It's in the Declaration of Independence!

[Athelwulf]

An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I emphasized "the pursuit of happiness", because that is in relation to what I'm going to talk about.

Humans are social creatures. We all need to be in the company of other human beings, lest we become mentally ill. Along with the need for company is the need for partnership. This is a much deeper need. We all need to feel very close to another human being, lest we feel detatched from the surrounding world. We feel whole when we feel very close to another.

A related need is the need for security. If we don't feel safe, we don't enjoy life. Feeling close to another human being helps with this need.

Another related need is the need to trust someone. Feeling like we can't trust anyone can make us feel detatched from the rest of the world.

The needs for security and to trust someone are tied together. If we are somehow incapable of communicating a critical decision, then we feel vulnerable. We need to feel secure. What will help with this need? Someone that is close enough to us to know what decision we would make, and we can trust will communicate that decision.

A fulfillment of these particular needs helps to make us happy. Makes sense, right?

"What's your point," you ask? My point is:

Homosexual marriages are justified.

Here's a scenario:

Partners A and B, an elderly homosexual couple, are in a car driving down a street. Both partners are very close to each other. They know they can trust each other.

Another car crashes into the side of the car Partner A is in. Partner B is fairly okay, just a few bruises. Partner A, however, is unconscious.

An ambulance had been called when a pedestrian saw the car crash. The ambulance takes Partner A to the hospital.

Partner B arrives at the hospital and tries to visit Partner A.

"How are you related? Are you a sibling?"
"No, I'm the significant other."
"I'm sorry, but I can't let you see your partner."
"But I need to see my partner so I know if everything's okay."
"I can't let you. It's the law. I'm really very sorry."

End scenario.

This leads to a commonly-heard argument used by those that support gay marriages: if denied the right to marry, one partner can't be automatically granted the right to see the other partner in the hospital.

Imagine being Partner A, thinking about this scenario. You wouldn't feel very secure in this situation. You would feel afraid for your life. No one is there to communicate for you. You would feel happy if Partner B could actually see you and be able to make any critical decisions for you.

This ties back into the Declaration of Independence. The right to pursue happiness is an unalienable right.

Ammendments have recently been written into the constitutions of eleven US states that alienate this right. I dare you to tell me from your heart that those ammendments were right and just!

That is all. Thank you for reading. Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness for all!

- Âðelwulf

 

[Athelwulf]

It's nearly been two days, and no one has posted an objection. I'm assuming I've finally gotten through to ya pesky Christian right-wingers.

 

[cardiovascular_tech]

I will reply to this, peoples rights get violated every single day what do you expect gays rights to be excluded from this. I personally am straight but if it makes them happy so freakin what let them be together there gonna be anyways. As far as marriage is concerned no not in the house of god or in the eye of god because the church has never allowed it, so make up your own religon and have the states recognize it as a religon theres always ways around shit.

 

[guthrie]

"so make up your own religon and have the states recognize it as a religon theres always ways around shit. "

Now theres an idea. MAke it part of your religious ceremonies and a necessity for being an important part of the congregation or something, and take it from there.

 

[Athelwulf]

Now theres an idea. MAke it part of your religious ceremonies and a necessity for being an important part of the congregation or something, and take it from there.

I don't think that would work. Have ya seen Satanism becoming more powerful?

 

[cardiovascular_tech]

actually yes I have, some states have even excepted satanism as a religon look it up and you will see, also in the court of law you can not deny ones religon

 

[Athelwulf]

If Mormons aren't allowed to marry more than one person, I doubt that homosexuals would be allowed to marry if they had their own religion.

I still don't see anyone objecting. This is making me feel pretty good.

Cardio, what do ya think of my argument?

 

[cardiovascular_tech]

I think you have a pretty good and strong argument

 

[Athelwulf]

Oh, Danke.

 

[Bad Christian]

It's a fairly weak argument. First of all, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. Slavery was instituted as it was written. Obviously, taken into context, it applies only to those citizens who matter.

Second, I could say the right to happiness means that I'm entitled to do whatever I want to make myself happy. It's a weak statement that can be skewed into anything, much like religion.

If it is contrary to other's pursuit of happiness(or the public good) then the society can stifle certain minorities' rights. At least, that's there take on it.

I agree that banning gay marriage is unjust, but this isn't the way to argue it.

The preamble is in the Constitution, though:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Is banning gay marriage unlawful constitutionally? There are also amendments in the Constitution about discrimination...

 

[Athelwulf]

Bad Christian,

First of all, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

I don't think it matters. Our founding fathers wrote both documents. I think they were meant to be in a way connected.

I could say the right to happiness means that I'm entitled to do whatever I want to make myself happy.

Not if it wouldn't actually make ya happy.

If it is contrary to other's pursuit of happiness(or the public good) then the society can stifle certain minorities' rights.

I seriously doubt that granting rights to minorities would ever restrict any other person's pursuit of happiness.

 

[Athelwulf]

Bad Christian, (again )

Is banning gay marriage unlawful constitutionally?

