As the morality of society changes, the interpretation of various words and laws also changes. "Equality", when the United States was founded, meant equality for white male protestant property owners. The very concept of equality, however, and so these words are interpreted in a new light.

These sorts of reinterpretations are important for society, as they force society to choose between the stated propaganda ("All men are created equal") and actually living up to it (All men, including women/blacks/gays/Asians/catholics, are created equal). Sometimes the Court is

The people always have the option of electing a government that will create a law (or amend a constitution) to override the court on a specific matter.



If any sort of large scale purge takes place in the legal system, the independence of the judiciary will be compromised. The reason a judiciary exists is to interpret how the law is, largely free from democratic influences. If a purge takes place every time a controversial ruling is issued, balance is not maintained.

Instead of purging the judiciary, why not instead lobby your representatives to overturn a ruling you dislike by creating a new law, as is provided for under our system of jurisprudence?

Not that I think you have a rational basis for such a petition, of course, since I don't think you have a rational basis for disliking homosexuality. Hence, I would challenge you to defend your position here.

So, in your opinion, the judiciary has to power to say that times have changed and so has their interpretation of the laws due to changed meanings of words so they can basically create laws themselves? It seems that this is not a separation of power but it giving the judiciary too much. What does the Constitution specify as reasons for ousting them?

Interpreting law isn't the same thing as creating law.  I agree with Zasch that wanton sacking of appointed judges would threaten their ability to act as impartial abiters.  I know that you believe that they are a bunch of ivory tower liberals intent on stomping down your basic rights, but the vast majority of cases are decided in ways that preserve the status quo.

Ultimately, gay rights is a constitutional issue.  At the heart of any debate is the first section of the 14th amendment which establishes that persons can not be denied equal protection of the law.  The question at hand then is just what constitutes "equal".  Is it sufficient that every person be granted the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, or does equality dictate that we allow every person to marry a person to whom they are attracted?  I hope that we can at least agree that people should not be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" based on their sexual orientation.

Anyway, I doubt that we'll see any agreement on what constitutes "equal rights" but I'd like to at least see us discuss the issue from a more logical perspective rather than just throwing baseless accusations of lawmaking at the government.

But when considering these issues we must base it on what the founders intended and not what those in power wish it to mean.

I disagree. The founding fathers existed in a period where racism, sexism, and aristocracy were the norm. We ought to follow what best actualises our social value of liberalism, not some mystic "what the founding fathers wanted".

So, how do we determine that? Doesn't this go against the Constitution which allows itself to be amended? I am just curious, how educated would you say you are about the lives of our founding fathers?

How do we determine that? We have a judicial system to determine that.

No, it doesn't at all, since the Constitution gives the judicial system these powers to determine whether laws are compatible with the Constitution. Some judges take a strict, literal interpretation and some take a looser interpretation, but that is within the powers of the judiciary.

I'm educated enough to know that the political climate at the time was nothing like it is today.

But generally, you seem to be avoiding the moral debate about what *ought* be done, what *ought* be reality. Appealing to the authority of the founding fathers does not work in such moral debates, because the founding fathers are not commonly agreed upon to be the arbiters of morality.

See, what I'm advocating is nondiscrimination in the for-profit sphere.

When it comes to gay marriage: I may be biased, but for me marriage should not be about raising children*, but rather about raising stable family units. I personally believe that loving two-person relationships contribute to the stability of society. Thus, on this criterion, I have to affirm gay marriage unless I try to say that gays are incapable of love.
*On the issue of raising children, I don't particularly believe that gay marriage does any harm whatsoever. Basically:

1. Even if we affirm gay marriage, this does not harm the status quo at all. That is to say: Nobody is going to go around stealing children from heterosexual households and putting them in homosexual households, and thus there really is no difference in the children situation whether gays get marriage or not.

