Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Kemara]

Kemara, are you the farmer from the book series "Peter Rabbit"?

Please focus on your own statement(s), look at your denials in post 346 and post 361. Thank you for unequivocally showing that you are not interested facts of the matters at hand.

So is that a yes or a no to my question? As you well know the answer sums up the facts of the matter at hand which I am guessing is why you have refused to answer. So let me ask the question one more time.

Does a person in the US currently have the legal right to marry another person, of their own choosing, who is of the same gender?

Edited November 20, 2012 by Kemara

[TAO]

You guys are both playing a game about 'this is law' and 'that is law', when it doesn't really matter. Law can be changed. Or it can not be changed. It doesn't matter what the law is now, or what the rulings are; either in court cases or in traidition. It matters what the law should become. Both of you disagree on that matter. So just state it out like that. Don't play this legal tango about what 'is' and 'isn't there, because it doesn't matter a bit =p. You guys disagree on how the law should be, and that is what the discussion should be about, I think.

Respectfully,

-TAO

Edited November 20, 2012 by TAO

[DavidB]

...

Marriage is what people are asking for. Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a Fundamental Right in the United State - subject to polygamy laws, incest laws, age laws, and blood relation laws. ...

No it [marriage to a person of one own choosing] is not [a Fundamental Right in the United States], if it was then we would not be having this discussion.

emphasis added by DavidB.

I suggest you verse yourself on American Constitutional law, marriage to a person of ones own choosing is very much a fundamental right subject to limited prohibitions. You should start with Loving v. Virginia, and the 13,000+ citations.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ... To deny this fundamental freedom [to marry]

Loving reiterates the numerous case before it, that marriage is a fundamental right. Now onto personal choice in the fundamental right of marriage

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Fundamental right to marriage (Loving)

+personal choice in marriage which (Cleveland Board of Education)

= The Fundamental Right of marriage to a person of ones own choosing.

Kemara, will you continue in your false premise that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is not a fundamental right in the United States subject to limited prohibitions?

You, however, in an attempt to avoid your error, rephrase the question (likely in the hope that you can claim victory), a tactic which leads me further to believe that you are a sock puppet of someone on this board.

Despite your diversionary rephrasing, the answer to your question ("Does a person in the US currently have the legal right to marry another person, of their own choosing, who is of the same gender?") is absolutely YES.

Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia.

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB

[Kemara]

No it [marriage to a person of one own choosing] is not [a Fundamental Right in the United States], if it was then we would not be having this discussion.

emphasis added by DavidB.

This is what happens when someone comes into a discussion and assumes the topic of conversation instead of taking the time to understand what is being discussed.

It was pointed out twice, specifically to you, that you had not been engaging the topic at hand.

here:

It is equality of entitlement we are discussing here.

and here:

We have been speaking solely in terms of entitlements as guarantied benefits.

This topic kicked off with this response to a post I made:

There are many states in the US where a same sex partnership are not granted health insurance, hospital access, end of life decision making, claims for support if the relationship breaks up, and of course the tax considerations.

The issue being discussed that you rushed into with both foolhardy guns blazing was that of possible alternatives to granting equal entitlement to homosexual partners that did not require marriage.

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention [health insurance, hospital acces, end of life decision making, claims for support, tax considerations] can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.

In response to these posts:

This was made evident in California, where the incentives/entitlements were the same for domestic partnerships as they were for heterosexual marriages. What was learned from subsequent court cases, is that homosexuals weren't satisfied with equality of "entitlements," they wanted to coop the decidedly heterosexual institution of marriage.

and

You actually are somewhat correct.. There are over 1200 federal laws that apply to a couple when they are legally married. Some of those laws are related to benefits but not all of them. Perhaps you are right. All 1200 laws could be repealed, modified and changed through extensive legislature and/or court process.

DavidB, you know you have serious problems when California boy can keep up with the topic of conversation and you can’t – you might want to get that looked at. Bikeemikey, California boy, Wade and myself all knew what was being discussed yet somehow you missed it. Even after being told repeatedly that you were not discussing the issue at hand you continued to flog your following straw man.

Marriage is what people are asking for. Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a Fundemental Right in the United State - subject to polygamy laws, incest laws, age laws, and blood relation laws.

This was not the topic of conversation, we were not talking about marriage per se, we were talking about equality of entitlement – and you have the nerve to accuse me of creating diversions. Good grief DavidB you didn’t even understand what the topic of conversion was that I was supposed to be diverting from!

