In response to:

The Constitutional Perils of Recognizing Gay Unions

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 11:35 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why the government should care if one man agrees to let another put his genitals in his rectum. Homosexuality advocates successfully argued to get the government out of their bedroom, and now marriage neutering advocates want the government back in it. The govt does have a legitimate interest in distinguishing marriage, which involves the uniting of the sexes, from other relationshipships, and having them registered with the government if they want.
t252 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 12:12 PM
"Homosexuality advocates successfully argued to get the government out of their bedroom"
No, that's not what they are arguing. What they are arguing is that homo sexual deviance is the same as normalsy.
du2 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 12:30 PM
If you'd seen the court arguments, read the transcripts and understood the proceedings, what they were arguing was for the right to take care of each other. Extend pensions, property and other financial and familial protections to each other and their children. They were arguing that they were contributing to society with their work, taxes (much higher than what other married people pay), and other responsibilities, so denying them the full of rights that go with the full of responsibilities is wrong. It IS normal to hold down a job, blend household assets, adopt children with no one, and pay taxes. And you can't argue it isn't.
The gov't can't indulge your denial of that.
t252 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 1:27 PM
I most certainly can argue that homosexual behavior is deviant behavior. And that deviant behavior is harmful to society.
Jack2894 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 2:29 PM
t252. First, you can argue anything. But, whether you make a real case is a different issue. You can argue the first, because it is a statistical fact. However, you can't make much of a case a case that all deviant behavior is harmful to society. There are too many counter examples. You can only argue that a specific behavior is harmful.

Even after you do that, you have to make a case that the deviant behavior is harmful enough that the state has an over-riding interest in preventing it. That is the point SUllum is making
Jack2894 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 2:30 PM
ALso 7252, you may want to check out this handy guide for rational argument. http://twentytwowords.com/2011/03/15/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/

David3036 Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 7:52 PM
Married couples are not required to engage in sexual behavior, and it isn't anyone else's business whether they do or don't. The issue is about legal rights for couples that are committed to one another.

Get your mind out of the gutter and stop considering this issue to be all about sexual behavior. That is something that will not change whether people are married or not.
peaceman Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 10:14 PM
t252...you can argue that the Moon is blue cheese and have the right to express your opinion, but not to legislate it. It's more transparent to argue for the basic equal rights under the Constitution that simply provides a legal basis for two people who choose to live together. So regardless of whether they have the same or opposite plumbing, as du2 put it that "denying them the full of rights that go with the full of responsibilities is wrong", it is understood that they are human beings and citizens first, and therefore are to be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. You have the right to express a different opinion regarding their choice but the not the right to deny them these rights. That's what freedom is all about...so
peaceman Wrote: Mar 06, 2013 10:16 PM
cont....you can argue deviancy all you like, it's just your opinion and nothing more. That it's harmful to society is an idea that's never seen the 'light of day' for being anything close to accurate. The studies on same-sex versus hetero-sex has put that BS to rest. Time to grow up and join the rest of us
du2 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 1:13 PM
@t252: A retort, and an ignorant one, won't make your case. Gay couples who are professionals, participate in the general welfare through taxation and abide by all the civil laws, ARE normal and responsible. They are not CRIMINALS that are a social problem to anyone. Even incarcerated criminals or people with a history of violence can marry. So, you can't make a case that homosexuality is deviant behavior worthy of denying an innocent gay couple the happiness and responsibility they have earned as GOOD citizens. Unless you can argue in a court of law, gay people are harming anyone by marrying, then you have no argument but and empty one.
But I can't stop you from banging your head against that wall.

When President Obama endorsed gay marriage last year, he said the issue should be left to the states. Last week, he said it shouldn't.

To be more precise, a Supreme Court brief filed by the Obama administration last Thursday argues that California's ban on gay marriage denies homosexuals the "equal protection of the laws" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Although the brief focuses on Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that overturned a California Supreme Court decision requiring the state to recognize gay marriages, its logic suggests that a policy Obama himself rejected less than a year ago is...