2. I do not believe that two gay parents are "worse" than 2 heterosexual or 1 parent households. I would prefer that children be in the home of the biological parents, but if this is not possible then it no longer becomes a point for me whether they are in a nonbiological heterosexual or nonbiological homosexual household.
Especially with regard to adoption, I think that if we have a loving family that wants to accept a child, we should judge that family on its merits: Whether they are able to support the child and whether they would provide a caring environment for the child.


3. I think that, by allowing gays to marry, it will lessen the social stigma against them which will continue to promote loving family units as homosexuality becomes yet another "nonissue" - the psychological development of young gay men or women will not be adversely affected because of the discrimination they face in society. As well, there is an incentive to marriage, and thus I think it will promote this family unit even more.

Thus, since I see the harms as 0, and the potential benefits as being great, it seems rational for me to support gay marriage.

I'm always very puzzled by the opposition to gay marriage by those who claim to espouse family values, because it seems like marriage between loving people would actualise family values, since it actualises the family. By going against gay marriage, not only do we fight the family directly (by not allowing them to legally form) but we fight them socially as well (by causing mental problems in those who have to endure the discrimination that results when society specifically says "You can't get married because you are inferior").

Indeed, I've never really understood why this issue is controversial at all. Hence why I've been trying to direct this to a discussion of homosexuality itself: I don't understand the "opposition" to it, and I want to understand. Since Mr. Mulholland seems to be a conservative, and since you Debator seem to be at least somewhat conservative on this subject, perhaps either of you could enlighten me.

I used to be part of the fight against gay marriage and civil unions a while ago. I am not as up to date as I once was but I will give it a go. You have already heard my major opposition as to discrimination so I don't need to go there again. I also have very strong religious beliefs but I don't think you are interested in those at this time either. I will try to present arguments beyond these then. So, here we go.....

First of all, what are the limits on homosexual marriage? Can two brothers get married? How about a son and father? Why or why not? Do you think that polygamy should be legal? They are all consenting adults.

And then we have the issues of education. Many believe that homosexuality is a sin. How is this to be addressed in school? That it OK or not OK are will this be a taboo subject. Well lets look at how it has been handled in Mass where it has been legalized. GLSEN has handed out graphic how to books to junior high kids, I believe without parental consent. Is this OK or is it considered pornography by most? How about the sex surveys to sixth graders without parent consent? How about teaching them about homosexuality at an early age without parental consent? This is what I was talking about with parental rights being eroded. What about the peer pressure ostrasization against those who oppose homosexuality by their classmates and faculty as I explained happened in CT?

We can even look at it from the perspective of a major cultural shift. We don't know what will happen if we allow homosexual marriage. What effects will having two moms or two dads have on a kid? These raise some serious questions and create some big concerns where little data has been gathered. I am providing a link later to a group which has done some work looking at this issue.

But the last point I want to make is the religious and historical belief that societies which tolerate it are destroyed. I think that this is a prevailing belief through Christians in this nation. The successes that homosexual marriages have had are when the people in general are not involved in the process. It has either been judges or state legislatures which have made the decisions. Now, the state legislature incident was in CT and I think that if people would have voted on it then it would have been rejected but their system is different then most and the people cannot start the legislation as they can in UT.

http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/category/same-sex-marriage/ is a good link to a group I used to work with. They have a lot of arguments against same sex marriage which may interest you and have researched the issue much better than I have.

I hope that this will help you understand the other side better.

For the same reason that a mother and son cannot get a heterosexual marriage, I suppose.
The wider question, "Why can't we legalise marriage between two consenting people?"...one answer that a person might give is that marriage is intended to reflect a specific type of love, because only the union of that specific type of love contributes to social stability. For instance, the love between a mother and a son is different because they are biological family, and they recognise themselves as such. It perhaps does not have a sexual component, or whatever, but it is qualitatively different.



What do you mean "how to" books? At least, I don't remember ever reading any how-to books when I was in junior high, so I might be opposed to that. I'd have to think about it more, though.
As a general thing, though, sex education definitely ought to include a component about homosexuality, gay sex, etc.