Be that as it may, because I am the type of man who is merciful to those that are less fortunate I entertained your straw man fallacy. In my view it isn’t so much the straw man itself that is the problem, when dealing with any issue related to homosexuality the proponents of such are forever erecting straw men so you get used to it. The problem with your straw man argument is its complete lack of logic.

What you are saying, is that it is a fundamental right of law in the US that, subject to limited prohibitions, a homosexual can marry another homosexual of his choosing. However, as the law stands currently (in what, 41 states?) a homosexual man cannot legally marry another homosexual man even if he chooses too. So in essence your position is, that it is a fundamental right of law in the US that, subject to limited prohibitions, a homosexual can marry another homosexual of his choosing even though a homosexual cannot legally marry another homosexual of his choosing. Putting aside your dodge of Wade’s references challenging your assertion, this position is without a shred of logic. The mental gymnastics that need to be employed to sustain this position is remarkable.

The illogical nature of your argument prompted my responses to you. My repeated question to you shows how illogical your position is:

Does a person in the US currently have the legal right to marry another person, of their own choosing, who is of the same gender?

The answer to that question is that as the law stands currently (except in 9 states or districts) there is no legal right for a man to marry another man.

Kemara, will you continue in your false premise that marriage to a person of ones own choosing is not a fundamental right in the United States subject to limited prohibitions?

Two questions DavidB:

1. Does a person in the US currently have the legal right to marry another person, of their own choosing, who is of the same gender?

2. In all except 9 states and districts is one of the current prohibitions same gender marriage?

Despite your diversionary rephrasing, the and to your question absolutely YES, and as of Nov 6 ssm became legal in 4 States, bringing the total to 9 States or Districts…

This response is utterly ridiculous, you are not just a gymnast you are a contortionist, you are saying, yes it is a right in the US even though it isnt a right in 41 states of the US. In essence your position is, that it is a fundamental right of law in the US that, subject to limited prohibitions, a homosexual can marry another homosexual of his choosing even though a homosexual can legally marry another homosexual of his choosing in only 9 States or Districts.

You have asked me twice now if I am a Sock Puppet, I can categorically state that I am not. Are you a militant homophobe pretending to be a proponent of homosexual marriage in order to make the position look stupid?

[Bikeemikey]

Kemara,

We have been talking about equality of entitlement.

It seems clear to me that marriage, based on Davidb is an entitlement.

Though we were talking about equality of entitlements generally, were we also including marriage as one of the entitlements begin discussed.

As harm as the call for CFR on harm: I would simply suggest reading about John Stuart mill's work, or even looking up the harm principle on Wikipedia. Harm is the guiding principle of modern democratic legislative systems. Will get the direct tie in to the constitution later this week when I have time.

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade's pet argument that he brings up time and again is that the government involvement in marriage to produce children. I simply pointed out that there are 7 ssm cases before the supreme court. In all 7 cases, his argument has either not been brought up or been rejected by both 7 state judges and 7 federal judge panels. That is a fact. And as far as I know, there are the only ssm cases before the supreme court. If you know of any cases before the supreme court that agree with his argument, I would love to have you pass it on to all of us.

As far as I know, the only cases appealed to the Supreme Court are the ones where those against SSM lost. In many of those cases, it wasn't because the judges rejected the rationality of the argument, per se. But rather, they ruled on other grounds (such as in the Prop. 8 case, where the appellate court ruled on the grounds that a right couldn't be given and then taken away).

Again, why do you call it Wade's "pet argument" when in fact it isn't his argument at all, but that of those who have (often, if not unilaterally) been successful using it in court cases, and when it is the same argument still being used by the Prop. 8 defenders, etc...?

[DavidB]

Kemara...you were proven wrong, and for some reason you can't admit it.......seriously are you farmer in book series peter rabbit?

You clearly and directly claimed that marriage to person of one’s own choosing is not a fundamental right in the United States. You address that issue directly and explicitly in post 346 and post 361. You were wrong in both of your responses.

It is ok to admit you were wrong, no one will think less of you for being wrong.

In fact, you are so completely unwilling to admit you are wrong that you falsely took your own question and attributed it to me.

