Ser King Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts"]THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zollo Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Got something you want to tell us then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delete this account pls Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [quote name='Zollo' post='1744388' date='Apr 4 2009, 16.03']Got something you want to tell us then?[/quote] WHATEVER ON EARTH WOULD GIVE YOU THAT IDEA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zollo Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [quote name='Brady' post='1744391' date='Apr 4 2009, 06.07']WHATEVER ON EARTH WOULD GIVE YOU THAT IDEA?[/quote] WHY, GOOD SIR, I COULDN'T PUT MY FINGER ON IT. SOMETHING IN THE AIR, MAYHAPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bittersteel Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 For those not inclined to read the article, an abridged version... THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE Adam Kolanski Ew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nous Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 The proper purpose of laws is not to serve "state interests", but to protect the rights of the citizens. The article is based on a completely flawed premise, and so the argument fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mashiara Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 This thread hurts my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [quote]The proper purpose of laws is not to serve "state interests", but to protect the rights of the citizens. The article is based on a completely flawed premise, and so the argument fails.[/quote] It also fails with the assumption that marriage exists to propagate society. It doesn't, and never has. Marriage traditionally was a property transaction, and with the realisation that women are more than simple property, it has become a formalised expression of love and partnership. Applying the ludicrous logic of the article, the minute a woman reaches menopause, she and her husband should be divorced, so that her husband can be free to spread his seed in more fertile pastures. (Incidentally, incest is outlawed primarily because of issues regarding proving consent, and polygamy is outlawed primarily because of the sheer complexity of legal/property complications it would create. Neither problem exists with gay marriage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Wait, how many cows is a gay man worth now? And do they have to be gay cows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1744386' date='Apr 4 2009, 01.01']Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. [b]The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.[/b][/quote] Nope. I'm not a lawyer, but this is not how our country works. Whether a court would apply rational basis review or strict scrutiny, the government must show an interest in abrogating a right, or - in the case of an equal protection claim - in treating two grops differently. Now, if a court would apply rational basis (such as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did) the standard for the government is low. If gay and lesbians people are deemed to be a suspect class (like the California Supreme Court ruled) or marriage is deemed in this case to be a fundamental right, then the level of scrutiny is higher and the government must show a more substantial government interest. (I haven't read anything about the method the Iowa court used, anyone hear?) However, with either level of review, the government has the initial burden of proof in showing a rational for a law. Whether or not the government can meet that burdon is another issue. But in no way do the advocates of gay marriage have the onus to prove why they [b]shouldn't [/b]be denied a right, or to demonstrate why they [b]shouldn't [/b]be discriminated against. Not in America, anyways. ETA: Sorry to get overly legal, rather than keeping the debate in a more theoretical or policy sense. Also sorry for assuming the debate has to be about gay marriage in America, when I realize there are many other countries dealing with this issue. Just wanted to point out how the notion of having the government prove the law is right, rather than the people having to prove a law is wrong, is an important concept recognized by the American courts. In a free society you need a reason to ban things, not a reason to keep them free (I think I saw a quote like that in a [i]West Wing [/i]episode) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blackfish Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 <mod>Have edited the OP; Ser Wolf King, if you want you can select an excerpt to edit into your post alongside the article link but please don't post the full text of an article. </mod> Say this thing is pretty old ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nous Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [quote name='Shryke' post='1744408' date='Apr 4 2009, 01.31']Wait, how many cows is a gay man worth now? And do they have to be gay cows?[/quote] I hear the going rate is one fertile milkcow, two oxen, or four gay bulls. There are of course a lot of factors. For example, you'll get a Holstein for a flamboyant gay man, but a leatherman nets you only an Ayrshire. Don't ask me for reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I also found [url="http://articles.latimes.com/p/2008/jun/02/business/fi-wedding2"]this[/url], which asserts gay marriage would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy of California. So there's you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [quote name='Nous' post='1744412' date='Apr 4 2009, 01.42']I hear the going rate is one fertile milkcow, two oxen, or four gay bulls. There are of course a lot of factors. For example, you'll get a Holstein for a flamboyant gay man, but a leatherman nets you only an Ayrshire. Don't ask me for reasons.[/quote] Gah, fucking barter system. Can't we make an international currency for these kind of transactions? We can still back it with cow reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 MIT hasn't had standards in years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 [quote name='Piper' post='1744415' date='Apr 3 2009, 22.58']I also found [url="http://articles.latimes.com/p/2008/jun/02/business/fi-wedding2"]this[/url], which asserts gay marriage would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy of California. So there's you go.[/quote] It doesn't matter. Our grandparents told us it was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max the Mostly Mediocre Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 My grandparents told me lots of things were wrong. That's why my life is so stale. At any rate, I feel confident the OP meant to link us to [url="http://www.bettybowers.com/bash.html"]this[/url] page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtigo Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 These "arguments" are raised in any basic law school class on individual rights and the constitution and are rejected for some of the reasons up thread. Its virtually impossible to come up with a secular test that allows all (including the infertile) heterosexual couples to marry and no gay couples. Not to mention in many cases these are equal protection claims, which have nothing to do with any of the reasons this guy puts forward to deny gays significant government benefits. If this is the critical thinking "financial economists" were displaying in 2004, its no wonder the market belly flopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtigo Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I was confused when I perused the comments about all the praise this article was getting. Then I realized on was on free republic. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Lucan Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I do think it's better for society when men are married or attached to a mate, with children to care for and homes to worry about. Too many unattached men are dangerous and have a tendency to cause violence That said, let the gays marry, who really cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.