Gay marriage with guest Jesse Cowell

[Emery]

Okay, this is the official gay marriage thread. So if we could all migrate over here from the general discussion area, where the discussion has gotten a bit off track, that would be great. On this show, Jesse joins me to talk about the major issues in the gay marriage debate:

1. "Activist" court vs. will of the people: has the judiciary gone too far?
2. The slippery slope argument (if you allow gays to marry, then why not polygamists, etc.)
3. Tradition and history: how does the fact that the government has always understood marriage as the right to marry a person of the opposite sex play into the analysis?
4. What is the actual harm to marriage, if gay marriage is allowed?

These are the main issues that usually pop up in gay marriage debates. Let's talk about them.

Finally, here are some ground rules and assumptions for this discussion: those that oppose gay marriage are not homophobic. Those that support it are not without scruples. And finally, no one is a moron if they disagree with you. If you think someone has a dumb argument, then attack the argument and show why it's dumb. Brutal criticism of arguments is allowed. Ad hominem attacks are not. That being said, Wonders, you may want to put on your knight costume anyway.

[JustJim]

And finally, no one is a moron if they disagree with you. If you think someone has a dumb argument, then attack the argument and show why it's dumb.

Since this is obviously directed at me - I believe I'm the only one who called anyone a MORON! - I want to correct Emery's faulty perception and set the record straight.

I never called anyone a MORON! because they disagreed with me. I called them MORONS! because they think it's okay to deny people (fill in the blank with whatever rights you choose) because of their sexual orientation. It is also not correct to imply that I called them MORONS! without attacking the arguments, since I clearly stated in several ways on several occasions that to deny people (fill in the blank with whatever rights you choose) based on their sexual orientation is exactly the same as denying them (fill in the blank with whatever rights you choose) based on the color of their skin. That is an all-inclusive attack against any "arguments" they were afraid to put forth in the other thread, supposedly for fear of being called names, and not because their arguments would be torn to shreds in embarrassingly drastic fashion, which I suspect is the real reason for their reluctance.

But, just as I said in the other thread before spongebob locked it up (after I said I was not going to even read anything there anymore - too late, spongebob), I will also not be participating in this thread. Feel free to intellectualize and rationalize whatever predispositions to discriminate unfairly against your fellow human beings you may harbor, to your hearts' content, with no opposition from me.

Jim

P.S. For me, in conversational usage, "MORON" means the same thing as "nincompoop", and has nothing to do with intellectual capacity or potential. I just felt calling people "nincompoops" for wanting to treat homosexuals the same way racist bigots want to treat black people wasn't quite strong enough.

Anyhow, color me gone....

[darkumbra]

Finally, here are some ground rules and assumptions for this discussion: those that oppose gay marriage are not homophobic. Those that support it are not without scruples. And finally, no one is a moron if they disagree with you. If you think someone has a dumb argument, then attack the argument and show why it's dumb. Brutal criticism of arguments is allowed. Ad hominem attacks are not. That being said, Wonders, you may want to put on your knight costume anyway.

Whoa... one sec here. The highlighted groundrule/assumption is one huge dandy of an assumption. If you inserted "are not always Homophobic.." then I'd agree. But you and I, and everyone else on this forum does know, for a fact, that SOME people who are against Gay Marriage are Exactly that - they are raging homophobes. To the point where they will tie Gays to the back of pickup trucks and drag them down the road. Do you need the references?

I'll agree to not call anyone Homophobic within the context of this forum providing they don't come on and post a blatantly Homophobic tirade. And even then, since being Homophobic is an irrational position, like racism, I'm far more likely to attack their argument. I guess I have this problem with giving anyone carte blanche to post anything they wish without consequence.

As moderator I accept and embrace the fact that you have the ability to edit and delete posts, AND the power to ban a poster should we cross the fuzzy line of internet decorum - or lack of it.

--------------------

And since I've already posted my stance on this topic. I'm waiting for someone, anyone, who disapproves of Gay marriage to the point where they support a legal ban of it, by the force of the state - to post a rational defense of their position. I'm beginning to think that such a person is mythical, that there doesn't exist anyone willing to support that position in the full light of day - despite the fact that according to the survey, 55% of Freedom loving Americans support the ban.

