You don't have to like gays to support gay marriage.

I would like to encourage my fellow Americans to consider taking an objective view on gay marriage--just like you don't necessarily have to agree with someone to support their right to free speech, you do it anyway because you recognize the broader implications of allowing government censors to arbitrate expression.

I view the civil institution no differently. And the Constitution is clear that we are all entitled to equal protection of the laws--that we, each of us, may not be deprived of our rights without just cause. Viewed objectively, I can see no such just cause. I can see no just reason to deny the civic franchise to certain citizens based on arbitrary criteria.

What say you?

 

I agree.

 

Careful there. Don't just assume that anyone who objects to same sex marriage is not taking an objective view. Or that they don't like gay people. It might be the case for some, but it's not the case for everyone. And it's just as likely that many people who support same sex marriage are not taking an objective view either. They are taking an emotional one. This is a very common problem I've run into with this debate. Which makes it hard for a lot of same sex marriage supporters to accept a difference of opinion on the issue.

 

makes sense to me

 

What's the objective, anti-Gay marriage view? It's largely, if not solely, based on religion... that can't be objective.

 

Excellent.

 

I consider gay marriage a Constitutional issue rather than a social issue. If the gay marriage movement moved away from moral arguments and used the supreme law of the land to forward their agenda, they would gain more traction.

 

Okay, you're already engaging in conjecture. Many people who support the standing definition of marriage (including myself) don't believe it has been successfully proven that anyone is being denied anything. We see the whole issue as nothing but another fickle attempt at identity politics.

 

I'm not making any assumptions about anyone. But I have yet to come across an objective viewpoint from anyone on the anti side of the debate. A difference of opinion is fine--arbitrarily depriving citizens of their rights, however, is not. You are correct that many gay marriage supporters make an emotional argument rather than a factual one--but I'd like to suggest they are very likely outnumbered by those on the other side, IME.

The point that I'm trying to make is that when we put our personal feelings aside, we may conclude that some things are bigger than our personal feelings. As an example, I DESPISE the Westboro Baptist Church and all its inbred knuckle-dragging sycophants, but I believe they have every right to spew their filth on public property. If I ever met any of them or came across one of their protests, I would probably have a hard time restraining myself from committing a little sodomy of my own... with one of those signs, ahem. But still, I will defend their right to spew their vile, hateful verbal diarrhea because, viewed objectively, I must recognize their rights if I am to expect mine to be recognized as well.

 

Same-sex couples enjoy few, if any, of the rights of heterosexual married couples. From taxes to last rites. Isn't that a denial? It's essentially a tax deduction for being straight and married. Is that fair or reasonable?

 

More often than not, on emotionalism and societal mores--which can certainly have a religious component, but doesn't have to necessarily.

 

Agreed. They are wasting their efforts, in my view, trying to gain approval of their neighbors when they should be making factual arguments based on rational application of the law.

 

Can you speak to that point specifically, please?

 

Just to clarify, by "last rites" do you mean estates and inheritance? Last rites usually refers to a religious ceremony.

 

There are many things that I am morally opposed to, but because I have no rational reason to wish to deny people of these things, I do not oppose the legality of them. That is what most people who are opposed to SSM forget.

 

I disagree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of same sex marriage supporters have their arguments rooted in an emotional need to fight anything they perceive as oppression and have backward rationalized that into a logical explanation. Some do base their position on objective logic, but they are the minority.

And I just gave you the crux of the objective objection to same sex marriage. Or at least the one I personally subscribe to. If you'd like more detail, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Feel free to ask anything you want clarification on.

You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about, though. Identity politics. You're already dividing people up into groups and labeling them as "gays" and "heterosexuals" before the discussion even begins. Let's take it back a step further and look at the whole issue. Let's look at what makes these people different first. What causes homosexuality? Explain it to me in scientific detail.

 

Irrelevant. How do you see it fitting into this discussion?

 

Just to avoid mistakes in my understanding of your position, can you please tell me specifically what your "objective objection" is? I don't want to make any assumptions. Thank you.

 

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that question to an "objective objection."

 

Perhaps I should consolidate my replies to both you and Catenaccio. It looks like I'm about start doing a lot of double posting since I'm kind of answering the same questions for both of you guys.

Basically, I'm not convinced that they're truly any different from anyone else. And this is where I have more questions than answers.

 

I have to second this.

At the end of the day, we must decide whether or not we're violating constitutional rights by denying homosexuals the right to marry.

Can anyone present a good argument against gay marriage by referencing the constitution?

 

And I would call that an objective viewpoint.

 

Can you please elaborate on this position? I think even a cursory view might produce a different conclusion.

 

It's extremely relevant. And you'll see why once you answer it. But you won't be able to understand my position until you answer it.

If people aren't different, there is no reason to change the law.

 

In my view it is clear that we are--the 14th Amendment does not equivocate. "Shall not be abridged" is quite explicit language. There are some phrases and clauses in the Constitution that do give one pause and confound scholars, but this IS NOT ONE OF THEM. We are all equal under the law--period.

I have yet to see one--and I've been having this discussion for 20 years.