I certainly believe so.

There are also amendments in the Constitution about discrimination...

Which ones? I wanna read them.

 

[Bad Christian]

I don't think it matters. Our founding fathers wrote both documents. I think they were meant to be in a way connected.

What is your explanation of slavery, then?

Not if it wouldn't actually make ya happy.

Oh, but it would make me very happy to kill some people. Very happy. I would also be very happy to I stole large amounts of money to become rich. I can pursue happiness within society's constraints. And all society's have constraints, otherwise known as laws. None of us are truly free to pursue our happiness.

I seriously doubt that granting rights to minorities would ever restrict any other person's pursuit of happiness.

If you haven't noticed, the institution of marriage is dying a fairly quick death. It began as way to allow women to stay at home and raise children, and structure the family. Now most people are waiting longer to marry and not having children. Women aren't staying at home much. Some of the special rights granted to married people need to be extended to cohabitating people, perhaps?

Besides which, why should the right to visit one's significant other in the hospital be reserved to spouses? I probably don't have special visitation rights to visit my girlfriend when she's in the hospital. That's just as unjust. My right to "pursue happiness" is being infringed.

The problem is that the community has a vested interest in promoting straight marriage to produce children. Despite what your modern mind might think, we need some well-adjusted, homegrown children to populate the earth when we die.

 

[Athelwulf]

What is your explanation of slavery, then?

People should not be enslaved, either, since that restricts their rights of liberty and happiness.

Slavery was abolished. The general public nowadays (to my knowledge) doesn't believe the blacks should be their slaves. We could reach that mindset in the future if we could all finally realize that banning gay marriage restrics rights too.

Oh, but it would make me very happy to kill some people. Very happy. I would also be very happy to I stole large amounts of money to become rich.

Ha! No it wouldn't. Think about it. Would ya really be very happy if ya killed someone? If ya stole money?

Sure, ya might feel happy for a bit, but ya wouldn't actually be happy.

Besides which, why should the right to visit one's significant other in the hospital be reserved to spouses? I probably don't have special visitation rights to visit my girlfriend when she's in the hospital. That's just as unjust. My right to "pursue happiness" is being infringed.

Perhaps it is. That should be done away with, as well. But for now, let's focus on the topic at hand.

The problem is that the community has a vested interest in promoting straight marriage to produce children. Despite what your modern mind might think, we need some well-adjusted, homegrown children to populate the earth when we die.

And why can't homosexual couples assist us with that? There are couples that have children, either through adoption or from previous heterosexual couplings. I personally know two people from my school, sisters, that are being raised by their mom and her lesbian partner. I'd say they are well rounded.

Also, we have plenty of people. And the heterosexuals are messing around way too much with way too many people. I don't think allowing gay marriage would stunt the growth of population any more than the homosexuals have already just by being homosexual.

 

[Bad Christian]

Ha! No it wouldn't. Think about it. Would ya really be very happy if ya killed someone? If ya stole money?

Oh please. You are no psychologist. Trust me when I say that if I got away with it, I would be happy. If you think that crime never leads to true happiness, you are very naive. Sometimes, for example, murder is justified. Vengeance can be sweet. It's a natural drive. I have no empathy for those undeserving of it.

Still, you can't simply dismiss this by saying 'no, you won't be happy'. You have to have evidence, or at the very least, some logic behind why it wouldn't.

Also, this isn't about whether certain actions will lead to happiness. This is whether I can take the actions in the interests of pursuing happiness. I can pursue happiness in whatever way I think will lead to happiness. Whether becoming homosexual truly leads to happiness is debatable. Whether murder leads to happiness is also debatable. But both the homosexual and the murderer believes his practices will lead to his happiness - he's pursuing it, whether its right or wrong.

Perhaps it is. That should be done away with, as well. But for now, let's focus on the topic at hand.

Good. We abolish the special visitation rights of married couples, extend it to people who are 'together', and things are just fine. What's your new argument?

How is gays' 'pursuit of happiness' being infringed upon by them not being allowed to marry?

 

[cardiovascular_tech]

think of it this way the slavery was a big factor in the civil war.

as far as your girlfriend not being able to see you in the hospital thats complete horseshit, I was in a serious car wreak in 2002 and broke my neck at my C5 C6 level and they called my girlfriend for me to let her know and was allowed to stay with me.

as far as it goes with breaking laws to gain happiness I don't see it keeping laws in place to protect ones goods or money or life is fine but making laws to prohibit ones binding love to another person is different and unjust, I am neither for nor against gay marriage so I am giving a so called non-partisan view you can say.

I also agree that marriage is on the downside right now and everyone where you look you see someone getting divorced or who has been divorced, I myself have been divorced. About the only people I know who isn't now days are my parents and my girlfriends parents and even she is divorced.

as far as populating the earth with children trust me its happening at a rate thats not being controlled look at the welfare system and you can see that, but the fact of the matter is no matter if your hetro or homo its not going to change no matter if you like it I like it or the government likes it or not.

