Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage

[playa_playa]

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage? Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

As far as I've been paying attention, there has been no absolute evidence that there is a "gay gene" or that there is some hereditary condition that forces a person to be homosexual. And until that datum is ascertained, do you not think that we should reserve our judgement intent on changing our laws and norms? Most of you, obviously, do not think so. Since most of you for gay marriages seem to think that "being gay is pretty much hereditary (nice evidence!)" it is the case that homosexuality is intrinsic. Well, show me some data to support that. Last time I checked, not even the human genome project has been able to accomplish this.

It's a very, very simple inference. Seriously, just because a lot of people start saying that marrying animals (this has happened already), your family members, inanimate objects or what have you should be legal, does that mean we should change the laws to cater them? I mean, when does it stop?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by playa_playa

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage?

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

But that aspect of the Constitution is based on traits that human beings have no control over, such as race and gender. I'm asking, is this the case with homosexuality. Well, does anyone know for sure? Courts deny addicts custody of their children sometimes. In your view, should this not be unconstitutional?

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

The difference is, the Jewish religion does not do anything that goes against the laws of the United States. Homosexuality is fine until it is put into question whether it should be validated in the form of marriage. In which case, it should rightly be questioned whether it is a genuinely human trait (hardcoded in our genetics).

And what's with this unconstitutional hoopla? Your views on the 14th Amendment is somewhat erroneous to your standards. Simply stated, the 14th Amendment does not force the government to stop categorizing people by stereotypes. Why do we give disabled people special previliges then?

Why, sadists love to torture people to attain sexual stimulation. Does that mean we let it go since well, sadists are just sadists and they're only people?

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

So, treating disabled people differently to give them previliges is unconstitutional? Uh-huh. Registering people under the sexual offenders list is unconstitutional? Right. The government should rightly treat people differently.

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

If some aspect of the society condones ethically unsound actions, I shudder to think that the citizens should just stand by and do nothing. According to your views, marriages between brothers and sisters should be fine also (since it affects only those that are getting married). Problem is, it marks a moral bankruptcy of a society to allow an ethically unsound legislation to pass. Now, I'm not saying homosexuality is an ethically unsound behavior. I'm merely saying that we do not know for sure whether it is or it isn't (given the lack of genetic evidence). When this is the case, should we pass a legislation to change our norm to suit homosexuality? When we don't even know for sure its very nature?

[Professor S]

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.

[Bond]

Having a brother and sister become married is medically dangerous to their offspring though.
I think that's an entirely different issue.

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call you on this one; as I think our constitution (and ultimately the Declaration of Independence) is a supreme paradigm of liberal and utilitarianistic moral principles. If you have heard of John Locke, and his influence on our constitution through his ethical principles, I would HARDLY make a claim so as to assert: "it is not the government's responsibility to legislate morals." Unless you have an abnormally narrow definition of morals, I seriously cannot see your point (such as your examples of petty and needless ordinances and statutes). Why, your assertion that the government must treat its citizens equally in and of itself is an ethical principle. It is an ethical principle in that it emphasizes the dignity and individuality of human beings (hallmark of classic liberalism).

Also, deciding as a society the right of homosexuals to marry when we don't know for sure that it is intrinsic does not seem to be a strictly personal moral issue. Whether you like it or not, people's marriages have effects on other people. Case in point: divorces that ruin children, creating problems for the society. This is a socially-relevant issue. Therefore, the society must have a say.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

Well, the original topic pertained to gay marriages in general. And whether they should be allowed. Certainly, such a federal law should not be considered until there has been substantial amount of hard evidence.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.

Why do people delude themselves into thinking this way? Are people really disconnected from each other this way to have no effect on each other? Do you honestly think that a person's actions have no bearing on another?

It's like the argument with drug users. Right, they are only hurting themselves. Uh-huh. Suppose the addict OD's and requires medical attention but does not have the money to do so b/c he's spent it all on drugs. Who do you think will pay for his care? We, as a society, cannot look past him and merely say, "oh, it's all his fault so let him die."