I'm not opposed to them teaching the existence of homosexuality - schools are meant to educate about how the world is, and so it would be intellectually dishonest for them not to teach it's existence, even if it is controversial.



As long as all their legal rights are protected, there isn't much we can do about it. I do see peer pressure against those who oppose homosexuality as being worse than those who are homosexual, though.



Except that gay marriage has little to do with this...see my above arguments (1 in particular)



See, I've heard this argument before, but it doesn't seem valid to me at all: It seems like a very very narrow analysis of history. When we look at history, we find that *most* societies are destroyed at some point. That is to say: When a society forms, the chances of it eventually being destroyed by some force (internal, external...doesn't matter) are very very high. Even the modern societies of today have largely scarecly existed over 200 years (there are a couple of exceptions) and even this is debateable: Has American society stayed the same throughout it's history? Did we encounter a shift to a "new society" after the civil war? At the beginning of the 1900s? 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? Depending on where we draw the line, we can see that a "society" tends to come and go with surprising regularity.

Thus, I contend that this is drawing a false correlation: Yes, it is true that all societies (present day societies excluded) that were tolerant of homosexuality did pass. However, was homosexuality the CAUSE? Notice that we are excluding present day societies, but by doing so, we are by definition exluding societies that have survived. I might draw another correlation:
It is true that alll socetities (present day societies excluded) that had the letter "R" in their name did pass.
Should we change our name, then, because we have the letter "R" as well? Of course not, because nobody would seriously suggested a causal relationship between the two.

So, to find this link then, I attempted to study three societies that had varying degrees of acceptance of homosexuality: Greece, Rome, and China. When I analyse their collapse, their acceptance or lack thereof of homosexuality does not appear to factor into it: Greece collapsed first because it was too fractured wrt/ Persia and then because of the rise of Rome, Rome collapsed possibly due to economics, possibly due to a stagnant political system, possibly because Rome simply became too culturally fractured to remain one unit....China eventually collapsed due to its inability to respond to outside pressures. In my studies, I have never heard homosexuality as being seriously raised to explain the decline of these great empires.

So then I turn my attention to modern history: After all, if acceptance of homosexuality has this effect, then we ought to see it. But we don't. In one measure, the world can be divided into two camps:
1. Homosexuality is legal.
2. Homosexuality is illegal.
Those societies that tend to outlaw homosexuality tend to have a lower human development rate, lower GDP, lower economic indicators, lower political freedom, they tend to be more aggressive, and more unstable.

However, much of the world is in 1. So, we can further subdivide it into:
1. No same-sex unions.
2. Same sex unions.

We find that those in 2 (including US states) tend to have a higher GDP, higher human development, higher economic indicators, and they tend to be peaceful and stable.
How to explain this? If acceptance of homosexuality causes societies to collapse, why are we not seeing it? Why are we seeing that societies that accept homosexuality tend to be more prosperous?

In my research, it seems that there is no historical precedent for homosexuality causing societies to collapse, and there is no precedent for that today, either.
Thus, I might appreciate it if you would clarify for me what societies you are talking about, so that I may study them further?

====

Basically, I've encountered a ton of arguments, but none of them seem to particularly stack up. It may simply be because I am a debater, but to me the flaws in these arguments are glaringly obvious. Basically:

1. Gay unions cannot procreate: Again, I would argue that marriage is not about procreation, but rather about forming stable family units in society. Ultimately it would come down to seperate values: I value marriage only as a method to create family units, whereas others value marriage only as a method to create children. But then the question must be asked: Why is it that the vast majority of those who make this argument would not extend the same test to heterosexuals?
For instance, that proposal in the State of Washington to mandate children in marriage and, if after a couple of years there are none, that marriage dissolves...If marriage is about procreation, then this proposal must be affirmed. Indeed, the logical conclusion of this view is to pass a law stating that two people become married immediately and only if they have a child. Thus, there is no longer any need for marriage ceremonies or whatnot to be official: The only official act is when that baby pops out.
Why is there little to no support for this? The answer seems, to me, to be because opposition to gay unions is not truely on the basis of procreation (otherwise there would be support for these proposals), but rather due to something else.