 

[Tiassa]

Jane vs. The Rape Machine - Or, "The Fourteenth Amendment"

Is banning gay marriage unlawful constitutionally? There are also amendments in the Constitution about discrimination.

I believe it is, according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot discriminate against gender. Trying to make it about homosexuality as a class is something that the Court, in 1986, reached back to pre-colonial English common law in order to find a basis to support the anti-sodomy standard set in Bowers (and recently overturned in Lawrence). I think it's much simpler than that: you cannot discriminate against gender.

Look at the nearest person to you of the same gender (A). Look at someone of the opposite gender (B). Person B has a right you don't have, and that is to enter into a legally binding contract of marriage, with certain legal benefits, with person A. The difference is that you're the wrong gender.

• • •​

I would ask you to consider theoretically Jane, an affirmed lesbian cannot enter into a marriage with her partner, Mary. She claims to be discriminated against because her gender is being held against her ability to enter into a marriage. Ah, says the traditionalist, but you do have the right to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite gender. That is your equal right.

Consider, please: There is a legal word pertaining to marriage--"consummation". Quite literally, getting laid is an official part of getting married. You can have a marriage annulled--that is, voided from the record in order to say you've never been married--on grounds of non-consummation. Thus, in order to obtain her equal right by marrying a person of the opposite gender, Jane must consent to sexual relations she does not want. She must, essentially, consent to be raped in order to enact her equal right.

I consider such a demand barbaric. Where else in these United States is rape a prerequisite to equality?

• • •​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amendment XIV, Section 1

• • •​

Is it really, as the Declaration has it, "happiness" that Jane pursues in marrying the opposite gender? In terms of the Constitution, what does the price of her equality lend the general welfare? Is that price really one of the "blessings" of liberty?

The current state of affairs seems untenable, a grotesque absurdity of the American experience.

 

[Athelwulf]

Impressive, tiassa.

 

[Bad Christian]

I believe it is, according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot discriminate against gender.

The Equal Rights Amendment has failed several times. I don't disagree, but for some reason it is controversial.

I would ask you to consider theoretically Jane, an affirmed lesbian cannot enter into a marriage with her partner, Mary. She claims to be discriminated against because her gender is being held against her ability to enter into a marriage. Ah, says the traditionalist, but you do have the right to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite gender. That is your equal right.

Neither gender has the right to marry homosexually. Neither is being denied a right that another has. Therefore, they aren't being discriminated based on gender.

Consider, please: There is a legal word pertaining to marriage--"consummation". Quite literally, getting laid is an official part of getting married. You can have a marriage annulled--that is, voided from the record in order to say you've never been married--on grounds of non-consummation. Thus, in order to obtain her equal right by marrying a person of the opposite gender, Jane must consent to sexual relations she does not want. She must, essentially, consent to be raped in order to enact her equal right.

Ah, but it swings both ways. Women can rape men, after all. There's no gender bias there - at least not on paper. In practice, yes, you might say that women are the only ones raped by the act of consumnation, but you must admit that such an argument is rather sexist.

Besides, marriage has never been platonic, and there is no reason why we should change it from its traditional definition to a vastly more secular definition. Just legalize civil unions - less confusion. That's more like a straight partnership.

 

[Tiassa]

Bad Christian

I believe the argument against the ERA goes something like, "It's unnecessary".

Whether or not that argument bears any validity depends entirely on perspective. While I see the point of the argument--e.g. the Fourteenth Amendment should suffice--I don't see it validated in practice.

Neither gender has the right to marry homosexually. Neither is being denied a right that another has. Therefore, they aren't being discriminated based on gender.

If I am not allowed to enter into a contract of marriage with another person on the basis of my gender, I'm being discriminated against on the basis of my gender. One possible solution is to remove all legal recognition of marriage; get the government out of it entirely.

Ah, but it swings both ways. Women can rape men, after all. There's no gender bias there - at least not on paper. In practice, yes, you might say that women are the only ones raped by the act of consumnation, but you must admit that such an argument is rather sexist.

And in that you miss the point: Rape should not be a prerequisite for anybody's equal rights.

Besides, marriage has never been platonic, and there is no reason why we should change it from its traditional definition to a vastly more secular definition.

The reason is because there is certain legal recognition that come with marriage. That recognition must be applied equally or else scrapped.

Just legalize civil unions - less confusion. That's more like a straight partnership.

"Separate but equal" is a generally repugnant standard. The Supreme Court doesn't like it, but accepts it in rare cases. Nonetheless, as young women, for instance, are being allowed access to their high school football teams over policy objections, the standard is viewed anew even in the context of its classic "necessary" bulwark, Title IX. Furthermore, a separate but equal institution would, in this case, be intended to discriminate for no good reason, which returns us directly to the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, if we end public recognition of marriage and institute civil unions as the standard contract for either heterosexual or homosexual couples, I'll accept that outcome. And it will be simpler, as well.