Yes. That is a Gauntlet you see on the ground in front of you - either pick it up or don't. Your choice.

[whoosanightowl]

If you inserted "are not always Homophobic.." then I'd agree. But you and I, and everyone else on this forum does know, for a fact, that SOME people who are against Gay Marriage are Exactly that - they are raging homophobes. To the point where they will tie Gays to the back of pickup trucks and drag them down the road. Do you need the references?

DU,
I agree with you that "some" people are homophobic, but since homophobic means a fear of homosexuals, I'm not sure if your example fits. I think that is more an act of hate, not fear.
And I also don't think "homophobic" fits the people on this board who are against gay marriage, nor do I think they hate homosexuals. They simply disagree with the practice for whatever reasons they have, perhaps because they consider the one man one woman bond sacred (not necessarily only religiously, but like we value human life as sacred and worth protecting), and adding same gender unions would make a mockery of marriage in their eyes,and should not be negatively labeled by this.

[darkumbra]

If you inserted "are not always Homophobic.." then I'd agree. But you and I, and everyone else on this forum does know, for a fact, that SOME people who are against Gay Marriage are Exactly that - they are raging homophobes. To the point where they will tie Gays to the back of pickup trucks and drag them down the road. Do you need the references?

DU,
I agree with you that "some" people are homophobic, but since homophobic means a fear of homosexuals, I'm not sure if your example fits. I think that is more an act of hate, not fear.

Hate is always borne out of fear.

Are the people on this forum of that ilk? I sincerely doubt it. I've seen no foaming at the mouth. That said, I would not surprise me if, out of the hundreds of members of this forum, that there were not a few homophobes. It's not that uncommon a condition.

[darkumbra]

Jesse made the argument that BECAUSE Moses married an Ethiopian THEREFORE the interacial-anti-marriage laws were incorrect.

By the EXACT same logic...
BECAUSE King Solomon had many wives THEREFORE Polygamy is allowed.

Personally I don't have a problem with that conclusion, but I'm curious if Jesse is equally okay with the conclusion drawn from King Solomon's example. and if not... why not.

[spongebob]

Here's my go at the questions:

1. "Activist" court vs. will of the people: has the judiciary gone too far?

The U.S. Constitution does not specifically ban gay marriage. It doesn't specifically define any kind of marriage. It would be best to keep this in the law, but because there is a segment of people that are not satisfied with the laws, it will continue to bombard the courts until an amendment or a new national recognition of gay marriage. Which one will happen, I have no idea.

2. The slippery slope argument (if you allow gays to marry, then why not polygamists, etc.)

The slippery slope is a valid argument if one is opposed to any alteration of marriage law. If one is not bothered that polygamy might one day be legal, then the slope doesn't look so dangerous. Essentially, if we are talking about consenting adults, and this is an absolute must, then I have problems with limiting just about any combination of legal relationship. This is essentially a limitation of a person's constitutional right to pursue happiness.

3. Tradition and history: how does the fact that the government has always understood marriage as the right to marry a person of the opposite sex play into the analysis?

If there is a compelling reason why historical law, particularly non-US law, should influence our decision to make gay marriage legal, I don't know what it is, but I'm open to at least hearing it. Personally, I don't believe any historical laws or non-US laws are relevant. The US has made drastically different legal turns as compared to our ancestral nations. We've actually been a leader in many of these respects and it makes no sense to me that because England never granted legal status to gay marriage that we shouldn't, either. That attitude suggests that we should be following, not leading, global legal practices.

4. What is the actual harm to marriage, if gay marriage is allowed?

This is one someone else with have to provide data for. Until they do, such claims are essentially anecdotal. I know of studies that attempt to show such harm, but they are invariably produced by partial organizations, religous family organizations. Such a conclusion cannot be based on biased studies. Determining such a thing is a scientific process and as such must be objective and impartial. And I do know of impartial studies that have concluded that gay couples can raise children just as successfully as traditional couples. What other forms of "harm" exist, I can't comprehend.

those that oppose gay marriage are not homophobic.

Not necessarily true, but for the purposes of this forum, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Those that support it are not without scruples.

Not necessarily true, but for the purposes of this forum, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

And finally, no one is a moron if they disagree with you.

