Someone finally took me up on my challenge to provide a rational, logically sound justification for the Federal US government banning gay marriage while permitting straight marriage. Here is our "debate.":
---
rhsgolf85: because its in the politicians or
governments best interest not to allow gays,
lesbians, or transsexuals. The CIA world
factbook estimates a population
293,027,571 as of July 2004.
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic
28%, those are the two largest religious
groups and percentages that follow. Now
you may say no invisible man argument but
a heck of alot of people in the US believe in
god and its not your place to say they are
wrong or right.
Auto response from Artine0: If anyone can offer me a
rational, logically sound (i.e. no "the invisible man in the
sky told me they shouldn't" mumbo jumbo) argument
why the government should prohibit homosexuals and
transsexuals from marrying, I will mail you a check for
$20. Almost a week and no contenders: c'mon, you
fundies and homophobes, defend your beliefs, earn
money!
rhsgolf85: They can still vote and still have a
voice...a major politican could live without
the votes of non-hetro people but
heterosexuals are still the majority of the
population......and if any overwhelming
majority of people are against somthing
shouldn't that be what rules and not what the
minority of socieity wants....Its just simply
not accepted by enough people for the
government to create a new law...and
especially not during an election year
rhsgolf85: and just another note in gerneral
about your use of the words homophobes
and fundies.......just because people believe
somthing doenst give everybody else the
right to call them slang terms.....is an atheist
scared of God just because he doenst
believe in God......because I believe marriage
between to men is wrong....doesnt mean i am
scared of them, its just what i believe......and
by you calling me a homophobe....wouldnt
that be the same as me calling a gay man a
faggot?
Auto response from Artine0: If anyone can offer me a
rational, logically sound (i.e. no "the invisible man in the
sky told me they shouldn't" mumbo jumbo) argument
why the government should prohibit homosexuals and
transsexuals from marrying, I will mail you a check for
$20. Almost a week and no contenders: c'mon, you
fundies and homophobes, defend your beliefs, earn
money!
rhsgolf85: and as far as fundies go.....nobody
is starting a movement based on old
fundmentalist princliples....it has been a
belief for a long time that has simply never
been brought up because it hasnt needed to
be.....no one 10 years ago up and decided to
start an anti-GLAD group and push those
beliefs on everybody....but GLAD has tried to
push their beliefs on society....wether that
opinion is right...is it fair for GLAD to be
forcing its beliefs onto all of society.....
rhsgolf85: look I mean you can believe what
you want and I can believe what I
want....thats what is great about living
hear...the government
creates/changes/throws away laws
according to what they believe the majority
of society wants...if you dont like that or my
opinion oh well...its still rational and logical....
rhsgolf85: 4409 Suffolk Trail Greensboro NC
27407
Artine0: I REALLY, REALLY appreciate you taking
the time to write all that out. I spent a while thinking
about it, and I'm glad that there are people out there with
some foundation for their beliefs instead of mindlessly
parroting others.
Artine0: That said, after thinking about it, I've found
some flaws in your premises and some holes in your
logic.
Artine0: First, the US is not a Christian nation, no
matter if 95% of its citizens are Christian. Two
counterpoints to your claim. The first is Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of
religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof." This means
that Congress cannot make a law establishing that, for
example, Christianity is the mandated religion of the
nation. Thus, Congress is not allowed to make a law
mandating that people practice Christianity. Thus,
Congress is not allowed to make a law based SOLELY
upon Christian teachings: there must be some external
rationale.
Artine0: Second counterpoint. George Washington
commissioned Joel Barlow in 1797 to draft what is
colloquially known today as the Treaty with Tripoli. In
it, Joel states that "...the government of the United States
of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
religion." This document was ratified into law by
President John Adams and went unopposed in its
entirety, including this statement and supports thereto.
Artine0: Finally, the constitution of the US barely (if at
all?) mentions any gods, and definitely does NOT
mention Jesus or the Christian god. In fact, Jefferson
reported that someone attempted to insert Jesus into the
constitution and the framers voted it DOWN. Thus, the
idea that the US is a Christian nation is as absurd as the
idea that Congress should enact laws based solely on
Christian teachings. Strike 1.
Artine0: My second argument is with your premise that
politicians should do what the majority wants. I agree
with this. HOWEVER, there are exceptions. As you
know, the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of
Rights, is NOT intended to uphold the rights of the
majority: it is intended to uphold the rights of the
MINORITY from the majority. It has the side-effect of
ensuring that the majority is protected from the
government, but the central idea is that, no matter how
popular it gets, the majority should never, ever be able to
take away a right from someone else. Freedom only
exists if the most unpopular voice is free. Strike 2.