2. Marriage throughout history has always been between a man and a woman. While this isn't true, it is true that there has been a tendency in Western history for such. However, this is a fallacy: Essentially the argument derives its motivating force from the fact that history has ordained X. That is to say, it follows the format
A) X has been common throughout history
B) Therefore X is good.
But this can be reduced to absurdity: Racism has been common throughout history. Does that therefore mean racism is good?
But an even more relevant attack can be made against this argument: Marriage throughout most of history has been a relationship of property, with the man being the owner and the woman being property. For instance, in the American colonies it was perfectly legal for a man to beat his wife. As we go further back in time, it becomes more and more different from the marriages of today: The wife was expected to be obedient in absolutely everything, because that is how God wanted it. In exchange, the man prevents her from dying. If we make an argument from history, then shall we revert to this form of marriage?

3. God sez....I'm an atheist, so this argument is never very applicable toward me. As well, there is the issue of whether we should use the state to impose your religion on others. Too, we have to call into question the morality of your God: Typically people are referring to the God of the Bible, which could be said to be rather evil. In response, usually I get the "God is the source of morality" argument, but that just doesn't mesh with the euthyphro and is-ought problems (which I won't go into here, since this thread isn't about God).

4. People are designed to have sex with people of the opposite gender, not of the same gender. While this runs into the classic is-ought problem (That is to say, the fact that people easily have sex with each other doesn't speak to how we *ought* to act), it is also incorrect: If we look at the design of humans, it appears that (at least male homosexuality) is designed for as well.

5. Gay marriages are not as stable as straight ones. The statistics I've seen have shown that they are roughtly equal, but it isn't really relevant at all: The success rate for straight marriages isn't particularly high either (and thus under this logic we ought ban it), but it isn't the place of the state to tell a couple "Well, our scientists have concluded that you have an unacceptably high chance of not actually being in love, fo we won't recognise your marriage". If two people, opposite or same sex, think their marriage will last, then they ought to give it a try.

6. Gay marriage will result in more adoptions, and therefore costs more money from society. I don't particularly see more willing homes for children as being a bad thing at all, given the state of the US and worldwide adoption system.

Those are the arguments I typically encounter in order of decreasing frequency, and yet none of them seem to hold up to examination.
So, are you able to either defend any of the above arguments, or do you have any new ones? I basically see the opposition on this issue as having no logical support.

I was wondering why you were taking so long to respond. I thought that maybe I had whooped you .

I believe this is what they were handing out. Warning, it has graphic content.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.html

You never answered my question about parental consent. Should parental consent be needed to how their kids are being educated in public school? This is not as much of an issue for me as I home school.

Your arguments about societal collapses were weak, and so were mine but I was just pointing it out. How soon after the broad acceptance of homosexuality does the society collapse?

Your arguments comparing societies accepting homosexuality and civil unions is quite weak as there has not been a lot of evidence created. What is the trend of these countries compared to others? I also would not consider the US as one which accepts civil unions as most of the population is against it.

I am glad that we can present arguments and counter-arguments. I wish citizens were better informed as to the consequences of legislation before they voted on it.

Never ;)



I'm not able to look at it right now (because of the content), but I promise I'll take a look once I get home and respond to you.



I think so, yes. Since I am experienced with public education (being in the system right now), when I took my health class, we did require parental permission for the sex-stuff, so I imagine that this would include homosexuality (if it were taught - wihch it was not, at all)



I contend that societies will not collapse for that reason. You ought to be aware that your position may not be falsifiable: We've had "widespread acceptance" of homosexuality for 20+ years in some areas (such as Europe) and it still seems to be going strong. You need to specify a timeframe and tell me why it would take that long for the society to weaken before I can really accept your argument.

