Rant - Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Approach

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Well I can't watch the video now because I am at work and for some silly reason they won't give me enough band width for that (geshh!). But I think I can give two generic comments on the subject.
1. I am not the judge nor care to be on the gay issue but if we open up marriage to gay or to say marriage does not necessarily have to be between a man and a woman then basically it will open the door for bestiality, sibling marriage etc (take a good look at the world and tell me some sicko will not take it to the supreme court).
2. I think Siempre made a very good point on a previous post and I will try and do it justice without butchering it. If gays are so proud of they're activity then why should they even want a hand me down in the sense of heterosexual marriage. Why would they not come up with an original name for they're union and petition for that? My guess or suspicion is that the real issue is to force everyone to "accept" homosexuality and condone it. If they had a name other than marriage for they're union this in it's self would do away with the conservatives grips and also solve the potential backlash in the form of marriage being open to any form of union being in the natural sense or otherwise. But as I said I don't see compromise in the gay activists folder, it is about forced acceptance with the law backing it up.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: See i guess to understand my argument you have to accept that marriage is a spiritual and emotional connection to another person ordained by a church. Thus, where freedom of religion steps in. A "Civil Union" is basically you are married under the law, i know definitions have been changed, but break it down it's basically just a big fat money union.

Now as for the bestiality and whatever, the "slippery slope,"I don't believe it applies. The constitution and our laws already says you cannot have an intimate relationship with you dog, or your sister, etc. But as far as I can find there are no laws on the books restricting homosexual behavior. So if it isn't illegal, and they are citizens. They must be given the same rights as anyone else.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: More In-depth Perspective: http://tinyurl.com/33788
-There is a very good explanation that would take like 5 comments on here, so i'll let you read it.

Those Hurt By GM, Pie Chart: http://tinyurl.com/cu7ysn
-Found it on the internet, you would enjoy it :)

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Well Tom I was finally able to watch your video. Here is what I see. You are correct that churches can marry whom ever, gay or straight if they wish and in the same respect they could perform a ceremony specifically for gays which could be called something other than marriage so why must it be called "marriage". As for your comment on there not being a problem with the "slippery slope" of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman I will respond initially with a quote from one of the links you gave. "Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined?" this is the argument that cannot be defended against if marriage is open to alternative lifestyles. Why if marriage is not to be defined as a natural state between a male and female can we argue that marriage is not to be between adult father and daughter if they both consent? Once the natural bonds of marriage are broken there will be no withstanding the eventual barrage of perversions, it is beginning to happen in Europe on a small scale already. A small group of pedophiles in Europe are petitioning Denmark (I think, I'll have to find the article again) for legal acceptance by the government. Though it may be slow at first it will come and just as the article in your link stated so will the bestiality and pedophile activists say "Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined?"

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: Hey, I wouldn't want to call it marriage either, but if a church wants to recognize it as a "marriage," the United States government must accept it. As for pedophiles and such, there is extensive documentation on the types of people they are, and the damage they do. There really isn't much in that dept. on gays. Now i don't think churches are going to start marrying bears and monkeys, but leave it out of government all together. If a church marries them, they are married. Government call call it whatever they want as far as i care.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO

34 months ago: Tom, excellent work.

I am hard pressed to find any arguments with your source, the U.S. Constitution.

Rudi and Siempre: the 'deviant' argument rings hollow. It may have been a battle cry in the 50s but no in the 2K0s. Gay people are not deviants. Moreover, to this date, bestiality and pedophilia are illegal whereas homosexuality is not. This path of reasoning is, unfortunately, just plain offensive and shocking. Pairing gay marriage to the concept of a person with an animal fetish is simply nonsense. I am presuming that you don't relate to the concept of being gay. When we are raised in a culture that so vastly favors the straight people, it's hard to relate. On the other hand, gay people grow up in a straight world, so they don't have as much trouble relating. If you listen carefully to Tom, you will see that the upcoming generations are more able to relate to gay people. The end is near for the last form of legal discrimination in our nation, and thank God for that. I think of Matthew Shepherd dying on that fence in Wyoming and the hate crimes against gay people every day and the high teen suicide rate attributed to gay teens that don't know what to do with themselves, and think our world will be a better place when we accept and embrace gay people just as we do straight people.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: Ahhh thanks for having my back Coloranter!

Actually, no one mentioned this, but i really don't agree with gay marriage, and have said so on here. I was going to do a rant about how they shouldn't have rights, and then when i was researching i came to the conclusion it isn't even debatable.

Cheers!

