized me for how I drew a conclusion that I was not, in fact, drawing.

Regards,
Ben

You seemed to be trying to show the fundamental unhealthyness of all incestuous relations. I was trying to show why you failed.

If that is not what you where doing, then what where you actualy trying to show with that?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Fallacy of equivocation. If they have committed the act that is against the law, they are by definition not innocent, and therefore, there is no punishment of the innocent.

They did not commit the rational as to why that is illegal. It would be not unlike making it illegal to tie someone up and have sex with them. That is very much like rape, and so it is illegal. Now all the consensual bondage relationships are illegal, and if they get locked up for it, there is nothing wrong with this situation? They did commit the crime after all.

Quote:

You're not thinking at all clearly. Let me give you a simple example; traffic laws.

The speed limit exists for a reason. It's clearly established that, in a statistical sense, driving fast is dangerous. Drivers have less time to react, the car is less responsive, and the higher energies involved make any collision far more harmful. In an effort to prevent those harmful collisions, the state has seen fit to impose speed limits. Driving faster than the speed limit is a crime, because it's dangerous.

You are restricting a license, as there is no right to drive. There seems to be a right to have sex between consenting adults. Laws preventing that have been deemed illegal so you are making a very bad equivocation here. Or are you advocating a license requirement to have sex?

Quote:

As ceo said, this notion of "innocent in a moral sense" isn't really relevant or appropriate. People who violate the law are guilty. Just because you personally may be an expert driver doesn't mean you personally can ignore speed limits and red lights.

Good. I am glad you have no problems with sodomy laws, as people who violated them are guilty. So locking them up is perfectly acceptable right?

There must be no immoral laws. That is such a weight off my mind.

[Skeptic]

I'd like to add something about the spurious "banning gay marriage is like banning black kids from going to school with white kids".

Why is it wrong to segregate schools by race? Two reasons:

1). It is, in practice, a way to make sure that blacks get a worse education than whites;
2). It has the secondary purpose of deliberately isolating whites from blacks to keep whites feeling superior and blacks inferior.

This is why same-sex schools are morally acceptable while same-race schools are not: (1) does not apply since both boys and girls often do better in a single-sex school, and (2) does not apply since nobody can seriously suggest going to a all-female school would mean a girl would not meet any boys in her life.

Now, if it were really the case that both blacks and whites do significantly better in single-race schools, would it still be wrong to have single-race schools? Yes, since (2) would still apply, but it would significantly less wrong than it actually is.

What does this has to do with gay marriage? Only this: once more, it is not the segregation or discrimination in treatment as such that makes treating different groups differently morally wrong. It's wrong to have single-race schools, but it's not wrong to have single-sex schools, despite the fact that both discriminate according to group.

What matters is why the discrimination exists: whether it serves a reasonable purpose and discriminates according to relevant criteria. I'd say not allowing gay marriage fits both.

Others disagee; but my point is, "it's anologous to banning blacks from school" argument is meaningless: so is banning boys from (an all-girl) school, but that doesn't mean having all-girl schools is wrong.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by clarsct

But please, I would welcome any evidence that hetero-two-parent households produce better children.

Looks like nobody's prepared to argue those points, clarsct. No surprise really - there is no evidence to suggest it.

[ponderingturtle]

For those argueing that innocent in a moral sense is not a meaningful distiction, how do you feel about Iran's death penalty for homosexual behavior?

It is likely that the people exicuted did it, and they knew it was illegal, so is there a problem?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I'd like to add something about the spurious "banning gay marriage is like banning black kids from going to school with white kids".

Why is it wrong to segregate schools by race? Two reasons:

1). It is, in practice, a way to make sure that blacks get a worse education than whites;
2). It has the secondary purpose of deliberately isolating whites from blacks to keep whites feeling superior and blacks inferior.

This is why same-sex schools are morally acceptable while same-race schools are not: (1) does not apply since both boys and girls often do better in a single-sex school, and (2) does not apply since nobody can seriously suggest going to a all-female school would mean a girl would not meet any boys in her life.

Now, if it were really the case that both blacks and whites do significantly better in single-race schools, would it still be wrong to have single-race schools? Yes, since (2) would still apply, but it would significantly less wrong than it actually is.

What does this has to do with gay marriage? Only this: once more, it is not the segregation or discrimination in treatment as such that makes treating different groups differently morally wrong. It's wrong to have single-race schools, but it's not wrong to have single-sex schools, despite the fact that both discriminate according to group.