However, right now, we are not seeing any signs of the collapse.



I think that there has been enough evidence over the past couple of years to be able to at least discern a trend.



The trend in these countries is positive. I don't have much time to respond, so I'll just bring up the Netherlands (which is perhaps a nation that has an extremely high acceptance rate), but: The economy of the Netherlands is growing very strong, has very strong human development (for instance, it's infant mortality rate is below that of the United States), has a much lower AIDS rate (hmm)...The Netherlands is doing very well right now. We aren't seeing any signs of a collapse that we might expect.



But there are certain states within the United States that have allowed such, and they are also still going strong.



Me too Whenever I ask people about it, they become very defensive or emotional, so I'm glad we can have a civilised discussion on the matter.

Now I must depart, though. Sorry that my responses weren't more thorough, but if there is osmething I didn't respond to, just bring it up again.

Here is an idea. Let us both gather some evidence, as in actual numbers and stuff, and then reconvene. I don't consider a general acceptance until most of the population accepts it.

The morality of the situation is irrelevant from the quantitative measures that one could make about it. If homosexuality is immoral, then it must be immoral on its face, not through the numbers.

However, when I get home, I'll try to compare the state of affairs in various nations that have samesex unions, nations where homosexuality is legal, and nations where it is illegal. I'll provide all my sources so that you can double check and critique them, and then we can proceed. Fair?

	Spain	UK	Germany	Netherlands	Sweden	Israel	Canada
GDP Per Capita	$27,767.00	$31,777.00	$31,400.00	$35,078.00	$31,600.00	$26,200.00	$35,200.00
Human Development	0.938	0.940	0.932	0.947	0.951	0.927	0.950
HD Rank	19th	18th	21st	9th	5th	23rd	6th
Freedom House	Free	Free	Free	Free	Free	Free	Free
Economic Freedom	Mostly Free	Free	Free	Free	Free	Mostly Free	Free
Press Freedom	Satisfactory	Good	Good	Good	Good	Satisfactory	Good
GDP Growth	3.40%	2.70%	2.70%	2.90%	4.20%	4.80%	2.80%
Gini Index	34.7	35	28.3	32.6	25	38.6	33.1

	USA	Poland	Russia	Brazil	China	Kazakhstan	Thailand
GDP Per Capita	$43,500.00	$14,880.00	$12,096.00	$9,108.00	$7,600.00	$8,318.00	$9,100.00
Human Development	0.948	0.862	0.797	0.792	0.768	0.774	0.784
HD Rank	8th	37th	65th	69th	81st	79th	72nd
Freedom House	Free	Free	Not Free	Free	Not Free	Not Free	Not Free
Economic Freedom	Free	Mostly Free	Mostly Unfree	Mostly Unfree	Mostly Unfree	Mostly Unfree	Mostly Free
Press Freedom	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Difficult	Satisfactory	Very Serious	Difficult	Satisfactory
GDP Growth	3.40%	6.20%	6.80%	3.70%	10.50%	9.10%	4.80%
Gini Index	40.8	31.6	39.9	58	44	33.9	42

	India	Iran	Saudi Arabia	Nicaragua	Morocco	Syria	Angola
GDP Per Capita	$3,737.00	$8,900.00	$16,744.00	$3,636.00	$4,503.00	$5,348.00	$2,813.00
Human Development	0.611	0.746	0.777	0.698	0.640	0.716	0.439
HD Rank	126th	96th	76th	112th	123rd	107th	161st
Freedom House	Free	Not Free	Not Free	Partly Free	Partly Free	Not Free	Not Free
Economic Freedom	Mostly Unfree	Unfree	Mostly Free	Mostly Unfree	Mostly Unfree	Mostly Unfree	Mostly Unfree
Press Freedom	Some Problems	Very Serious	Very Serious	Satisfactory	Difficult	Very Serious	Problems
GDP Growth	9.20%	5.00%	5.00%	3.70%	4.40%	2.90%	14.00%
Gini Index	32.5	???	???	43.1	???	???

