[iamzack]

They had the law on their side. They didn't have to prove anything. They just had to give the judge doubts about our side's case. Their experts didn't seem to know what side they were on.

[Nuclear1]

I still don't understand why it's any of their damned business in the first place.

[TrashMan]

Moved all that junk to the split thread. Any more discussion here will be pruned.

Finally! I've been trying to stop the de-rail from going any further anyway.

[Sushi]

Godwinned.

I would really, really like to move away from the 'omg homos lol' aspect of this--drop biology, drop religion--and just talk about the SECULAR LEGAL implications of this trial.

Anyone agree?

That's sorta the point. They had no real secular reason for it. That's why these guys are floundering on the stand. When asked why it should be banned, all they have is "ew gays"

The reason why it's an issue at all is simply that people want to live in a society that reflects their moral code. And there is nothing wrong with that. Marriage is a social structure before it is a legal structure, and as long as everyone agreed on what constituted a valid marriage there was no problem having a legal structure that enshrined the social structure. That consensus no longer exists, which is why gay marriage is an issue at all.

Since there is a legal structure tied into the social structure of marriage, both people in favor of advancing gay marriage and people against it are trying to use the legal structure to enforce their preferred version of the social structure. This was a social problem before it became a legal problem though, and, IMHO, a legal solution isn't ever going to really fix it. Either American society will change to the point where gay marriage is solidly accepted/rejected, or it will continue to be a point of division. This is a bit scary to me, because historically big social divides that people couldn't solve have led to either war or by emigration (e.g. the Mayflower). And we're kind of out of places to emigrate to...

I don't think either side has a right to enforce their view of marriage when it is now so far from being the consensus, so IMO the best bet for peace will probably be to get government out of the marriage business, at least by that name, at least until some sort of consensus is restored (if ever). It's not ideal, but I think it's better than the alternatives.

I also think it's important to recognize that this is a real division with good, smart people on both sides. Let's stop calling each other things like "commie athiest heathens" and "religion-deluded wingnuts."

[Thaeris]

<Thaeris gives Sushi Mad Props.  >

[General Battuta]

Thaeris, cut that out.

Sushi, while I generally respect your argument, there has never been agreement as to what constituted a valid marriage. Something like 80% of all human societies have been polygynic, for instance. Things change. What we think is normal today is yesterday's aberration.

Furthermore, I'm concerned that you're kind of skirting the fundamental problem that there is something very morally wrong with opposing gay marriage. It's like arbitrarily saying that people under 5' can't hold office.

If you consider marriage a religious institution, fine, whatever. But as soon as it becomes a social institution (with social benefits) and a legal one (with notable legal benefits), denying it to a portion of the population becomes very problematic.

Never mind that straight people are doing pretty badly at marriage and could probably use some help.

[Sushi]

Sushi, while I generally respect your argument, there has never been agreement as to what constituted a valid marriage. Something like 80% of all human societies have been polygynic, for instance. Things change. What we think is normal today is yesterday's aberration.

There may never have been global consensus, but there certainly has been within specific societies in specific time periods. That's the level I'm talking about here, sorry if that wasn't clear. And you're right: things change. Friction happens when different parts of a society are changing in different directions at the same time.

Furthermore, I'm concerned that you're kind of skirting the fundamental problem that there is something very morally wrong with opposing gay marriage.

The fundamental problem is that people don't agree on what is morally right in this situation. A lot of people believe that there is something very morally wrong with supporting gay marriage. That's my whole point: there's a fundamental social divide going on here, and I don't think that it can be resolved justly by using legal avenues to force one side or the other. Either one side needs to convince the other (without forcing the issue), or we are going to have to learn to somehow live with this disagreement over social structure.

If you consider marriage a religious institution, fine, whatever. But as soon as it becomes a social institution (with social benefits) and a legal one (with notable legal benefits), denying it to a portion of the population becomes very problematic.

I agree. The thing is, using the law to enforce a change in the social institution over the wishes of a large portion of that society is also problematic. That's why I think the best solution will probably be to get government out of marriage. It won't heal the social divide, but it will help by making it so that government doesn't become a weapon for each side to use against the other. It's a lot more conducive to "I think you're wrong, but we can both live and let live."

[General Battuta]

Fair enough.

Although the general trend suggests that attitudes on gay marriage, unlike those on abortion, are steadily becoming more and more favorable. In a few decades I imagine the rift will be largely healed.

[Bobboau]

oh, that's just fine! when I made that exact argument last thread I had everyone try to behead me.

[General Battuta]

Well, let me clarify.

I think that using the law to effect a social change against the wishes of a large part of the population is sometimes necessary. In this case, I would support it. It is the moral imperative.

[iamzack]

The thing is, using the law to enforce a change in the social institution over the wishes of a large portion of that society is also problematic.

Loving vs Virginia

[General Battuta]

Yeah. That's the kind of thing I'm thinking of.

I think you can legislate morality. People get used to it. And when that legislation is in line with the overwhelming liberal trend (I mean philosophically liberal, not politically liberal - we're talking liberties, not 'liberal politics') of history, I think it's a safe bet.

[Sushi]

I think that using the law to effect a social change against the wishes of a large part of the population is sometimes necessary. In this case, I would support it. It is the moral imperative.

Loving vs Virginia

Maybe, but doesn't that make you a bit nervous? I mean, sure, it's all well and good if the government is actually doing the right thing... but we give them the power to do force social change, what's to stop them from using that power for evil as well?

It makes me nervous. Sure, social progress without government intervention is going to be longer and harder... but it's also a lot more free. I guess that's important to me. I'd rather the progress be based on persuasion and voluntary change, even if it is slower. I'm not comfortable with putting any government in charge of shaping society.

[SpardaSon21]

Color me odd, but I really don't want government to start legislating what is moral and immoral.  If that happens, then whoever controls the government can legislate their particular brand of morality and force it on everyone else.  It may be good if the government is espousing classically liberal and pro-freedom policies, but if a group less concerned with freedom and more about control gets a grip on the reins of power, then it's a very bad thing.

[General Battuta]

I think that I don't want the government to legislate what's moral and what's immoral. I want the government to preserve fundamental, universal human rights.

So, SpardaSon, you would prefer that the government not make any legislation regarding abortion or marriage?

[Bobboau]

free broad band internet and cars are now fundamental human rights.
oh, and lets not forget about intellectual property, it's a fundamental human right too.
note, it's not me saying this it's the next round of congress, what do you do then now that this precedent has been set.

[iamzack]

I think that using the law to effect a social change against the wishes of a large part of the population is sometimes necessary. In this case, I would support it. It is the moral imperative.

Loving vs Virginia

Maybe, but doesn't that make you a bit nervous? I mean, sure, it's all well and good if the government is actually doing the right thing... but we give them the power to do force social change, what's to stop them from using that power for evil as well?

It makes me nervous. Sure, social progress without government intervention is going to be longer and harder... but it's also a lot more free. I guess that's important to me. I'd rather the progress be based on persuasion and voluntary change, even if it is slower. I'm not comfortable with putting any government in charge of shaping society.

It IS using that power for evil by banning gay marriage. Duh.

[General Battuta]

Right, precisely.

[mxlm]

I think that I don't want the government to legislate what's moral and what's immoral. I want the government to preserve fundamental, universal human rights.

Explain the difference, please.

I mean, I think marriage is a fundamental human right, and that homosexuals should enjoy that right (and I will punch in the face [internet tough guy. grr] the first jackass who says "but gay people can marry!"). I just don't see how that is unrelated to my beliefs about morality.

[General Battuta]

The difference is, what's at issue here is equality: an arbitrary segregation of one group from another.