As I requested early FOCUS ON YOU OWN CONTENTIONS “Does a person in the US currently have the legal right to marry another person, of their own choosing, who is of the same gender?”, that is the diversionary question you kept asking in order to divert attention away for you being wrong.

Are you willing to admit that you were wrong?

Are you willing to admit that in the United States marriage to a person of one’s own choosing is a fundamental right?

Pay very close attention to very particular claim fact I stated:

"In the United States, marriage to a person of one's own choosing is a Fundamental Right, subject to limited prohibitions." Do you continue to disagree with this fact?

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB

[Kemara]

Though we were talking about equality of entitlements generally, were we also including marriage as one of the entitlements begin discussed.

No we were not, we were talking about marriage being one of the methods to gain equal entitlements.

[Kemara]

DavidB...it must be such a nice world in which you live, unfortunately for me I am stuck right here in reality. I stand behind everything I said, but would be quite happy to admit I was wrong if I am shown to be so, that is yet to happen despite the bullhorn pronouncements from the world of make believe.

[DavidB]

DavidB...it must be such a nice world in which you live, unfortunately for me I am stuck right here in reality. I stand behind everything I said, but would be quite happy to admit I was wrong if I am shown to be so, that is yet to happen despite the bullhorn pronouncements from the world of make believe.

Kemara,

It is a nice world, because I am honest with myself and others. I have shown you over and over again. And you might want to pinch yourself, because you are no where near reality.

You repeatedly deny FACT, to whit United State Supreme Court case law, you maintain a position that is not supported by FACT.

Here once again is the FACT you deny:

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right in the United States. (See United States Supreme Court case Loving v. Virgina and Cleveland Board of Education)

I'll attempt once again to make it simple for you:

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ... To deny this fundamental freedom [to marry]

Loving reiterates the numerous case before it, that marriage is a fundamental right. Now onto personal choice in the fundamental right of marriage

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Fundamental right to marriage (Loving)

+personal choice in marriage which (Cleveland Board of Education)

= The Fundamental Right of marriage to a person of ones own choosing.

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB

[wenglund]

Kemara,

We have been talking about equality of entitlement.

It seems clear to me that marriage, based on Davidb is an entitlement.

Though we were talking about equality of entitlements generally, were we also including marriage as one of the entitlements begin discussed.

If you and DavidB are intent on mudding the waters by combining and/or conflating two different connotations of the word "entitlements," then you need to also factor in that domestic partnerships, too, are an entitlement.

To me, the more productive approach would be to focus on the one connotation that is in dispute (i.e. "guarantied access to benefits"), or discuss each connotation separately.

As harm as the call for CFR on harm: I would simply suggest reading about John Stuart mill's work, or even looking up the harm principle on Wikipedia. Harm is the guiding principle of modern democratic legislative systems. Will get the direct tie in to the constitution later this week when I have time.

I think it would help in answering my CFR were you to draw an important distinction between negative and positive rights, or rather between prohibitive laws where the government restricts certain liberties as contrasted with entitlement laws where the government confers certain limited rights and encourages certain behaviors. The "harm principle" applies to the former and not to the latter. Marital laws, at least as they relate to legalization of SSM, pertain to the latter and not to the former. In short, the "harm principle" isn't pertinent to the issue of legalization of SSM.

Besides, by and large, proponents and opponents in this issue tend not to be full-fledged libertarians, and as such the "harm principle" isn't a significant factor of consideration--certainly it hasn't been a factor in the court cases that I have examined. Otherwise, the question would shift from legalizing SSM to un-legalizing marriage as a whole. And, while I can respect this to be your position, I doubt that it is what Californiaboy wishes, even though he has been unwittingly touting your somewhat confused comments about "harm."

However, if "harm" comes into play at all in this legal issue, it is just the opposite from what you and Californiaboy have suggested. In simple terms, the legal argument by the plaintiffs isn't that legality of SSM shouldn't be denied for want of harm, but rather that it should be granted to prevent harm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kemara]

Ok DavidB, just for you, I will try to break this matter down into its most simple form.

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right in the United States.

For people of the opposite gender, I agree.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Kemara

[TAO]

DavidB, the court, as Wade has shown, in certain cases, doesn't think mairrage to be a fundmanetal right. It's conflicted on the issue. Can you please stop acting like the law only supports one side because it doesn't. K?