Welll, they're not a moron because they disagree with you, but they could still be a moron. It's probably not nice to call them one anyway. But is it ok to call they argument moronic?

[darkumbra]

And I also don't think "homophobic" fits the people on this board who are against gay marriage, nor do I think they hate homosexuals. They simply disagree with the practice for whatever reasons they have, perhaps because they consider the one man one woman bond sacred (not necessarily only religiously, but like we value human life as sacred and worth protecting), and adding same gender unions would make a mockery of marriage in their eyes,and should not be negatively labeled by this.

As I said in an earlier post. For the most part I agree - EXCEPT since I've not seen position statements from most of the folks against Gay Marriage on this forum - I'm reserving judgment until I do.

'Whatever reasons they have' is the key to all of this... and so far I've heard none. Don't you find that amazing?

"Perhaps because they hold the one man one woman bond sacred" --- possibly - but that is NOT a rational reason - it's an opinion, a viewpoint - an insufficiency for prohibiting someone else to marry. They can USE that belief to guide their own actions - nobody will care or stop them - but when they insist on foisting a religious based belief on people who do not even recognize the existence of a God or the existence of a concept of 'sacred' then they've crossed a line.

Why don't people get this with respect to an atheists problem with religious folks? Believe whatever you want - leave us out of it???

[NH Baritone]

1. "Activist" court vs. will of the people: has the judiciary gone too far?

The courts are accused of being "activist" when they are are dealing in the expansion of human rights, and always by those who would prefer that one group remain under the subjugation of the majority. It is apparent that this is a political title, and not a legally relevant one. Even Jesse admitted that if the Supreme Court took a similar tact as an "activist" stance and reversed Roe v. Wade, the cries from those who deride activism would go silent.

2. The slippery slope argument (if you allow gays to marry, then why not polygamists, etc.)

Well, to turn this around, if we were to follow Jesse's argument, we would be riding toward the slippery slope of Christian theocracy, where homosexuals, adulterers, and unruly children would be executed. He seems to be the chief legal spokesman for the Christian version of the Taliban. Quite frankly, he scares the bejesus out of me. From his perspective, you would think there is no such thing as civil marriage. (Oddly, his take turns the idea of Christian marriage into nothing special.)

3. Tradition and history: how does the fact that the government has always understood marriage as the right to marry a person of the opposite sex play into the analysis?

The role and reality of marriage has been in flux for more than Jesse is willing to allow. The fact that Loving v. Virginia happened within the lifetimes of some of your listeners simply serves as a megaphone to this fact. The polygamy of the old testament gave way to monogamy. Divorce has moved from easy, to difficult, and back to easy again. Children born out of wedlock were once given no rights at all, but now it's becoming the norm.

4. What is the actual harm to marriage, if gay marriage is allowed?

There is no harm, and in fact, there is great benefit that could arise. I won't go into that in detail, but I'll give one example: If all of these "out" gay couples are visible in the communities, living lives that are obviously good citizens and loving relationships, how long do you think that heterosexual children will see marriage as anything worth striving for? If society allows the gay couples to marry, too, then love and marriage remain connected. If they do not, then how long will marriage and love remain the two things that go together like a horse and carriage? I suspect it will not be very long, and the institution that is now already under duress, will become a quaint tradition, like the maypole and mistletoe.

[Richard]

For the record, I want to say that I have no problem with same-sex couples having all the rights of different-sex couples.

2. The slippery slope argument (if you allow gays to marry, then why not polygamists, etc.)
I consider this a valid argument.

4. What is the actual harm to marriage, if gay marriage is allowed?
The only rational argument I can see is this. If society wants to encourage the development of families that can procreate then favoring heterosexual couples is reasonable.
The obvious response to this is that homosexual couples can adopt and there are children in need of adoption.

[darkumbra]

For the record, I want to say that I have no problem with same-sex couples having all the rights of different-sex couples.

Good stuff- and since you raised possible arguments against, I'll address them.

2. The slippery slope argument (if you allow gays to marry, then why not polygamists, etc.)
I consider this a valid argument.

To do that, you now need to justify the need to avoid the items on the slope that you object to.