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO

34 months ago: Siempre: Your point 4
I'm not exactly sure of your scientific background, so forgive me. I was an instructor of Biology and Chemistry for 20 years. I would not agree with your fourth point at all and do not feel it even applies to this discussion. I could explain in detail, but suffice it to say that it's simply biologically inaccurate, attempts to graft the secondary sexual behaviors of a few species of mammals onto all animals which include creatures as varied as sponges and jelly fish to hyenas and salamanders.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO

34 months ago: Siempre: "Marriage is a human custom"?
Do you mean mating for life? Because many animal species mate for life?

Do you mean humans getting married? Because there are countless cultures in human history where there was no marriage in the way we think of it today in the remnants of puritanical America. Think of all those in the company of the Emperor of China. Think of the many wives beheaded by King Henry VIII, think of ancient Hebrew law which required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow, think about that to this day the vast majority of the marriages on earth are arranged not the selection process we 'enjoy' in most 'civilized' western nations, etc. It wasn't even until 1563 that the Council of Trent decided that marriage should be held in the presence of a priest and two witnesses and when love didn't enter into the equation it was more about men saving women from a life of sin.

I think it's very important for people who rant on about the sanctity of marriage as it has "always been" actually go back and read some human history. You'll find out that you're far, far, far, far, far from the truth if this is the position you're going to take.

Therefore, time to move with the times. It's just flat out discrimination not to allow gay people the same rights as straight people. I'll make no apologies for saying so. Just as I'll defend people of color and their rights to the same equality under the law as white people.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO

34 months ago: Wing, you know I've got your back, always. Plus, I feel your position, coming from a person who previously found himself unable to support the concept of gay marriage who has now boiled it down in very clear and concise way using our own Constitution was smartly done and more credible, perhaps. To me, it has always been about equal rights.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Well Coloranter now I know the situation a little better. I have to say you do remind me of my Biology professor of whom I bumped heads with more than once.
Now Tom You caved on the opening door issue plain and simple so I am assuming you just have nothing in that respect i.e if deviants want to be deviants and there is a church out there that is just as perverted then so be it.
Coloranter you are playing the sympathy card again and we both know we've been there and done that so to get on level ground with the Legend here I am going to say again I don't hate gays and I am not a homophobic etc etc. or whatever.
The point is when you take marriage out of the natural bounds of a male and female you will not be able to defend against any other form of un-natural demands for marriage its that simple.
So two married men can not naturally have a child right? Oh you say they can adopt right. O.K so a mother and her adult son whom want to marry should not have children right due to possible defects. So the son can be sterilized, problem solved. Now who says they should not be able to marry. Do you say that Coloranter? Do you Tom? Why, and who are you to say they should not. You have know right to say that if you say marriage should not be confined to the natural bounds. So now you are accepting to marriage between father and daughter and son and mother. You have no argument against it. If you do present it to me. If you don't then you also are accepting to bestiality. Because marriage as you say can not be defined by natural laws. Give me one good reason why people should not marry an animal. The condition of course is that it can not be any thing within the reasoning of natural laws because you know hwat I will say right. Marrige is not to be defined by natural laws. Now what do you have.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: I think i can tackle this.

Okay, #1 I don't think there are any churches or religions that would marry a bear, a monkey, and a toddler. But lets just assume there are for a second. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (1st amendment, U.S. Constitution).

It's pretty clear, no law.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: #2 Married Men. There is no law against homosexuality, there are however many laws restricting things such as incest.

#3 It isn't "natural," they cannot have children. Then why do we allow infertile couples to marry? should we just ban marriage altogether unless you can prove you are both fertile? I don't think so.

Bottom Line: Our government does not have the power to undermine the freedom of religion. So if the Episcopal church wants to marry to boys or two girls, government must stay out of it.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Oh Tom you have been swayed so easily to support incest, bestiality and pedophiles. Just as those out dated laws of interracial marriage (between male and female)fell, so shall those out dated and prejudicial laws against incest and bestiality fall with the support of understanding persons such as you.
Marriage is a foundation and when the foundation is removed the rest of the pieces will begin to fall. Call it progressive if you think it sounds cool but it is destructive in the fabric of what holds back the many perversions that will surface and demand equal rights on the grounds that marriage is not to be defined by natural laws. Here are my responses to yours in order however,
1. You don't think there are any churches that would do that. You wouldn't think there would be any churches that take hundreds of people to south America to commit mass suicide either but there was. Not valid.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: 2. There were laws against homosexuality and many have been removed just as the argument will be with incest i.e. the laws are outdated. Not valid.
3. Now you are trying to use a natural law to argue your point i.e if a couple cannot have children due to a defect then are they considered un-natural. So to argue this you must say gays should be considered natural because they have not been proved defective. The point I am making is not whether gays are defective or not but rather by opening the door to marriage for anything not within the bounds of a male and female we lose any valid stand against future demands from other "alternative lifestyles".
Bottom line- I understand Tom that you are going at this on the angle of our constitution and it is a very legitimate angle. I am all for freedom believe me. I know well that the bigger the government gets the less freedom we will have. My point is that when this becomes law which I figure it eventually will, we will in effect lose all grounds to prevent any perverted persons ideal of what marriage is. What I am trying to define is where and how will we draw the line from there.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: 1. Non-sequitur arguement.
2. I would argue that this is also a non sequitur arguement. Just because gays can marry doesn't mean anything else. Take it at face value. I shall guide you with my visual aid powers: http://1.media.tumblr.com/Et45eV2kem0u4kpjzaMC42alo1_500.gif