[DavidB]

DavidB, the court, as Wade has shown, in certain cases, doesn't think mairrage to be a fundmanetal right. It's conflicted on the issue. Can you please stop acting like the law only supports one side because it doesn't. K?

the Washington State Supreme Court does not establish Federal law.

And Tao, I have posted the law I have not intimated that it only applies to one side. In my posts you will find that I have maintained that marriage is a fundamental right subject to limited prohibitions. It appears, sadly, that you were distracted by kemara diversion.

[TAO]

the Washington State Supreme Court does not establish Federal law.

As far as I remember, Wade provided more examples than this. In any case, the Washington Supreme Court establishes State Law, does it not? While not Federal Law, the issue of the legality of gay mairrage hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court yet; otherwise we wouldn't be having Prop 8 go there. So one could say that the Federal Question has not been decided yet. On the other hand, has not the state question been decided in several conflicting manners?

And Tao, I have posted the law I have not intimated that it only applies to one side.

Well you've implied such. I'm wondering why Kemara even keeps continuing the disucssion when you use comments like you do; they imply that you've made up your mind and that nothing anybody says is going to change it.

In my posts you will find that I have maintained that marriage is a fundamental right subject to limited prohibitions.

And yet, you don't recognize that one of those prohibitions could be homosexuality, right?

It appears, sadly, that you were distracted by kemara diversion.

Not at all. I hardly read your guys's post. I didn't have to. I just saw you guys going after each other's throats, and ignoring each other's arguments. That to me is just futile. The point of a discussion is to acknowledge some of the opposing side's points, and neither of you are doing that at all.

Edited November 20, 2012 by TAO

[wenglund]

I'll attempt once again to make it simple for you:

Let me simplify things even further for your benefit.

I will list various documented aspects that distinguish a fundamental legal right from a non-fundamental legal right or desire, as it relates to marriage, and for each aspect I will question whether the distinguishing aspect is pertinent, or not, specific to SSM and/or to heterosexual marriage. This should tell us clearly whether or not SSM is a fundamental right, while also giving clear indication as to the actual meaning of "marriage" as a "fundamental right."

For certain kinds of "marriages" to be a fundamental or essential legal right, or a basic civil right, or a vital personal right, as opposed to it being just a simple legal or personal right or desire, it must be:

1. Directly related to the "fundamental constitutional right to procreate." (Gerber v. Hickman,) "The Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental constitutional right to procreate on several occasions. Carey v. Population Serv. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977) ("It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions `relating to marriage . . . [and] procreation.' ") (internal citations omitted); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) ("The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed `essential' . . . [and]`basic civil rights of man.' ") (internal citations omitted); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (stating that legislation deprived individuals "of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race -the right to have offspring"). The right to procreate has been recognized in a number of other cases outside the prison context.4....The Court stated that prisoner marriages are included within the fundamental right to marry.")

The rationale for the necessity that there be this direct relationship with procreation in order for certain kinds of marriage to be considered a fundamental right, aside from the fact that the fundamental right of procreation, itself, renders procreative kinds of marriages as fundamental rights, but also because from the beginnings of recorded history marriages were culturally instituted as a means of legitimizing off-spring. "Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.^[3] (see HERE). "The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[6](ibid.)

Q. Are homosexual relationships and SSM directly related to the fundamental, essential, vital, basic civil right of procreation and perpetuation of the species? Obviously, no.

Q. Are heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages directly related to the fundamental, essential, basic civil right of procreation and perpetuation of the species? Obviously, yes.

2. "...fundamental to our existence and survival" (Loving v. Virginia, see also Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), and Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888))

Q. Are homosexual relationships and SSM fundamental to our existence and survival? Obviously, no.

Q. Are heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage fundamental to our existence and survival? Obviously, yes.

3. "...essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." (ibid)

Q. Is SSM essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men? No.

Q. Is heterosexual marriage essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men? Yes, obviously, and this because of the procreative aspect of heterosexual relationships that demand an orderly pursuit, and heterosexual marriage is essential to that orderly pursuit. (Baker v. Nelson).