What matters is why the discrimination exists: whether it serves a reasonable purpose and discriminates according to relevant criteria. I'd say not allowing gay marriage fits both.

Others disagee; but my point is, "it's anologous to banning blacks from school" argument is meaningless: so is banning boys from (an all-girl) school, but that doesn't mean having all-girl schools is wrong.

So you are argueing that homosexuals couples to better with out the rights that marriage grants them?

[Skeptic]

The problem with the "but I'm innocent in the moral sense, I just disobeyed the letter of the law" was noted by Camus: "Every criminal, at the moment of his crime, feels himself perfectly innocent, justified in his actions by his particular circumstances."

If you allow such interpretations, there would be no criminals at all, since they all consider themselves "only" guilty of breaking the letter of the law, not making any morally uinacceptable choice. Ever heard the excuse, "they had it coming"?

A much more reasonable way is given by Ghandi, who noted that while it might be permissible to break the law in order to avoid breaking one's moral principles, one does not have the right to then use this as an excuse to also avoid punishment, but must accept the punishment as well.

Of course, extreme cases are an exception--nobody must be forced to accept being killed or enslaved, for instance, just becase it was made "legal" by some government. But that's not the kind of cases we're dealing with here.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you are argueing that homosexuals couples to better with out the rights that marriage grants them?

Nope. I'm suggesting, however, that society has a legitimate reason for not granting them those priviledges, while it didn't have legitimate reasons for not granting blacks the right to marry whites.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The problem with the "but I'm innocent in the moral sense, I just disobeyed the letter of the law" was noted by Camus: "Every criminal, at the moment of his crime, feels himself perfectly innocent, justified in his actions by his particular circumstances."

But feeling innocent, and being innocent of the intent of the law are seperate things. I am talking about cases where the arguements used to support the law do not fit the case at all.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Nope. I'm suggesting, however, that society has a legitimate reason for not granting them those priviledges, while it didn't have legitimate reasons for not granting blacks the right to marry whites.

And that reason is? I need to weight it against the reasons preventing such marriages.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And that reason is? I need to weight it against the reasons preventing such marriages.

I've yet to hear it...from anyone...ever.

[Ben Tilly]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You seemed to be trying to show the fundamental unhealthyness of all incestuous relations. I was trying to show why you failed.

If that is not what you where doing, then what where you actualy trying to show with that?

See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...13#post2365913 for an explanation of the purpose of that post. If you won't believe that explanation, than that's a sign that you don't know me very well and it isn't worth my energy to keep on pointing out the same fact to you over and over again.

See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...13#post2365913 for my actual position on legalizing incest. Note in particular that while I dislike it, I'm not strongly opposed.

Cheers,
Ben

[Skeptic]

Quote:

But please, I would welcome any evidence that hetero-two-parent households produce better children.

Try this, for instance:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_marriage_gap.html

And this:

http://www.physorg.com/news91115690.html

In fact, there is tons of evidence and similar studies showing that a monogamous, mother-and-father families are, in general, better for the children (and for the parents, for that matter).

I don't know why I bother even presenting it, however. We've been down this road before. The pro-gay-marriage proponents keep shifting the goalposts: if nobody present such evidence during an argument about gay marriage, the pro-gay-marriage side says that "there's no objective evidence" children do better in traditional marriages.

But if somebody does present just such evidence, the pro-gay-marriage side screams at the top of its lungs that either (a) the studies are "racist"' or "biased" or "stereotype" non-traditional marriage; or (b) it's true that children do better in traditional marriages, but that just proves how much non-traditional unions are discriminated against by our "racist" society; or (c) that it doesn't matter if children do better in traditional marriages, since whether or not people should be allowed to marry is a matter of individual rights, regardless of the possible effect on society's children in general.

In other words, for the pro-gay-marriage side, no evidence of the superiority of traditional marriage in child-rearing will be accepted as either true or relevant anyway, so why bother presenting it in the first place?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Good. I am glad you have no problems with sodomy laws, as people who violated them are guilty. So locking them up is perfectly acceptable right?

You know, you really shouldn't reason by analogy like this. You don't know enough about the cases and the relevant principles. Basically, you're throwing wild punches.

Quote:

There must be no immoral laws. That is such a weight off my mind.

... and displaying poor reading skills, to boot.

The Constitution enumerates certain rights that the government is, in general, not allowed to violate, and it leaves the door open to others that have not been enumerated. As ceo_esq points out, this doesn't really mean that the government cannot violate those rights, but that any proposal that violates those rights is subject to a much stricter standard of examination and must be much more strongly justified and narrowly tailored in order to be acceptable.