See, a pedophile is someone who hurts children, the effects are well documented. Also, there are many studies to suggest that these "alternative lifestyles" as you have donned them, are not lifestyles, but damaging to others in society. For example, an animal cannot consent to sexual intercourse as we require people to under the law. So this cannot be a "slippery slope" as you call it. Just a civil connection formed by consenting adults ordained by a church.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: 3, answered above along with #2.

Bottom Line: The line we draw is the line the constitution and our current code of law draws. You are an adult at 18. You cannot consent to marriage until then (sexual intercourse is before, but varies by state). Thus marriage can only be between consenting adults (no pedophiles, please). Furthermore since an animal obviously cannot consent, they cannot be married. Incest has been documented scientifically to cause birth defects, so that's off the table too, we don't want any more Hohenzollern chins thank you very much. So with this in mind, and the 1st and 14th amendments in mind, there is no reason why marriage must be defined as between a man and a woman. Cheers!

FLAG THIS COMMENT

mommywing

34 months ago: Tom, a fine and insightful youtube piece.

Marriage is, first and foremost, a social contract. Churches are merely a witness to two individuals entering into a contract. A church does not perform or create the marriage--only the two entering into the contract can do that.

Gay marriage? Civil union? It doesn't matter what you call it. All people should be able to contractually bind themselves to another. If you are my companion, friend, confidante, and roommate for 30 years, why can't I share your health insurance and social security? To suggest otherwise is both unkind and unfair.

Humans are essentially pack animals. We need others around us for sustenance and support. No one, not a church, individual, or government entity should dictate what constitutes a proper pairing off of individuals. I find it deeply offensive that anyone other than me should choose my life partner.

Gay marriage doesn't bother me--Now arranged marriages, that really makes my blood boil.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Tom I agree we are throwing some non sequitur arguments around (I love that word and your visual aid was great also. I know you do not support any perverted actions but my question none the less is valid. How can a person say “marriage should not be kept in the bounds of natural laws “and not be defending all types of deviations of natural relations?
True it is a hypothetical statement I am making in that once the door is open all types of deviant people will demand equal treatment. But it is also a hypothetical statement to say when gay marriage becomes law there will be no sexual deviants demanding equal rights.
Also your points on bestiality are for now acceptable to society in that animals cannot consent. However it could be argued that they do not object either. And as far as mistreatment goes do we consider slaughtering them for food and clothing to be more acceptable than the results of marriage?
I think Siempre brought some very sharp points to the table in the case of multiple partners. I don’t feel that right after gay marriage is made law we will see pedophiles or incest couples demanding rights. First will likely be the people whom want more than one partner. This is the perfect argument for marriage outside the bounds of one male and one female.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: How can we say marriage is not to be held in the context of natural laws yet only in the case of gays? This is hypocritical to polygamists and down right prejudice. And if it is hypocritical to polygamist then it is also hypocritical to couples in a incest relationship. The problem of having defective offspring is easily solved and we have already stated that marriage cannot be regarded as within the bounds of what we consider “natural”.
I say Tom you have a very valid point in the constitution allowing for gay marriage. As I said we will likely be subjected to it sooner or later like it or not. Now when this happens what I would like to know is on what grounds do we deny polygamist rights to marriage outside the realm of what is considered natural. And when that is allowed as it must be how do we deny persons of a incest relationship they’re rights to a marriage outside the naturals bounds. And so on and so on. It won’t happen over night but to say it won’t be brought up in court is surely naïve.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Shanon Arelta
Gardnerville, NV

34 months ago: The argument that allowing gays to marry "destroys marriage for the rest of us" is analogous to the argument that allowing blacks to ride at the front of the bus "destroys riding on the bus for the rest of us". It is an argument that seeks to deny the same treatment for people that are not part of our in-group. If anything can be said to destroy marriage, it is divorce, not allowing gays the same rights as straights.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: Correct Shanon, i like the comparison.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: O.K so can I get one straight answer here. Why should polygamists not be allowed the right to marry multiple partners? Just a simple answer please.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

TheLegendTomWing

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA

34 months ago: They should be allowed to marry multiple partners, we are on this earth to do one thing: procreate. Our society expects us to mate with only one person, which is quite irrational, although not unheard up in the animal kingdom.