4. "Deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." (Washington v. Gucksberg)

Q. Is SSM deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition? Obviously, no.

Q. Is heterosexual marriage deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition? Obviously, yes.

With this having been said, there really ought not be any question that "marriage," as a fundamental right, only applies to procreative/heterosexual marriages. It can in no rational sense be considered as applicable to SSM. At best, SSM may be a simple legal right in those states where it has been legalized.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 20, 2012 by wenglund

[DavidB]

Tao, you will find that is was addressing a very specific claim kemara made. Kemara did not want address that specific claim and tried to move the goal post as it were. Look at post 346 on page 18 to see the specific claim kemara made. Given kemaras blanket all encompassing claim, I had no need to address every single prohibition on the fundamental right to marriage of ones own choosing, I did acknowledge several times that right was "subject to limited prohibitions." Not until post 381 does kemara seem to acknowledge his/her error. In helping kemara understand the truth, I had no obligation to chase the goal post kemara had moved.

First it needed to established marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right. Once that truth is accepted the limitations can be discussed.

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB

[Kemara]

Tao, you will find that is was addressing a very specific claim kemara made. Kemara did not want address that specific claim and tried to move the goal post as it were. Look at post 341 on page 18 to see the specific claim kemara made. Given kemaras blanket all encompassing claim, I had no need to address every single prohibition on the fundamental right to marriage of ones own choosing, I did acknowledge several times that right was "subject to limited prohibitions." Not until post 381 does kemara seem to acknowledge his/her error. In helping kemara understand the truth, I had no obligation to chase the goal post kemara had moved.

First it needed to established marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right. Once that truth is accepted the limitations can be discussed.

DavidB, what is my specific claim, dont just provide a quote, explain to me what you understand my specific claim is.

[wenglund]

First it needed to established marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right. Once that truth is accepted the limitations can be discussed.

What you seem unable to comprehend is that the term "marriage," in this context, clearly and unquestionably means "between a man and a woman." As evinced above, the fundamental right of marriage only pertains to adult heterosexual couples, and this because in large part, and as a general rule, they are procreative. The fundamental right of marriage can in no rational sense be considered as applicable to SSM or any other bastardization of the longstanding legal and traditional definition of "marriage." In other words, marriage is the fundamental right for a person to marry someone of the opposite sex of one's own choosing. It is not the right to marry whomever, or whatever, or how many ever.

What will it take for you to finally get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

I think it would help in answering my CFR were you to draw an important distinction between negative and positive rights, or rather between prohibitive laws where the government restricts certain liberties as contrasted with entitlement laws where the government confers certain limited rights and encourages certain behaviors. The "harm principle" applies to the former and not to the latter. Marital laws, at least as they relate to legalization of SSM, pertain to the latter and not to the former. In short, the "harm principle" isn't pertinent to the issue of legalization of SSM.

Besides, by and large, proponents and opponents in this issue tend not to be full-fledged libertarians, and as such the "harm principle" isn't a significant factor of consideration--certainly it hasn't been a factor in the court cases that I have examined. Otherwise, the question would shift from legalizing SSM to un-legalizing marriage as a whole. And, while I can respect this to be your position, I doubt that it is what Californiaboy wishes, even though he has been unwittingly touting your somewhat confused comments about "harm."

However, if "harm" comes into play at all in this legal issue, it is just the opposite from what you and Californiaboy have suggested. In simple terms, the legal argument by the plaintiffs isn't that legality of SSM shouldn't be denied for want of harm, but rather that it should be granted to prevent harm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is a good idea to bring up the positive vs negative rights. It is true that the Harm principle more expressly deals with negative rights, though this is not itself a universally accepted position.

Taking your notion that harm only applies to principles of negatives rights, not positive rights, we are still left in a quandary regarding the relationship of the positive right to marriage exclusively to hetro-sexual couples. Your assertion through out this discussion has been that such a positive right has been provided to prevent the "harm" to the greater community of a decline in childrearing, or effective childrearing. Your positive right is therefore actually a negative right

I would be very interested in a positive rights argument that is restricts marriage to hetrosexual couples that does not eventually fall back to "societal harm" resulting is less childbearing relationships (your "pet argument" as Cali boy calls it.

In all honestly, I believe that the basic element of govt. and society is the individual. I am not sure I even agree with the premise that the govt, State, or society in general should be or is concerned with its own preservation through procreation. Making this claim extends the role of govt. to an extremely intrusive degree into the private lives of citizens.

The fact is, you are just much happier with larger more intrusive govt. and govt control than I am. You are far more trusting of the govts. ability to exercise discriminatory practices than I am.

[DavidB]

DavidB, what is my specific claim, dont just provide a quote, explain to me what you understand my specific claim is.