For example, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Constitution. Freedom to burn leaves in your back yard is not; the government therefore, legally, has much greater leeway in restricting leaf-burning.

In the case of sodomy, case law has established that "privacy" is one of the unnamed but nevertheless fundamental rights that people enjoy -- and that many laws against sodomy violate those rights in an unacceptably broad manner. Marriage, however, almost by definition, is a public act (marriages are usually published in the newspaper and are a matter of public record), so the analogy is not really relevant. Similarly, racial discrimination -- more accurately, the right not to be discriminated against in terms of race -- has been specifically mentioned in the consitution, while the right not to be discriminated against in terms of eye colour has not.

You may not like the fact that the state has the authority to discriminate against you on the basis of your eye colour. But the fact that you don't like it is legally -- and morally -- irrelevant. The United States is ostensibly a democratic republic and the laws ostensibly reflect the consensus of the entire law-making public. It is your responsibility either to obey that consensus, to work to change that consensus through public debate, or to accept the punishment that comes from breaking that consensus.

Sure, there are immoral laws. You are at liberty to work to change them. You are also at liberty to break them, knowing that you may be caught and punished.

But there is a big difference between the statement I don't like that law and The government doesn't have the right to make that law.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Try this, for instance:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_marriage_gap.html

What does that have to do with homosexuals? It is arguing that marriage is a good thing, so why is letting gays marry a bad thing?

Quote:

And this:

http://www.physorg.com/news91115690.html

That study would seem to support that a male homosexual couple would be best That way they have the best possible odds of good relations with a father.


Both are getting back to the failing that marriage is about children. So should childless marriages be categorized differently than ones with children?

So gays, single parents and the like should be banned from raising children, isn't that the best result from these studies?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Try this, for instance:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_marriage_gap.html

And this:

http://www.physorg.com/news91115690.html

In fact, there is tons of evidence and similar studies showing that a monogamous, mother-and-father families are, in general, better for the children (and for the parents, for that matter).

I didn't see anything in it responsive to the question that was asked.

The question that was asked was "Do heterosexual two-parent families produce better children than homosexual two-parent families?"

The papers you cited discuss single-parent families.

If I want to know whether Syracuse or Duke has the better basketball team, the outcome of the UCLA-Oregon game doesn't seem relevant.

Quote:

I don't know why I bother even presenting it, however

Nor do I, since it was demonstrably completely irrelevant..

Quote:

In other words, for the pro-gay-marriage side, no evidence of the superiority of traditional marriage in child-rearing will be accepted as either true or relevant anyway, so why bother presenting it in the first place?

Perhaps. But since you've not presented any evidence of the superiority of traditional marriage over two-parent homosexual couples, that's kind of an unsupported assertion.

You're welcome to try to dig up some evidence.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by drkitten

You know, you really shouldn't reason by analogy like this. You don't know enough about the cases and the relevant principles. Basically, you're throwing wild punches.

So why are sodomy laws unacceptable but bestiality and incest laws are moral? The only rational I can see is popularity.

Quote:

... and displaying poor reading skills, to boot.

The Constitution enumerates certain rights that the government is, in general, not allowed to violate, and it leaves the door open to others that have not been enumerated. As ceo_esq points out, this doesn't really mean that the government cannot violate those rights, but that any proposal that violates those rights is subject to a much stricter standard of examination and must be much more strongly justified and narrowly tailored in order to be acceptable.

What does the constitution have to do with what is moral and ethical? it permitted slavery for 80 years, denied women the vote for longer. As a moral document it is not the ultimate authority.

Quote:

For example, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Constitution. Freedom to burn leaves in your back yard is not; the government therefore, legally, has much greater leeway in restricting leaf-burning.

In the case of sodomy, case law has established that "privacy" is one of the unnamed but nevertheless fundamental rights that people enjoy -- and that many laws against sodomy violate those rights in an unacceptably broad manner. Marriage, however, almost by definition, is a public act (marriages are usually published in the newspaper and are a matter of public record), so the analogy is not really relevant. Similarly, racial discrimination -- more accurately, the right not to be discriminated against in terms of race -- has been specifically mentioned in the consitution, while the right not to be discriminated against in terms of eye colour has not.

So bestiality and incest are not private acts? Why?