Artine0: My next argument is that you are addressing
the idea of creating a new law to explicitly allow gay
marriage. I certainly support this, but that's not what I'm
arguing for. I am arguing AGAINST creating a new law
to explicitly /prohibit/ gay marriage. No logical fallacies
here, but strike 3 against the cash.
Artine0: You're absolutely right about the use of fundies
and homophobes, but I have two defenses for that. The
first is that my buddy list is populated very strongly with
fundies and homophobes; you may just be one of the
exceptions, so my apologies to you. The second is that I
was trying to get a rise out of people, enough that they'd
take up my challenge and enter into some sort of
intelligent discourse. I'd hoped the offer of money would
be enough, but I only got two people saying they would
think about it, and they never got back to me. Case in
point: your challenge came less than 12 hours after that
addendum.
Artine0: As regards your remark about GLAD trying to
`force' its beliefs onto all of society. Firstly, it's entirely
outside the realm of this topic, because, as I said, my
question is not whether gays should be allowed to marry,
it's whether the government has a rational reason to
prohibit gays from marrying. Nevertheless, I'll bite, if
just for the joy of debate. GLAD is not forcing its beliefs
onto society.
Artine0: In fact, MLK forced his beliefs onto society
more than GLAD is trying to. GLAD just wants
homosexuals to be allowed to marry and enjoy all of the
legal rights associated with government-sponsored
marriage. If GLAD was trying to force churches to
marry them, then yes, I would agree that they were trying
to force their beliefs onto society; they're just trying to
end this particular kind of discrimination.
Artine0: My final point corresponds to your final point
and is an echo of something I've already said, but it's
very important to realize, so it's worth repeating. The
government creates/changes/eliminates laws based on
what the majority wants, but ONLY in the case that it
does not violate the principle that all men are created
equally, as long as it does not trample on someone else's
freedom.
Artine0: For a freedom-limiting law to be passed, it
must pass this basic test: does permitting the freedom
endanger more people than the potential benefit of
limiting the freedom? If it doesn't pass the test, it
shouldn't be a law. Clearly, no-one is endangered by
not creating a law explicitly prohibiting gays from
marrying, but there is harm in explicitly limiting that
person's freedom.
Artine0: Like I said, I really, really appreciate you
taking the time to write all this out. Your arguments are
not logically sound and some of them answer the wrong
question, so in this round, you don't win the money, but
you are by no means disqualified from trying again. I'd
LOVE to continue this discussion if you come up with
some new points or if you can clean up your old ones.
Artine0: Before trying again, it may be worth your while
to read my rant on this topic:
http://refract.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_refract_archive
.html#109099518097022891 It states the basic
foundation of my viewpoint and should give you a good
idea of where I'm coming from so that you can be better
prepared to kick my butt in the next argument. :-).
And keep in mind, for the money, I want a logical,
step-by-step reason why the US Federal Government
should explicitly enact a law prohibiting gays from
marrying.
Artine0: Take care for now, and thanks for
making my morning!
Artine0: (How are you doing, by the way?
It's been a while. Still got your 'stang? :-))
rhsgolf85: Round 2 Ding
Ding.......startin with your first
argument.......Amendment 1-it would be
unconstitutional for a law to state everybody
must be christian....but it never says that a
law cannot be made in which the religious
feelings of a lawmaker came into play....as
long as religion is not written into the law
nobody can stop a congressman from
proposing a law that goes along with his
beliefs.....and orginally the 1st amendment
said that more clearly before it was reworded
due to the fact that it did not sound
professional enough
Auto response from Artine0: BIG
LEBOWSKI!!!!
rhsgolf85: 2nd paragragh....the
treaty........yes the treaty of tripoli was
law.....however only for 8 years and solely
due to the fact of article 6 section 2......look at
the constiution if you dont believe me...all US
treaties are laws..however if you look at more
of the treaty then what you wrote it was more
of a smoothing over with muslim nations
saying that any religious beliefs that may
differ would ever get in the way of the foreign
relations of the nations
rhsgolf85: there is no mention of god or jesus
or the devil anywhere in the
constitution.....no mention of catholics, jews,
muslims, or atheists......but it does say like
you have mentioned before with
amend.1......"or prohibiting fee exercise
thereof.
rhsgolf85: so if everybody is free to practice
what they want and believe what they want
your saying that those beliefs well never
come into lawmaking. maybe i should of
referred to the US as a "religious nation"
and that it certainly is.