This sort of assertion that the actions we take only affect ourselves is simply ludicrous. Unless you're living under a rock, everything that you do will have an affect on other people.

This is exactly why the government has limited rights to enact "moral legislations." I hate the idea of the government dictating our lives just as much as the next guy. But some people need guidance through laws.
Forsaking them in lieu of anarchistic privatism is an action of cowardice, not constitutionality.

[Professor S]

I think we have two very different ideaologies. I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. I don't think I need someone telling me what I can or can;t do to myself. I believe drugs should be legalized, but with the same stipulatios that are put on alcohol abuse. If they get in trouble, they should get no more or less assistance than alcoholics get when they eventually rot away and die. Afterall, the only reason why alcohol wasn't included in the list of banned drugs is because those that made the laws DRANK.

I don't believe that any morals should be applied to the consitution, as I think its a violation of separation of church and state. Liek religion, morals are relative to everyone. By your logic, if premarital sex is considered immoral, then it should be outlawed.

And as for the damage that divorce does to kids, even more reason to allow gays to marry. We straight people can only get marriage right 40% of the time. Maybe we should give gay people a crack at it.

My political and social beliefs follow this simply axiom:

You should be able to flail your fist around as much as you like, as long as it stops at the end of my nose.

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

I think we have two very different ideaologies. I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. I don't think I need someone telling me what I can or can;t do to myself. I believe drugs should be legalized, but with the same stipulatios that are put on alcohol abuse. If they get in trouble, they should get no more or less assistance than alcoholics get when they eventually rot away and die. Afterall, the only reason why alcohol wasn't included in the list of banned drugs is because those that made the laws DRANK.

I don't believe that any morals should be applied to the consitution, as I think its a violation of separation of church and state. Liek religion, morals are relative to everyone. By your logic, if premarital sex is considered immoral, then it should be outlawed.

And as for the damage that divorce does to kids, even more reason to allow gays to marry. We straight people can only get marriage right 40% of the time. Maybe we should give gay people a crack at it.

My political and social beliefs follow this simply axiom:

You should be able to flail your fist around as much as you like, as long as it stops at the end of my nose.

I think you are misconstruing my assertions a little here. I'm not saying that governments should have total say over people's private lives; quite the opposite. I am merely saying that governments have a right to legislate laws that limit personal morality insofar as it may contribute to the downfall of the society and proliferation of cruelty. As with the example I gave with the drug addict, ultimately, the society suffers because of the addict's personal choice. I mean, what are we gonna do if the addict needs medical help? Deny him the help because he is an addict and because that is his personal moral choice to keep abusing drugs?

Premarital sex is not legislated against because it does not strictly result in harm for the society. And the last time I checked, some forms of premarital sex are strictly forbidden in the guise of statutory rapes. Could we say that it is only the couple's choice to have sex even if the girl is underaged? That, it is strictly their personal, moral choice to do so?

But let me emphasize the point again: the government does and rightly should enact ethical legislations insofar as they attempt to eliminate cruelty and regression, without violating genuine individuality. Do gays have a right to marry? Well, we don't know yet. But I know for a fact that we have, long ago, reached a consensus that not all things breathing should have a right to marry each other. So our burden falls on ascertaining whether homosexuality is a genuinely-human trait. If we do not determine this first and then let gays marry each other, why not let siblings, people and animals, and people and inanimate objects to marry also? Gee, I'd really hate to explain to my kids why a man and a cow strolling down central park are french kissing each other since laws are not allowed to have a say in ethics.

You're absolutely right in stating that you and I have very different ideologies. I have, long ago, inferrred that a government is an institution wrought not only to give people security and a place to call their country, but that it also fosters, not forces, a moral progress. Sure, masochistic self-afflictions can stay private. They just need to stay within the person. But does anyone obstinately believe that personal moral choices solely stay within the person? What if it has a deprecating, unwanted effect on other people also? In such a case, a government should step in(after a democratic consensus has been reached pertaining to the moral in question) and direct the society into achieving a moral progress.