Quote:

You may not like the fact that the state has the authority to discriminate against you on the basis of your eye colour. But the fact that you don't like it is legally -- and morally -- irrelevant. The United States is ostensibly a democratic republic and the laws ostensibly reflect the consensus of the entire law-making public. It is your responsibility either to obey that consensus, to work to change that consensus through public debate, or to accept the punishment that comes from breaking that consensus.

So as Iran decided to make homosexuality punishable by death it is legally and morally irrelevant that I don't like it? There is nothing fundamentaly immoral about killing homosexuals?

Quote:

Sure, there are immoral laws. You are at liberty to work to change them. You are also at liberty to break them, knowing that you may be caught and punished.

But there is a big difference between the statement I don't like that law and The government doesn't have the right to make that law.

I never said that the government didn't have the right to make the law, the government can and has legally done all kinds of horrible things. I say that it is wrong, you don't seem to be willing to say that laws should have rational decisions behind them.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

What does that have to do with homosexuals? It is arguing that marriage is a good thing, so why is letting gays marry a bad thing?

Because in that study, "marriage" means, of course, traditional marriage between men and women. It shows that sort of marriage is good.

Quote:

That study would seem to support that a male homosexual couple would be best

Not really. The study shows that it is not merely marriage, but having a father that is important for the child's well-being. Under the rather reasonable assumption that having a mother is also of great importance, which I didn't bother giving studies for, the result is that children on average do best in marriages that have both a father and a mother--which would explain the results of the first study.

Quote:

Both are getting back to the failing that marriage is about children. So should childless marriages be categorized differently than ones with children?

See, folks? I told ya the moment evidence is presented showing traditional marriage is better for the kids, the pro-gay-marriage side will try to claim that it is irrelevant--in this particular case, by arguing that not all marriages have children.

If I may address the pro-gay-marriage side in general for a moment: why did you demand evidence traditional marriage is better for children if your next step is to claim this fact is irrelevant to the argument anyway?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I say that it is wrong, you don't seem to be willing to say that laws should have rational decisions behind them.

No. I'm perfectly willing to say that laws should have rational decisions behind them. For that matter, the law itself says that laws should have rational decisions behind them.

However, no dictionary with which I'm familiar lists the definition of "rational" as "in accordance with ponderingturtle's whim."

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The study shows that it is not merely marriage, but having a father that is important for the child's well-being. Under the rather reasonable assumption that having a mother is also of great importance, which I didn't bother giving studies for, the result is that children on average do best in marriages that have both a father and a mother--which would explain the results of the first study.

If your argument is that children do bettter (whatever that means) in marriages that have a father and mother, then why do 49 of the states allow both single people and gays to adopt children?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

For those argueing that innocent in a moral sense is not a meaningful distiction, how do you feel about Iran's death penalty for homosexual behavior?

It is likely that the people exicuted did it, and they knew it was illegal, so is there a problem?

What is the supreme law of the land in Iran?

IMO, death penalty for consensual homosexual acts is an overly harsh sentence, but the last time I checked, about 70 million people in Iran did not give a crap what I thought.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No. I'm perfectly willing to say that laws should have rational decisions behind them. For that matter, the law itself says that laws should have rational decisions behind them.

However, no dictionary with which I'm familiar lists the definition of "rational" as "in accordance with ponderingturtle's whim."

So there is nothing wrong with collective punishment then? as that is what you are effecting by outlawing A when the problem is B and some of A is B.

The examples that have been shown are about licenses and actions that require state sanction.

And because the church has said so it a rational, and the historic basis for these laws, so that is a good reason to make something illegal?

I will not accept anecdotes and double standards as acceptable justifications for making a behavior illegal.

If there is a good rational reason for these laws to exist in their forms please present it. "it's icky" seems to be the general reason, and that is not rational and applies so well to homosexual behavior as well.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

What is the supreme law of the land in Iran?

IMO, death penalty for consensual homosexual acts is an overly harsh sentence, but the last time I checked, about 70 million people in Iran did not give a crap what I thought.

DR

So why the work up about the holocaust, the goverment there instituted laws to do it, and they did not care what others thought.

I just don't see how reprehensible behavior can be condoned so readily.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So why the work up about the holocaust, the goverment there instituted laws to do it, and they did not care what others thought.

I just don't see how reprehensible behavior can be condoned so readily.

Strawman.

Who condoned what?

What part of death penalty for consensual homosexual acts is an overly harsh sentence reads as I condone? Please, when answering this question, tell me what language you are using as a reference.