rhsgolf85: the bill of rights was intended to
"protect" the rights of the minority as set
forth by the bill of rights.....you cannot take
away rights from sombody if those persons
never had the right to begin with......which
gays have not.....they have never been
allowed to marry, so how is somthing being
taken from them......if you would like to go
that way then propose that an amendment is
added to the constitution that same sex
couples can legally unite....when that
happens show me somebody denying them
that right and ill be there to defend the
homosexual....but until they get that
right.......you cant take something away from
sombody who never had it to begin with
Auto response from Artine0: BIG LEBOWSKI!!!!
rhsgolf85: as to the next thing.......the legal
definition of marriage-mar·riage P
Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1. a. The legal union of a man
and woman as husband and wife.
rhsgolf85:
marriage
\Mar"riage\, n. In b['e]zique,
penuchle, and similar games at
cards, the combination of a king
and queen of the same suit. If of
the trump suit, it is called a royal
marriage. even as a card game reference marriage is
between a king and queen.......not king and king...not
queen and queen.....so the term gay marrige is in iteself
an oxymoron
rhsgolf85: as for your step by step
reason why the gov't shouldnt
allow gays to marry.....its not many
steps and they shouldnt have
to....like i said a second
ago......mariage has a legal
definition which is published in the
american heritage dictionary that
explicitly says mariage is between
a man and a women.....creating a
law saying gays cannot marry is
basically reiterating the
dictionary....the american heritage
dictionary wouldnt look very good
when two men marry each other,
when they say that is not a mariage
rhsgolf85: im spent but however i will
warn you i will take into account
the annual inflation rate when you
pay me.....b/c im good and i will
not lose....and you will pay me 20
dollars (taking inflation into
account b/c it may be a long time
before you admit i am
right.....which you will.....)
rhsgolf85: stang is fine by the way
LOL.......im goin to western around
AUG. 18 and start my college and
probably goin to carolina after one
year....then to law school i go ........i
am serious lol not tryin to
intimidate you which i know would
be hard to do......TOUCHE
Artine0: You are correct that the religious feelings of the
lawmaker may come into play. There is no reason that
they shouldn't be allowed to. In fact, our country would
be much worse off if emotion were left out of things
entirely. But there MUST be a rational reason for every
law. A senator would laughed out of Washington if he
proposed a bill stating "there shall be no left turns on
Sundays as left turns frequently cause accidents, and the
heroes of our country, the first responders, should not
have to work hard on Sundays. Jesus told me so." But
your argument seems to center more on the idea that one
of the drafts of the first amendment stated that Congress
can make laws inspired by religion. In the drafts I've
read, I've seen no such claims, so I'd like to see your
source.
Auto response from rhsgolf85: shower
Artine0: But, if you wish to go back to drafts, that's fine;
the final word, however, MUST be the present form as
enforced by law. However, even then, going back to
drafts, you lose. Read thoroughly this page
(http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Bill%20of%20Rights
%20Draft.htm) -- or, if you have a copy, Neil Cogan's
"The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates,
Sources, and Origins" from Oxford University Press. If
you'll read carefully through these drafts, you will get an
idea for the spirit behind the amendments, you'll start to
see a common thread: no rights shall be infringed except
when the safety or freedom of the public is at risk.
Artine0: Specifically, look at this early variant of the first
amendment: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
account of religious belief or worship." It can be safely
assumed that much can be learned of the intent of the
present-day amendments through the wordings of early
drafts. Given this, it is indubitably apparent that they
would balk at the idea of a law stemming solely from a
religious belief. We could trace through the history of
this amendment and others, but, as you will soon
read--or perhaps have already read?--this is a very
common theme.
Artine0: On to the Treaty with Tripoli. The treaty was
broken by Tripoli in 1801, yes, and in 1805 the treaty
was renegotiated after the First Barbary War. But I
don't see what your point is. From what I understand of
your words, your argument is this. Because of Article
VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, all treaties made
under the authority of the United States shall be the
supreme law of the land. The 1797 Treaty with Tripoli is
a treaty, and thus was, while in effect, the supreme law
of the land. But because it was overridden in 1805
when it was renegotiated, it is no longer law.
Artine0: Secondly, Article XI of the Treaty with Tripoli
is inconsequential because the predicating clause seems
to be a throwaway. Am I understanding this correctly?
If so, nice red herring, I must admit. But it is still a
logical fallacy to the original point, which was this:
irrespective of the reason for its presence or the identity
of its author, Article 11 of the 1797 treaty was read
aloud before the Senate and signed into law by John
Adams along with the rest of the treaty, and
consequently known to them and supported
unanimously. The treaty was printed in its entirety on the
front page of newspapers of the day.
Artine0: The Senators and the President knew full well
that it was there, and, even--ESPECIALLY--if it was a
throwaway phrase, there was no reason that it could not
have been eliminated if it weren't true. It was basically
an acknowledgement of a well-accepted premise, that
the US is not founded upon the Christian, or any other,
for that matter, religion. Thus, one cannot say that a law
predicated on Christianity is legitimate because the US is
a Christian nation. The US is not a Christian nation.
