Conservative Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

A Gay-Rights Argument Scalia Could Love

Sort of kills the argument that gay marriage would be a "special right". Anyone think that Calabresi's logic is flawed?

 

The logic is flawed in the sense that it assumes a marriage is only a marriage when conferred or recognized by the state. How is the hypothetical woman being "forbidden" to marry? Is her relationship being monitored by the police? If she makes a certain vow will she be fined a fee? The perception that the state is the ultimate arbiter of who is and isn't married is the flaw.

 

Liberalism already defines gays as a special class.

Why are we expected to believe they will be any different from minorities who have benefits the rest of us do not?

 

The state grants over 1,000 benefits to those it recognizes as married. How many benefits does the church grant?

She is being forbidden the benefits granted to those who the state recognizes as married.

If she should obtain benefits reserved for married people, how would the police and courts not be involved?

And the perception that marriage is nothing more than a vow is the flaw in your argument.

 

Can two men or two women get married? Not in several states.

BTW, you'll have the same benefit.

 

So would you be ok giving them the benefits but denying them the right to a marriage license?

I have a suspicion that you wouldn't. Gays do not care about the rights....they want to shove their beliefs down the throats of normal citizens.

 

There's not reason to call the same thing something different.

And are you being forced to marry someone of the same sex? BTW, being gay is not a belief. But you can think what you want.

 

Since these benefits are incumbent on the people being married, how would you grant them without granting a marriage license? And didn't we learn fifty years ago that separate but equal isn't really equal?

BTW, marriage was a social institution build around property rights long before religion co opted it.

 

No, I'm heterosexual ...I don't get to file law suit if I'm fired incompetence or called a mean name.

But here's an interesting perspective to the whole state vs federal law of marriage.

Why should the federal government get to impose a new nation wide law when it doesn't follow the ones we already have?

 

Correct, states offer certain incentives to married couples. Some states include same-sex marriages, others don't; but in the states that don't, no one is being forbidden from having their relationships, they just aren't being incentivized to marry. I don't know what your point about the church is - people get married without churches, too.

No, she is simply not entering a contract that comes with those benefits. States discriminate against people who do and don't enter certain contracts all the time. Discriminate can also simply mean to differentiate in a perfectly legal way.

It was simply a vow long before it was some way to get benefits from the state.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you suggesting that marriage didn't exist before the advent of property rights?

 

Of course it's flawed. In this silly example he provides:

"A woman who is forbidden to marry a woman is a victim of discrimination insofar as she would not be so forbidden if she were male".

If the woman were male, it is no longer a "gay marriage".

ffs, what a stupid thing for him to say.


According to this idiot's logic, pap smears are discriminatory against men, because if a man were a woman... then he could get one.

This guy is a teacher.. ?!

 

This ignores that there are plenty of others cases in which an action is open to those of one sex but denied to those of the other. Men's and women's bathrooms are an obvious but silly example. A woman is not allowed to enter, but would be allowed to were she a man. Clearly this a case of blatant discrimination. This of course ignores that there are practical reasons for keeping the bethrooms separate. I'm just pointing out that the logic used in the quote isn't very compelling as it can be used to get rid of any situation where X is treated differently from Y.

 

Conservative as the day is long. Absolutely fine with gay marriage for several reasons. 1. It's none of my god dang business what gays do. 2. You can practice your religion in any way you want, you don't have the right to force your views on others, that's what Muslim extremist do. They do it with a gun, Christians try to so it with a pen. All the same to me. 3. Why shouldn't gays have to deal with divorce like the rest of us? Let them suffer through divorce court. (A bit of humor). Also the same rights that Protect my ar15 should be the interpreted the same way for two homosexuals who wanna get married. Be philosophically consistent but practice your religion in your own way. Religious belief is an intensely personal faith. I don't think Christ would want it any other way.

 

Yes it is flawed, since marriage has a universally accepted definition prior to the Gay Agenda pushing its propoganda and creating atmospehere where many people start accepting that marriage is a meaningless term that can be applied to any sort of group of people.

Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, anything else does not = marriage. So no a woman does not have a right to marry another woman, because that is not defined in the word marriage. She can form a union with the other woman, but we should not be forced to change time honored institutions because of a minority of people participating in a particular fetish, some might even call a preverse behavior.

 

"They kill people.... but Christians try to write a law... all the same to me".

Lol... you seem stable.



.

 

What's unstable is forcing people to view the world through religious glasses. Whether you do it through a gun or a law your still forcing someone to your will. That is the same.

 

Other than the church and the state, who else offers incentives to marry?

States discriminate for many reasons, most of them perfectly legal, unless they involve things like race, religion or gender.

And that is all it was, a vow. Two people can say they are married all they want, but until the state recognizes it, there are no benefits.

Before property existed, there was no reason for it as humans, like most other animals, are not naturally monogamous.

 

Talk about idiotic examples. Show me where it is the state, and not simple biology, that is preventing men from getting pap smears.

 

Would the universally accepted definition of marriage be the one that allows a man to marry multiple women? Or the one that allows a man to marry children? Or the definition where the parents choose the spouse?

 

It is circular logic based on a lie. "Gay" is nothing more than perverted behavior.

 

The right wing fringe seems to be against evil government intrusion or regulation unless it involves anything even remotely offending their sexual sensibilities. I guess we should be lucky that, aside from a couple die hard loons on this site, they've given up the righteous struggle against inter racial marriage and miscegenation.

 

Obviously you don't understand what that means.

Then marriage law in the jurisdiction you live in is none of your business either. Right?

Actually that's an argument against "gay marriage", which has no other purpose but to force people to view a perversion as a sacrament under color of law.

Certainly that makes sense if your AR15 is made of moonbeams, fairy dust or something equally substantial. Otherwise the comparison is thunderously retarded.

Actually it's pretty obvious He wouldn't, seeing He preached to people who didn't want to hear, for which He was murdered.

How exactly is a state which refuses to honor the delusion of "gay marriage" forcing anyone to do its will?

 

Point is, marriage isn't about incentives, it's about mutual commitment between two people. No one is prohibiting anyone from doing that.

What about the benefit of living in a committed relationship? Apart from that, why should the state - meaning all the other citizens - offer benefits?

So tribal cultures that didn't believe in land ownership - like American Indians and African tribes - didn't practice marriage? Where do you come up with this garbage? Marriage is as old as human history.

 

And marriage is supposed to be the only aspect of human history that has not or ought not evolve over the centuries? Our laws and government are not to supposed to codify or reflect the cultural institutions of African or Native American tribes, but our own - including how the concept of marriage has evolved in modern American society.

 

What matters isn't actually the universal definition of marriage -which would include polygamous and such stuff- but the definition of the majority of the local people. The local people in the case of the USA would be on a state level. id est, let the majority in each state decide wheter marriages can be same-sex. After all, it is the people who ultimately decide what a word means, and it is the people from which the laws ought to be based. To force gay marriage upon a population which overwhelmingly rejects it would be undemocratic.