That is not even a nice attempt at a slide toward Godwin, so sorry, PT, I am not taking that bait. Intellectual dishonesty does not look good on you, PT.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Because in that study, "marriage" means, of course, traditional marriage between men and women. It shows that sort of marriage is good.

But it does not say that homosexual marriage would be any less good. All it says is that not marrying is bad, so it should be taken as an agruement supporting gay marriage really. It will help homosexuals get out of poverty.

Quote:

Not really. The study shows that it is not merely marriage, but having a father that is important for the child's well-being. Under the rather reasonable assumption that having a mother is also of great importance, which I didn't bother giving studies for, the result is that children on average do best in marriages that have both a father and a mother--which would explain the results of the first study.

The study was about the close relationship to the father, it did not compare children raised by heterosexual couples to homosexual couples.

Quote:

See, folks? I told ya the moment evidence is presented showing traditional marriage is better for the kids, the pro-gay-marriage side will try to claim that it is irrelevant--in this particular case, by arguing that not all marriages have children.

So even if it is best, why is that an agruement against gay marriage? Why is a gay relationship worse for children than the alternative that are not a heterosexual married enviroement?

Quote:

If I may address the pro-gay-marriage side in general for a moment: why did you demand evidence traditional marriage is better for children if your next step is to claim this fact is irrelevant to the argument anyway?

I didn't. And you still have not shown what you are trying to.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So there is nothing wrong with collective punishment then? as that is what you are effecting by outlawing A when the problem is B and some of A is B.

No, that's based on your misreading --and completely unrealistic, to boot.

Quote:

I will not accept anecdotes and double standards as acceptable justifications for making a behavior illegal.

I'll let you know when you get to decide whether to accept or not. But you might not want to wait up.

Quote:

If there is a good rational reason for these laws to exist in their forms please present it.

I already have. Laws against incest are rationally related to the prevention of child abuse; laws against bestiality are rationally related to the prevention of cruelty to animals, both of which are legitimate aims of a government attemption to promote public welfare.

You may not consider them to be narrowly tailored, or to be the most rational response to concerns. But you're trying to make the unreasonable demand that anything else than absolute perfection is irrational -- which it isn't -- and unacceptable -- which is also isn't -- and immoral -- which it also isn't. The law doesn't demand narrow tailoring except under rather specific circumstances,, and you aren't in a position to demand it, either. (Or at least, not to have your demands taken seriously).

Welcome to Real Life.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Strawman.

Who condoned what?

What part of death penalty for consensual homosexual acts is an overly harsh sentence reads as I condone? Please, when answering this question, tell me what language you are using as a reference.

That is not even a nice attempt at a slide toward Godwin, so sorry, PT, I am not taking that bait. Intellectual dishonesty does not look good on you, PT.

DR

The statement that I have been reacting to is that there is nothing illegal or immoral about a legal law. I am trying to demonstrate that it is simply untrue, adding the immoral is wrong, as there can be immoral laws. In spite of what dr Kitten and Ceo Esq claim

[Ben Tilly]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Similarly, racial discrimination -- more accurately, the right not to be discriminated against in terms of race -- has been specifically mentioned in the consitution, while the right not to be discriminated against in terms of eye colour has not.

You may not like the fact that the state has the authority to discriminate against you on the basis of your eye colour. But the fact that you don't like it is legally -- and morally -- irrelevant. The United States is ostensibly a democratic republic and the laws ostensibly reflect the consensus of the entire law-making public. It is your responsibility either to obey that consensus, to work to change that consensus through public debate, or to accept the punishment that comes from breaking that consensus.

Not a very good example.

Courts have found that not only are you not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, you are also not allowed to try to achieve discrimination on the basis of race by discriminating on other bases that are correlated with race. For a random example, insurance companies are not allowed to choose their rates by zip code according to the racial mix of those zip codes. Given that eye colour is a very good sign of race, you would need to present a strong case that you weren't trying to discriminate on the basis of race.

Note that this may not be a straightforward thing to determine. For instance insurance companies are allowed to charge their black customers rates that are, on average, worse than their white ones. In fact they do so for the simple reason that blacks on average live in neighbourhoods with more crime. But the insurance companies cannot deliberately set out to achieve that end. (In particular white and black neighbourhoods with similar insurance risks should have similar rates.)

But it is far easier to argue why insurance companies should on average treat blacks worse than whites than it is to come up with good reasons why, for instance, people with blue eyes should be given different treatment thanpeople with black ones.

Cheers,
Ben