Kemara, you have sufficiently demonstrated that you are unwilling to accept that you erred. I need only point to specific post, which are 346 (not 341) and 361. You make a specific denial in each of those post. What you meant is self evident, so I need not explain what is obvious. Especially given that in 346 you reduced an entire paragraph of mine to a single statement/sentence.

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB

[Bikeemikey]

wenglund, on 20 November 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I think it would help in answering my CFR were you to draw an important distinction between negative and positive rights, or rather between prohibitive laws where the government restricts certain liberties as contrasted with entitlement laws where the government confers certain limited rights and encourages certain behaviors. The "harm principle" applies to the former and not to the latter. Marital laws, at least as they relate to legalization of SSM, pertain to the latter and not to the former. In short, the "harm principle" isn't pertinent to the issue of legalization of SSM.

Besides, by and large, proponents and opponents in this issue tend not to be full-fledged libertarians, and as such the "harm principle" isn't a significant factor of consideration--certainly it hasn't been a factor in the court cases that I have examined. Otherwise, the question would shift from legalizing SSM to un-legalizing marriage as a whole. And, while I can respect this to be your position, I doubt that it is what Californiaboy wishes, even though he has been unwittingly touting your somewhat confused comments about "harm."

However, if "harm" comes into play at all in this legal issue, it is just the opposite from what you and Californiaboy have suggested. In simple terms, the legal argument by the plaintiffs isn't that legality of SSM shouldn't be denied for want of harm, but rather that it should be granted to prevent harm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey there Wade,

After re-reading your post a couple of times I want to confirm that you are meaning the distinction between positive and negatives rights as opposed to positive and negative liberties. Could you please confirm this as the distinction is important.

Cheers.

[wenglund]

Your assertion through out this discussion has been that such a positive right has been provided to prevent the "harm" to the greater community of a decline in childrearing, or effective childrearing. Your positive right is therefore actually a negative right.

No, not really. First, even were I to have used the negative arguments you attribute to me, those negative arguments don't mysteriously change a positive right into a negative right. It simply suggests that the positive right ought not be extended for negative reasons.

Second, my argument against legalizing SSM has primarily been that, unlike with traditional marriage, there is no rational basis for extending the positive right of marriage to same-sex couples. Advocates of SSM have failed to demonstrate a net benefit to the greater community in relation to the costs of incentivising SSM, whereas the opposite is true of traditional marriage.

Granted, as a part of my ancillary or counter-arguments, I have mentioned certain negative consequences to society at large that may likely result from legalizing SSM, like diluting the meaningfulness and value of legal marriage, which may tend to cause a decline in marriages and a rise in various things like divorce, illegitimate child-births, and single-parent families, and may subsequently result in increased crime, school drop-out rates, and poverty.

Again, though, neither my positive argument or my negative counter-arguments mystically change a positive right into a negative one, It simply means that there are both positive and negative reasons not to extend the positive right of marriage to same-sex couples.

In all honestly, I believe that the basic element of govt. and society is the individual. I am not sure I even agree with the premise that the govt, State, or society in general should be or is concerned with its own preservation through procreation. Making this claim extends the role of govt. to an extremely intrusive degree into the private lives of citizens.

In our republican democracy, the intrusion by the government into our private lives is not only greatly restricted by the Constitution, but also a function of the extent to which we, the people, allow it. We as a people have long allowed the government the very limited amount of indirect intrusion into our personal lives through licensing, regulating, and incentivizing our marriages because doing so has been to our collective net benefit.

What doesn't make sense is for us to allow this indirect intrusion into the lives of same-sex couples when not only is it unnecessary, it also doesn't make sense because there isn't a collective net benefit in doing so and may even be a collective net negative, though here again we the people have the legal right to allow this inane intrusion regardless, and in at least nine states this has happened.

Anyway, can I take your post as a tacit admission that the "harm principle" hasn't been used as a legal argument in SSM cases, let alone as an argument employed generally within the SSM debate, but is more of your own personal side issue in questioning the government's involvement in marriage all together?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 20, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Hey there Wade,

After re-reading your post a couple of times I want to confirm that you are meaning the distinction between positive and negatives rights as opposed to positive and negative liberties. Could you please confirm this as the distinction is important.

Cheers.

My distinction was between negative and positive rights (see HERE), with the understanding that negative rights are the right to be left alone or at liberty (i.e. not be restricted in one's liberty), whereas positive rights are permission to do things or entitlements to be done unto.