So i guess the short answer is, we can't tell them no. But the long answer is it's illegal, and well, we've seen what's happened to those religious evangelical wackjobs when they tried that. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with having more than one sexual partner, well, except STDs.

But you have to take into account that you are comparing gays to polygamists, and that doesn't work because polygamy is illegal, and homosexuality can most certainly be monogamous. Not really the same ball park.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Thank you for the concise answer Tom I appreciate that. I do respectfully disagree however that they are not in the same ball park. I feel they are not only in the same ball park but the same ball game and to prove this I will reaffirm the same quote from the link you gave earlier. "Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined?". This is the argument that gay activists are using. That marriage cannot be defined by the government, nor the church nor even nature. So when gays win the right to marry regardless of any man made presumptions upon what marriage should or should not be this will automatically place polygamists in the position to say "Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined?" And why do we allow gays to marry and say that marriage is not defined by what this person or that group defines it as nor even what nature suggests it should be and yet persons whom want to marry multiple partners are treated as freaks and not given they're rights to marry how they please.
And yes polygamy is illegal "now" but when gay marriage is legalized how can we say it is natural for a man to marry another man but not natural for two women to marry a man if all are adults and all are consenting. So just as the outdated laws against homosexuality were stricken from the books I would say instead of being "polygophobes" and deny them they're "rights" the laws must be changed to allow multiple marriage partners. The bottom line is that you and I, nor the government nor the churches not even nature should define what people between each other would consider a marriage relationship to be. Is this correct or is marriage restricted to what straights and gays only say it is. Because if the gays are going to be prejudice against polygamists that is very hypocritical is it not?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO

34 months ago: Jakarta: Why is polygamy illegal? Who does it hurt?

Now, as for equating gay marriage to polygamy, there is no comparison. Honestly, I'm just a little bit sick and tired of people bringing up other illegal practices and suggesting that legalizing gay marriage suddenly makes all other presently illegal things be open for discussion. There's a difference between things that were made illegal or legal based on discriminatory practices based on the prejudices of civilized people than those that were made so based on sound moral reasoning. For example, the legalization of gay marriage does not mean we need to re-examine the criminality of murder. Do we? Did we make murder illegal because one group of people had fear or hatred toward another? How about theft? How about child abuse? This is a central issue that must be comprehended by the people who keep raising these erroneous concerns. If rape had been made illegal because of a female-dominated Supreme Court had decided that it was time to turn the table on men and their actions, that would be different, and yes it would be time to re-evaluate. But, that's not why rape was made illegal. There is no prejudice involved. It is just as illegal for men to rape women as for women to rape men. We don't say, "It's illegal for gay men to rape straight women." There is no prejudice involved.

It's a trick of rhetoric to attempt to follow this line of reasoning. It only makes sense in the feeble-minded who are incapable of differentiation laws, customs, or practices rooted in fear of the different rather than in logical moral analysis or debate.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Coloranter, all the other illegal practices you brought up have nothing to do with marriage. Yes polygamy must be re-examined when gay marriage becomes legal because the entire scope of marriage has been changed thus all previous questionable marriage arraignments will be re-evaluated. You are trying to say just because heroin is legalized no one will want to legalize cocaine, cocaine has nothing to do with heroin. It takes little reasoning to know once the sphere of marriage is change it will effect all other connected marriage related entities. Come on Coloranter you could not have been in teaching for twenty years and not realize to every action is a reaction.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO

34 months ago: Jakarta: I never suggested that people wouldn't want polygamy legalized, and I don't see why it shouldn't be. It hurts no one. If two men want to marry one woman, and they are all happy and their children are happy, who on earth does this hurt? It hurts your picture of what you perceive to be "natural". I have no clue where on earth you are getting that but from. Please feel free to read some human history, as I suggested above on the topics of marriage throughout our time on earth. This concept of what you perceive to be this sacred concept is really rather new and certainly has no claim as to being "natural". It's so unnatural, in fact, very few humans relative to the human population on the planet practice it. In a nation with a divorce rate in excess of 50%, that's got to say something about how 'natural' marriage is.

Finally, I regret laws and codes in our law that rely upon prejudice.

FLAG THIS COMMENT