What is the rational argument against polygamy?
What is the rational argument against incest?
And against anything else you wish to identify as being on that slope? Some do have rational arguments, some do not.

4. What is the actual harm to marriage, if gay marriage is allowed?
The only rational argument I can see is this. If society wants to encourage the development of families that can procreate then favoring heterosexual couples is reasonable.

Why? Why is this reasonable? I don't see it.

1) How does a hetro couple who cannot have children compare to a Gay couple?
2) How does a hetro couple who choose not to have children compare to a Gay couple?
3) a Lesbian couple CAN have children - to push this - they can have MORE children per year than hetro couples.

The obvious response to this is that homosexual couples can adopt and there are children in need of adoption.

Correct. It's one more family unit to aid society in the care of children - if they choose.

[Emery]

*sigh.*

Guys, guys, guys... no one is being singled out. In fact, I quit reading the posts very closely in the other gay marriage thread once we got away from the substantive issues, so I don't really remember who said what. So don't take the ground rules as a restriction on free speech (far be it from me), or an accusation of any sort. So let's all put on our kevlar hats, as well as our civility hats, and get down to business.

Am I being too paternalistic? Maybe I am. So let me revise the OP with this: SUCK IT UP! If you can't take the heat, don't stay in the kitchen. If there is no water or soap, shave it dry, like a man.

How's that?

[darkumbra]

*sigh.*

Guys, guys, guys... no one is being singled out. In fact, I quit reading the posts very closely in the other gay marriage thread once we got away from the substantive issues, so I don't really remember who said what. So don't take the ground rules as a restriction on free speech (far be it from me), or an accusation of any sort. So let's all put on our kevlar hats, as well as our civility hats, and get down to business.

Am I being too paternalistic? Maybe I am. So let me revise the OP with this: SUCK IT UP! If you can't take the heat, don't stay in the kitchen. If there is no water or soap, shave it dry, like a man.

How's that?

[spongebob]

2. The slippery slope argument (if you allow gays to marry, then why not polygamists, etc.)
I consider this a valid argument.

I agree with DU. The "slope" may lead to other forms of marriage, but each one will have to be evaluated on its own merits.

4. What is the actual harm to marriage, if gay marriage is allowed?
The only rational argument I can see is this. If society wants to encourage the development of families that can procreate then favoring heterosexual couples is reasonable.
The obvious response to this is that homosexual couples can adopt and there are children in need of adoption.

I disagree with this assessment. Clearly, stable families are a positive for society, but the government can and does encourage stable families already. Yet they discriminate against a segment of the population that could be contributing stable families. The key point here is Stable Families, not the particular style of family. Can you interpret two lesbians who've been married for 20 years and rasied three kids a stable family? What about a traditional family with three kids and a divorce? Which is more stable? I think what the government brings to the table are tools to reduce obstacles for families. Presenting arbitrary obstacles is not conducive to families.

If there is no water or soap, shave it dry, like a man.

Ouch! That's gotta burn.

[Richard]

4. What is the actual harm to marriage, if gay marriage is allowed?
If society wants to encourage the development of families that can procreate then favoring heterosexual couples is reasonable.

Why? Why is this reasonable? I don't see it.

1) How does a hetro couple who cannot have children compare to a Gay couple?
2) How does a hetro couple who choose not to have children compare to a Gay couple?
3) a Lesbian couple CAN have children - to push this - they can have MORE children per year than hetro couples.

Two observations: I think you can do better in responding to the argument that throw 4 questions. I didn't say it was a very good argument, just the only rational one I have encountered.

I disagree with this assessment. Clearly, stable families are a positive for society, but the government can and does encourage stable families already. Yet they discriminate against a segment of the population that could be contributing stable families. The key point here is Stable Families, not the particular style of family.

You are asserting what you think the key point is "Stable Families", in doing so you are redefining my argument. That does not invalidate it, unless you make an argument for you assertion.

I'll restate the premise: "If society wants to encourage the development of families that can procreate"
IF this premise is valid, then discriminating against same-sex couples is reasonable.

Against the premise: Considering over-population, orphan children and single-parent families it's clear that society doesn't have to encourage procreation.
For the premise: There are economical reasons to fear an aging population so society might want to encourage procreation.

Personally I'm more convinced by the arguments against the premise.