What I am talking about is the difference between the government taking somethings away from people (like certain liberties) as differentiated from the government giving somethings to people (entitlements). In terms of legal marriage, it is the latter, whereas the "harm principle" pertains to the former.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Kemara]

Kemara, you have sufficiently demonstrated that you are unwilling to accept that you erred. I need only point to specific post, which are 346 (not 341) and 361. You make a specific denial in each of those post. What you meant is self evident, so I need not explain what is obvious. Especially given that in 346 you reduced an entire paragraph of mine to a single statement/sentence.

Hahaha, you are funny but unfortunately for you completely transparent. You are avoiding the issue at all costs, which is why you initially refused to answer my questions and then resorted to distortions, misrepresentations and a smoke screen you have labelled my diversion. It is the reason why you are refusing to answer my latest legitimate question.

I gave you a chance to come clean voluntarily, you refused my kind offer. So let’s get to the issue you are trying to avoid:

You claim:

I have posted the law I have not intimated that it only applies to one side

You entire argument against me rests on that statement specific statement being true. Unfortunately for you it is not true and you know it and you are now trying to change the nature of our discussion and have attempted to shift the goal posts under cover of a smoke screen labelled my diversion.

The original post of mine that you responded to was this:

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.(emphasis mine)

You responded with this:

No.

The United States does not follow a "separate but equal" viewpoint. Marriage is what people are asking for. Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a Fundemental Right in the United State - subject to polygamy laws, incest laws, age laws, and blood relation laws. And before any even tries to use those laws to maintain a ban on ssm, YOU MUST FIRST identify the reason(s) that States have chosen to have such laws. After you identify the reason for the law, then we can analyze said law under Perry v. Schwarznager and subsequent Appeal.

I responded to your original post with this:

No? Really? You mean there is no way that laws could be repealed, modified and changed through legislature to give all persons equality of entitlements. It is equality of entitlement we are discussing here.

The context and nature of the discussion was specifically on the rights of homosexuals, we were not discussing the rights of heterosexuals. This is evidenced by other posters:

That is correct - but for a number of those opposed to SSM are opposed to it as they do not want homosexuals to have these legal entitlements, especially equal tax status.

What really got you worked up was the fact that I responded to this statement:

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a Fundemental Right in the United State - subject to polygamy laws, incest laws, age laws, and blood relation laws.

with this:

No it is not, if it was then we would not be having this discussion.

You getting all worked up is irrelevant to the fact that my reply was in the nature and context of the discussion – homosexual rights. My questions to you of

Do homosexuals in the US currently have the legal right to marry another homosexual of their own choosing?

1. Does a person in the US currently have the legal right to marry another person, of their own choosing, who is of the same gender?

2. In all except 9 states and districts is one of the current prohibitions same gender marriage?

were well inside any reasonable interpretation of the nature and context of the discussion – homosexual rights. Your claim that I am diverting this issue with my legitimate and contextually accurate questions is nothing short of utter nonsense.

It is too late for you to claim that you were not aware that this was the nature and context of my reply to you. You understood very well that the nature and context of the discussion was in relation to homosexual rights:

One of legal entitlements is the term "marriage" so no it is not possible. To get all the entitlements ssm is required.

There it is in your own words, there is no doubt that you understood the nature and context of the discussion was in relation to homosexual rights.

So when you posted the law you did indeed intimate that it applied to homosexual rights and I am not alone in understanding your posts in this way. In response to your claim that you did not intimate that it only applies to one side:

Well you've implied such.

I disagree with TAO, you didn’t imply anything, your made you position very clear.

Your current position, that your posting of the law did not intimate that it applied to one side, was made after the fact. It is no coincidence that you attempted to change your position after it was shown to be completely illogical.

Given kemaras blanket all encompassing claim...

I did not such thing. My claim was made within the nature and context of discussion - homosexual rights. My questions to you were withint the nature and context of the discussion - homosexual rights and not heterosexual rights which you very well know.

It is you who is obfuscating this issue, it is you who is shifting the goal posts, it is you who will not admit when you are wrong, it is you who has been attempting to divert, it is you who has attempted to change the nature and context of this discussion. It would be much better for you to simply admitted that are you wrong so we can move on. If not, that is ok with me, I dont mind pointing out your nonsense.