You may be interested in this page:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/boston_trip
oli.html
Artine0: Your next point seems to be that the US is a
religious nation. You offer no support or argument for
this claim, nor do you provide any relevance for it. Is it a
religious nation because most people in this country
practice a religion? Are there foundational laws in the
constitution indicating that the US is a religious nation?
In the case of the former, what does it matter; how does
that justify introducing a law prohibiting same-sex
marriage? Please explain this point further, because
frankly, I'm baffled.
Artine0: The next point you make centers around the
idea that, because there are no laws explicitly granting
same-sex couples the right to marry, the bill of rights
cannot be invoked. There are a whole slew of fallacies
here. Your first premise is that our country starts with a
blank slate and then adds laws, with the foundation being
that we have no freedom, and each law grants another
freedom. This, as you will learn when you take your
intro. poli. sci. class, is not true. Instead, we start with a
blank slate and then add laws with the foundation being
that we have FULL freedom, and each law takes away
another freedom. You claim that gays do not have the
freedom to marry. You're partially right.
Artine0: Many states in their marriage laws have
revoked the right of same sex couples to marry. Some
states have not. In those states which have revoked the
right, then you are correct, same-sex couples do not
have the right to marry. My claim is that the government
does not have the right to prohibit same-sex couples
from marrying. "One power that the states do not have,
however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of
a valid reason" (Cornell Law Institute) due to the Equal
Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This is the
same clause as was invoked in cases dealing with
anti-miscegenation laws back during the Civil Rights
movement.
Artine0: Thus, without an external reason, gays, by
Federal law, have not legally had the right to marry
revoked. (This is a superficially questionable assertion
on my part, I will admit: marriage is relegated to State
law, not Federal, but, as the Constitution is federal law,
and federal law asserts precedence over state law, the
14th Amendment asserts precedence over the state
laws, thus, in effect, nullifying unconstitutional state laws.
I just demonstrated that those state laws are
unconstitutional, so, while on one hand, they are still on
the books and thus in effect, they are not Federally
legal.)
Artine0: I honestly have absolutely NO idea what point
you were trying to prove by invoking a dictionary
definition of marriage. Even more baffling is what you're
trying to demonstrate by pointing out that in card games,
kings and queens marry. If there was some substance
behind that, please do point it out, but, in lieu of that, I'll
just write that off as pointless. You've made some
interesting points, all of them fallacious, admittedly, but in
general, worth considering; here, it's like you're not even
trying anymore...c'mon, Andy, I know you can do
better--I've seen it!
Artine0: Your step-by-step argument leaves much to be
desired. Your premise seems to be that, because the
American Heritage Dictionary defines marriage as a
union between a man and a woman, federal and state
governments should be permitted to enact laws explicitly
disallowing same-sex marriages. The American Heritage
Dictionary has no authoritative jurisdiction over the laws
in our country, and, even if it did, it offers no justification
for its definition, which is necessary in the case of any
discriminatory lawmaking as required by Amendment
14.
Artine0: And if/when you win, you get $20, even if
that's forty years from now and $20 then is equivalent to
20 cents now. So there :-P.
Artine0: That's a lot of stuff to digest, so take your time
and come back with some stronger arguments. I'm
enjoying this debate, leastwise because of all I'm learning
while doing the research to support my positions. I look
forward to your rebuttles.
rhsgolf85: this is really startin to get
complicated to argue over the
computer..........words have
definitions........marrige is defind soley as a
union between a man and a woman........if 2
men tried to do that it would not be marrige it
would be somthing else......the governments
sole interest in the union between two
people is to ensure the survival and
protection of our country in the future.......our
survival and protection of this country
comes directly from reproduction...somthing
that has to have 1 man and 1 woman....and
yes i know gays could adopt and i am sure
most raise a perfectly fine baby but still the
only way to create a baby is from 1 man 1
women......a stable family environment
increases the chances of the child being a
productive member of society....
Auto response from Artine0: One more day and I'm
outta here!!!
rhsgolf85: two women by themselves
CANNOT reproduce......two men by
themselves CANNOT reproduce...therefore
the government cannot gain anything from
their union....the gov't can benefit from one
man and one women...that is the only way to
reproduce...which is why married couples (1
man 1 woman) recieve benefits that other
unions do not....and the biggest reward is the
ability to marry...now obviously your not
going to agree with this argument and i will
not agree with your argument and its all
good i never hold a grudge sombody ill
show you why you where wrong when i can
tell you in another form other than AIM
---