Average:

GDP Per Capita	$31,288.86
Human Development	0.94
HD Rank	14.43
Freedom House	Free
Economic Freedom	Free
Press Freedom	Good
GDP Growth	3.36%
Gini Index	32.47

GDP Per Capita	$14,943.14
Human Development	0.82
HD Rank	58.71
Freedom House	Not Free
Economic Freedom	Mostly Unfree
Press Freedom	Satisfactory
GDP Growth	6.36%
Gini Index	41.46

GDP Per Capita	$6,525.86
Human Development	0.66
HD Rank	114.43
Freedom House	Not Free
Economic Freedom	Mostly Unfree
Press Freedom	Very Serious
GDP Growth	6.31%
Gini Index	37.8

(sources ranged from Wikipedia, CIA World Factbook, Heritage Foundation, and others)
So, basically, we seem to see the following trends:
Nations where homosexuality is legal tend toward having a fairly high level of human development, having about the same human development level as Cuba (though the presence of the United States skews this somewhat). However, they tend to have a far lower level of freedom: Freedom House typically rates them as not free or partly free (not free predominated in the sample) and their economic laws tend not to protect personal property rights or provide a free climate for business (as rated by the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation). However, Reporters without Borders typically says they have a satisfactory level of press freedom (though 3 had worse, and none of them were completely free).
GDP growth is stronger, but this can be explained by the relatively undeveloped states of the economies (with an average GDP/capita that is somewhat high, though the United States gives this average figure a $4000 boost).
Interestingly, we see the highest amount of income inequality in this group.

Among nations where it is illegal, the situation becomes far worse: The average human development level is that of Equatorial Guinea. Political repression seems to be very common in these states, with the average state being Not Free, Unfree, and having Very Serious press problems. GDP per capita is very low. GDP growth is high, but this is definitely explained by the relative lack of development in the economies of the nations in question.
As well, income (as limited as it is) is distributed somewhat unequally.

And now, onto nations that have gay marriage or civil unions....
GDP is extremely high: Double to to quadruple that of the other groups. Human development is extremely high, on the average level of Japan. Politically these nations are extremely free: Freedom house ranks them all as free, and only a couple rank as "Mostly Free" or "Satisfactory": The average is for cmplete freedom.
GDP growth is lower than the other two groups, but still highly respectable for advanced, developed economies.
As well, income is distributed very equally, meaning that a greater portion of society is recieving the abundant wealth that these nations have.

Thus, if we were to draw *any* correlation, it seems that there is a positive relationship between wealth, freedom, human development, income equality, and acceptance of gay marriage or unions. Thus far, we are not seeing at all any signs of impending doom among these nations: We are seeing that they are the leaders of the world in prosperity and freedom, and both indicators take a massive nosedive once you become less accepting of homosexuality.

Thus, to me, it seems like your objection on this issue has no merit, since we see nothing remotely like what you say we ought to. Now, it may take more time, but thus far....

So, can we compare these countries before gay marriage was accepted and after? How about family size? This is a hard problem to solve because there are so many factors involved and any result can be explained away. I think that this problem is easier if we compare nations to themselves.

While I don't think it would take 20 years for us to see the results of the "collapse of society" due to gay unions (if gay unions really undermine society to such an extent, we ought see societies starting to weaken within the first couple of years - after 20, we ought to have something very measurable), I will (later on - i have an AP test to study for) attempt to find statistics for the time period. However, I don't think I'll be able to find "family size" statistics.

Also, I would ask that you provide me with the names of societies that you contend collapsed due to acceptance of homosexuality.